Monday, November 5, 2007

Projet Apocalyptique à Jérusalem: un bunker réservé aux dirigeants d'Israël

Henrique Cymerman
03 Nov 2007
Original en espagnol, traduit par SOTT (écouter leurs podcasts)

Apocalyptic project in Jerusalem: A giant bunker will protect politicians and the military from a nuclear attack.

They call it "the modern Noah's Ark" or "the Final Day's refuge". On Jerusalem's mounts one of the biggest and most secret projects ever accomplished in the history of Israel is being built. A giant underground bunker inside which the leaders of Israel will protect themselves in case of a nuclear attack: ministers, deputies and generals who, from inside, will direct the destiny of the nation, as well as the military reaction after the attack.

The place, where construction started more than one year ago and is expected to last until 2011, is connected to the new presidential headquarters. Its goal is to serve the leaders of Israel in case of war in the region, chemical or biological attacks, large scale bombings or natural catastrophes such as earthquakes or devastating fires. Many hundred millions euros have been invested and PM Ehud Olmert and many members of the Kneset, the Israeli Parliament, have already visited it.

Whenever any media source, be it Israelí or foreign, has tried to approach the construction site, entry was immediately and strictly denied to them by dozens of security agents protecting the area. Officially, the access points are considered classified information.

A couple of days ago, the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, published a few pictures of the building, in which one can see a tunnel wide enough for two large trucks to simultaneously navigate side by side. According to that media source, the building project is progressing very rapidly.

After driving two kilometers inside the mountain, the tunnel leads to huge rooms with roofs that are dozens of meters high, and in which the major government and military headquarters are being built. There are dozens of lifts in the place, which gives it the aspect of a science-fiction movie. It is well known that a journey driving inside the bunker lasts for about 15 minutes, and the road, more than 10 meter's wide, has fluorescent lights all along it. In the sides, along the way, one can see openings for the air conditioning and electricity installations.

The Israeli military censored the information and did not allow the media to publish what the depth of this apocalyptic bunker will be. The exact surface area of the site is also kept secret, as well as the total cost of the project, though Yediot Ahronot estimates it at 240 million dollars.

All the workers involved in the project are Jewish, of Israeli nationality, who were submitted to long security inspections before being hired. Four building companies known around the globe have joined their efforts to achieve this work, which will last for a total of 5 years.

A deputy who had visited the site said to this media source: "It looks like the Final Judgment scenario. Let's hope that it will never be necessary to live in this overwhelming place that looks like a movie about the Cold War."

It was former PM Ehud Barak, former chief of Tsahal and the most recognized official of his history, who started the initiative to build this atomic refuge. Now, Barak, as the new Minister of the Defense, is once again in charge of this national project. The ecological groups criticize the construction of this bunker claiming that it is causing great damage to nature, and they describe it as "megalomaniac".

On the other hand, this government's initiative raises a series of dilemmas, such as who will be included in the list of those who will have the right to find protection in the site: only national leaders or, for example, their families? It is also not clear what would be done with the citizens who might try to infiltrate the place in order to save their own lives.

There were immediate reactions after Yediot Ahronot published information concerning this project: some people felt indignation for the fact that it would only be the leaders who would be spared while the rest of the country is devastated; for the same reason, others consider it absolutely useless, and others see in it a "bunker mentality" that should be avoided throwing "preventive attacks" against the enemies of Israel. And, of course, many believe that there are many other more important and urgent goals on which to spend that amount of money.

In an article published by the same news agency, Yediot Ahronot, Ariella Ringel-Hoffman made an ironic comment saying that the citizens, who are financing this project, cannot do much more than trust in it. Later she added: "There is nothing original in this initiative that the king Herodes wouldn't already have had in mind two thousand years ago, when he had thousands of slaves digging in Masada - the stunning fortress built on a rock. Perhaps the only difference is that in those times it was assumed that as long as the king lived, so would his kingdom. However, the same cannot be said of the situation where Ehud Olmert, Haim Ramon, Rafi Eitan and Amir Peretz would survive while the rest of the country is bombed by Syrian missiles, not to mention a nuclear offensive".

Lastly, the author said: "Let's be clear, is it possible that we may be talking about a megalomaniac project, a very beautiful and comfortable five star resort for club members?"

This is not the first gigantic project that Israel has started in the name of security. In the desert of Neguev, huge reserves of oil were stockpiled - costing millions of dollars - and they have practically not been used. In the 50s, the Israeli government decided to build a secret power station in Tel Aviv, which would be made to work if the other stations happened to be neutralized by an enemy attack. That place, Reading 3, was never utilized and has now been turned into a museum.

The Israelis hope that this will happen as well with the tunnel and the nuclear-blast-proof rooms built into the mountains surrounding the Holy City.
Commentaire: Même si une large part des Israéliens sont convaincus que leur gouvernement est corrompu à l'os, certains journalistes considèrent que ce projet devrait être gardé top secret et censuré dasn les médias.
Channel Ten & Irresponsible journalism
ISRAELFORJEWS - Kenya
12/09/2003
For this channel to reveal Gvt issues that ought to be state secret for obvious security reasons, is, in my view, the height of irresponsible journalism.

Why on earth would Channel Ten have the whole world know that Israel is building an underground bunker?

You may call it freedom of the press, but there ought to be a limit!
Commentaire: il y a des contradictions au niveau du contenu de cet article paru en novembre 2007 et un autre paru en décembre 2003: Israeli government digging underground command center near Jerusalem, Ellis Shuman, Israel Insider, 08 Dec 2003. L'article en espagnol dit:
"The place, where construction started more than one year ago and is expected to last until 2011"
L'autre article, en anglais, de décembre 2003 dit:
"For the past year, construction on a secret tunneling project has been taking place in the Judean Hills".
Ou bien l'auteur de l'article ignorait que la nouvelle avait déjà été annoncée en 2003 et que les travaux devaient se terminer en 2008 (et non pas en 2011), ou bien il y a quelque chose d'autre qui nous échappe...

