Trendlines, those pesky trendlines

The following is a white paper for The Jacksonian Party.

Now, I will point out that I do get wrong predictions, but I don't mind being wrong in some instances if things head in the general way expected. So, while the New Iraqi Army did not get a hold of the situation by the end of 2006 as I expected, it was beyond predicting the sort of incident that could set off a last and largest wave of post-war bloodshed in that country. The trendlines, however, pulled together with the Anbari tribes getting disgusted of al Qaeda and banding together with Coalition support to start ousting them there.

That said a bit of analysis later is one that I have stuck to in the overall term of things:

In Iraq the trend-lines have been going solidly in our favor since the standing up of the New Iraqi Army, and there is not a single trend-line pointing to defeat. Failure by lack of political will is possible, but as the trends continue, it will be harder and harder to justify leaving Iraq to fall into chaos. And the naysayers should be warned, the Jacksonians just *left* the political scene after the betrayal of Vietnam... this will bring them back with fire in their eye as treachery will be seen.

And the trend lines in the US Population is demonstrating this as the MSM falls further and further downwards and both political parties hover in the Used Car Salesman area of trustworthiness. Like any supersaturated solution, it looks extremely stable until just one minor thing happens... and then there is a sudden change of state as a new form crystallizes nearly instantly.

THAT is where the electorate stands today.

Just one little thing.

It doesn't take much to change the state of a supersaturated solution to one of crystalline with the water being forced out of it, or from solute to a sudden gelatinous state completely with just one minor disturbance. Dust, vibration, the smallest change in temperature that is just a bit too rapid and you go from something liquid to something definitely not liquid.

Trendline analysis is a very useful tool, so long as you don't fetishize on a single trend. The global warming crowd seem to fetishize on carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, ignoring the overall point that the planet is in one of the lowest points for that in its entire history. And when pointing at a miniscule century of temperatures, they ignore the 800 million year climate record found by geologists over decades. Concentrating on the wrong scope, wrong numbers, wrong time-frame and, finally, ignoring that the data, itself, is being undercut by processing errors and instrumentation errors doesn't help. When you want to analyze trendlines, like say Iran's oil production and its capacity to export, you not only have to ask yourself 'what do the trends signify?' but then ask yourself 'what are the things pushing these trends?'. From Roger Stern's article released online at 26 DEC 2006 on The Iranian petroleum crisis:

You don't get the capability to leave things out, but as the idea of how to get oil out of the ground, transport it, refine it, sell it, and then look at marginal expansion are *all* far more than a century old (and since the oil industry is an offshoot of mining, that puts those concepts back thousands of years to the first human mining experiences) you do not get to wave your hands around claiming much and citing little. A process of under-investment, over-utilization and subsidies on refined products all leads in one direction for energy use and the ability to export: the variables are known, the trendlines obvious and the ability to counter them requires years if not more than a decade.

When talking about a larger society, however, the trendlines are not in any one place: society covers a wide gamut of human interactions and trying to see if a suite of them has any sort of defining impact is difficult. So, when looking at the trends of the US starting in the Vietnam era and onwards, I take a broader sweep of things, due to the inability to actually *measure* these trends in any objective way. There is no thermometer reading for foreign policy or nationalism amongst a population, no wind-force scale for popular opinion to compare across eras, and no Richter scale to measure the impact of events on a society as a whole. If there *were* I would use *them*. So the empirical and 'high water mark' sort of evidence is necessary:

The death toll that accrued to America's unwillingness to stand for her values, stick by an Ally and retreat with mere scratches when entire societies were threatened was enormous. The media conveniently under-reported such things and so retreat was seen as a 'low cost option' against military aggression in far off lands. Mind you, the mightiest economy of the planet was expending less than 10% of its economy and more on the order of 8% to deal with this, continue a build up of thermonuclear weapons, heavily increase its industrial capacity, raise its standard of living by leaps and bounds, put a new era of agriculture in place that would further reduce the manpower needed to feed the Nation, and put forth new science and technology at a phenomenal rate. The USSR, meanwhile, was spending 15-25% of its economy on war material, creating substandard housing, inventing very little, and repressing its people continuously through secret police, gulags and imprisonment without fair trial for stating 'political dissent'. The layer of 'Mutual Assured Destruction' was used to cement the 'balance of power' in place and KEEP IT THERE. Those who had put forth that Foreign Policy had so inculcated the power structure of the West to it, that there was no other option ever put forth that got a hearing on trying to do something different. Grand Strategy had, indeed, become based on fantasy and those holding wonderful reports from the CIA in the late 1980's about how the USSR would be around at least until 2010 and most likely 2030-50 should have been seen as *frauds*: they had so weakened the Nation to respond to *any* attack and counter threats to the Friends and Allies of the United States that the US was no longer seen as a reliable power of any sort.

The loss of identity of the American People to its Foreign Policy strategy is not new. It is traced directly back to Korea and Vietnam where the disenchantment of the American People with supporting dictators, appeasing aggressors and, generally, giving up the ideals of Liberty and Freedom to a 'balance of power' that they started to walk out on the system ITSELF. By the late 1970's the mass movement of the American People was no longer along standard political and ideological axes, but was a growing disenchantment with the political system that would *support* the deterioration of National Sovereignty and the Preceptual belief in the Declaration and the limitation of Government seen in the Constitution. The end of the Cold War did not start this trend which was in full swing by that point in time. The American People believed that the Nation should stand up for some things and the political class was telling it that those things were not worth standing up *for* or doing anything to *continue* them. To have a sense of the lost security on the Global Scale one must first *start* with that sense which America has not had since the middle of the Cold War.

After Vietnam, the destruction of Cambodia, Laos, and the reprisals taken against South Vietnam were huge with death tolls as a result of American cowardice rising into the tens of millions. The USSR saw this as a vital way to undermine the West and the very conception of Western Liberty because their sympathizers in the West had shown an ability to redirect outlook away from Preceptual basis to one of 'no blood now for any reason, ever'. This was not helped by the US non-response to the overthrow of Iran by Islamic Fundamentalists, the botched hostage rescue attempt, the Embassy bombing in Beirut, the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut, the Second Embassy bombing in Beirut, the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing, the Berlin Disco bombing... The continuous hit parade against the US and its Allies by foes both Communist backed, like the various 'Red' factions/legions and the Pan-Arab to Islamist groups led to further deterioration in the concept that the US would actually address anything outside of herself. The retaking of Kuwait was seen as a validation *of* that because the US would no longer dare to act *alone* in her own interests. And promises given to people wanting to over throw a dictator were not fulfilled and so 300,000 Shia Arabs died due to Saddam Hussein because they actually had this strange belief that the US would actually stand FOR anything it said.

Those are the trendlines of disenchantment of the American people with its government, political class, foreign policy institutions and, in the end, self-alienation from the concept of a Nation supporting liberty and freedom both at home and abroad.

A fertile place to examine how trends can be seen is via 'alternate history' or 'counter-factual history' which both utilize things that did not happen and then look and see what the ongoing trends across societies and nations were and how they would be effected by them. This I did in my piece looking at how Azar Gat postulated a slightly different outcome to world affairs if North America was not that rich in resources or in any given subset of them (say fresh water or iron ore or fertile land). A United States with the natural resources at lesser degrees or far harder to get and support would not have been able to sustain the industrial output necessary to fight two World Wars.

Going a bit further, as I am an alt-history fan, I postulate an even smaller change to Germany pre-WWI that would have long-term and large scale ramifications globally... actually a trivial change historically speaking. The overall analysis, however, is that of 'contingent effects' being predominant in history: things that are unrelated to societal trends, say natural resources or transportation lines, can impact a wide swath of peoples and the course of nations. This goes against Marxist views of 'mass-movement historical trends' because those very same mass movements are based upon contingent effects. Without the basis to get those masses, the movements either don't show up or they show up in a scattered way and exert little overall force.

With any consequential petroleum resources held by Germany and threat to take more of same, plus a stalemate in the Euoropean theater, President Wilson would be forced to put the economic needs of the US aside and join the Allies or to fully fight *all* of the Allies of Germany. There would even be the case made that supporting Germany so as to *influence* it and its allies was in the US interest for the long-term spread of democracy and liberalization of those regimes. That was a case hard to put forth with Germany relatively isolated, but a Germany with more resources and active in the Middle East then puts Germany combat expertise in support of the Ottoman Empire.

World War I was not foreordained to be the US coming in to save the Alliance bacon and then fouling up its handling of the Middle East for 90 years thereafter. With one relatively simple shift in outlook, one that the Kaiser could easily have taken umbrage to, the entire geo-strategic basis for World War I would have changed and harshly. If the Aussies had problems at Gallipoli with Ottoman Turks there, imagine the problems they would have with Germany supported Ottoman troops with more modern weapons and tactics. And securing victory against the Ottomans by the British from the south would have to be concentrated on attempting to regain natural resources and be faced with German troops attempting to isolate Persia and threaten Arabian oil supplies and other Middle Eastern natural resources. Not to speak of the Suez Canal.

One minor rail line that was discontinued but near completion just before the war, could have changed the entire history of WWI with the pre-war plans adjusted to that economic parameter: Germany was very capable of doing that. The trends of war, in that case, would not be 'mass movement' affairs predicted by socialists, but highly variable affairs based on tiny accidents of history. Some broader sweeps do happen, say the shift to agricultural societies, but the final forms of those societies winding up into anything like our modern world are not pre-ordained. If the volcanic island of Thera had not exploded for an additional century, the movement of that early civilization based on Crete and Thera would have been able to thwart Mycenaean attempts to overcome them. Without that you get no Trojan War. Indeed, a more highly coherent multi-island society becomes a palpable force with time to spread and the entire history we know after the dawn of the Bronze Age would not have happened as it would shift Egypt and Babylon, too, via trade and intellectual discourse. Given a century, that early civilization with hot and cold running water to individual homes, indoor siphon based plumbing and other things that would have to wait until Roman times, would have spread faster. Greater public health via good sanitation saves countless lives daily, and is a simple thing to do. With agriculture, sanitation and time to build up trade, our world would not be here as we know it... probably we all would be speaking some form of Greek.

That is a contingent effect having a mass movement outcome: it is a necessary mental tool for trendline analysis to be able to postulate a minor change (a change in outcome that is randomly distributed) so that a wider spectrum of subsidiary changes can be examined using our knowledge of how such changes have impacted other societies. With that being said, when large scale trends do start moving societies, then they continue moving until something else acts upon them. That is part of the supersaturation concept. And my best trendlines are actually measurements, although they are direct, like the declining export capability of Iran, they are a bit darker because of what they are showing:

The above taken from US Census datasets.

Voting requires that one be over 18, a citizen of the US and not otherwise stopped from voting via previous convictions for crimes. We have concepts, in a representative democracy, that include words with attendant ideas:

Majority - the majority of the voting population.

Plurality - a large segment of the voting population that is sub-majority, but not minority.

Minority - generally sub-plurality, to the point where it is non-competitive with a plurality, generally placed under 40% and usually under 30%.

For representative democracy, starting in 1964 for Presidential cycles, the Majority came out to vote in numbers that would allow the winners to claim Plurality status. In the years between 1976 and 1992 the ability to claim a Majority voting is still in effect, but the resultant government could no longer claim Plurality status and can be considered a Minority with Majority voting. These are given considering non-'landslide' elections where contests are in the 52% winner and 48% loser arena. Most elections have been closer to 50/50 with the Nixon and Reagan 'landslides' the exceptions. The historical trendline for Presidential election years has been downwards with a spike in 1992 and an upward trend between 1996 to 2004, but with 2004 being a high water mark for absolute turnout though a relatively low turn-out considering the 1964 high in that area. We have not had anyone who can even claim to be a Plurality President since 1972 with the sole exception of President Clinton barely clearing that in 1992 and then falling into Minority status in the next election cycle.

If all underlying societal circumstances remain the same over this period for commitment to representative democracy, then the overall trend can be said to indicate a drifting from utilization of the franchise right by a minority, at first, and then by a Plurality. With the exception of 1992, the Plurality of Americans who can vote have voted with their feet and non-exercise of their franchise as a demonstration of their commitment to representative democracy. Or in this case non-commitment to that concept. That underlying trend, if it has no mitigating factors would then trend for the next Presidential election cycle to 'regress towards the mean' or average indicated by the ongoing trend downwards. I examine that concept of how a mean or average trend via a slope in a graph depicting such things as batting averages, average temperatures and other things has a powerful mathematical backing to it.

Here the interim Congressional election cycles demonstrate the operative slope clearly, with the 1966 high water mark for Congressional turnouts being in 1966 with a slight fall-off in 1970, allowing Congress to claim Majority turnout but to be Minority in representation with close elections as an operative concept. Starting in 1974 and with every subsequent interim election, there has been a Plurality turnout with Congress moving into pure Minority status for representation. Dropping below 45% in 1998 and subsequently has cemented that Minority representation and would indicate a decided lack of support from the American voting population. A slope on the Congressional graph, only done by eye and pure estimation, sees a 12% drop over 9 interim elections after the start of the graph or a general 1.3% drop per interim election cycle election cycle on the Congressional side. A similar slope dropping approximately 20%, again done by eye, over 10 Presidential election cycles after the start of the graph yields a general 2% voter turnout decline per cycle. Not having the 2006 turnout information handy for Congress I can't say if that holds up, but as there was no indication of a massive spike in voting that would draw inordinate media attention, the norm may have held. For the next Presidential cycle that slope would indicate a 54%-56% turnout to return the turnout rate to its declining slope to its mean.

That latter is worrying as, to truly get back in synch with the slope, the amount of area covered by the variation would have to be made up by actually going under 54%. If the mean has a draw to it then that would seem to be indicated, giving the highly spikey turnout changes in Presidential election years. For that to happen, both parties would need to nominate individuals that would depress their own voter turnout and the turnout of 'independents'. A 2% total percentage drop-off would be a minimum expected with a mean drawing the percentage back to historical turnout declines, while a 4% would be the average drop off (thus to just over 54%) and 6% would start to bring the overall trend back into line for a slight recover in 2012. What happens at 6%, however, is that nearing the 50% turnout line starts to dance with the turnout rate changing from Majority to large Plurality. A drop to between 50% to 52% starts to be a test of the actual adherence of the American voting age population to representative democracy. For a representative democracy to claim any legitimacy under majoritarian standards, then a Majority must turn out for elections to be considered as 'representative'. A slight drop to Plurality turnout then calls into question the actual validity of a representative democracy as representing the 'will of the people' when their will has been demonstrated by not voting.

There is no 'out' in that function: if you believe in the concept of representative democracy, then there is no plea to 'only the interested vote' or the 'smarter people voting represent those who don't'. That is patently not the case as the former is actually citing that representative democracy is not working and the latter is suggesting some form of authoritarian outlook by a Minority to rule the Majority. The glib answers like that must end when representative democracy founders with such low turnouts. If there is no interest in common government, then government is no longer able to serve the common man and must guess at what that common man wants. And do notice that every social program, every educational program, every pork barrel project, every enticement, every bribe, every payoff to the people with their own money has not brought out more people to actually *support it*.

The longer term artifacts of this have been showing up in other, derivative data sets based on Congressional votes. Looking at that in Running the numbers: Polarized America, I found the following:

What is more troubling than that, and being witnessed this election season, is the two parties fielding presumptive candidates that are, inherently, starting to cause party faithful to waiver. If candidates in both parties cause a minor drop in their own base participation, say 10%, then the percentage voting drops very close to 50%, just nudging over it by a bit. At 15% it drops just below 50% turnout. At that point representative democracy goes from plurality government to true minority government, representing a sub-part of plurality. Even with minority government status being reached de facto for many years, the absolute shift where true plurality of the voting age assent is given is no longer in hand.

Gridlock is actually not a problem but the solution being given by the political center in the US: it is the only ready means at hand to keep the two parties in mutual check so that they can not run an activist government. The ability to actually be wealthy and not have that pathway to wealth put in danger is a sub-marking point of the larger demographic shift by the center. As government is a user of wealth, not a creator of it, the political center is now saying to both parties that what they created during the Depression to mid-1970's is not what is wanted by them, and they are willing to let the two parties drift hard apart from each other by not participating in representative democracy. We hear much from the two party activists, but the quiet and dead silence from the middle is attempting to marginalize both parties into ineffectual stalemate.

For all the activism being seen, those very same activists ignore the fact that more and more people are no longer voting. If said activist views towards government 'helping people' were correct, turnout would have been on the rise for the last four decades, and yet just the opposite has happened. That growing Plurality is using its right NOT to vote as a negating power by pitting activists against each other into 'gridlock'. If that Plurality had wanted *either side* to dominate, it would dominate, and yet we have 'gridlock'. That 'gridlock' indicates a bankrupt outlook by the two parties that has gotten worse and continues to do so, on average, for every election since 1964. There is also no support for 'bipartisanship' as the polarizing process has driven that out of the political arena: it has not served a purpose to this growing plurality and so it is nearly gone from politics. Bipartisanship has not yielded something useful to the non-voting Plurality and so they continue to grow in numbers as more and more are turned off by 'bipartisanship' and party 'activism' for 'causes'.