Autre contradiction: la version en hébreu (trad. en anglais) dit:
"Former Mossad head MK Danny Yatom (Likud) told Ynet he believed the decision to prepare the underground command center was first made by the Netanyahu government."
Netanyahu a déjà été PM et appartient au courant du parti du "Likud" (la droite).

Dans la version espagnole, il est dit:
"It was former PM Ehud Barak, former chief of Tsahal and the most recognized official of his history, who started the initiative to build this atomic refuge. Now, Barak, as the new Minister of the Defense, is once again in charge of this national project."
Barak a aussi été PM, mais appartient au courant du parti Travailliste, Labor (gauche).

Bref, nous sommes laissés, intentionnelleemnt ou non, dans la confusion. Que se passe-t-il vraiment derrière le rideau?


Plus de détails sur les Armageddonistes:
Funeste littéralisme
Du British-Israël au monde "culturellement délimité" du 21e siècle
Le "sionisme chrétien" inspire certains bataillons électoraux de M. Bush
Quand George W. Bush voit les prophéties bibliques s'accomplir

Plus de détails sur une éventuelle guerre nucléaire en Israël:
Ehud Olmert vient prêcher la guerre en France!
Pourparlers de paix entre Israël et la Palestine, attentats-suicide à prévoir
Les mini-nukes : "sécuritaires pour les civils"!
Israël viole l'espace aérien syrien, la Syrie contre-attaque
Martelage médiatique et reductio ad hitlerum
"G.I. Joe" Lieberman veut rayer l'Iran de la carte
Propagande de guerre: 'Al-Qaida' en Irak en 2004, en Iran en 2007
Le problème avec Israël
Televangelist Robertson Backs Giuliani, AP, 07 Nov 2007

Friday, November 2, 2007

Rice, Hadley, Abrams, Wolfowitz, Feith, Armitage, Rosen et Weissman devront s'expliquer en cour sur leur rôle dans le scandale d'espionnage à l'AIPAC

http://www.davidduke.com/images/Rosen-Weissman-AIPAC-1.jpg
Nov 2 2007
Rice, other US officials subpoenaed in AIPAC spy case
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON
(version française)

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other senior intelligence officials will be subpoenaed to discuss their talks with pro-Israel lobbyists, a federal judge ruled Friday in an espionage case.
http://www.newsfollowup.com/id/images_5/condi_informant_2.jpg

http://www.newsfollowup.com/id/images_47/edmonds_turkey_pakistan_feith_grossman_perle.jpg

http://www.forward.com/workspace/assets/images/articles/rosenweissman.jpg
Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman

Lawyers for two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists facing espionage charges have subpoenaed Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and several others to testify at their trial next year.

Prosecutors had challenged the subpoenas in federal court.

Lobbyists Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman have argued that the Israeli interest group played an unofficial but sanctioned role in crafting foreign policy and that Rice and others can confirm it. If they ultimately testify in court, the trial in federal court in a Washington suburb could offer a behind-the-scenes look at the way US foreign policy is crafted.

The lobbyists are accused of receiving classified information from a now-convicted Pentagon official and relaying it to an Israeli official and the press. The information included details about the al-Qaida terror network, US policy in Iran and the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, federal prosecutors said.

But defense attorneys suggested that top US officials regularly used the lobbyists as a go-between as they crafted Middle East policy. If so, attorneys say, how are Rosen and Weissman supposed to know the same behavior that is expected of them on one day is criminal the next?
Keith Weissman. Photo: US Government [file]

US District Judge T.S. Ellis III said the lobbyists have a right to argue that "they believed the meetings charged in the indictment were simply further examples of the government's use of AIPAC as a diplomatic back channel."

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell cheered the ruling.

"For over two years, we have been explaining that our clients' conduct was lawful and completely consistent with how the US government delt with AIPAC and other foreign policy groups," Lowell said on behalf of both defendants. "We look forward to the trial."

Ellis left open the possibility that the Bush administration may challenge the subpoenas on the grounds they would reveal priviliged information. But the judge said his ruling Friday "may trump a valid governmental privilege."

If so, that could force the government to decide whether to allow the testimony or drop the case.

Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department had an immediate comment.

Among those subpoenaed in the case were: former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; and Marc Grossman, former undersecretary of state for political affairs.

(Note: Rice, Hadley, Abrams, Wolfowitz, Feith, Armitage, ce sont tous des néocons!)

Condoleezza Rice, à la barre
Un juge fédéral des Etats-Unis a décidé de citer à comparaître la Secrétaire d'Etat Condoleezza Rice et le Conseiller pour la sécurité intérieure Stephen Hadley dans le cadre d'une affaire d'espionnage, en relation avec les activités des lobbies de l'« American Israel Public Affairs Committee » (AIPAC). La Cour examine, actuellement, le dossier de Steven Rosen et de Keith Weissman, qui ont été accusés, en 2005, aux côtés d'un responsable du Département de la défense, Lawrence Franklin, de conspiration, en vue de communiquer des informations relevant de la défense nationale, entre 1999 et 2004, à la suite d'une longue enquête montrant qu'ils avaient transmis des renseignements sensibles et classés « Top secret » du Pentagone à Israël. Franklin, qui a été l'assistant de l'ancien sous-Secrétaire à la défense Douglas Feith, a plaidé coupable, et purge actuellement sa peine de prison. La nouvelle sur l'espionnage pratiqué par l'AIPAC a provoqué une vague de colère et de protestation dans l'opinion publique contre les activités d'espionnage israéliennes. Même si les lobbies sionistes ont une grande influence aux Etats-Unis et au sein de l'administration américaine, cependant, cela ne les empêche pas d'espionner leur allié politique et militaire le plus proche. Ceci dit, ces échanges de renseignements entre les hauts responsables américains et l'AIPAC ne datent pas d'hier ou d'aujourd'hui. Dans les années 80, le cas de l'espion Jonathan Pollard a fait éclater un grand scandale aux États-Unis. Les avocats de Steven Rosen et de Keith Weissman ont demandé que soient entendus Mme Rice et Stephen Hadley, pour témoigner au procès de leurs clients, afin de pouvoir les disculper. Cependant, certains observateurs pensent que la Maison Blanche pourrait empêcher une telle comparution, « car la présence des hauts responsables américains au tribunal, ajoutent-ils, révélera sans doute les dessous des relations qu'entretiennent Washington avec le lobby israélien et mettra par conséquent en danger la politique moyen-orientale des États-Unis. » L'AIPAC est actuellement le lobby le plus influent sur la scène politique américaine, qui dirige même les prises de position de Washington à par rapport au Moyen-Orient, à tel point que l'ancien Président américain, Jimmy Carter, a estimé que son pays était prisonnier des intrigues du lobby Israélien.