As I said way back when: things in Iraq have good trendlines and have seen those increasing since 2006, while things in the US have been going downwards for decades heading into troubled waters. You start to see this effect now being cited by a few others, like Ralph Peters in an article at the NY SUN on 28 JUN 2008, looking at the lies told by the political elite and the media about Iraq, terrorism and the condition of things in the US and globally:

Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress through the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level of violence, has changed for the better - remarkably so.

If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens. Iraq's government is working, its economy is booming - and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq's major cities.

While the US is trying to ignore a growing insurgency problem south of the US border.

Not that either of the two parties will address that, nor the spillovers that are now happening in the US because of it. The first teams of hitmen roaming the Southwestern US have already started to arrive. But 'activist' candidates won't address that.

Which is a symptom of failing democracy in the United States.

Sphere: Related Content

Plans aren't policy

Just a little bit of fun with the Presidential candidates from their websites:

Energy Plans

Sen. John McCain

Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables
2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels)
2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

The Cap And Trade System Would Allow For The Gradual Reduction Of Emissions.
The cap and trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business – sectors responsible for just below 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase "offsets" – financial instruments representing a reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions practiced by other activities, such as agriculture – to cover 100 percent of their required reductions. Offsets would only be available through a program dedicated to ensure that all offset GHG emission reductions are real, measured and verifiable. The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.

Sen. Barack Obama

Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.

The question is: if 'greenhouse gases' are NOT causing 'global warming' then why do we need any 'cap and trade' system?

Both plans seek to 'regulate' such emissions, but the question is why is the federal government the best one to do that? If such emissions are demonstrated not to be linked to any 'global warming' and, indeed, fluctuate independently of global surface temperature, then the entire bureaucracy set up to do such things would have to be dismantled. Now considering that the federal government took a century or so to remove taxation on telephone use to help pay for the Philippine-American War, why would it be expected to be any quicker in getting rid of this bureaucracy?

While both Candidates have 'plans' to 'mandate' technologies, isn't it the marketplace that is best set up to determine economically viable technologies and their use? Who gave these candidates such wisdom of the ages to determine these things?

And for those thinking that Sen. McCain's is any more 'friendly' to small businesses, what he is doing is setting up a huge gap of regulation between small and large businesses and effectively ensuring that NO small business covered under his regulatory system will ever BECOME a large business. Sen. Obama at least wants to wipe out the small businesses instead of having them around by applying it equally to everyone to 'ensure the burden' is spread evenly so that the smaller businesses can't cope with them.

Which is better?

Government ensuring that the large polluters can never be challenged properly or Government ensuring that small businesses get hit the hardest and have a truly nasty uphill slope to climb while larger firms just absorb the cost and pass it along to consumers? Either way the small business sector becomes more limited for those areas covered by regulation.

Both Presidential candidates want larger government intrusion into a market that has ALREADY met ALL commitments that anyone would have wanted from the US out of Kyoto without doing a damned thing. Why regulate it AT ALL? It is outperforming every other Nation on the planet signed on to Kyoto. Strange by not signing on we meet standards, while others that sign on can't meet them through centralized regulation....

Next up:

Healthcare

Sen. Barack Obama

• Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
  1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
  2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
  3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
  4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
  5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
  6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
  7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
  8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
• National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
• Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
• Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
• Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
• Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.

Sen. John McCain

John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.

John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

John McCain Proposes Making Insurance More Portable. Americans need insurance that follows them from job to job. They want insurance that is still there if they retire early and does not change if they take a few years off to raise the kids.

John McCain Will Encourage And Expand The Benefits Of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) For Families. When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions and often decide against unnecessary options. Health Savings Accounts take an important step in the direction of putting families in charge of what they pay for.

[..]

John McCain Proposes A Number Of Initiatives That Can Lower Health Care Costs. If we act today, we can lower health care costs for families through common-sense initiatives. Within a decade, health spending will comprise twenty percent of our economy. This is taking an increasing toll on America's families and small businesses. Even Senators Clinton and Obama recognize the pressure skyrocketing health costs place on small business when they exempt small businesses from their employer mandate plans.

CHEAPER DRUGS: Lowering Drug Prices. John McCain will look to bring greater competition to our drug markets through safe re-importation of drugs and faster introduction of generic drugs.

CHRONIC DISEASE: Providing Quality, Cheaper Care For Chronic Disease. Chronic conditions account for three-quarters of the nation's annual health care bill. By emphasizing prevention, early intervention, healthy habits, new treatment models, new public health infrastructure and the use of information technology, we can reduce health care costs. We should dedicate more federal research to caring and curing chronic disease.

COORDINATED CARE: Promoting Coordinated Care. Coordinated care - with providers collaborating to produce the best health care - offers better outcomes at lower cost. We should pay a single bill for high-quality disease care which will make every single provider accountable and responsive to the patients' needs.

GREATER ACCESS AND CONVENIENCE: Expanding Access To Health Care. Families place a high value on quickly getting simple care. Government should promote greater access through walk-in clinics in retail outlets.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Greater Use Of Information Technology To Reduce Costs. We should promote the rapid deployment of 21st century information systems and technology that allows doctors to practice across state lines.

MEDICAID AND MEDICARE: Reforming The Payment System To Cut Costs. We must reform the payment systems in Medicaid and Medicare to compensate providers for diagnosis, prevention and care coordination. Medicaid and Medicare should not pay for preventable medical errors or mismanagement.

SMOKING: Promoting The Availability Of Smoking Cessation Programs. Most smokers would love to quit but find it hard to do so. Working with business and insurance companies to promote availability, we can improve lives and reduce chronic disease through smoking cessation programs.

STATE FLEXIBILITY: Encouraging States To Lower Costs. States should have the flexibility to experiment with alternative forms of access, coordinated payments per episode covered under Medicaid, use of private insurance in Medicaid, alternative insurance policies and different licensing schemes for providers.

TORT REFORM: Passing Medical Liability Reform. We must pass medical liability reform that eliminates lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to safety protocols. Every patient should have access to legal remedies in cases of bad medical practice but that should not be an invitation to endless, frivolous lawsuits.

TRANSPARENCY: Bringing Transparency To Health Care Costs. We must make public more information on treatment options and doctor records, and require transparency regarding medical outcomes, quality of care, costs and prices. We must also facilitate the development of national standards for measuring and recording treatments and outcomes.

Yes, I am greatly abbreviating these monster proposals.

Both plans are set upon subsidizing health insurance. I have some bad news for the Senators, but when you subsidize a good or service it gets used uneconomically thus driving up the overall cost or lowering the overall availability or BOTH. This is a central understanding of healthcare as practiced since the start of WWII and is a direct consequence of the 'New Deal' requiring individuals to *retire* just as labor was desperately needed in factories. As John Stossel points out on 21 SEP 2007:

America's health-care problem is not that some people lack insurance, it is that 250 million Americans do have it.

You have to understand something right from the start. We Americans got hooked on health insurance because the government did the insurance companies a favor during World War II. Wartime wage controls prohibited cash raises, so employers started giving noncash benefits like health insurance to attract workers. The tax code helped this along by treating employer-based health insurance more favorably than coverage you buy yourself. And state governments have made things worse by mandating coverage many people would never buy for themselves.

Competition also pushed companies to offer ever-more attractive policies, such as first-dollar coverage for routine ailments like ear infections and colds, and coverage for things that are not even illnesses, like pregnancy. We came to expect insurance to cover everything.

What is not accounted for in any mention of healthcare 'plans' is the cost of overhead for 'insurance'. Insurance is bought on a provisional basis that you are expecting something to happen to you and the insurer is betting that it will not: it is a wager system in which the one accepting the risk of the gamble, namely the insurer, sets the price on the wager. Healthcare, unfortunately, because it has been subsidized has been over used and abused by the American public, thus distorting the cost of healthcare.

Using government 'mandates' then becomes an effort to shift accountability out of the hands of patients, no matter how 'market oriented' a mandate is, and to meeting 'standards' set by a regulatory body that is appointed, not elected. As Mr. Stossel points out the average doctor utilizes 14% of their income to deal with *paperwork*, and even with most of that being electronic it requires the hiring of non-medical staff to handle insurance 'oversight' and paperwork. What you pay *into* health insurance becomes a fraction of what is paid out: you subtract of insurance company overhead, overhead of that burden on doctors who must change pricing due to it, and the increased cost of 'controls' and 'accountability' by the insurance company against fraud and just keeping track of the records. If you consider that 14% to be a baseline, just on the medical overhead side, then what is the baseline for the insurance company just to manage paperwork? 1% seems unlikely. 5% if it was run extremely well. In fact for most industries the non-work portion of the day for employees is considered at 20% and that is without profit added in.

If the insurance part is 20% and you throw in, say, a generous 12% profit... even 8% to be low... and you add in the cost of increase to doctors to keep track of the paperwork and pass that cost along, just what part of this 'insurance' is actually going to pay for medical expenses? You know, the stuff you use like doctor's visits and purchasing medications? 70% seems relatively fair, in that realm. So, if 15% of your overall budget goes to healthcare via insurance and you get a 70% useful return on that 15% you are actually spending, yes, 10.5% for healthcare. And that of your grandparents who didn't have insurance, back in the day when that was possible? I've read figures as high as 6-8% and as low as 3%.

That cost delta is lost money due to government mandates, regulations, tax subsidies and generally interfering with your health.

Weaning an addict off of their addiction is a slow process, but if you don't do it that addict begins to spend more and more for their addiction and get less and less return. That is the problem of Canada, which has across the country the same number of MRI machines as Philadelphia metro area. A country that is closing hospitals, even though there are sick people needing beds and where, in some towns, if you have an emergency, it will have to wait for a doctor. Or get flown to the US.

That is from a country that is always cited as having well managed government healthcare. A couple of years ago in France the death toll due to sick and elderly in the summer from doctors taking a month of vacation *mandated* by government shows how much worse things can go along that route. If subsidized insurance is so good, then why are the UK and Canada looking to slowly move away from it?

I would move on to education, but let me put forward something that no one likes: local education is not the business of the federal government. That comes from the US Constitution:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As the 'right to get educated' is not delegated, by the Constitution to the federal government, it is reserved for the States and the people. As it is not a federal responsibility but a wholly local one, and not enumerated in the Constitution it is not to be disparaged nor controlled by the federal government. That exact, same, argument goes for healthcare and 'greenhouse gases' as these are not a power reserved to the federal government. At each point in these things when the government has stepped in the results have been the same: performance has decreased across the market, markets turn into un-economic zones where government determines who can enter and who can't by raising the barrier to entry, and from those the people end up paying more. Lots more.

One of my earliest ideas was on education reform, and it did point out that since the book Why Johnny Can't Read came out, the reading scores across the US have remained absolutely flat:

That from Jerry Pournelle's site. Since 1958, I believe it was, the rate of Poor Johnny's reading has remained, for all the billions upon billions spent by the federal government, dead flat. Notice that the billions spent have not changed that one jot. You want better reading scores? Perhaps more money isn't the answer, as it certainly seems to be not helping when you DO add money in... and what was my cure for that? Ok, here is something that none of the 'change' folks will stomach, which is change away from something that is proven not to work:

If you want reading, writing, mathematical and other basic abilities to improve, you must *not* hand off responsibility to the Federal government for it. That is an abdication of your responsibility to exercise your rights as a citizen in the US. You, the voter, have signed it over to them by not asking for accountability, clear and precise objectives, a rewards system for actually achieving the goals of teaching children to learn *how* to learn. And then the *expert* educational people come in and tell you that they can do so much *more*... if you would just pay them... continually... and not hold them accountable... ever.

To anyone who reads this, and who thinks that the Federal government is the place to put the responsibility for teaching children, go look in the mirror and you will see the source of the problem. For nearly three generations the responsibility for the right of education has been handed over to *experts*, *qualified professionals*, politicians, bureaucrats and the ever loving school board you never voted for because you couldn't get *involved*. Three generations of parents have abdicated their responsibilities for exercising their rights and being held accountable. And then have the temerity to whine... 'But Johnny Can't Read!' Well, that is what you got: a set of institutions devoted to keeping illiteracy alive and at a steady rate.

There *is* an American answer. It is the *only* answer that will work in the long run. Not in one year. Not in five years. But certainly in time. And it will cost you time, precious time of your life... to learn about your children... to shoulder the true responsibilities of raising a child... and to *not* letting the 'Village' do it for you! And for those that feel that there is some collective need to help children from the highest level, I offer you this humble methodology.

1. Eliminate the Department of Education at the Federal level
2. Establish the goal of meeting the top academic scores in the world and set that as the 100% mark.
3. Take 2/3 of the money given to the Department of Education and Block Grant it out to the states. The states may not use this for anything other than education of children for those things being tested.
4. Each state will get funds based on that State's overall percentage score to the 100% mark for all of their students.
5. No school that refuses children based on race, gender, religion or other otherwise means tests children will be eligible for this money.
6. Children may not be instructed in religion with this money and all instruction related to Federal funds must be clearly separated from religious instruction and enrollment may not be held as contingent upon religious instruction.
7. Homeschoolers get paid directly the portion allotted to their child based on performance in standardized tests.

What this does is very simple: it removes the question of supporting religion with Federal funds from the equation. If Catholic Schools have a better methodology of teaching those basics needed for excellence in education, they may not require a student attend religious courses to get such schooling. Similarly, if a group of Satanists find a wonderful way to up test scores via teaching methodology, they are not to be barred from it. And at for those that perform *over* the 100% mark, they will get additional Federal funds as that would prove a sound investment for society, no matter how the teaching was done. And the public schools will be forced to *compete* and start to rely upon and lobby those people who can most *help* them: Parents.

It is far too easy to say to a Congressman: 'We are doing so poorly because we do not have enough money'... it is far harder to tell a parent living near that school the exact same thing, and keep that parent's children at your school. You have to offer *solutions* to parents or ask them to *help* in solving the problems. And if a school is falling apart, has students with failing grades, disinterested parents, sky-high property taxes and an apathetic school board... well... why exactly *should* they get more money?

Education cannot be the right of everyone and the responsibility of bureaucrats.

Yes, equal treatment under the law, set real standards, pay for performance and block grant the money. Public Schools *compete* against Private Schools, and money is given out to those who teach well via international standardized tests that everyone likes to point to. If you can teach children well, you should damned well get paid well FOR THAT. And if you CAN'T, then why should you get paid well AT ALL?

Would you pay to get your car repaired like we pay for education? No? Why not? Don't like lowest common denominator car repairs with subsidies going to those who don't repair cars well? Mind you, this is just the next generation of the Nation we are talking about, not like they will make life and death decisions based on poor schooling paid for by lackluster voters who can't be bothered to care about the future anymore...

So, if the federal government isn't a good steward of education, where else has it proven to be less than able?

Consider the problem of what the domestic, small producer oil companies faced in the 1990's when profits were low, supply plentiful and there was a problem of keeping our own, internal, oil production solvent as seen by Steve Layton, President and CEO of Equinox Oil Company, part of the Independent Petroleum Association of America in testimony given to the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural resources in 1999:

Today’s hearing is intended to examine the current state of the petroleum industry. I must say at the outset that I have never seen the domestic petroleum industry facing a more complicated and potentially devastating set of problems than it now does. The industry has faced a low oil price crisis for the past year, but today’s problems are very different and far more threatening than the ones that began the problem.

A year ago, the price crisis was started by a combination of events – the collapse of Asian economies, a warmer than normal winter in the northern hemisphere, and ultimately a market share fight between Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. The events created a surplus of oil in the international market and prices fell. The production most at risk was marginal oil wells in the United States – wells that produce about 20 percent of America’s domestic production, an amount equivalent to our imports from Saudi Arabia. And, I might add the wells from which I make my living.

Now, we have experienced a year of low oil prices – historically low prices that threaten the very heart of U.S. oil production. Domestic oil production is divided into three general areas – the onshore lower 48 states, offshore, and Alaska. The onshore lower 48 states account for about 60 percent of total domestic oil production. The Energy Information Agency has released a recent report that over 60 percent of this onshore lower 48 production comes from independents, a percentage that has increased by ten percent over the past ten years. It reflects an irreversible trend. Major oil companies are leaving the onshore lower 48 states. Particularly since 1986 when the last price crisis occurred, major oil companies have turned their attention away from the onshore lower 48 states shutting in or selling off their production. They have concluded that these wells do not produce the volumes they need to meet the return on capital that they seek. Majors now operate in the United States primarily in the offshore and Alaska, but more and more they are seeking their new production overseas.

[..]

In fact, we would submit that Iraq now controls world oil prices. We would submit that the current U.N. sanctions program has failed on two counts. First, it has failed in its primary mission to provide humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people. Second, it has handed Saddam Hussein the victory he lost in the Gulf War. He invaded Kuwait to control oil prices; now he does and he is penalizing his enemies.

[..]

First, world oil prices are essentially set by the last barrel sold. A year ago, Iraq exported about 700,000 barrels/day. In December 1998, it exported about 2.3 million barrels/day. By March it will have another 500,000 barrels/day of capacity on line. Iraq was the only OPEC country to boost its oil revenue in 1998. As other OPEC countries have reduced production to stabilize oil prices, Iraq has become the swing producer of world oil. The swing producer sets the price.

Second, Saddam’s objectives differ from other oil producers. He wanted higher oil prices when he invaded Kuwait – money he needed to build his military forces. Now, he can’t spend money to buy arms. But, he can – by keeping oil prices low – punish his enemies, first by reducing the income to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and others; second, by driving critical U.S. production to be shutdown and plugged forever.

Third, looking purely at demand and productive capacity, today’s surpluses should not drive prices to their historic depths. We estimate that worldwide production capacity currently exceeds demand by about 4 percent.

Nobody cared about the lack of support for oil producers when the cost of gasoline was low, and yet the small producers saw what was happening and reported on it to the US Senate: market manipulation happening during a price war between Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

America has a problem: we only care about things when they become a 'crisis' and don't care that our internal policy is so skewed that it creates crises because of our 'crisis' driven mentality.

The problem with the 'plans' of the candidates is that they are NOT POLICY: they are legislative views towards a branch of government that does NOT create legislation. Each of these candidates is depending on getting legislation PASSED by Congress when they BOTH sit in the very institution that does that. And as their plans have a high degree of accord, why don't they work NOW to get them passed?

Could it be that the plans of both are *losers* and can't get a majority to agree with them? That no amount of 'bipartisanship' can get them even *started* in Congress?

If these two cannot show Leadership in the very place that starts legislation, then why should a change of venue to an office that doesn't start these things *help*? Yes, some Presidents do get a 'honeymoon' period, which lasts far less than a year, these days, and my guess is the next President, no matter *who* is elected, will not even get a few weeks.... to get started a legislative process they have had YEARS to address.

I am supposed to find a difference between these two non-performers?

If the difference is between Big Government and Bigger Government, just how can I choose for someone that will, actually, represent my beliefs and ideals for how government is supposed to be run from the Executive branch and actually get a Smaller Government? Because they are not running to be Super-Duper Senator or Uber-Legislator, although that is what their 'plans' imply, but for running to be Head of the Federal Government, Head of State, Commander in Chief and Final Pardoner. And none of those things are looking at Education, Healthcare or even energy production. That power isn't given to the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches.

And if you try to cite some emanating penumbra' from the Preamble, may I suggest that I read the Preamble damned differently and don't see one jot or tittle handed to government there?

They both want to take more from me, you and all of our fellow citizens in the way of rights and responsibilities. I am supposed to like or even admire that in either candidate? Vote for one? Which one is it that is running to be President?

If these two suckers can't even figure out what a policy *is*, then why should I seek to entrust either with the highest office in the land? One is less worse? Less worse than *what*, praytell? The other? They aren't even running for the job of President but as Super Legislator as they don't understand the difference between the two. Even worse is that neither can do their present job in a way to secure liberty, not remove it.

As a responsible voter trying to safeguard my Nation and my liberty, and ensure that both of those get passed along undiminished to those that follow me, then voting for a candidate who promises to diminish my liberty is a non-starter. And they are *both* doing that in different areas and promising us the same old nostrums of some lovely government that actually can figure things out, with all proof for multiple decades and, indeed, a century or so, pointing out that the federal government is the worst place to put faith for doing anything with the powers not handed to it by the Constitution. Unfortunately we have been doing so for a long time, and the last time this country faced a government that felt it could dictate to the people what the people should do, there was a Revolution.

'Government mandated free market' is an oxymoron, in case it has escaped anyone's attention.

And yet that sort of comment can be upheld as being a great idea, profound even, if either of these individuals speak it.

The more I look at these two candidates the more I am disgusted by them.

Sphere: Related Content

The First Rule of Blogs

Actually there are a number of them! First rules of blogs from the 'there are no rules' to 'never attack Steve Jobs or Apple Computer' to 'only write about blog focus' to 'spelling doesn't matter'.

There are, however a couple of salient ones that are part of the blogging culture, and one is actually the hyperlink set-up of the net and 'pull' interest. So I will hit the second one first, as it is the unstated rule of all hyperlinked articles, paraphrasing from commentary TrentD left at Engadget:

If you are not interested, don't click the link. And you should certainly NOT comment about just how uninterested you are in the article.

That is absolutely red letter for those finding commentary or blog posts about themselves. It is a damned difficult thing to take, that 'misguided blog post' about YOU. It is a two-part rule and the first is the 'pull' part - you are asking for something to be handed to you and are prepared for what follows. As an individual you may not like it, may not enjoy it, and may even find that if you are the subject of the post that the individual has YOU all wrong.

As blogging is a relatively 'flat' media, for all of it having video, audio, pictures and words... lots of words... the Theodore Sturgeon Law comes into play (taken from Everything2, which gets it from The Jargon File by ESR):

Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud.

It is the Law of Information - 90% of it is crud. Sifting through the crud to find anything of interest is damned difficult, and when you click on a link there is a 90% chance that it will be crud. And if you comment about crud there is a 90% chance that your comment will be crud. Lets face it, our minds are not all that well honed and even when they are, the crud is overwhelming when compared to the non-crud content. Even better is that I expect that 90% of everything I WRITE is crud: that is the inherent nature of information production and weeding out the non-crud to deliver it is exceedingly difficult.

And I apply that exact, same rule to EVERYTHING I READ. Even from people I LIKE.

Then I apply my own rules to the what I write, as I consider them to be 'crud-filters':

1) No personal attacks

2) The Mommy Rule

3) Civility

4) Proposed actions must be do-able, conform to laws, treaties and The Law of Nations.

5) Moderation

I also apply my own, very personal rules of research, which includes checking information sources of finding if more than one source conforms to a given piece of information or data. That is difficult and some crud slips through perforce: 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81.

That is a derivative of Sturgeon's Law by using percentages - 90% of what you read is crud and anyone backing a given piece of information has a likelihood of 90% crud, but the resultant information only has an 81% chance of being crud. Yes, cross-checking yields a 9% reduction in crud level!

Math, you gotta love it.

These rules do have backing, however, as pointed out by Thomas Lifson on 29 DEC 2004, looking at Nick Coleman's personal attack on a blogger at Powerline, and decided that a personal and scurrilous attack was in order on that blogger at Powerline. What then starts, and has now plagued Nick Coleman ever since, is "career suicide by blogger". Like 'death by cop' where a criminal wishes to die so he rushes police officers while attacking them, this sort of attack is personal and the career diminishment permanent.

The next rule is one that I don't stick to, as the media of blogs often leads to blog-to-blog posting about topics in a post/rebuttal or commentary system outside of direct commentary. Bloggers who read other blogs of interest may find that the best place to comment is *not* in the comments section of a blog post but on their own blog. This does, however, leave the blog-less about out of things, and that also means that they have problems actually addressing the international free media of blogs in a coherent fashion. So, as I like the rule, from larimdame's Gene on 20 DEC 2004:

The First Rule Of Blogs Is That You Never Talk About Blogs

Yes, to those who see that it seems asinine, these folks posting stuff that is so wrong-headed that it needs to be addressed. And yet it comes from its own first rule that has been around for far longer than it, coming from George Bernard Shaw:

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig, you get dirty; and besides, the pig likes it.

From that you get the idea that if you wrestle with a blogger, where 90% of everything is crud, you will get cruddy perforce. No two ways about it, which is why a number of bloggers consider themselves to be 'muckrakers', which rakes through the muck to see what crud turns up and see if other crud is similar enough to it to, perhaps, be non-crud. Newspapers as pointed out over at Knox News by Michael Silence, is clueless on how this media actually works, which is more than just 'muckraking' but a concerted effort by people interested in topics actually examining those topics.

Of course most of that is crud.

Even worse is that the MSM and those who think by its past-terms of working don't realize that they are also in the crud production business, but with higher overhead. And one of the foremost clearinghouses for looking at the crud production system is Glenn Harlan Reynolds at Instupundit, the author of Army of Davids. He also had a number of links on the Nick Coleman affair and many others, so I will add in a few links to give an idea of how the crud/blogger internet system works:

Take his post and links on 22 JUL 2007 on how MSM misquoting people is the NORMAL course of affairs because stories are all about 'narrative' not facts. That is, really, too true for words, but words can be spilled on the topic.

Going on a Denial of Service attack against a blogger, like Jeff Goldstein, is extremely counter-productive and gives vindication to his viewpoints by having opponents so petty and puerile that they want to shut him up while attacking him personally. Which Insty documents on 08 JUL 2006. This is the 'never talk about blogs' rule and 'wrestling with pig rule' in force, along with the reason against personal attacks.

Documenting attacks by Glen Greenwald, on 23 MAR 2008, who doesn't realize he is committing career death by blogger.

More pertinent is when the powerful, be they government or otherwise, try to silence a blogger, the pig wrestling and attention garnered are counter-productive to the one who seeks to enforce power over opinion and commentary. On 08 OCT 2006 Insty covers this and this sort of attack has been, more or less, part and parcel of the blogging career of Patterico as soon as he started looking at misdeeds inside and outside of government.

The reason I am talking about this is that a previous post of mine on Nadhmi Auchi has gotten a response from him... well his UK solicitors, actually, wanting me to take it down. They wished for that attack on my freedom of speech to be kept quiet as to the exact contents of the letter, but the overall intent and its contentions of truths is actually something that I have gotten from a few scattered individuals now and again. Twice, maybe. Yes 630 some-odd posts here, another few handfuls at my Party site and a few humorous bits elsewhere and that is my negative feedback: a few calling me misguided, and a couple not understanding that quoting sources via fair use of content without seeking monetary gain is allowable. Hey! 90% of it is crud by Sturgeon's Law, even getting it down to 8!% ain't that hot, and I approach the feedback in the same way.

The request to pull down said post falls into the latter 'unable to recognize an analysis using multiple sources with quotations'. And as I can't talk about the direct points, as they have asked me to, I will talk about general intent and the necessary skills to actually read a post rife with quotations, source links and otherwise complex material. The use of multiple sources, independent of each other, is to get that crud level down, although it will never, ever disappear. It is that cross-analysis from multiple viewpoints that allows an individual to draw conclusions separate from any, single one of them. Further, as many sources have overlapping areas of insight, points self-reinforce even between news organizations from Russia, UK, US, France and international media do in that post. By looking at a broader sweep of a career, across multiple venues and trying to trace back as far as possible and then see how that career coincides with other analysis on related careers and networks, what happens is a consideration of those networks of individuals, the events around them and how those individuals act and interact.

Those individuals and institutions that attempt to stifle such examinations have an extreme problem in the modern world: so much is written and search engines makes indexing and cross-indexing an easily utilized tool for analysis. Not all facts and analyses are equally important, and the job of an analyst is to try to present those things that are considered to be relevant by that analyst and explain why they are important. Trying to disentangle a web of public and private interests that can cross legal bounds usually fell into the categories of 'muckracker', trained criminologist or 'conspiracy theorist' when the tools and availability of sources were low. The last thrived on that, while the first did what they could with limited data and extrapolation. I am not a trained criminologist but a self-taught systems engineer - anything that has a series of inputs, actions, activities, outputs and results is a system that can be examined. I lack specialized tools for things like network analysis of TCP/IP networks beyond the basics of how they work, but for sociological networks the availability of information and tools has changed the very foundation of how one can analyze the actions of people and institutions.

What that does is attempt to create a fact-based analysis, from multiple sources, to examine those patterns as they arise.

I do not seek 'truth' and leave that for theologians. Seeking 'truth' has gotten the rest of the media up to the point where they can no longer report on simple 'facts' and present them, and I detest that in their attempt to make facts fit to 'truthiness', as Jeff Goldberg has put forward. Truth without facts (that being documentary evidence, official records, cross collated interviews with multiple individuals, or simply doing a search on financial/criminal/public records across various sites) turn into this thing known as 'assertions'.

I am always open to factual evidence: point me to it and I will do an analysis on it, and ensure that it has a representation of some semblance of actual facts/events/etc.

When I present analysis and commentary, I move from the examination qualifiers, of how things look to be holding together, to a broader look across all events, connections, interactions and persons to try and derive something that is factually grounded. In doing that I try, desperately, to stay away from conspiracy theorist sites (and they are legion out there), fraudulent reporting (as in ungrounded commentary speaking about personal 'truths' or 'narrative'), and just the crud reporting that abounds. Uh-huh, I have my own internal 'crud list' that has demarcation dates for some areas where they went into 'truths' and 'narrative' and stopped doing factual examination.

As I try to leave some nuggets of useful information for those trying to deal with apparently scurrilous postings on blogs about subjects you know and love, which may happen to be yourself, there is a simple thing to do: ignore them.

They get lost in the noise and takes damned hard research to FIND them, and then, when found, you have the fact that an individual wants to 'pull' information and that 90% of it is crud as an understanding at the start. Giving any credence by trying to silence those putting them out, especially if there is a huge disparity in income or position in government or industry, is a very strange form of elevating said target and making them sympathetic. Even if you *win* you lose by having the worst PR possible: attacking someone who, if left alone, will not harm you.

The number of industrialists, politicians, and criminal figures who have had their reputation sullied by individuals are legion: Carnegie, Rockefeller, Capone, LaGuardia, Daley, Gates, Soros... near endless in its length. Very few of those would ever seek to confront those attackers as they made things worse for themselves if they did. And even those that they did silence had the final word in history, as those attempts to shut them up would cause a deeper examination of events, just as those doing the examination *wanted*. It was those that tried to leave a legacy to rehabilitate their good names that would, even if not particularly liked, would be respected. And at least Capone got the trash picked up on time.

Hire a PR firm if you have worries - they get paid to deal with making reputations shine and do some mud wrestling, although they understand that isn't much of a help. Otherwise your visibility is so low you are living by Brendan Behan's rule and no one wants to be seen as *that* desperate:

There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.

Sphere: Related Content

Currency and Corruption

For my previous articles on the Red Mafia and its allies:

Red Mafia and its connectivity

The Shockwaves of 5%, where jihad meets economics

The other source of change in Kenyan politics

Natural gas, crime and destruction

After the fall of Trans World Commodities

Nadhmi Auchi, connecting the dots between the candidates

The Bank of New York scandal and concordant Clearstream scandal and its ties through BNP/BNP-Paribas to the Al Mahdi and Al Taqwa banking systems had set up the largest financial system for the movement of illegal funds by putting them through legitimate channels that has ever been seen. To this day the complexity of Simon Reuben's system for financial movements amongst various off-shore havens through front accounts is one that stymies investigators. And yet its fallout continues to play through in various cases.

One of these is in the telecom industry as seen at RUSTELE in a report on a German probe into a Bermuda based fund, on 02 DEC 2005:

German prosecutors probing an alleged money-laundering scheme linked to a Bermuda-based fund are seeking judicial assistance for their probe from counterparts in other jurisdictions, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Friday’s newspaper report cited letters from prosecutors in Frankfurt. They mention suspicions that Russian telecommunications minister Leonid Reiman was involved in a plan to milk Russian state owned companies for cash or divert their assets elsewhere. Mr. Reiman is a close ally of President Vladimir Putin.

The prosecutors suspect Mr. Reiman “illegally enriched himself through a series of transactions”, and then set up a network of shell companies and trusts to secure and conceal more than $1 billion in assets, according to the report.

The Russian Telecommunications Ministry yesterday denied the reports and demanded an apology from the Journal.

The prosecutors are examining whether employees of Commerzbank AG may have helped the scheme. A bank board member has already resigned because of the Germany investigation and four other current and former officials of the bank including chief executive Klaus-Peter Muller are under suspicion for money laundering. A Commerzbank spokesman told the Journal that the bank fully backs its CEO believes no current staff are guilty of illegal activity in connection with the case.

The Journal reported that investigators are also probing whether the New York offices of Barclays Plc acted as middleman moving funds between firms in Cyprus and Bermuda.

Mr. Reiman, who has always maintained that he has done nothing wrong, says the allegations stem from a battle over a disputed stake in Megafon, Russia’s third largest mobile phone operator.

As previously reported in The Royal Gazette, billionaire Mikhail Fridman’s Alfa Group is fighting Jeffrey Galmond’s Bermuda-based fund IPOC for the Megafon stake. A former Galmond employee who is a convicted felon and Anthony Georgiou, who is Mr. Reiman’s former business partner, have given sworn testimony in the case although both acknowledge they have agreements to receive compensation from the Alfa Group or its allies.

Yes, organized crime fighting it out for a stake in a cellphone operator in Russia! That doesn't give one 'warm and fuzzies' when it comes to thinking about secure telephone calls routed through such a carrier. The IPOC fund, as the article goes on, serves as a system for accumulating funds for the takeover of Megafon, amongst other things, and is Bermuda based putting it outside of normal regulatory channels in the US and Europe. Mr. Galmond stood up IPOC to facilitate Mr. Reiman's movement of funds out of Russia so as to escape regulatory oversight there and in Europe by going through a series of fronts that are unregulated. In this case mostly in the Caribbean basin and Cyprus:

Mr. Galmond, the former Commerzbank executives and Vidya Sharma are the key suspects in the German probe. Mr. Reiman is not a criminal target of Western prosecutors since they do not have jurisdiction over the alleged crimes, which occurred wholly in Russia. The Journal said Russian authorities have reviewed some of the transactions and found no significant legal violations.