Rice pourrait témoigner dans une affaire d'espionnage impliquant Israël
WASHINGTON (AFP)3 novembre 2007 - La secrétaire d'Etat américaine Condoleezza Rice et d'autres hauts responsables peuvent être convoqués pour déposer devant un tribunal dans une affaire d'espionnage mettant en cause des lobbyistes pro-israéliens, selon la décision prise vendredi par un juge fédéral américain.

Le juge T. S. Ellis, du tribunal fédéral d'Alexandria (Virginie, est) a autorisé les avocats de Steven Rosen et Keith Weissman, d'anciens lobbyistes de l'American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), le principal lobby juif à Washington, à convoquer Mme Rice, ainsi que le conseiller présidentiel américain à la sécurité nationale, Stephen Hadley.

Treize autres actuels ou anciens hauts responsables gouvernementaux, dont l'ancien numéro deux du Pentagone, Paul Wolfowitz, pourraient être appelés à déposer dans ce procès qui pourrait avoir lieu à partir de janvier, selon des documents de justice.

Pour ces 15 personnes, sur les 20 convocations demandées, le juge Ellis a rejeté les arguments du gouvernement selon lesquels leurs témoignages n'apporteraient rien et seraient défavorables à la défense.

La Maison Blanche n'a pas souhaité commenter la décision du juge.

"Nous sommes au courant de la décision autorisant des convocations potentielles si l'affaire Rosen et Weissman aboutissait à un procès", a déclaré Gordon Johndroe, le porte-parole du Conseil national de sécurité de la Maison Blanche.

"D'après ce que nous comprenons, aucune convocation n'a été délivrée à ce stade. Nous ne pouvons pas faire d'autre commentaire, étant donné qu'il s'agit de poursuites criminelles en cours", a-t-il ajouté.

"Nous ne commentons pas une affaire judiciaire en cours", a renchéri un porte-parole du département d'Etat, Tom Casey.

Steven Rosen et Keith Weissman sont accusés d'avoir transmis à des personnes non autorisées des informations classées secret défense par les autorités américaines alors qu'ils travaillaient pour l'AIPAC.

Ils espèrent que le témoignage des hauts responsables appelés à déposer soutiendra leur ligne de défense, selon laquelle ils n'étaient pas impliqués dans des activités d'espionnage.

"Les accusés estiment que le témoignage de ces responsables actuels ou passés tendront à montrer que leurs actions ne reflètent rien d'autre que la pratique officielle des discussions par des canaux officieux, bien connue à Washington", indique le document.

MM. Rosen et Weissman ont été accusés en 2005 aux côtés d'un responsable du département de la Défense, Lawrence Franklin, de conspiration en vue de communiquer des informations relevant de la défense nationale, à la suite d'une longue enquête du FBI (police fédérale) montrant qu'ils avaient échangé des renseignements sensibles entre eux et avec Israël.

Selon des responsables du gouvernement, M. Franklin a transmis des informations secrètes à Israël entre 1999 et 2004 en utilisant le couvert de l'AIPAC, au moment où Rosen était le directeur politique du lobby et où Weissman y travaillait comme spécialiste de l'Iran.

Franklin, qui a été l'assistant de l'ancien sous-secrétaire à la Défense Douglas Feith, a plaidé coupable après une série d'audiences à huis-clos et a été condamné en janvier 2006 à 12 ans et 7 mois de prison, ainsi qu'à 10.000 dollars d'amende.

La décision du juge permettra aux avocats de Rosen et Weissman de convoquer Mme Rice, M. Hadley, ainsi que Richard Armitage, Marc Grossman, Matthew Bryza et William Burns, tous anciens hauts responsables du département d'Etat, et également les anciens responsables du département de la Défense Douglas Feith et Paul Wolfowitz, ainsi que des personnalités fréquentant les cercles de la diplomatie et de la sécurité nationale.

AJC, ADL urge AIPAC prosecution to reconsider

Washington Post Columnist Gives Private AIPAC Talks

'Washington Post' urges dismissal of AIPAC espionage case, asks for counter-argument, and promptly rejects same

The Washington Post is urging the Justice Department to drop its prosecution of two former AIPAC staffers.
March 2009

A new trial date has been set in the classified information case against two former AIPAC staffers 2009

AIPAC, Espionage, and Legal Sabotage: Has the AIPAC spy trial been derailed?, by Justin Raimondo, November 5 2007

Rice, Others Told to Testify in AIPAC Case, By Jerry Markon, Washington Post, November 3 2007

Rice, Hadley to be subpoenaed in Israel lobby spy case. Judge rules US secretary of state, White House national security advisor and other top officials can be subpoenaed to testify in AIPAC espionage case, AFP, 2 nov 2007

AIPAC trial judge authorizes defense to subpoena Rice, Hadley, By Shmuel Rosner, 03/11/2007

Subpoenas in AIPAC trial could open window into Bush team's inner workings, By Ron Kampeas, 11/04/2007

Embattled Aipac Duo Wins Right To Subpoena Rice, Wolfowitz, Nathan Guttman, Nov 05 2007

Neoconservatives/pro-Israelis are hoping that Mukasey drops AIPAC case: A Test for Mr. Mukasey, By NORMAN PEARLSTINE, November 12 2007

AIPAC espionage case: Court Memorandum (pdf)

FBI Affair Costs Lobby Dynamic Director Rosen, The Forward, Apr 29 2005

An Exercise in Political Epistemology: Mukasey, Schumer, Chertoff, and the AIPAC Trial, Travis Woodson, 21 nov 2007