Mr. Reiman is named in search warrants and requests for international judicial assistance since prosecutors have “substantial evidence” that he participated in the initial crimes of stealing assets of the Russian companies and paying bribes to Russian officials, a spokeswoman for the German prosecutors told the Journal.

The German probe has caused similar probes in the US, Cyprus and Switzerland. The US Justice Department has begun its own investigation into the shell companies and the business dealings of the New York office of Barclays, which moved funds and converted currencies in many of the deals between firms in Cyprus and the Bermuda Commercial Bank which handles most of IPOC International Growth Funds operations in Bermuda, the newspaper said.

One of the prime ways to move funds is either through unregulated fronts pre-setup offshore via a legitimate source, hiding funds under much larger transactions (as was done in the BoNY scandal originally), by flying 'under the regulatory radar' through small fund transfers that are distributed across many outlets, or via the person-to-person banking systems like the hawala or Black Market Peso Exchange system. Here the legitimate source and multiple fronts are used to mask these transfers not only from the US but from Russia.

The WSJ would publish its article on 19 JAN 2006 (via RUSTELE)and examine the entire affair, starting with David Hauenstein, the IPOC fund manager in Switzerland, and his report on the fund:

Mr. Hauenstein’s affidavit said Mr. Galmond’s earlier sworn statements claiming sole ownership of the fund “could give a misleading impression”. But he added that he doesn’t know for certain whether Mr. Reiman is an owner of the fund, IPOC International Growth Fund Ltd.

In an emailed statement, Mr. Reiman said, “I have no relation to IPOC,” adding that, while he used Mr. Galmond’s law firm in the 1990s, “we are not linked by any business relationship at present.” He added that “it distresses me that because of someone’s poorly thought-out, possibly unprofessional actions, my name is mentioned in a conflict with which I am in no way connected.”

Mr. Galmond, in an interview this week, repeated his assertions that he is the sole owner of the fund and that the telecom minister doesn’t stand to benefit financially from any IPOC-affiliated trusts and companies.

He acknowledged his Denmark-based firm sent a letter to a Liechtenstein bank in June 2002 describing Mr. Reiman as “the ultimate beneficial owner of IPOC,” as well as “the economic beneficiary” of some Galmond-controlled companies, but he said the statements were made by his staff in error. Liechtenstein police seized the document from the bank and seized a similar document from a Liechtenstein law firm. The contents of the documents were described in the Hauenstein affidavit, though the documents themselves haven’t been introduced in court.

Mr. Galmond also disputed the accuracy of a 2001 internal memorandum that police seized from the office of Liechtenstein lawyer Daniel Kieber, which is also described in the affidavit. Mr. Hauenstein states that the memo claims Mr. Galmond himself, or one of his partners, “indicated that Leonid Reiman was the ‘economic beneficiary’ “ of three different trusts later used to set up IPOC. Mr. Galmond’s legal partner, F. Michael Boemke, who the memorandum said was also at the meeting, declined to comment.

This is a very strange sort of 'clerical' error to be made and affirmed multiple times by an organization and its owner, and then disputed by that same owner some years later. But the kicker comes as to why the thing starts to fall apart:

The fund’s legal retreat also followed the emergence of a previously undisclosed trust that Mr. Galmond set up in 1996 to benefit Mr. Reiman called Meridium. The Hauenstein affidavit alleges that, in meeting with an associate in 2001, Mr. Galmond “represented Leonid Reiman to be the economic beneficiary of Meridium”.

In at least five depositions or affidavits totalling thousands of pages that Mr. Galmond has filed in the past three years regarding IPOC and Mr. Reiman, he never disclosed the existence of Meridium. In the interview, Mr. Galmond said he had forgotten to disclose the trust and that it never paid any money to Mr. Reiman. At a separate press briefing, he publicly apologised to Mr. Reiman for any embarrassment he has caused Mr. Reiman.

The criminal inquiries grew out of a civil-court dispute between IPOC and Russian conglomerate Alfa Group over ownership of a stake in Russia’s third-largest wireless firm, OAO Megafon. Alfa has claimed in court filings that Mr. Reiman and Mr. Galmond are illicitly depleting Russian state telecom assets to fund a private telecom empire.

That is normally called 'embezzlement' amongst other epithets and legal terms attached to it. It is via a similar system that Semion Mogilevich was able to use the penetrated BoNY/Clearstream system to move funds via off-shore financial institutions to his Cyprus based Highrock Holdings and then from there into Ukraine via Dmitri Firtash, a holder in Highrock, to invest in the natural gas industry not only there but in places like Turkmenistan. Here the funds were taken from various sources, mostly Russian telecom, filtered through exterior systems or via stock holding in the US through Barclay's, and then into different mechanisms that then led to IPOC International Growth Funds in Bermuda and into Meridium. From there Mr. Rieman and Mr. Galmond could utilize those funds to go after the cellphone system of Megafon in contest against Mikhail Fridman's Alfa Group.

Over at Dirty Money Digest on 02 APR 2007 the source of this scheme is put into the context of utilizing the BoNY system, and for this the original Red Mafia article I did will stand you in very good stead:

Reiman triggered a process of privatising the St Petersburg phone company, creating a private company called Telecominvest in 1994 with the aid of his lawyer, Jeffrey Galmond. In the course of the privatisation, Reiman apeared to have acquired ownership of a large portion of the company.

His acquisition of the stock has not been fully explained or documented for understandable reasons. It would be alleged in subsequent litigation that he used his political position to steal the stock directly from institutions under his direct control in Russia. But others would say he acquired it at a market price from a third party for personal enrichment.

Galmond piloted the transfer of Telecominvest across many jurisdictions and companies. The company would be owned by Danish and Luxembourg vehicles, while the Russian state’s stake was reduced and Reiman’s increased.

The company made a particularly important stop-over in Germany. The German conduit for the assets was Commerzbank, a leading German institutional and corporate bank. Commerzbank calls itself ‘the creative relationship bank for the successful German Mittelstand, for major corporates and institutions in Europe as well as multinationals from all over the world.’ Galmond introduced Reiman to the bank, and the bank’s manager agreed to make a public statement to the effect that the bank had entered the Russian telecoms market on its own account.

In the course of negotiations, it would be made clear that secrecy in the transfer of beneficial ownership from Reiman to Galmand was essential. Reiman could clearly not be seen to hold the stock himself. He would not only have to explain how he had bought the stock on a ministerial salary, but also how, as minister, he could be a neutral arbiter when he owned a large share of the sector. The appointment of Commerzbank as his proxy was very attractive to the Minister and his advisers.

Commerzbank appears to have been untroubled by its client’s request for a fictional ownership structure. Revelations made long after the events in question show that the bank knew that a document declaring Reiman to be the beneficial owner was in existence. This triggered an investigation of the bank’s role by the German authorities. The bank’s head of Eastern European operations took responsibility and departed.

The asset’s final destination was Bermuda. Galmond had set up a mutual fund, of which he was declared the beneficial owner. This fund is called IPOC International Growth Fund Ltd and it is said to have stakes in Russia worth $1 billion. IPOC is a mutual fund, but with a single investor-- an unusual structure in itself. The fund was initially run by Vidya Sharma, a convicted fraudster, who had served time in a German prison for fraud. Sharma was a far from reliable employee as later litigation would reveal he had been bribed with over $1 million to give evidence against IPOC.

Vidya Sharma's bribers were, most likely, the very same Mikhail Fridman and the Alfa Group, just so you don't get a feeling that any of the players are inexperienced in the ways of these things:

Galmond had ridden the laundering roundabout with his IPOC fund for a number of years, no doubt earning considerable fees in the process, before his scheme hit an obstacle. This was the Russian oligarch Mikhail Fridman who decided to challenge his claim to ownership of a stake in a mobile phone company.

Fridman is the majority owner of a company called Alfa Group, which is today known as Altimo. Alfa owns stakes in VimpelCom, in a mobile phone operator in Ukraine and in Russia’s fixed line operator, Golden Telecom. Fridman made one early fortune by selling an interest in his oil business (originally acquired from US commodities trader, Marc Rich) to BP Amoco for $6.75 billion. He is no stranger to controversy. His company faces a lawsuit from the Canadian energy company called Norex, which alleges that Alfa issued invoices for fabricated services that were performed by offshore shell companies. Alfa has also been accused of bribing Ukrainian officials and is black-listed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Alfa Group is assisted by two controversial characters. The first is Pyotr Aven who has allegedly been engaged in various misdeeds, including drug trafficking. The other is Hans Bodmer who allegedly worked with Fridman and Aven to send instructions to IPOC to wire money through banks in New York. Bodmer recently pled guilty to the criminal conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to violate the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with a scheme to bribe foreign leaders.

Fridman is ably abetted by Leonid Rozhetskin a former investment banker who managed the New York listing of mobile phone network operator VimpelCom, part of the Alfa stable of telecoms interests. Rozhetskin is also a colourful character. He is an American-educated lawyer, who appeared on the cover of the Russian edition of Forbes, under the headline ‘The Most Dangerous shark in our waters.’

Rozhetskin’s activities threw a spoke into Galmond’s wheel. According to a suit brought by IPOC vs Leonid Rozhetskin, Mikhail Fridman, Pyotr Aven, Alfa Group Consortium, Alfa Capital Markets Inc, Alfa Telecom (n/k/a Altimo) and Hans Bodmer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, June 8 2006, Rozhetskin’s company LV Finance was touting around an option to buy a stake in a nascent Russian telecoms company called Sonic Duo. The funds were to be used as seed capital, and Galmond made an initial payment to LV of $15m in early 2001. He put further money into the business over the course of the year, bringing his investment to $40m. The result was the creation of a company called MegaFon which was formed by bringing together IPOC and a communications company called TeliaSonera, a merger of Finnish and Swedish interests.

That should give the flavor of the goings-on between Rieman/Galmond and Fridman/Altimo & friends. Suddenly it is a corrupt Russian Minister against a corrupt Russian Oligarch, and things no longer look as nice as, whoever wins, it will be a corrupt institution. And just look at that list of names, groups, companies, funds and various exchange groups! How about Marc Rich, the man who sold Iranian oil during the Hostage Crisis... oh, wait, he was *pardoned* for his past misdeeds by President Clinton. Bet all the rest got cleared up by an act or two of Congress, right?

Remember, post-2001 things are supposed to be so much better, but most of the triggers for this come after 2001 and due to greed by the individuals involved and not due to US banking and financial regulations. The question then starts to arise: did 2001 do much of anything to help things out?

Leaving that question up to the individual to decide, lets start out with the smallest fish, the mercenary 'testimony for bribery' individual of Vidya Sharma, as it usually helps to get a handle on a smaller player to understand what is going on with the larger ones. The Guardian would look at this story on 07 DEC 2003 as the initial lawsuits started to be presented and try to puzzle its way through IPOC, Alfa and MegaFon, and come up with this little bit on Vidya Sharma after looking at the mess that unfolds:

IPOC claims it agreed to buy 25 per cent of MegaFon from Russian-based investor LV Finance in 2001, and has since handed over around $74m in transfers and loans towards the purchase. But Alfa, it is alleged, bought LV Finance in August, and transferred the stake into its own portfolio. Alfa challenges this version of events, insisting it is the rightful owner of the shareholding.

Already there have been legal skirmishes in Bermuda, the Bahamas, Rotterdam and elsewhere. In the British Virgin Islands, IPOC secured a court order appointing receivers to take control of Alfa's assets in the jurisdiction. Who owns what will only be fully decided at an international arbitration in Switzerland, which starts this month but could take years.

Nor is ownership the only issue. Under MegaFon's shareholder agreement, Alfa is prevented from taking control of the 25 per cent stake because it has a significant investment in Vimpelcom, one of the company's industry competitors. Alfa is trying to overturn the shareholder agreement in a Moscow court, arguing that since it is governed by Swedish law it should be rendered null and void in Russia.

If the court accepts this argument, says IPOC's general manager Roland Bopp, it will leave all international investors in Russia without proper legal protection. 'We believe the integrity of contracts with Russian companies is at stake,' Bopp said.

[..]

Aspersions have also been cast on some IPOC executives. Its co-founder Jeff Galmond used to advise Telecominvest, another major player in the sector, but Bopp denies the firm has any relationship either with Telecominvest or with its former president Leonid Reiman, who is now Russia's Telecoms Minister.

More damaging was the revelation in October that Vidya Sharma, a former Merrill Lynch banker and IPOC's former president, had a conviction for fraud. Bopp says IPOC had been unaware of the conviction and that Sharma left the firm on the day it emerged.

Glad such a guy left Merrill Lynch... and if you had any dealings with them prior to 1992 you might want to think about the fact that some of that may have gone through him, as we will see a bit later. Caribbean Net News on 24 NOV 2004 has a look at some of the ongoing legal matters and the actual testimony of Vidya Sharma:

The written ruling was a response to concerns raised by defendants in the case, including members of the Alfa Group, that the $40 million security deposit paid by IPOC could be the proceeds of money laundering. Defendants didn’t want to incur the risk of accepting any funds that themselves could become the subject of future litigation because their origin was unclear. Justice of Appeal Gordon noted that Vidya Sharma, former president and director of IPOC, gave evidence that IPOC was “part of a sophisticated money-laundering scheme that has been taking illegitimately obtained money out of Russia and cleaning that money for reinvestment into Russia.” Furthermore, Justice of Appeal Gordon cited Alfa’s concerns that “IPOC has demonstrated a marked reluctance to disclose details of who its beneficial owners are.”

Justice Gordon acknowledged that in making the decision, the court took into consideration that “the evidence indicated that these alleged acts of criminality had been on-going for nearly a decade.” Affidavits and “17 or 18 large ring binders struggled to contain” evidence entered for the court’s consideration, he noted.

Yes, ongoing for at least a decade by 2004, which makes this a pretty nasty affair even as it started to unravel in 2001. Also note that this case involves the banking and financial laws of: British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, Russia, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, Ukraine, Netherlands, and lovely little Switzerland. I am, probably, leaving out a few countries as it is always necessary to cross up as many financial regulations as possible amongst as many Nations as possible to obscure financial wrong-doings. And by placing this starting in the 1991-1994 era, that places it pretty close to the founding of the BoNY scandal in the US.

Another look at Vidya Sharma, and a bit more revealing, comes from the Times Online (UK) on 09 NOV 2003, just as Vidya Sharma turned on IPOC:

Roland Bopp, general manager of IPOC and a former chief executive of Deutsche Telekom America, says: “We expected the shares to be delivered in August and were shocked to find out that they had apparently been sold to companies belonging to Alfa Group. You cannot sell the same stake twice.”

[..]

But Fridman will say that IPOC’s only major stake is in Megafon and, rather than being backed by Western investors, it is a vehicle for unnamed Russian interests. Its only other holding appears to be a $2m stake in a Kyrgyzstan telecoms company called Bitel.

Until recently the president and director of IPOC was Vidya Sharma, described in the court documents as “a former executive vice-president of Merrill Lynch”. Sharma left Merrill Lynch in December 1992 after “exceeding his powers”. It has emerged that he was jailed in Germany in the late 1990s for fraud and embezzlement. On Friday it was revealed that Sharma has now left IPOC.

One of the other IPOC directors is David Hauenstein, described as a Swiss banker and certified accountant. But his only recorded ownerships are a cheese shop in Zug, Switzerland, and an interest in a transport firm called Speedy Ant Transport.

The routes that corruption will go through are various and often a bit strange, not only a cheese shop but 'Speedy Ant Transport'! From the mundane to the quaint, you cannot get away from how such activities as embezzling funds to re-invest at a later time and being opposed by normal criminals all have the feeling of operating in an atmosphere not only far removed as in the banking laws, but in the everyday. You just never know *who* is funding that cheese shop, do you?

On 31 JAN 2006 the KYC News would take a look at the Bermuda part of the case in its Offshore Alert newsletter as the Bermuda Minister of Finance would hire KPMG Financial Advisory Services to look into this as one of KPMG FAS' employees was named in the civil lawsuit put in the US District Court for DC by IPOC. The briber was Diligence LLC characterized as a DC intelligence gathering firm headed by a former UK MI5 director and employing former directors of the CIA and FBI. The Royal Gazette on 20 OCT 2006 would summarize the Offshore Alert article:

Several other local businesses have also been linked by Offshore Alert to the scandal, including Bermuda Commercial Bank and/or its affiliates and the law firm of Wakefield Quin and/or its affiliates, including Roderick Forrest, Wakefield Quin's 'Senior Counsel, Corporate' who served not only as a director of at least five IPOC firms but also as vice president of IPOC International Growth Fund.

In addition, a US intelligence firm has agreed to pay $1.7 million in damages to settle an allegation that it corrupted KPMG's investigation into IPOC, according to Miami-based OffshoreAlert.

The newsletter said Diligence LLC, which settled the civil suit brought by KPMG, Mr. Butterfield and Mr. Morrison in June, had been accused of using bribery, deception, and computer hacking to obtain confidential information about the investigation into alleged money laundering by IPOC and 11 Bermuda-registered affiliates.

Businessweek would look at the connection between Diligence LLC and IPOC on 26 FEB 2007 in Spies, Lies & KPMG:

In the spring of 2005, Guy Enright, an accountant at KPMG Financial Advisory Services Ltd. in Bermuda, got a call from a man identifying himself in a crisp British accent as Nick Hamilton. Hamilton said he needed to see Enright about matters of utmost importance.

Over the course of two meetings, Hamilton led Enright to believe he was a British intelligence officer, according to a person familiar with the encounters. He told Enright he wanted information about a KPMG project that Hamilton said had national security implications for Britain. Soon, Enright, who was born in Britain, was depositing confidential audit documents in plastic containers at drop-off points designated by Hamilton.

But Nick Hamilton was not an agent of Her Majesty's secret service, and the documents never found their way to the British government.

Nick Hamilton was in fact Nick Day, now 38, a onetime British agent and co-founder of Diligence Inc., a Washington private intelligence firm that counts William Webster, former director of the CIA and FBI, among its advisory board members. Diligence's client was not Britain's Queen, but Barbour Griffith & Rogers, one of the most formidable lobbying firms in Washington. Barbour Griffith represented a Russian conglomerate whose archrival, IPOC International Growth Fund Ltd., was being audited by KPMG's Bermuda office.

A 2006 scandal involving Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ ) put the issue of corporate espionage in the headlines. Diligence's methods, revealed in court documents and interviews by BusinessWeek, show how far some in the corporate investigation business will go.

Q: How do you go from Russian organized crime to Hewlett-Packard?

A: Through a company has an ex-Director of the FBI and CIA William Webster on its advisory board.

That is known as being 'mercenary': hiring yourself out to a lobbying firm fronting for the Alfa Group and, yes, that is how I view 'lobbying groups' - they are 'front organizations' only given a fancy name on the legal side. Now, how much did Barbour, Griffiths & Rogers get to be such a front organization? Popping over to Open Secrets, one can get a look at their 2006 numbers and find Alfa Bank, that lovely Russian banking group gone international with Mikhail Fridman on the Board of Directors, at $580k. Looking at them, and they only go through BGR, we can get their rundown: 2004 - $360k, 2005 - $680k, 2006 - $580k, 2007 - $420k, 2008 - $110k.

For its cash to BGR and getting Diligence LLC to do some corporate espionage against KPMG FAS, the entire thing would unravel:

Diligence was paid handsomely for its work. An invoice produced in a federal court proceeding in Washington involving IPOC and Diligence shows that Barbour Griffith was billed by Diligence "For Bermuda report and Germany work--A Telecom." Diligence was paid $25,000 a month, plus $10,000 a month for expenses, according to documents reviewed by BusinessWeek and an interview with a person familiar with the matter. The company was also paid a $60,000 bonus for acquiring the first draft of KPMG's audit of IPOC. Diligence's total take couldn't be determined.

The undercover Project Yucca ended after someone--it remains unclear who--dropped a bundle of papers at the Montvale (N.J.) office of KPMG on Oct. 18, 2005. The papers included Diligence business records and e-mails with details of Project Yucca.

On Nov. 10, 2005, KPMG Financial Advisory Services sued Diligence for fraud and unjust enrichment in U.S. District Court in Washington. On June 20, 2006, the case settled. Diligence paid KPMG $1.7 million, according to a person familiar with the settlement.

On June 15, 2006, IPOC sued both Diligence and Barbour Griffith & Rogers in the same District Court, alleging civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and other misdeeds. That case is pending. Gavin Houlgate, a spokesman for KPMG, declined comment, as did attorneys for KPMG at the New York law firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed. Kirill Babaev, a vice-president at Alfa's telecom arm in Moscow, said in a statement when asked about Alfa's involvement in the Diligence operation: "We are...not a party in any litigation with IPOC, and therefore cannot comment on any rumours or speculations in this regard."

Barbour Griffith & Rogers' most famous co-founder is Haley Barbour, who is now governor of Mississippi. Barbour left the lobbying firm in 2003, before the Diligence operation began. Another Barbour Griffith co-founder, Ed Rogers, was an early investor in Diligence. The lobbying firm rented space at its Pennsylvania Avenue offices to Diligence. Edward MacMahon, a lawyer for Barbour Griffith, says the firm has done nothing wrong and that no one affiliated with Barbour Griffith currently has an equity stake in Diligence. A person familiar with Diligence says the firm's shareholders are CEO Day, former U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Burt, Edward Mathias of Washington-based private equity firm Carlyle Group, and Buenos Aires private equity firm Exxel Group. Burt confirms he is Diligence's chairman but declines to discuss Project Yucca. Mathias confirms he is an investor in Diligence but says he is unaware of the Bermuda events. Exxel Group lists Diligence among its portfolio companies on its corporate Web site but did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

It's unclear whether Diligence broke any British or American laws. In an interview at his Washington office, Day says he and his firm always stay within the law but have learned much since 2005: "As an organization we've changed a lot as a result of everything we've been through in the last year." He says Diligence has "spent a lot of time training our staff as to what they can and cannot do."

Now, I think I can do a bit of selective pulling of names without doing any harm to the Offshore Alert newsletter as they are the names of those associated with Diligence LLC with just a bit of re-formatting to make it easier to read:

The firm’s senior management includes

• Richard Burt, Executive Chairman, who is described as a former Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to Germany who “served as the chief arms control negotiator in the first Bush Administration”, and
• Nick Day, CEO, who is described as “a former officer of Britain’s Security Service (MI5) and a member of the U.K. Special Boat Service”.

Diligence’s “Advisory Board” includes

• Judge William Webster, “former Director of the CIA and the FBI”;
• Lord Charles Powell, “former advisor on foreign affairs and defense to British Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major”;
• Robert Blackwill, “former Deputy National Security Advisor and U.S. Ambassador to India”;
• Thomas F. McLarty, formerly “President Clinton’s Chief of Staff and then Special Envoy to the Americas”;
• Rockwell Schnabel, “former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union and earlier, Deputy Secretary of Commerce”;
• Ed Rogers, “former deputy assistant to President George H. W. Bush”; and
• Arnaud de Borchgrave, formerly “Newsweek magazine’s long-term chief foreign correspondent”.

There, that is much easier to read! Yes, a tangled web that gets to something pretty simple when you get down to it: Russian corruption both in government and outside it vying for control of a major telecom player inside Russia utilizing off-shore resources to ensure their funding and fight each other over control of said organization, with the Oligarchs going through a front firm in the US to get spies in the US private sector to get information on the other groups holding as they are being investigated in Bermuda. Easy, no?

Now its time to backtrack to Bermuda, having taken a look at how Russian corruption can spread to the US in... well... not easy steps but quick ones. Looking at the Bermuda Commercial Bank, mentioned in Offshore Alert and another place or two, it is interesting to see their connections to a man by the name of John Deuss. Mr. Deuss is a Dutch oil tycoon who got picked up on money laundering charges according to an al-Reuters report at Caribbean Net News on 16 OCT 2006:

HAMILTON, Bermuda (Reuters): A Dutch businessman and oil tycoon wanted in Europe for questioning about money laundering and other illegal activities has been arrested in Bermuda, authorities said on Saturday.

They said police in the British mid-Atlantic territory took John Deuss, 64, once considered one of the world's most important independent oil traders, into custody on Friday.

Deuss recently stepped down from the board of Bermuda Commercial Bank and Bermudan prosecutor Kulandra Ratneser said the warrant for his arrest, originally issued by authorities in the Netherlands, seeks his extradition for questioning about alleged handling of stolen property, money laundering, and belonging to a criminal organization.

[..]

Deuss supplied the South African apartheid regime with oil in the 1980s. He has also traded in Russian oil, before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Deuss stepped down as chairman and chief executive officer of Bermuda Commercial Bank last month after it became public the bank's leading shareholder, First Curacao International Bank, was being investigated for money laundering in the Netherlands and on the Dutch Caribbean island of Curacao.

First Curacao International is wholly owned by Deuss, who has had a home in Bermuda for about 30 years.

First Curacao International linked to the Bermuda Commercial Bank by being its leading shareholder and its owner being John Deuss. But his involvement in things actually goes far further back than just the recent money laundering scandal, and stretches across a few continents. From Russia Intelligence on 26 OCT 2006 there is The Strange Case of Banker John Deuss, that looks at that history:

Deuss is widely known in international oil circles for having excelled as a trader in the early 1970s, working in particular with the USSR and handling part of Soviet petroleum exports until the late 1980s. Reputedly close to American and British intelligence services, he won renown in the 1980s for flouting the oil embargo on South Africa through his companies Transworld Oil and JOC Oil. In the 1990s, he acted as “manager” of Oman’s oil operations and, in that capacity, took part in a number of major operations that included construction of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, the famous CPC.

The owner of two banks, one in Bermuda (Bermuda Commercial Bank) and the other in Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles (First Curacao International Bank), Deuss lived the life of a financial high flyer in recent months, with homes in Bermuda and Holland, a stud farm in Canada, two private jet aircraft and the“Fleurtije,” the biggest yacht in Bermuda where yachts tend to be big. Over those months, however, the Dutch and British authorities were beavering away to investigate fraud involving the recovery of VAT on exports. The scams, which normally resulted in ill-gotten gains landing in offshore banks (the Netherlands Antilles and British territories in the Caribbean) are said to cost the finance ministries of European Union countries a cool $50 billion a year. They involve vast networks that import and re-export goods such as cellular telephones and operate through front companies that end up by recovering VAT on the transactions. In the space of two years, the assets of Deuss’ bank in Curacao are said to have soared from $60 million to $25 billion, with the cash being spread among several thousand accounts.

That would make Simon Reuben proud, to know that someone had decided to one-up him by getting several thousand accounts spread globally to hide such funds... although it is probably electronically tracked unlike what Mr. Reuben did. This starts to tie a few things together, though: the Transworld Oil connection with the Caspian Pipeline Consortium and the cellular telephone scam showing the ability to link into the entire MegaFON affair in Russia.

In fact these definitely tie in as Russia would actually try something different this time:

By a strange coincidence, it so happens that Russia, which fears it could be contaminated by this type of crime, has been cooperating with the concerned EUnations, and particularly with the Netherlands (which has also just been invited to take a stake in the Nord Europe gas pipeline project alongside Gazprom). It also so happens that Deuss’ banks harboured considerable amounts of Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s money just before the boss of Yukos was arrested in October, 2004. Deuss was a close friend of Stephen Curtis, a British lawyer who held power of attorney over most of the offshore affiliates of Menatep and Yukos, in direct league with Khodorkovsky and his partner, Leonid Nevzlin. Curtis was killed in the spring of 2005 in a helicopter crash in southern England. Is there a link between these elements and could Deuss be the victim of Russian revenge, with the Dutch acting as stand-ins for Moscow ? There is no evidence to back that possibility for the moment even though Deuss’ friends believe it could well be the case. Russia Intelligence will obviously keep a close eye on developments.

Yukos, the neverending story of how one representative in Texas can have the entire assets of a Russian business considered to be under US law, for all the fact that their sole ownings are a house in Texas. You have to love that concept! Beyond that, however, is the money from the Reiman/Galmond/IPOC funds winding up going through the Bermuda bank *owned* by John Deuss. And as Reiman was part of the "Yeltsin Group", or those coming to financial and ministerial success under Boris Yeltsin (although not loyal to him) a certain kind of connectivity starts to show up of similar people doing similar things through same institution all knowing the same people. Not necessarily a 'conspiracy' but, perhaps, more of a 'business operational agreement' given how much was being looted out of Russia during those years being far more than what *just* a conspiracy could do.

Looking at his Russian contacts is Kommersant which has an article from 17 OCT 2006 on John Deuss and his work in the USSR and then Russia:

Although Russia does not figure in the missing trader schemes, the Deuss case is likely to have an impact here as well. Deuss owned companies that were active in the USSR, Russia and the CIS from the 1970s through the 1990s. Deuss was involved in the foundation of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium as the head of the Omani company Oryx, which has a 7-percent share in the consortium. That company is now controlled by the Omani government. He was also involved in the conflict over SIDANKO. Deuss' relations with the Soviet Union are even more interesting. He guaranteed deliveries of part of the Soviet oil that entered the world market and was taken to court by the Soviet government on accusations of stealing $122 million on one of his contracts. The USSR reached an out-of-court settlement with him and his companies continued exporting oil from the former USSR through the beginning of the 1990s. Deuss is known around the world for the activities of his company JOC Oil, which sidestepped the OPEC embargo to deliver oil to the United States in 1980 and 1981. It also evaded U.S. and EU embargoes of the Republic of South Africa. Deuss, a multimillionaire, has been a permanent resident of Bermuda for several years and heads offshore banks around the world.

John Deuss, then, is out not to support anyone but himself, easily playing 'both sides' of any game to look for his own advantage. Very few people actively tried to cheat the USSR, and yet he would get through that and *still* maintain his contracts with them. This takes us back to the RUSTELE site for another article on 02 DEC 2005 on the topic looking a bit more at the US side of things, especially Barclay's:

The chief money-laundering suspects named in the German probe include Mr. Galmond, who denies any wrongdoing, the former Commerzbank executives, who also have denied any improper conduct, and Vidya Sharma, who served time in a German prison for fraud before being hired to run Mr. Galmond's Bermuda mutual fund. Mr. Sharma's lawyer didn't respond to a phone call seeking comment.

Mr. Reiman is named in search warrants and requests for international judicial assistance, German prosecutors' spokeswoman Doris Moller-Scheu said. That's because prosecutors have "substantial evidence" that he participated in the initial crimes of stealing assets of the Russian companies and paying bribes to Russian officials, she said.

Commerzbank allegedly helped finance the expanding empire and conceal its true ownership, while Barclays handled many of the suspect transactions between its numerous offshore entities, according to investigators. A spokesman for Barclays in London said the bank can't comment on any law-enforcement matters.

A Commerzbank spokesman says the bank fully backs its CEO, Mr. Muller, who is one of the suspects, and it believes no current staff are guilty of illegal activity in connection with the case.

The U.S. Justice Department has begun its own investigation into the business dealings of the banks and shell companies, according to people familiar with the inquiries. It declined to comment.

The New York office of Barclays, the focus of the U.S. inquiry, acted as the middleman moving funds and converting currencies in many of the deals between firms in Cyprus and Bermuda, transaction records show. The bank acts as a "correspondent" bank for the Bermuda Commercial Bank Ltd., which handles most of Mr. Galmond's operation on Bermuda. John Deuss, chairman of Bermuda Commercial, declined to comment.

The Galmond fund in Bermuda, IPOC International Growth Fund Ltd., has been under investigation by the Bermuda government, which is looking into whether it violated regulations that require mutual funds to have many shareholders. Mr. Galmond acknowledges he is secretly the primary owner of IPOC, but the fund denies any impropriety.

So, what are the chances that having Red Mafia ties with some parts of the Yeltsin Group, that Mr. Deuss would not know of a large scale money laundering system going through a bank that he owns? To me those are down to two - slim and none. Where this will take us is to the MI5 and the unfortunate death of Stephen Curtis. An article at OffshoreNet looks at this by Thomas Catan on 14 MAY 2004 for the Financial Times entitled Before the Crash, examining how Stephen Curtis went from being a a retiring millionaire to the business of the Russian Oligarchs:

Today they are among the richest people in the world. But, in the early days, many used dubious means to reach their goals, causing Russians to fear that communism had been replaced by a form of "gangster capitalism".

During those days, Curtis was very much in evidence in Russia. As one western money manager with lengthy experience investing in Russia explained, the Russians in the early days were very unsophisticated and were grateful for the services he provided. Or, as a British lawyer who sometimes crossed paths with him said, Curtis was "a bag-man for the oligarchs".

Documents obtained by the FT show that for clients such as Yukos, Curtis set up a dizzying array of shell companies in tax havens around the world apparently to conceal money from prying eyes.

His partner in many of these schemes was Peter Bond, a financier based on the Isle of Man who has been investigated - but not prosecuted - by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies in connection with suspected money-laundering schemes around the world. He is facing disqualification proceedings by financial regulators on the Isle of Man after admitting to hiding millions of dollars for clients at the trial of a US stock promoter convicted of money laundering and fraud. Bond was granted immunity from prosecution by the US authorities in exchange for his testimony.

Inquiries and public records searches have revealed close links between Bond's company, called Valmet, Curtis's law firm and Khodorkovsky's Menatep Group. Just how close was made clear at an encounter between Curtis and Bond on June 1 1999, at Curtis & Co's elegant London offices at 94 Park Lane. A confidential "attendance note" of the meeting, obtained by the FT, shows that Curtis and Bond created a financial structure involving a web of shell companies stretching from Gibraltar to Cyprus and the Isle of Man.

The purpose, the documents strongly suggest, was to conceal profits from the sale of Russian oil so that they would not appear on Yukos's balance sheet. This would allow the company's principal Russian shareholders to avoid paying taxes and could also be used to deceive the minority shareholders - often western investors. The structure, one of several referred to in the documents, was codenamed "Jurby Lake" after a place on the Isle of Man.