Sibel Edmonds Case: the untellable story of AIPAC, Nov 09 2007

AIPAC Spy Nest Exposed: New indictments implicate unnamed government officials and reporters, Justin Raimondo, Aug 5 2005

AIPAC, Espionage, and Legal Sabotage: Has the AIPAC spy trial been derailed? Justin Raimondo, Nov 5 2007

Let The AIPAC Spy Trial Begin:Why Prosecuting Weissman and Rosen Matters, by Grant F. Smith, 4/21/2006

Trial for Two Israeli Spies May Be Thwarted, by Mark Glenn, 12 Dec 2007



Sibel Edmonds Names Names in "States Secrets" Gallery
Sibel Edmonds has recently updated her website with a gallery of 21 photographs in 3 groups, ostensibly of parties guilty in her case. Three of the photographs are simply question marks, for reasons as yet unknown.
As Edmonds has said, her case involves "highly-recognizable, highly-known names", as can be confirmed below.
         

  


         


      


         

      

©bradblog.com
Current and former Pentagon and State Department officials:
Richard Perle
Douglas Feith
Eric Edelman
Marc Grossman
Brent Scowcroft
Larry Franklin
Current and former congressmen:
Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Ex-House Speaker
Roy Blount (R-MO)
Dan Burton (R-IN)
Tom Lantos (D-CA)
?
Bob Livingston (R-LA), Ex-House Speaker
Stephen Solarz (D-NY)
Think Tank members:
Graham E. Fuller - RAND
David Makovsky - WINEP
Alan Makovsky - WINEP
?
?
Yusuf Turani (President-in-exile, Turkistan)
Professor Sabri Sayari (Georgetown, WINEP)
Mehmet Eymur (Former Turkish Spy Chief MIT)
So what are these men guilty of? In response to this summary of the allegations, Edmonds as said: "as far as published articles go, this one nails it 100%":
Sibel Edmonds, the Turkish FBI translator turned whistleblower who has been subjected to a gag order could provide a major insight into how neoconservatives distort US foreign policy and enrich themselves at the same time. On one level, her story appears straightforward: several Turkish lobbying groups allegedly bribed congressmen to support policies favourable to Ankara. But beyond that, the Edmonds revelations become more serpentine and appear to involve AIPAC, Israel and a number of leading neoconservatives who have profited from the Turkish connection. Israel has long cultivated a close relationship with Turkey since Ankara's neighbours and historic enemies - Iran, Syria and Iraq - are also hostile to Tel Aviv. Islamic Turkey has also had considerable symbolic value for Israel, demonstrating that hostility to Muslim neighbours is not a sine qua non for the Jewish state.

Turkey benefits from the relationship by securing general benevolence and increased aid from the US Congress - as well as access to otherwise unattainable military technology. The Turkish General Staff has a particular interest because much of the military spending is channeled through companies in which the generals have a financial stake, making for a very cozy and comfortable business arrangement. The commercial interest has also fostered close political ties, with the American Turkish Council, American Turkish Cultural Alliance and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations all developing warm relationships with AIPAC and other Jewish and Israel advocacy groups throughout the US.

Someone has to be in the middle to keep the happy affair going, so enter the neocons, intent on securing Israel against all comers and also keen to turn a dollar. In fact the neocons seem to have a deep and abiding interest in Turkey, which, under other circumstances, might be difficult to explain. Doug Feith's International Advisors Inc, a registered agent for Turkey in 1989 - 1994, netted $600,000 per year from Turkey, with Richard Perle taking $48,000 annually as a consultant. Other noted neoconservatives linked to Turkey are former State Department number three, Marc Grossman, current Pentagon Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, Paul Wolfowitz and former congressman Stephen Solarz. The money involved does not appear to come from the Turkish government, and FBI investigators are trying to determine its source and how it is distributed. Some of it may come from criminal activity, possibly drug trafficking, but much more might come from arms dealing. Contracts in the hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars provide considerable fat for those well placed to benefit. Investigators are also looking at Israel's particular expertise in the illegal sale of US military technology to countries like China and India. Fraudulent end-user certificates produced by Defense Ministries in Israel and Turkey are all that is needed to divert military technology to other, less benign, consumers. The military-industrial-complex/neocon network is also well attested. Doug Feith has been associated with Northrup Grumman for years, while defense contractors fund many neocon-linked think tanks and "information" services. Feith, Perle and a number of other neocons have long had beneficial relationships with various Israeli defense contractors. (Philip Giraldi from Cannistraro Associates, April 24 edition of The American Conservative)
While Edmonds claims the Times published only 20% of her allegations, antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo has published a good analysis that gets to the heart of some of the deeper implications of her case, including Israeli involvement in 9/11, and the American-Israeli-Turkish-Pakistani-"Al-Qaeda" (i.e., CIA/Mossad/ISI) terror connections.