Stephen Curtis would parlay his skills and law practice for the Yeltsin Group, Yukos and Bank Menatap, the latter of which was involved with Mogilevich and the BoNY penetration. What Khodorkovsky and others sought was to compromise the western financial institutions to hide money gained from Yukos and other enterprises via Stephen Curtis and Peter Bond. This was explicitly stated:

Did the Russian oligarchs know what Curtis and Bond were doing on their behalf? It seems very likely that they did - indeed, that both Khodorkovsky and Lebedev had personally authorised the creation of this financial structure. In a letter to a Yukos lawyer, also obtained by the FT, Curtis outlined a potential conflict of interest raised by his ownership stake in two shell companies involved in his financial structure. In the process, he made clear that his work had been authorised at the highest levels of the Yukos hierarchy.

"You, Mr Lebedev and Mr Khodorkovsky," he wrote, "were made aware of this conflict at a very early stage and kindly indicated that you did not believe it would prevent me in assisting in preparing this Structure."

[..]

Two other officials are mentioned in the minutes of the meeting and in personal correspondence from Curtis: Viktor Prokofiev, then a Menatep official, and Vasily Alexanyan, a lawyer for Yukos. A Menatep spokesperson said Prokofiev no longer worked at the company. Alexanyan, who now represents the interests of the principal shareholders, could not be reached for comment. Questions submitted to him via Yukos were not replied to.

While Mogilevich was interested in getting hard cash out of the US and Canada, and the BoNY system used to shift fraudulently earned money out, Stephen Curtis and Peter Bond were involved with Menatap seeking to shield oil money, also hard currency, from the record sheets so as to avoid taxation and distributing fair value to smaller stock holders in Yukos. The parallels to shield Trans World, YBM Magnex and the other Oligarchs through the BoNY/Reuben structure looks very similar to the work being done in the case of Yukos for the reason of needing the same obscurity through diversity of off-shore financial institutions.

Here is a bit of a look further on at how that worked in this case:

The work that Curtis and Bond performed for Khodorkovsky and the principal Menatep shareholders in Yukos was wide-ranging and extensive, and the relationship between them deep and long- standing. This helps to explain why Curtis was appointed managing director of the Russian billionaire's main holding company at a time when the Russian government was aggressively moving against its principals. Curtis was one of the very few people who knew his way through the maze of Menatep's complicated finances. Naturally, because he had helped to create it.

Following the complex trail of shell companies that hop- scotch from one secretive offshore haven to another shows that both Curtis & Co and Valmet have had important ties to Menatep, as well as to each other. In some cases, they have shared office space; in others, directors or shareholders. But behind both Valmet and Curtis & Co, Russian billionaires on the run from Russia's government can very often be discerned.

For example, Curtis & Co is mentioned in the UK registration information for Totbest Ltd, a now-liquidated company that has had all the key Menatep shareholders in Yukos on its board. The office for Yukos UK is based at Curtis & Co's Park Lane premises. And Curtis's number two, James Jacobson, sat on the Yukos UK board until 2002, when the company moved to Cyprus "for tax purposes". Jacobson declined to be interviewed for this article, referring questions to a public relations representative from APCO Worldwide. "[Jacobson] is not doing any media at the moment," said his spokesman, Simon Whitehead. "He's just sorting out his affairs and Stephen's affairs and making sure that things are running [at the office]."

This is the 'trust network' concept used by multiple organizations to hide finances: Becs and Benex shared the same individuals controlling them, while Benex and Blond Management shared office space. That said, because numerous individuals in a given network can be used on a global basis, such as how Nadhmi Auchi parlayed a few high ranking Ba'athists and cousins into a global financial misdirection system called the Al Mahdi, and it would include the al Qaeda Al Taqwa system, the HAMAS/Citibank joint venture, and contacts with the Menatap group via Marc Rich and others. To accomplish these things each of these organizations cast its own set of front companies, fraudulent financial vehicles, bank accounts and even couriers to get around the financial 'safeguards' put in place in the banking exchange system. The penetration of the Clearstream clearinghouse for financial transactions to Europe by Menatap and Auchi would mean that the SWIFT system, used to clear other transactions, would also be used to clear *these* transactions.

In this case the Valmet company name would be deployed in many places, and yet retain the same cast of characters wherever it showed up:

Valmet has also had long-standing links with Menatep, guiding its emerging billionaires through the complicated maze of offshore havens. An old Menatep prospectus lists Valmet (Bermuda) as a subsidiary, and company documents show that Menatep has held a 20 per cent stake in the overall Valmet Group. Bond's former partner at Valmet, Christopher Samuelson, told the FT that Menatep held shares in Valmet until 2001.

Completing the triangle between Khodorkovsky, Curtis and Bond is a series of factors linking Curtis & Co with Valmet. They have shared directors: Samuelson, who ran Valmet with Bond, was also a director of another Curtis company, 94 Park Lane Ltd. And the registration documents of 94 Park Lane Ltd reveal that its ultimate holding company is Valmet Holdings Ltd in Gibraltar. In fact, so close was Valmet to Curtis that its former marketing director, Branson Bean, told the FT that "we actually had offices in his building at one point".

[..]

While at Valmet, Bond worked on several controversial deals for Yukos and its principal shareholders at Menatep. Western investors, led by the reclusive US financier Kenneth Dart, launched lawsuits in 1999 contending that Valmet had been instrumental in a bare-faced scheme by the majority Russian shareholders to defraud them. Dart successfully sued in the Isle of Man to halt a secret effort to transfer Yukos's prize assets out to a wide array of dummy companies in jurisdictions around the world. Several of them had been set up or were operated by Valmet. Valmet later claimed that the transaction never got beyond the "early stages of contemplation", according to The New York Times.

Bond was also involved in a second dispute between Menatep and western investors, which again involved Dart. After buying a huge Russian titanium producer called Avisma from Menatep in 1997, the investors alleged in lawsuits on the Isle of Man and in Ireland that they were being swindled on a massive scale. They said they had discovered that tens of millions of dollars a year in profits were being drained by an offshore company called TMC, which was owned and operated by one Peter Bond. The investors claimed that the profits were finding their way back to Menatep. In 1998, the investors got a judge on the Isle of Man to freeze $20m that TMC was holding at Barclays Bank. TMC was forced to settle the case, returning some $8m to investors.

Back to Barclays, are we? This is proving to be an interesting bit of work, really, how multiple fraud schemes revolve around a set of financial institutions that appear again and again. Just as BNP-Paribas would support Oleg Deripaska in his pursuit of getting the assets of Trans World Commodities with the same limited suite of financial institutions, here this larger web concentrates on a few key institutions that have either lax practices or strict practices externally but lax ones internally. This scheme was part of the larger BoNY scandal:

Partly because of its role in the Avisma case, Valmet was also one of the first companies that US and Swiss investigators looked at during the Bank of New York money laundering scandal that erupted in August 1999 after more than $7bn in suspect Russian funds was found to have been funnelled through the venerable bank. It didn't help that Valmet had been moving the funds alleged to have been looted from Avisma though accounts at the bank.

Avisma, as of late, has been on the receiving end of help in Ukraine from Group DF, Dmitri Firtash's institution parlayed together after its deals with Gazprom which the primaries had been able to get in place three separate and continuous times, under different organizational names. The outlook, internally to such organizations is plain, and Peter Bond would testify about them under immunity, here about Robert Brennan a shady US stock promoter:

In the courtroom, Bond was remarkably candid about what he did, while never admitting wrong-doing himself. He testified that he set up dozens of dummy companies around the world to shield tens of millions of dollars for Brennan. On one occasion, Bond said he received $4m in bearer bonds which Brennan was hiding from creditors. "It was a very bizarre experience," he said, recalling his return trip to Britain holding the suitcase stuffed with bonds. "You think about putting it down in the gents toilet and losing it," he told the court. Bond testified that he had kept $1.7m in fees and expenses for setting up the dummy companies for Brennan. The latter's lawyer's roundly attacked Bond's credibility as a witness.

Curtis's connection to Bond helped him to get work managing offshore money for Arab clients and, increasingly, the emerging Russian oligarchs. Curtis worked for Boris Berezovsky, the Russian billionaire who was granted political asylum in Britain last September and, according to friends, enjoyed a close personal relationship with him. Last year Curtis worked to prevent Berezovsky's extradition to Russia, where he was wanted on charges of fraud. Curtis was one of two people to financially guarantee that Berezovsky would not flee while the extradition hearing was going on. Berezovsky has told friends that Curtis's death proves his contention that it is unsafe for him to return to Russia, for reasons that are unclear. Berezovsky declined to be interviewed for this story. There is no evidence to suggest that Curtis did anything improper for him.

Bond and Curtis would also work to help Roman Abramovich with Runicom. That said Curtis also held an interest in the Israeli Haaretz and the Ikea franchise in Israel, plus the ISC private investigation firm. Even though the oligarchs were starting to realize that bad reputations and PR was hurting them, the change to a more 'open' view would not, of necessity, shield them from their past works. In the days before his death in a helicopter accident, it became apparent that Stephen Curtis may have been trying to safeguard himself, or secure a position on 'both sides' of the board:

In the days before his death, he had been assigned to a handler at the UK's National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), which collects information about organised crime in Britain. "My sense," someone close to British intelligence told me, "was that he was fearful of being prosecuted by the Russian authorities for being party to assisting in the capital flight and that he thought that going to the UK authorities would give him some sort of top cover."

Curtis was likely to have needed a great deal of cover. For the 45-year-old lawyer had found himself in the middle of one of the highest stakes contests between state and private power in the world - between Russia's most powerful man, President Vladimir Putin, and its wealthiest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

This would not be the last of the deaths to follow the Red Mafia around in the UK, but it was one that marked the power of its influence there and more globally. And one which continues to influence markets, companies and Nations in many ways.

Sphere: Related Content

Yesterday's Ready for Tomorrow

Very few will take a stab at this, so I will give it a go, and see what Sen. McCain's view on the armed forces were prior to 9/11. We must remember that this was in the heady downtime that Sen. McCain helped by getting a 'peace dividend' of cutting US force size and support, while President Clinton was going on multiple overseas ventures in: Somalia, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Haiti. This was heavily criticized by many in Congress.

In Somalia the House looked early on at supporting suspending aid to Somalia after the coup by Siad Barre, and his military killing 5,000 innocents (H. Con. Res. 207 starting 03 OCT 1989) which would escalate to any legal assistance for humanitarian aid and protection of UN security guards and relief efforts in a few years (H.Con.Res. 370 08 OCT 1992). By 10 NOV 1993 HR. 3116 on the DoD budget passed by both Houses would state the following

(1) the United States entered into Operation Restore Hope in December of 1992 for the purpose of relieving mass starvation in Somalia;

(2) the original mission in Somalia, to secure the environment for humanitarian relief, had the unanimous support of the Senate, expressed in Senate Joint Resolution 45, passed on February 4, 1993, and was endorsed by the House when it amended S.J. Res. 45 on May 25, 1993;

(3) Operation Restore Hope was being successfully accomplished by United States forces, working with forces of other nations, when it was replaced by the UNOSOM II mission, assumed by the United Nations on May 4, 1993, pursuant to United Nations Resolution 814 of March 26, 1993;

(4) neither the expanded United Nations mission of national reconciliation, nor the broad mission of disarming the clans, nor any other mission not essential to the performance of the humanitarian mission has been endorsed or approved by the Senate;

(5) the expanded mission of the United Nations was, subsequent to an attack upon United Nations forces, diverted into a mission aimed primarily at capturing certain persons, pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 837, of June 6, 1993;

(6) the actions of hostile elements in Mogadishu, and the United Nations mission to subdue those elements, have resulted in open conflict in the city of Mogadishu and the deaths of 29 Americans, at least 159 wounded, and the capture of American personnel;

and (7) during fiscal years 1992 and 1993, the United States incurred expenses in excess of $1,100,000,000 to support operations in Somalia.

Basically, the idea of 'peacekeeping' in Somalia cost $1.1 billion over two years (about $1.65 billion in 2008 dollars, or the equivalent of two years in Iraq), and, by the end of it, was a Presidential venture that wasn't backed by Congress. Things were starting to get out of hand by 1996 as seen in the DoD authorization passed that year in HR 1530, skipping down to Title XIII looking at peacekeeping:

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:

(1) The President has made United Nations peace operations a major component of the foreign and security policies of the United States.

(2) The President has committed United States military personnel under United Nations operational control to missions in Haiti, Croatia, and Macedonia that could endanger those personnel.

(3) The President has committed the United States to deploy as many as 25,000 military personnel to Bosnia- Herzegovina as peacekeepers under NATO operational control in the event that the parties to that conflict reach a peace agreement.

(4) Although the President has insisted that he will retain command of United States forces at all times, in the past this has meant administrative control of United States forces only, while operational control has been ceded to United Nations commanders, some of whom were foreign nationals.

(5) The experience of United States forces participating in combined United States-United Nations operations in Somalia, and in combined United Nations-NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia, demonstrate that prerequisites for effective military operations such as unity of command and clarity of mission have not been met by United Nations command and control arrangements.

(6) Despite the many deficiencies in the conduct of United Nations peace operations, there may be unique occasions when it is in the national security interests of the United States to participate in such operations.

(b) POLICY.—It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the President should consult closely with Congress regarding any United Nations peace operation that could involve United States combat forces and that such consultations should continue throughout the duration of such activities;

(2) the President should consult with Congress before a vote within the United Nations Security Council on any resolution which would authorize, extend, or revise the mandate for any such activity;

And as Bosnia-Herzegovina is brought up, it does get some criticism, too taken 13 DEC 1995 Congressional Record DOCID:cr13de95-74 (the first part of that here):

(Sen. Frist) In the absence of vital national interests, a lack of clear mission has combined with the lack of support of the American people, and we have faced a loss of American life. We have ended these missions without reaching our goals, without achieving any semblance of peace and democracy, and at great cost to the real mission of our Armed Forces: To be ready to defend, with overwhelming force and resolve, the real threats to our life, liberty, and well-being--or those of our allies. Again, Mr. President, we need only look toward our recent experiences in Somalia and Haiti.

In each of these instances, United States and Presidential credibility is offered as a reason such ill-conceived initiatives cannot be opposed. In the case of Bosnia, the Congress and the people are not even given the opportunity to approve or disapprove--but simply to give our approval and comment after the fact. Some argue that this is the President's prerogative under the Constitution, but it is not a shining moment in the life of American democracy. We are asking America's finest men and women to face possible death for a commitment outside of our national interests.

That is Sen. Frist speaking against President Clinton's late night sending of US forces to Bosnia. In Section 8124 of the DoD budget for FY '96 Congress would specifically deny funding to any non-Congressionally approved mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina via the funds transfer mechanism. The problem was, of course, that US involvement in Bosnia only marked a way point in the Balkan Conflict which would flare up again in Kosovo. It is in that atmosphere that Sen. McCain came up with speech on Ready Tomorrow: Defending American interests in the 21st century on 20 MAR 1996. It has a very forward looking cast to it, particularly when looking at it early on:

The potential threats to our national security interests today and in the future are different from those of the cold war; they are less deterrable by traditional means and often less easily defeated. We no longer face a superpower threat from the former Soviet Union, although we must be `prepared to prepare' to defend against an emerging major power threat. We must deal with a wide range of lesser threats throughout the world, including: regional and ethnic conflicts in which the United States could easily become involved; the rise of extremist and radical movements; the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them; the increasing capability of individuals and nations to attack us through our dependence on technology, particularly information and communications systems; and finally, both domestic and international terrorism.

Each of these are, indeed, key points in the 21st century and high marks for that. Yet, when it comes time to actually address them, Sen. McCain starts to go into the realm of 'fiscal realities':

In this effort, we cannot ignore the fiscal realities of our debt-ridden Federal Government. Planning for our future military capabilities must be tempered by a realistic view of fiscal constraints on future defense budgets, without allowing those constraints to become the dominant factor in our decisions about future defense requirements. We must be prepared to accept the cost of being a world power. In short, we must focus on the most cost-effective means of maintaining the military capabilities necessary to ensure our future security.

Mr. President, we now face a significant gap between our force plans and the resources available to implement them. By 1995, the defense budget had been cut by more than 35 percent in real, inflation-adjusted dollars in just 10 years. Independent assessments of the cost of the BUR force show that it exceeds the funding levels dedicated by the current administration in the Future Years Defense Program [FYDP] by $150 billion to $500 billion.

One of the 'fiscal realities' is that the federal government had already bitten off far more than it could chew in Social Security, Medicaid, subsidies to big business, and, indeed, a raft of social and economic programs that expanded government quickly and beyond the means to pay for them. Those 'fiscal realities' were budget busters then and *now*, and will slowly eat up most of the consumable budget within two decades. Before that point in time the US Federal Government will not have money to spend on much of anything outside of those programs without extreme and draconian taxation and interference in the economy.

This is the problem with old-style 'fiscally responsible' Republicans who believe that when government takes on any new responsibility not given to it by the Constitution, that the government should never, ever give it back. This is the view that government must slowly, inevitably, take over anything that is given to it forevermore, and the first place it shows up in a representative democracy is *not* those things devoted to 'government services' or 'entitlements', which garner votes, but to the basic area of defending the Nation: defense.

A bit further on Sen. McCain comes to this point:

Over the past 5 years, we have reduced our military manpower levels by more than half a million people. After a dangerous trend 3 or 4 years ago of declining military readiness, there is now broad agreement that we have restored current levels of operational activity and readiness of the smaller BUR force. However, we have done so by foregoing the modernization programs required to ensure the effectiveness of that small force.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has repeatedly warned that procurement accounts are seriously underfunded, and the Vice Chairman has said we face a `crisis' in weapons procurement.

[..]

Because of the modernization crisis, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has set a procurement funding goal of $60 billion per year. However, the President's fiscal year 1997 defense budget includes only $39 billion for procurement--nearly $5 billion less for procurement than was projected in the previous year's budget and far short of the Chairman's target. The administration now projects the $60 billion procurement funding goal will not be reached until the year 2001--3 years beyond the Chairman's target.

Mr. President, there is a dangerous long-term impact of postponing essential force modernization programs. America's future military readiness hinges on our ability to retain technological superiority over any potential adversaries. We have already seen some reduction in United States capabilities to fight in a single contingency such as the Persian Gulf. The continuing failure to invest wisely in military modernization programs has put our future readiness at risk.

This part would, unfortunately, come to bite the US far faster than Sen. McCain or anyone in the 1990's could have believed possible. I examined this in the realm of specialized warfare, but it would spread far beyond that in just a few, short years after Sen. McCain gave this speech. Those readiness levels would decline, as seen at the DNI site with a report by a Senate staffer in 1997 after visiting the NTC and JRTC, two major training centers for the armed forces:

Army-wide Shortages in Key Personnel

Despite high operating tempos and work loads, both OPFORs at the NTC and JRTC were described as fully manned, enjoying high esprit de corps, and having retention rates at least as good as the rest of the Army, if not better. For the units rotating into the NTC and JRTC—i.e. the Army's combat units; that is to say, the heart and sole of the Army—there is a very different story. I was told the following:

Units coming to both training centers frequently do not come with many of their sub-unit commanders; these have frequently been assigned to peacekeeping missions or other deployments that separate them from their units. As a result, sub-units—from basic squads on up—do not train with the commanders that they would go to war with. When this happens, it violates a key dictum of readiness and one of the basic points of having the NTC and the JRTC: the Army should “train just as you go to war.”

At the NTC, units rotating in typically come with a 60% shortage in mechanics and a 50% shortage in “mounted” mechanized infantry (in their Bradley APCs). These were described as “Army-wide” shortages: they were demonstrated by virtually all the units coming to the NTC. These shortages were described as due to these personnel, especially the mechanics, being deployed abroad for missions such as Bosnia. On average, all Army personnel now spend from 180 to 220 days of each year away from their home base, and families, on deployments. This average used to be about 165 days per year. According to Army testimony to Congress, the increase in these deployments is for peacekeeping missions.

At the JRTC, units were described as typically missing 25% of their basic infantry: mostly junior enlisted personnel with combat military specialties and mid grade non-commissioned officer (NCO) personnel. This was described as a recruiting problem and specifically not because of deployments such as Bosnia.

In actuality, these problems may be worse than indicated here. I was told at the NTC that the NCO shortages are often temporarily addressed by pulling junior NCOs into the unfilled senior and mid level slots to make more complete units for training purposes. At the JRTC, because one third of each brigade's junior enlisted and NCO personnel do not deploy for a rotation, it is possible that gaps in the units that do deploy are filled with those that would otherwise stay home. I was told this is not occurring; however, I am skeptical that it never happens.

The worrying part of this is that the multiple 'peacekeeping' missions of President Clinton, even before adding in Kosovo, had started to strip out readiness from the US Army across the board. What Sen. McCain was seeing was not there and the warnings by the JCS would come home to roost very, very quickly. This was bad enough, at the time, but would get worse with the diversion of Kosovo, and by NOV 1999 the US Army would have to announce that two entire Divisions, 10MD and 1ID, had fallen to the lowest levels seen since Vietnam. The impact would not be long-term, but would side-line the 10th Mountain Division until late 2001 and it would not be the spearhead into the one mountainous region that did contain an enemy that would attack the United States: Osama bin Laden operating out of Afghanistan. Any Mountain or Alpine Division is a specialized and premier fighting force, maintaining levels of training and morale far and above normal forces, as they will fight in areas where 60 or 70 degree shifts in temps in a couple of hours are not unknown, and where altitude sickness can kill you as assuredly as a bullet can. Those choices made by Congress in the early 1990's to get a 'peace dividend' and then to not support the armed forces properly through the early Clinton years were already showing up.

By the year 2000 another investigation would look at what had happened to the 10MD in particular:

Summary Findings and Conclusions

The character, enthusiasm, and professionalism of the officers, non-commissioned officers (NCOs), and enlisted men and women in the 10th Mountain Division is impressive. The 10th Mountain Division is officially rated by the Army at a level that lends support to General Shelton and the other respondents to candidate Bush's assertion of non-readiness. Strenuous efforts of the 10th Division's personnel are manifest to make it as effective a combat unit as resources permit. Various unit commanders expressed a willingness and readiness to take on and perform effectively any mission assigned, as has been the case in the past.

However, beneath the favorable overall readiness rating and an understandable - and professional - expression of confidence by various commanders, and despite all the hard efforts of the officers, NCOs, and enlisted personnel, the 10th Mountain is today experiencing multiple, serious shortages of people and material resources, training deficiencies, and other impediments to readiness, a large number of them resulting from policies imposed by Washington.

The issues include the following:

Incomplete manning in many combat and support units, sometimes to the extent that important secondary - if not primary - missions cannot be performed and/or primary mission performance is degraded. Moreover, because of Army force structure decisions, what is normally one-third of a US Army division's combat strength (an entire ground maneuver brigade) does not exist in the 10th Mountain Division.

Gaps in the leadership of the Division throughout its hierarchy, such that enlisted personnel are frequently doing the work of sergeants, lieutenants are doing the work of captains, captains of majors, and so on. Also, in cases where a position is occupied by an individual of appropriate rank, that individual may be less experienced than in the past or than experienced personnel - in and out of the 10th Division - deemed sufficient.

Training deficiencies that include less satisfactorily trained personnel received from Army training or personnel trained on equipment not assigned to the division, and incomplete opportunities to overcome these training inadequacies.

Non-availability of various equipment , training ammunition shortages, and funding shortfalls for facilities.

Various policy directives and allocation of resources from Washington (i.e.: from the civilian and military leadership of the military services and the Department of Defense and from Congress) that either impede readiness or that are ineffectual at addressing known deficiencies.

A lack of inquiry by various entities to collect on-the-ground, empirical information on the condition of the 10th Mountain to establish what basis candidate Bush may have had for his statements and/or to verify the statements of General Shelton, Secretary of Defense Cohen, Vice President Gore, and others.

From these findings and the data presented below, it is concluded that,

As stated by a 10th Mountain soldier at Fort Drum "There are two different armies; the one described in Washington, and the one that exists." And, from another, "There is a mind-boggling difference between the division that Washington DC describes and what exists in 10th Mountain." And from still another, "The [Division] only looks good on paper."

Sen. McCain would address the problems of trying to fight two Major Regional Conflicts (say Iraq and North Korea) simultaneously and propose something different:

In conducting a reassessment of our future force requirements, we should focus on a flexible contingency strategy supported by an affordable, flexible force. Our force planning should provide, at a minimum, sufficient levels to decisively prevail in a single, generic MRC. At the same time, we must recognize the existence of many lesser threats and maintain the capability to inflict unacceptable damage on an adversary should one or more of these threats materialize.

This more realistic approach to future force planning will eliminate the gap between our current strategy and fiscal reality. While planning for a flexible force with the ability of fighting a single MRC, possibly together with one or more lesser threats, may necessitate the acceptance of some additional risk in certain areas, it is far better than to plan for forces and capabilities that will never materialize within the limits of likely future defense budgets.

Considering that Congress and the President couldn't even plan for the forces they *had*, a fiscally responsible view might have looked like: don't send troops where Congress won't support them, pay attention to overhead & maintenance, ensure training, and ensure rotation of troops.

You know, the basics?

The things which weren't being done before, during and after Sen. McCain's speech?

The viewpoint isn't half bad, really, but as economics is not a 'strong suit' for Sen. McCain, perhaps he should have looked, instead, to the *rest* of government for 'fiscal responsibility'?

Now, from another realm, I will offer a bit of viewpoint: specialized forces are generally cheaper to keep, but less adaptable, and adaptable forces are more broadly useful but require larger cash outlays.

Why is this?

First, specialized forces can keep their eye on the few things they need to do well and then accept the need to rely on other forces in combat (this is also true of many production based environments). By making forces 'more adaptable' you then up the amount of training required to get that adaptability and the overhead & maintenance of that force to keep that adaptability going. So, when you want 'an affordable, flexible force' you are generally looking at a much smaller force size, overall, if your budget is set. Even in the era of Moore's law, most equipment does not come that adaptable across a variety of environments, from triple canopy tropical to high elevation sub-arctic. To train across those requires more time and energy, and a longer lead-time for those forces. And while putting more capability in via internal force structure is an excellent idea, as seen with the Stryker units now operating in a realm never imagined for them, the time, cost and training to get those up and running is long.

In theory you should be able to cut costs by utilizing Moore's law, but by integrating more into the system you add more to the cost of the equipment via that integration. It *can* be done, don't expect it to be cheaper, however.

Here is where the problems come from, a bit further on in Sen. McCain's speech:

Naval vessels should be self-sustaining and have significant offensive capability while providing for their own defense. Automation of weapon systems and support equipment aboard these vessels should be pursued to minimize the number of personnel required to produce an efficient, lethal fighting platform.

Sen. McCain had already experienced the 'ballooning cost' problem of weapon systems through the 1980's and early 1990's, with some never getting out of development as the projected delivery costs were skyrocketing. And the US Navy has it the worse as a ship is already a highly integrated system: when you add more complexity to it, the costs go up very, very quickly. At the National Defense site, a 2007 article on the cost of the Littoral Combat Ship and its escalating costs lets us take a look at a what a lower personnel, highly integrated ship actually costs:

A combination of escalating costs and uncertain procurement plans have raised questions about the Navy’s ability to keep the LCS afloat, analysts warn.

“It’s clear that Congress is really worried about this program,” says Robert Work, senior naval analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

[..]

The littoral combat ship is the Navy’s new surface combatant for operations in shallow, coastal waters. There are two designs under construction, one by Lockheed Martin Corp. and the other by General Dynamics.

Touted as an inexpensive warship, the LCS originally had been advertised at $220 million per hull. The Navy intends to buy 55 of them in an effort to build its fleet to 313 ships from 277. But in recent months the price tag has more than doubled, setting off alarms among lawmakers.

Navy officials requested $910 million for three ships in the 2008 defense budget. But after significant cost overruns materialized in January on the first-of-class ship, Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter amended the request, asking for two ships instead of three.

Congressional leaders have voiced their concern over the price increases in their defense spending deliberations.

In the House, lawmakers passed a bill that gives the Navy $710.5 million for two LCSs. The Senate’s committee on armed services took a more drastic measure, cutting the Navy’s budget request by almost half in its recommendation of $480 million for one LCS.

[..]

The Navy lacks a warship that can operate effectively in coastal waters. To fill the gap, the LCS was conceived in a few short years to fight in the near-shore environment in anti-submarine, anti-mine and anti-terrorism warfare.

In an effort to expedite the ship to the fleet, the Navy set the LCS on an aggressive construction schedule that has contributed to the cost overrun problems on both lead ships.

The Navy has since proposed to restructure the LCS program to keep the ship on track and within budget. But analysts say it could be difficult to veer the ship back on course because the program is already three ships behind.

This is *exactly* the type of vessel that Sen. McCain touted in 1996: a modular, low crew, modern vessel that didn't cost all that much. Instead, by trying to add in *more* to the ship, the cost has risen from $220 million per hull to $480 million per hull, with only ONE delivered so far. This problem is not limited to the LCS, however, as the Navy also has a problem with a Destroyer replacement, as seen a Strategypage on 25 APR 2007:

Meanwhile, the modern destroyers have grown to the size of World War II cruisers. Actually, some of the larger destroyers are called cruisers, even though they are only 10-20 percent bigger than the largest destroyers. The latest ships in the U.S. Navy's Burke class destroyers weigh 9,200 tons, cost $1.5 billion each to build, have a crew of about 330 sailors, carry 96 (a combination of antiaircraft and cruise) missiles. There's only one 5 inch gun, but two helicopters. These modern destroyers could take on any World War II cruiser and win, mainly because the cruise missiles have a range of 1,500 kilometers. A Burke class ship could probably defeat a World War II battleship, although we'll never know for sure since one of those heavily armored ships never got hit by a modern cruise missile. In effect, the U.S. Navy has settled on just three major combat ship types; aircraft carriers, destroyers and nuclear submarines.

[..]

The problems is that these new "destroyers" will be very large ships, and will cost over $2 billion each. At the same time, the new LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) is sort of replacing the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates. The Perrys are 4,100 ton ships that would cost about $200 million to build today. The big difference between the frigates and LCS is the greater use of automation in the LCS (reducing crew size to 75, versus 170 in the frigates) and larger engines (giving the LCS a speed of about 90 kilometers an hour, versus 50 for the frigates.) The LCS also has a large "cargo hold" designed to hold different "mission packages" of equipment and weapons. The Littoral Combat Ship is, simultaneously, revolutionary, and a throwback. The final LCS design is to displace about 3,000 tons, with a full load draft of under ten feet, permitting access to very shallow coastal waters, as well as rivers. This is where most naval operations have taken place in the past generation.

Max range is 2,700 kilometers. Built using commercial "smartship" technologies, which greatly reduce personnel requirements, the LCS is expected to require a crew of about 50 in basic configuration, but will have accommodations for about 75 personnel. The ship is designed for a variety of interchangeable modules, which will allow the ships to be quickly reconfigured for various specialized missions. Crews will also be modularized, so that specialized teams can be swapped in to operate specific modules.

And this year at Strategypage, the recent numbers look *worse*:

February 16, 2008: A year ago, the U.S. Navy admitted it was having problems with its Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, and fired the naval officer (a captain), who was the program manager. These ships were originally touted as costing $220 million each, plus perhaps a $100 million more for the "mission packages" that would be installed as needed. Currently, the ships alone are expected to cost about $640 million, and the program is still in trouble.

In general, the navy is not happy with the performance of American ship builders, and the LCS problems are just another reminder. Costs are rising sharply, quality is down and the admirals can't get satisfactory answers from the manufacturers. For example, the new class of destroyers, the DDG-1000 class destroyers have also faced ballooning costs, up to as much as $3 billion per ship, as opposed to planned costs of $800 million. The current Arleigh Burke-class destroyers only cost $1 billion each.

That cost is going up much faster than inflation, and trying to meet up with the expansion of programs like Social Security... going up nearly 300% in cost in less than a decade, the LCS is in real trouble, and the mission packages are *still* not fully priced out. At the Open Congressional Reports site on CDT they have a summary of the cost of the next generation aircraft carrier:

The Administration's proposed FY2003 defense budget requests $243.7 million in advanced procurement funding for CVNX-1, an aircraft carrier that the Navy plans to procure in FY2007. The FY2003 budget request includes additional research and development funding for the ship. The Navy plans to gradually evolve the design of its aircraft carriers by introducing new technologies into CVN-77 (an aircraft carrier procured in FY2001), CVNX-1, and CVNX-2 (a carrier planned for procurement around FY2011). The Navy estimates that CVNX-1 will cost $2.54 billion to develop and $7.48 billion to procure, bringing its total acquisition (development plus procurement) cost to $10.02 billion. The Navy estimates that CVNX-2 will cost $1.29 billion to develop and $7.49 billion to procure, for a total acquisition cost of $8.78 billion. A Defense Science Board task force is currently assessing how aircraft carriers should serve the nation's needs in the 21st century; it is to report its findings by the end of March 2002. This report will be updated as events warrant.

In theory that is how it should go, if the design can be relatively well set-up before procurement begins and *nothing* gets changed as it goes along. That, however, may turn out to be just the problem with the CVNX program, as seen at Globalsecurity:

The Navy concurred with the March 2007 GAO assessment, but emphasized that a lengthy construction period provided additional time to mature technologies. The Navy noted that technology readiness was closely managed through proven design processes, risk assessments, site visits, and contracting methods to ensure adequate maturity. Specific attention was given to requirements, legacy system availability, technology readiness, affordability, schedule, and return on investment. In addition, initial construction efforts aimed at validating new designs, tooling, and construction processes were already under way.

In the report the Navy also stressed that the decision to delay the program in 2006 had not been related to technology maturity, weight, or stability issues.