by , January 08, 2008
"The next president may have to deal with a nuclear attack," averred ABC’s Charles Gibson at Saturday night’s Democratic presidential debate. "The day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it and what will we actually do on the day after?"
It’s a question that frightens everyone, and one to which there is no easy answer: none of the candidates really rose to the occasion, and most seemed baffled. Hillary Clinton made sure she used the word "retaliation" with unusual emphasis, and when pressed on the question of how she would retaliate against "stateless" terrorists nevertheless insisted that she would indeed retaliate against someone, because the perpetrators had to have a "haven" somewhere within a state.
Yes, well, that’s not necessarily true, but what if that "haven" is… right here in the U.S.? Or, perhaps, in a NATO country, say, Turkey?
Say what?
Impossible, you say? Not if you believe Sibel Edmonds, a former translator for the FBI who listened in on hundreds of telephone intercepts and has now told the London Times that several top U.S. government officials conspired with foreign agents to steal U.S. nuclear secrets and sell them on the black market. The Times reports:
"Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of U.S. officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.
"Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the U.S. State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan. The name of the official – who has held a series of top government posts – is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims. However, Edmonds said: ‘He was aiding foreign operatives against U.S. interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives.’
"She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents. ‘If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials,’ she said."
Edmonds brought all this to the attention of lawmakers, as well as the American media, and several news organizations filed reports – until a federal judge issued an unprecedented gag order. Edmonds’ story was deemed too hot to handle: if the public were allowed to know what she knows, according to our government, America’s national security would be severely impaired. Yet now she is speaking out, and what she has to say is unsettling, to say the least.
Edmonds has named at least one of the officials: he is Marc Grossman, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, assistant secretary of state for European affairs under the Clinton administration and undersecretary of state for political affairs from 2001-2005. Grossman is now vice chairman of The Cohen Group, a consulting firm founded by Bill Clinton’s defense secretary, William S. Cohen.
Edmonds contends that an international nuclear smuggling ring, associated with the intelligence agencies of Pakistan, Turkey, and Israel, has been permitted to operate in the U.S. with impunity. Our government, she claims, knew all about it yet, in order to placate the foreign governments involved, allowed a vast criminal enterprise to carry out its activities, including money laundering, narcotics trafficking, and espionage involving efforts to steal U.S. nuclear technology.
As a translator for the FBI, Edmonds had the task of translating many hours of intercepted phone conversations between Turkish officials and Pakistanis, Israelis, and Americans who were targets of the FBI’s counterintelligence unit. Thousands of hours of intercepted calls revealed a network of moles placed in various military installations and academic venues dealing with nuclear technology. Edmonds gives us the details, via the Times:
"Edmonds says there were several transactions of nuclear material every month, with the Pakistanis being among the eventual buyers. ‘The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States,’ she said.
"They were helped, she says, by the high-ranking State Department official [Marc Grossman] who provided some of their moles – mainly Ph.D. students – with security clearance to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities. These included the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is responsible for the security of the U.S. nuclear deterrent."
And "while the FBI was investigating," says Edmonds, "several arms of the government were shielding what was going on." An entire wing of the national security bureaucracy, associated with the neoconservatives, has long profited from representing Turkish interests in Washington: this group includes not only Grossman, but also Paul Wolfowitz, chief intellectual architect of the Iraq war and ex-World Bank president; former deputy defense secretary for policy Douglas J. Feith; Feith’s successor, Eric Edelman; and Richard Perle, the notorious uber-neocon whose unique ability to mix profiteering and warmongering forced him to resign his official capacity as a key administration adviser.
Edmonds draws a picture of a three-sided alliance consisting of Turkish, Pakistani, and Israeli agents who coordinated efforts to milk U.S. nuclear secrets and technology, funneling the intelligence stream to the black market nuclear network set up by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. The multi-millionaire Pakistani nuclear scientist then turned around and sold his nuclear assets to North Korea, Libya, and Iran.
This was no "rogue" operation, but a covert action executed by Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, the chief of Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, at the time. The Turks were used as intermediaries because direct ISI intervention would have roused immediate suspicion. Large amounts of cash were dropped off at the offices of Turkish-American lobbying groups, such as the American Turkish Council in Washington, which was reportedly picked up by at least one top U.S. official.
This Pakistani-Turkish-Israeli Axis of Espionage, operating through their respective embassies, systematically combed Washington officialdom for potential moles, compiling lists that, according to Edmonds and the Times, “contained all their ‘hooking points,’ which could be financial or sexual pressure points, their exact job in the Pentagon and what stuff they had access to.” Nice work, there.
This sounds a lot like the setup the handlers of convicted spy Larry Franklin worked with to glean information from the rabidly pro-Israel Franklin and pass it off to Israeli embassy officials, including former Israeli ambassador Danny Ayalon; Naor Gilon, the former political officer at the embassy; and Rafi Barak, the former deputy chief of mission. And there is indeed a connection to the Franklin case, according to the Times,
"One of the Pentagon figures under investigation was Lawrence Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst, who was jailed in 2006 for passing U.S. defense information to lobbyists and sharing classified information with an Israeli diplomat. ‘He was one of the top people providing information and packages during 2000 and 2001,’ [Edmonds] said."
Franklin delivered his "packages" to AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman and their Israeli handlers for ideological reasons, but others, such as Grossman – according to Edmonds – did it for money. Grossman angrily denies the charge. In any case, apparently large cash transactions were recorded on the tapes Edmonds translated, in which U.S. officials were heard selling the nation’s nuclear secrets. As the Times relates:
"Well-known U.S. officials were then bribed by foreign agents to steal U.S. nuclear secrets. One such incident from 2000 involves an agent overheard on a wiretap discussing ‘nuclear information that had been stolen from an air force base in Alabama,’ in which the agent allegedly is heard saying: ‘We have a package and we’re going to sell it for $250,000.’"
A vast criminal enterprise supported by at least three foreign intelligence agencies acting in concert with top U.S. officials, including some "household names" – if true, it’s the story of the decade. Yet that isn’t all. The really scary aspect of this labyrinthine network of foreign agents, and their American dupes and collaborators, is its connections to terrorist organizations, specifically al-Qaeda.
To begin with, Gen. Ahmad is suspected of having wired a large amount of money into Mohammed Atta’s Dubai bank account shortly before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. More ominously, the Times reports: "Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks."
Pakistani and/or Turkish operatives arrested or held for questioning in the wake of the 9/11 attacks? Well, that’s the first I’ve heard of it. However, the U.S. authorities did round up a large number of Israelis, including these guys, and held them for several months before extraditing them back to their home country.
Even more alarming is the reason Edmonds approached the Times with the story, "after reading about an al-Qaeda terrorist who had revealed his role in training some of the 9/11 hijackers while he was in Turkey." That’s a reference to this Nov. 2 story in the Times, which details the career of a top al-Qaeda kingpin, one Louai al-Sakka, who claims to have trained several of the 9/11 hijackers at a camp situated outside Istanbul in the resort area of the Yalova mountains.
Now that‘s curious: a Muslim fundamentalist training camp in a country run by a fanatically secular military that would normally not tolerate such activities. As the Times puts it: "Turkish intelligence were aware of unusual militant Islamic activity in the Yalova mountains, where Sakka had set up his camps. But they posed no threat to Turkey at the time."
Not a threat to Turkey, eh? All too true: the terrorists’ target was the U.S. The al-Qaeda recruits trained by Sakka were specifically chosen by the top leadership of al-Qaeda – i.e., bin Laden – to carry out the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. That they were nurtured and steeled for their mission under the noses of our NATO allies in Ankara seems bizarre – until one begins to take Sibel Edmonds seriously. Then the whole horrifying picture starts to fall into place.
The darkest secrets of 9/11 are buried at the end of the trail laid out in Edmonds’ testimony. As Luke Ryland, the world’s foremost expert on the Edmonds case, writes:
"The Times article then notes something that I reported 18 months ago. Immediately after 911, the FBI arrested a bunch of people suspected of being involved with the attacks – including four associates of key targets of FBI’s counterintelligence operations. Sibel heard the targets tell Marc Grossman: ‘We need to get them out of the U.S. because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans.’ Grossman duly facilitated their release from jail and the suspects immediately left the country without further investigation or interrogation.
"Let me repeat that for emphasis: The #3 guy at the State Dept. facilitated the immediate release of 911 suspects at the request of targets of the FBI’s investigation."
Corruption and a massive cover-up organized at the highest levels of government – America’s nuclear secrets and technology looted on a massive scale, and sold to our enemies via a network set up by our alleged foreign "friends," while the threat of nuclear terrorism hangs over our country like a thick fog of fear, and warmongering politicians scare us into going along with the program – if even half of what Edmonds alleges turns out to be true, then we are all in some very big trouble.
In light of the Edmonds revelations, we have to reconsider the implications of the question Charles Gibson opened with during the ABC Democratic debate:
"The day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it and what will we actually do on the day after?"
Perhaps congressman Henry Waxman, who solemnly pledged to launch a public investigation into the allegations made by Edmonds, will wish he had kept his promise. Maybe even the national news media, which has been offered this story repeatedly, by Ms. Edmonds and her supporters, will wish they had covered it.
Fortunately, we don’t need the "mainstream" media to get the truth out to the American people. With the new technology of the computer age, we can do an end run around the media. This YouTube video is shocking:



As Edmonds says, "we have the facts, we have the documents, we have the witnesses. Put out the tapes, put out the documents, put out the intercepts – put out the truth."
If a nuke ever goes off in an American city, it will probably have been stolen from our own arsenal – once the American people wake up to that scary fact, the rest will follow automatically.




Ressources:
James Petras:
AIPAC on trial: them or US (Le procès de l'AIPAC)
AIPAC: Lobbies and whistleblowers yes!, Spies no!
Treason in high places: Pentagon zionists, AIPAC and Israel
Zion-power and War: From Iraq to Iran. The Deadly Embrace.

Neoconservatism as a jewish movement, Kevin Macdonald
Comment la cinquième colonne d'Israël a consumé les États-Unis
Pourquoi ce barrage d'intellectuels juifs "rebelles" qui dénient le Lobby Sioniste?
Le problème avec Israël

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

L'impotence du DSM-IV à détecter les psychopathes

Extrait d'entrevue de Laura-Knight-Jadczyk & Henry See par Sylvia Cattori, au sujet des individus littéralement "sans conscience", les psychopathes, que le DSM-IV est incapable de diagnostiquer correctement puisqu'il l'identifie au trouble de personnalité antisociale, lequel se manifeste par des comportement antisociaux, alors que le psychopathe peut très bien conserver son masque de santé mentale en évitant les comportement antisociaux évidents.
Laura : Le diagnostic est une question litigieuse ; il existe une controverse qu’il nous faut expliquer si l’on veut comprendre les possibilités de détection. D’un côté de la controverse, on trouve la description traditionnelle de la psychopathie dérivée de l’ancienne tradition européenne mentionnée par LOBACZEWSKI, combinée à la tradition nord-américaine d’Hervey CLECKLEY, Robert HARE et d’autres. Elle s’accorde généralement avec l’expérience des psychiatres, psychologues, personnel de justice criminelle, psychopathologistes expérimentaux, et même des membres du public profane qui ont personnellement eu affaire à la psychopathie.

De l’autre côté de la controverse, on trouve un mouvement « néo-kraepelinien » (d’après Emil KRAEPELIN [3] ) dans le psychodiagnostic, mouvement étroitement associé aux recherches menées par l’université de Washington, à St Louis, dans le Missouri. Ce dernier point de vue est très étroitement aligné sur le critère de diagnostic du manuel psychiatrique américain connu sous les noms de DSM-III, DSM-III-R, et DSM-IV [4] . L’approche fondamentale de cette école est que l’évaluation d’un psychopathe repose presque entièrement sur des comportements connus ou observables en public, ce qui va directement à l’encontre de ce que l’on sait concrètement au sujet des psychopathes : leur capacité à dissimuler leur véritable nature. L’argument avancé est qu’un clinicien est incapable d’évaluer avec fiabilité des caractéristiques interpersonnelles ou affectives. Une autre supposition est que la délinquance précoce est un symptôme capital d’ASPD (AntiSocial Personality Disorder - Trouble de personnalité antisociale)[5] . Cela tend à mettre lourdement l’accent sur le comportement délinquant ou antisocial, c’est-à-dire des comportements publiquement observables qui n’ont peut-être aucun rapport avec la structure interne de l’individu.

Quoiqu’il en soit, le DSM-III a établi que les psychopathes appartenaient à la classification « Troubles de la personnalité antisociale ».

Les critères du DSM-III pour l’ASPD ont été établis par un comité appartenant au groupe de travail sur le DSM-III de l’Association américaine de psychiatrie, et ont été légèrement modifiés par un autre comité pour le DSM-III-R. Les critères du DSM-IV ont aussi été établis par un comité, en faisant peu de cas de la recherche empirique. Ces critères se focalisent moins sur le comportement, et donc, ils ressemblent quelque peu aux critères établis pour d’autres troubles DSM-IV de la personnalité.

En raison des problèmes posés par le diagnostic DSM-III et DSM-III-R d’ASPD, l’Association américaine de psychiatrie a effectué un essai multi-sites pour collecter des données en préparation du DSM-IV. Les essais sur le terrain étaient destinés à déterminer si les traits de personnalité pouvaient être inclus dans les critères pour l’ASPD — qui ne reposent que sur les comportements publiquement observables — sans en réduire la fiabilité. L’intention des cliniciens qui firent pression en faveur de cette étude était de ré-aligner l’ASPD sur la tradition clinique et de mettre fin à la confusion entre ASPD et psychopathie.

Les résultats des observations sur le terrain démontrèrent que la plupart des traits de personnalité reflètant les symptômes de la psychopathie étaient aussi fiables que les modèles spécifiques de comportement du DSM-III-R, invalidant ainsi l’hypothèse originelle proposant d’exclure la personnalité du diagnostic d’ASPD / psychopathie.

Mieux, les résultats démontrèrent que le PCL-R de Hare mesurait concrètement la tendance latente à la psychopathie sous toutes ses formes ! Des analyses similaires des données rassemblées lors des essais sur le terrain montrèrent que les critères d’ASPD distinguaient moins bien le caractère psychopathique, particulièrement lorsqu’il atteignait des niveaux élevés ! Autrement dit, le critère d’ASPD établi par le DSM-III-R fut conçu — intentionnellement ou non — pour exclure les psychopathes les plus psychopathiques !

Malgré le fait que cette étude, ait permis d’établir une base empirique pour ajouter dans le DSM-IV des critères d’ASPD liés au contenu, cela ne fut pas pris en compte ; les critères adoptés pour le DSM-IV ne furent même pas évalués dans les essais sur le terrain.

La description textuelle de l’ASPD présente dans le DSM-IV (qui nous dit que l’ASPD est « aussi connu sous le nom de psychopathie ») contient des références aux caractéristiques traditionnelles de la psychopathie, mais sur de nombreux points, elle n’est pas conforme aux critères de diagnostic formels.

Une des conséquences de l’ambiguïté inhérente aux critères d’ASPD/psychopathie du DSM-IV est qu’elle laisse la porte ouverte à des procès au cours desquels un clinicien peut dire que l’accusé satisfait à la définition d’ASPD présente dans le DSM-IV, et un autre clinicien peut dire le contraire, et les deux peuvent avoir raison ! Le premier clinicien peut exclusivement utiliser les critères de diagnostic formels, tandis que le second clinicien peut dire « oui, l’accusé satisfait peut-être aux critères formels, mais il ou elle ne possède pas les traits de personnalité décrits dans la section « Caractéristiques associées » du texte du DSM-IV ». Autrement dit, un bon psychopathe avec un bon avocat peut commettre n’importe quel crime et s’en tirer à bon compte. Cet échec du DSM-IV à différencier entre psychopathie et ASPD peut avoir (et aura sans aucun doute) de très graves conséquences pour la société.

LOBACZEWSKI mentionne le fait qu’en Allemagne nazie et en Russie stalinienne, les sciences psychologiques furent cooptées pour soutenir les régimes totalitaires, et que cela fut accompli par des psychopathes au pouvoir qui entreprirent ensuite de détruire toute possibilité de diffuser largement des informations précises sur la condition [psychopathique – NdT]. Il fait remarquer que tout régime constitué principalement de déviants pathologiques ne peut permettre à la psychologie de se développer et de s’épanouir librement, parce que le régime lui-même serait alors diagnostiqué comme pathologique, ce qui révélerait « l’homme derrière le rideau. ».

En se fondant sur des observations de première main du phénomène en question, LOBACZEWSKI déclare que la répression du savoir est entreprise de façon typiquement psychopathique : à couvert et derrière un « masque de santé mentale ». Pour être capable de contrôler les sciences psychologiques, on doit savoir ou être capable de sentir ce qui se passe et quels domaines de la psychopathologie sont les plus dangereux. Un régime politique pathologique localise les individus psychopathes oeuvrant dans ce domaine (habituellement de très médiocres scientifiques), facilite leurs études universitaires et leurs diplômes ainsi que l’obtention de postes-clés avec un pouvoir d’encadrement des organisations scientifiques et culturelles. Ils sont alors en position d’écraser les personnes plus douées — étant motivés aussi bien par leur propre intérêt que par cette jalousie typique qui caractérise l’attitude du psychopathe envers les gens normaux. Ce sont eux qui surveillent les articles scientifiques pour leur « propre idéologie » et qui font tout pour s’assurer qu’un bon spécialiste se verra refuser la documentation scientifique dont il aura besoin.

Le fait est qu’au cours de ces cinquante dernières années, le concept de psychopathie a été fortement rétréci, et se réfère maintenant à un trouble de la personnalité spécifique, bien qu’il y ait eu des tentatives de supprimer entièrement la classification, en la remplaçant par le « trouble de la personnalité antisociale », qui peut comprendre une grande variété de comportements sans nécessairement exiger le diagnostic clinique de psychopathie. Robert HARE souligne à quel point il est crucial de comprendre que la psychopathie n’est pas synonyme de criminalité ou de violence ; tous les psychopathes ne s’engagent pas dans des comportements violents ou criminels. En même temps, les personnes violentes ou criminelles ne sont pas toutes des psychopathes.

Selon Robert HARE, CLECKLEY, LOBACZWESKI et beaucoup d’autres experts en psychopathie, un diagnostic de psychopathie ne peut se baser sur des symptômes comportementaux visibles à l’exclusion des symptômes interpersonnels et affectifs, parce qu’une telle procédure transforme en psychopathes de nombreuses personnes qui sont simplement blessées par la vie ou la société, et permet aux vrais psychopathes qui arborent un « masque de santé mentale » bien construit d’échapper au dépistage. D’après une documentation de plus en plus conséquente, beaucoup (ou la plupart) des psychopathes grandissent dans des familles aisées et stables, et deviennent des criminels en col blanc qui, à cause de leur argent et de leur position, ne subissent jamais la révélation publique de leurs comportements destructeurs privés, et échappent constamment au système judiciaire.

Lire le reste de l'entrevue.

Insiders and Reality, Henry See, SOTT, 21 Nov 2007

Témoignage d’un ex-US Marine de retour d’Irak. Jimmy Massey : «J’étais un assassin psychopathe», par Rosa Miriam Elizalde, Réseau Voltaire, 28 nov 2007

Plus de détails sur la destruction de nos société par des psychopathes et le système de pathocratie (gouvernance par des psychopathes):
Le Paysage Intérieur du Psychopathe
Le psychopathe d'à côté
Is Your Boss a Psychopath? Alan Deutschman, 3 Jul 2005

Extraits de Political Ponerology (A. Lobaczewski), explicités par Laura Knight-Jadczyk dans un podcast de SOTT:
Ponerology by the way is his technical term for evil. The science of evil, or the study of evil. And he makes no bones about the fact that evil is very real force in our reality. And what he tells us about essential psychopathy is that it is a "hereditary-transmitted anomaly whose role in ponerogenic processes on any social scale appears exceptionally great", and then he writes: "We should also underscore that the need to isolate this phenomenon and examine it in detail became most evident to those researches who were interested in the macro-social scale of the genesis of evil, because they witnessed it... Biologically speaking the phenomenon is similar to colour blindness and occurs with a similar frequency, except that unlike colour blindness it effects both sexes. It's intensity also varies in scope from a level barely perceptive to an experienced observer, to obvious pathological deficiencies. Like colour blindness this anomaly also appears to represent a deficit in stimulus transformation... Psychiatrists of the old school used to call such individual "Daltonists of human feelings and social moral values". The psychological picture of such individuals shows clear deficits among men only; among women it is generally toned down. This suggests that the anomaly is inherited via the X Chromosome, but through a semi-dominating gene".

What he says further is that, "our natural world of concepts," that is our concepts of morals, of what's right, what's wrong, what's good, what's not good, our world of empathy, of feeling the pain of others of humanistic values, "appears to these individuals as nearly incomprehensible. That moral values are simply conventions with no justification. They think that our customs and principles of decency are a foreign convention invented and imposed by someone else. They think that our ideas of empathy, of caring for others are silly, onerous and even ridiculous. At the same time, they easily perceive the deficiencies and weakness of our natural language of psychological and moral concepts".

He tells us that "the average intelligence of such individuals, if measured via commonly used tests is somewhat lower than that of normal people, however, this group does not contain instances of the highest intelligence, nor do we find technical or craftsmanship talents among them."

This is one of their deficiencies, they don't have technical skill and they don't have craftsmanship skill. That's why they need human beings who have emotions, who have empathy and who have creativity. It says, "the most gifted members of this kind may achieve accomplishments in those sciences which do not require a humanistic world view or practical skills."

And then he writes that, "whenever we have attempted to construct special tests to measure the life wisdom or the social moral imagination, even if the difficulties of psychometric evaluation are taken into account individuals of this type indicate a deficit disproportionate to their personal IQ". Then he tells us that "in spite of their deficiencies as regards normal psychological and moral knowledge they develop and have at their disposal, a knowledge of their own" and this knowledge is something that is "lacked by people with a natural world view. They learn to recognise each other in a crowd in early childhood. And they develop an awareness of the existence of other individuals similar to themselves. And they become very conscious of being different from the world of these other people surrounding them. They view us from a certain distance, like a para-specific variety. Natural human reactions - which often fail to elicit interest because they are considered self evident - strike them as strange and therefore interesting and even comical. They observe us, derive conclusions and form their own different world of concepts. They become experts on our weaknesses and sometimes effect heartless experiments upon normal human beings just for their own pleasure. The suffering and injustice they cause inspire no guilt within them since they are the result of their being different and apply only to those other people they perceive to be not quite conspecific. Neither a normal person, nor our natural world view can perceive or properly evaluate the existence of this world of different concepts of the psychopath".

Monday, October 22, 2007

David Kelly savait à propos des armes d'épuration ethnique d'Israël

Le scientifique David Kelly a été "suicidé". Il a été trouvé mort dans un boisé, les poignets tranchés. Suicide difficilement explicable, surtout quand on sait qu'il travaillait sur les armes biologiques et détenait la preuve (dangereuse pour l'establishment belliciste) que Saddam n'avait pas d'"armes de destruction massive". Ça, les médias le disent. Mais ce qu'ils ne disent pas, c'est qu'il savait aussi à propos des armes ethniques-spécifiques de l'État d'Israël, qui veut tuer sélectivement les Arabes (les Sémites) sans affecter les Israéliens, en utilisant une arme génétiquement sélective, qui ne tue que ceux qui possèdent un certain gène spécifique (voir ces deux articles de Laura Knight-Jadczyk).

Biowar and the Apartheid Legacy, Salim Muwakkil, June 6 2003.

On Race-Targetable Biological Weaponry, by John Wilmerding, 10 August 2003

David Kelly ne s’est pas suicidé, 14 fev 2004

Politically Desireable, Genetically Unviable, Sergei Netesov, 02 March 2004

Microbiologists With Link to Race-Based Weapon Turning Up Dead, AFP, Gordon Thomas, 12 april 2004

Uncovering the Truth about the Death of David Kelly, Rowena Thursby, Sept 17 2006

Who Killed Dr David Kelly? Miles Godfrey & Katya Mira, 13 Apr 2007

Who Ordered the Assassination of Dr. David Kelly? Michel Chossudovsky, 01 Mar 2007

Weapons Expert Dr David Kelly was Murdered, Norman Baker, October 20 2007

'Iraq whistleblower Dr Kelly was murdered to silence him' says MP, October 20 2007, Daily Mail

Did two hired assassins snatch weapons inspector David Kelly?
Norman Baker, October 22 2007

Qui a tué David Kelly? 1 nov 2007

'I feared I'd end up dead in the woods like Dr Kelly,' says biological warfare expert who criticised Britain and U.S., November 11 2007, Daily Mail

voir aussi:
Will DOJ Look into the First Death of a U.S. 9/11 Researcher?, October 17 2007, Sander Hicks