By a March 2008 GAO assessment, five of 15 current critical technologies were fully mature, including the nuclear propulsion and electric plant. Six technologies were expected to approach maturity, while four others would remain at lower maturity by construction contract award. Since 2007, the Navy had eliminated an armor protection system from CVN 78, but was evaluating use on follow-on ships, and the air conditioning plant and automated weapons information system were no longer considered developmental. Of CVN 21's technologies, the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS), the advanced arresting gear, and the dual band radar (composed of the volume search and multifunction radars) present the greatest risk to the ship's cost and schedule. By January 2008, 76 percent of the design was complete. Challenges in technology development had the potential to lead to delays in maintaining the design schedule needed for construction.

And that is what happened to the LCS, DDX, and, now, apparently CVNX, although how much leeway in building and design there is on something like and aircraft carrier will be interesting to follow. Again, this next generation CV platform will be more 'multi-mission' in its outlook - but that design integration comes at a price, which is nearly double that of the current Nimitz class carriers. The longer-term lifetime cost is supposed to help, but that has yet to be demonstrated.

This is not a new problem as many of these articles point to previous cost over-runs during the 1970's and 1980's with DoD procurements that underwent similar cost inflationary moves. When any change to procurement via changes in technology, changes in procurement length (trying to stretch out a procurement to lower the per year cost) or in plain numbers to be procured happens, each of those brings the cost per each item on an upward escalating cycle. Any change to the contract allows the contractor to then give the cost of those changes to the government. Whenever you want a deviation from the contract, no matter how trivial, the cost moves up. This was true of the B-1, B-2, Stealth Bomber, and current stealth fighter aircraft, along with ground-based systems such as the Paladin artillery replacement which skyrocketed in cost due to constantly changing government requirements until that follow-on was canceled. Stepping over the interim technology, by the incoming Bush Administration, was an attempt to get rid of those programs which were put in during the 1990's and then changed, extended, or shortened due to the end of the Cold War.

This is seen in the section on the Air Force which is highly forward looking, but ignored development time for weapons systems:

Air power: Air power that can be quickly deployed and engage the enemy with devastating effect is a critical element of any future force structure. Our air assets must be maintained at the forefront of technology in order to pose a viable threat to our enemies.

Our tactical aircraft must have the capability to deliver precision weapons on enemy targets. Multimission platforms and maximum firepower per platform should be absolute requirements, as the cost of aircraft continues to climb at an enormous rate. Precision-guided stand-off weapons, such as cruise missiles, will increasingly become the weapon of choice for their ability to attack enemy targets without endangering air crews and expensive platforms.

Procurement of self-protection equipment is both necessary and cost-effective. Every effort should be made to build upon existing electronic and other countermeasures, including expendables.

At the same time, we should explore opportunities to increase the use of remotely piloted vehicles [RPVs] and unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs]. Both RPVs and UAVs offer great potential to provide a cheaper, more effective means of gathering information and delivering ordnance, while minimizing risk to our air crews.

We must act now to resolve the issue of strategic versus tactical bombers. We must maintain a viable offensive capability at an affordable cost. Therefore, we must carefully consider cost versus capabilities in assessing the effectiveness of our strategic and tactical bombers in a conventional role. Current information supports a decision to cap the B-2 bomber program at its present fleet size and give higher priority to precision-guided munitions and improved tactical fighter/bomber forces.

This causes some problems as the strategic/tactical accords of the post-WWII Key West Agreement were never examined. Yet it is here that Congress, in its procurement and regulation role of the Armed Forces, should have weighed in and heavily. Changes in what will be procured by Congress inevitably changes force structure, readiness and capability which are to be guided by military needs as seen by the armed forces, but leavened by the National needs of the US against foes or possible likely foes in the future. That is part and parcel of the Congressional procurement system: addressing the overall needs of the Nation, not just the armed forces.

Here Sen. McCain makes a major blunder in his conception of wanting a 'multimission' platform and yet have 'maximum firepower per platform': that is one very expensive aircraft even in thinking about it. When added to the view of wanting to separate the strategic/tactical situation, what this calls for is a platform that can either be a maximum air firepower or maximum ground (Combat Air Support or CAS) firepower or multimission with reduced capability in each of those roles. Which does Sen. McCain want?

The CAS role was then and TODAY filled by the A-10, which was procured in the 1970's... you can't get more in the way of maximal, flexible, on-demand, firepower than an A-10, really. We could use more of them and hand that role over to the ground forces... but that is Key West, again.

A maximal firepower air supremacy platform was then filled by the F-14 and would be filled by the F-22/35 Stealth Fighter... and find a world of few air opponents in the Stealth realm and they are too expensive to deploy into CAS roles. So you have a highly flexible platform for air supremacy that can't be deployed because cheaper, non-stealth systems do a great job once there is no air combat around. And the time to repair/refit a stealth system is enormous, and so the trend towards Hangar Queens of the 1970's, of aircraft spending as much time in maintenance as they did in the air, continued to shift to the maintenance side.

There there is strategic/tactical bombing, which, today, sees the B-52 delivering precision guided munitions because *it* has long loiter time and is multimission. And paid for. The joke that has gone around is that we now need a B-767 for even longer loitering of more, yet smaller, precision guided munitions. The B-2 and B-1 have both played roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the old workhorse because it can carry so much and so efficiently with lower cost and time in the hangar is the B-52.

Sen. McCain was forward looking in the UAV/UCAV arena, but no one expected them before 2010. Plus Key West shows up *again* in the USAF wanting control of these while the ground forces want quickly deployable INTEL assets. Here it is conflict that drove the necessity of having such platforms more than strategic guidance by Congress. Having them developed and being able to deploy a few showed their utility and delivered a crying need for tactical and theater level INTEL that just could not be had from the strategic/space based platforms. This coupled with the PGM concept are both stand-outs for Sen. McCain while the inability to address the problems of strategic/tactical systems and understand that a 'maximal firepower' platform could be robust and *cheap* without being multimission, while a multimission one, by having to address so many mission types, made it liable to higher per unit cost. Apparently we are now coming down to the need for a generic, long loiter 'bomb delivery platform', CAS, air supremacy stealth fighters and bombers plus mixed mode/multimission UAV/UCAV platforms.

On to the ground forces as seen by Sen. McCain:

Ground forces: As our overseas basing continues to decline, we must reassess our requirement for large ground-based forces. This will require greater emphasis on allied capabilities for ground combat missions. U.S. ground forces must be readily deployable, requiring a reassessment of the balance between heavy and light forces. Greater emphasis and reliance on smaller, lighter, and more automated systems may be appropriate.

We need to retailor both our active and reserve forces to concentrate our resources on forces we can rapidly deploy or move forward within a few months. We do not need units, bases, reserves, or large stocks of equipment that we cannot project outside the United States without a year or more of mobilization time.

Information technology will continue to revolutionize the battlefield, giving ground commanders unprecedented levels of situational awareness on the battlefield. We must ensure that resources are dedicated to providing these essential technological enhancements.

Our ground forces must be properly equipped to maintain superior offensive and defense capabilities. Increased night warfighting capabilities, increased survivability of tanks and heavy artillery, and improvements in antiarmor defenses are particularly important. Increased capability to detect, defend, and survive in a biological or chemical warfare environment is absolutely essential.

This is, actually, quite good, with Congress to assert its role in restructuring the armed forces. That, like the procurement end, is the Congressional role in regulation of the armed forces, so this is looking at the proper role of Congress in this context. The reducing in the bases and stockpiles, however, does ignore one salient problem: actually supplying troops in the field.

While DLA (Defense Logistics Agency) was undergoing a revolution using IT, with Fedex and UPS as guidance, what is required is that when Congress actually authorizes the use of the armed forces overseas it *must* have stockpiles of consumables *ready* beforehand. While the armed forces and logistics delivery end, the actual production end is ignored in this view. To get quickly ramped up production of necessary goods Congress must ensure that enough contract support and 'emergency production contracts' are laid out within the US industrial base. This was not done in the 1990's and so by the time we get to Iraq, the list of things that were 'out of stock', as in not produced, started to mount: bullets, batteries, body armor, actual rifles/carbines/pistols, HMMVs, HMMV armor, dust protection equipment.

If you want a highly deployable, small and flexible force one must supply the depth to *have* such a force. Even without new weapons, like the Barrett M-107/82, or the problematic integrated weapons platform like the OICW, just having enough M-16's and M-4's around with ammunition was proving to be a problem, along with HMMVs, first introduced in the 1980's. By not doing its job to ensure industrial capacity, Congress would seek to get lighter, smaller, flexible armed forces that are forced to trade weapons to those rotating in as they don't have enough equipment. Congress would not do this in the 1990's, even with a Republican majority, and so when the time for going back into Iraq to finish the job rolled around... you know, one of those 'known conflicts' that we had studied for a decade... we did not have the necessary supplies to ensure that the armed forces had what they needed. Of course we got Congresscritters standing up to decry the supply problems, which they had caused.

Finally that 'emphasis on allied capabilities' would be placing reliance on the only Nations cutting their defense budgets faster than the US: our overseas allies who had come to depend on us for their security.

I will skip over the sections on Special Forces, heavy lift and missile defense, save to point out that defense of space based assets, like INTEL and communications satellites, is not addressed. Those are key to strategic weapons and are assets in maintaining an advantage over future opponents.

From here Sen. McCain would then address a Three Tier Readiness system for the armed forces:

Tier I--Forward-Deployed and Crisis Response Forces: In peacetime, our forward-deployed military forces support our diplomacy and our commitments to our allies. Our forward military presence takes the form of fixed air and ground bases that are home to U.S. forces overseas, and our forward-deployed carriers, surface combatants, and amphibious forces. Some special operations forces are also forward-deployed, both at sea and ashore. Reserves become part of the equation through our military exercise programs.

[..]

Tier II--Force Buildup: History shows that crises can usually be resolved or contained by the deployment of only a small portion of our military capability. In the past 50 years, the United States has responded militarily to crises throughout the world over 300 times, but we have deployed follow-on forces in anticipation of a major regional conflict only 5 times. These include the forward deployment of United States troops in Europe at the onset of the cold war; the deployment of forces to Korea in 1950; the deployment of forces in response to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962; deployment to Vietnam in the 1960's; and deployment to Southwest Asia in 1990.

[..]

Tier III--Conflict Resolution: In only three of the cases mentioned above--Korea, Vietnam, and Southwest Asia--were we engaged in sustained conflict, requiring a large-scale deployment of United States forces.

Forces that seldom deploy must be maintained and available to ensure that we have the force superiority to prevail in any conflict. Conflict resolution forces include those that deploy late in the conflict because of limited airlift or sealift, and the finite capacity of the theater to absorb arriving forces. Also included are the later-arriving heavy ground forces, naval forces that have not already deployed, and air forces that become supportable as airfields and support capability in theater expands.

The reason he looks at this is that Congress has been unwilling to foot the bill to have forces at high degrees of readiness across the board. Yes, this is institutionalizing a problem created by Congress.

The highest readiness forces are Tier I, in this schema, which would consist of those forward deployed, which would be about 1/3 of PACOM, most of CENTCOM and a lesser percentage of EUCOM and SOUTHCOM. Or roughly 1/3 of the armed forces would be maintained at this state of readiness.

Tier II is to be ready in 'weeks rather than days', and have significantly lower readiness coming from CONUS. This is basically the majority of active forces plus that section of the National Guard and Reserves maintained with equivalent equipment, although fall to a somewhat lesser status due to their less than full time activity level. They are follow-on only after initial activity by Tier I forces.

Tier III are the 'peace keepers' and those backing places such as S. Korea, Philippines, and doing joint counter-narcotics and COIN work overseas. These are to be deployed 6 months or more after a conflict starts overseas.

Strangely Sen. McCain then adds this proviso:

Finally, we must reexamine the practice of maintaining combat units for which there is either no identified requirement under our national military strategy, or which cannot be deployed to a theater of operations until after a time certain following the outbreak of a conflict--perhaps 9 months to a year. We should not be spending scarce defense funds on combat forces which do not significantly enhance our national security.

Which is what happened: we did not spend money on forces designed to enhance our national security. We did spend *lots* of money on bi-athlon tracks in Alaska, all sorts of 'bullet proof vests' for police officers, and ignore those units deployed in the field for long periods of time like the 10 MD and 1 ID. When it finally came to Afghanistan, the 10 MD was not 'ready to roll' and it IS a national security asset being able to quickly deploy to parts of the planet that normal forces can't train for easily, which would mean that by the time things were having to be tracked down we were at Tora Bora. No one expected things to go that quickly in the 'graveyard of empires' with the 'brutal Afghan winter' bearing down.

Then there is Iraq.

For all the supply problems, deficiencies, political oversights and just pure blindness towards conditions, when Sen. McCain got up in 2003 to say we needed COIN against Ba'athists when it was al Qaeda doing the worst damage in different areas than he wanted to have COIN, and our troops were not TRAINED for it, I have a severe problem and heartburn. That is a critical national asset called: training and readiness for that role. If you want a force to hit the ground able to do COIN you need at least a year of preparing for it, if not more. How do we know this? Look at the period from 2004-mid 2006. That is how long it took the basics of COIN to start deploying *before* Gen. Petraeus got there. His manual was just being finished, draft copies sent out to the armed forces and training was starting to adapt *then* before he got the thing published. What had happened during the 1990's is that SOCOM and some of the higher status units in the regular forces got such training, but they were limited by force understanding to get their jobs rolling. Even then some of those did outstanding and unheralded work in Anbar province, which would prove key in turning Iraq around.

Like with equipment, if you want well trained, multimission soldiers, you must expend more per soldier and keep a higher level of capability with those soldiers so that they can perform those missions. By not seeking to address the actual, real problems of the 1990's and, instead, institutionalize them, Sen. McCain was ensuring that our logistics supply train would fail at *production* not delivery and that the cost per unit for 'multimission' ships and aircraft would skyrocket because of the complexities involved in their design and construction. And by frequently changing role and mission, that would change design specifications and increase the per unit cost of every piece delivered.

Finally, the need for faster, lighter and better prepared troops is necessary up and down the line. You cannot tier readiness unless you want forces with training and no equipment or equipment and no training. Training is very, very costly and yet it IS the national asset we put back into the armed forces. By keeping the talent, training it, challenging it to keep up with a changing world, the US invests heavily in its own protection. Those decreasing outlays by Congress starting in the mid-1980's and going through the 1990's yielded results that could be expected: uneven at best, difficult to transition and maintain at worse. Those problems in Iraq and Afghanistan did not start with the Bush Administration of 2000, but date back through the Clinton, Bush 41 and late Reagan Administrations with a bi-partisan Congress more than ready to ignore its job and duty to the Nation and cut back on force size, readiness, supplies and backing.

We saved much money during those years.

And we have no right to complain in the cost in dollars and blood for our misguided outlooks then.

We got what we wanted via our elected Representatives.

And what we deserved.

Brought to you by A Citizen of the Republic

Sphere: Related Content

The Fall of the Prince of Marbella

I damn well hope its his fall, anyway... prefer to see him locked up at Gitmo, but he has played his cards rather well throughout life and I expect him to do the same now.

Who the hell am I talking about?

Why, my favorite individual to point to about the connectivity of transnational terrorism, international organized crime and money laundering: Monzer al-Kassar.

Ok, my background articles contain the details, so you get a listing of those, now:

1. A dot to connect dots with: Monzer al-Kassar
2. More on dots heading outwards with Monzer al-Kassar
3. Monzer al-Kassar and Transnational Terrorism
4. A dot listing for those in need of reference
5. At least they weren't professional terrorists
6. Internetworking and the role it plays
7. But making it legal was supposed to solve it!
8. It is Four Degrees of Monzer al-Kassar time!
9. The killers ask for a better chance to kill
10. An easy terror incident to pin on... astoundingly *not* Monzer al-Kassar!
11. What don't you know, and why won't they tell you?
12. Red Mafia and its connectivity - The Brainy Don of Marbella
13. And now the view on the other side - Yeah, I gots problems with R and D folks in power
14. Of Clinton and Kosovo
15. Syria's credible threats - Syria threatening the US and Spain, did it go too far?
16. Ending Mugniyah and missing the point
17. After the fall of Trans World Commodities and its fallout
18. The Pattern of Pursuit
19. The madness in my method
20. Same old hope and change
21. From FARC to Venezuela to...
22. The FARC Contacts

Yeah, a couple of articles either directly or tangentially about one man, Monzer al-Kassar. Who is he, then? That one is hard to define, as he has been involved in so much over the decades that no single phrase describes it. Take his background, as a reliable source or two points out, his family has been involved in the Bekaa valley drug trade since the late 1950's, at minimum. While not necessarily the 'movers and shakers' of it, their support has been necessary to the Assad family having a steady source of income for Syria. That trade, only in the few billions of dollars at source, has allowed Syria to take the 'middleman's cut' and parlay that into a decent, steady and small income stream as these things go for Nations. Still, per weight, it is beating inflation rather handily while ramping up in market size.

So Monzer al-Kassar, eldest son of his generation, started getting involved in the late 1960's to 1970's with drug dealings across the UK, France, Italy and Spain. Actually convicted in the UK for a few months and in Algeria (by one account), Monzer shifted into the next phase of his work in the late 1970's: arms dealing. Starting with the Italian/Sicilian Mafia groups, he expanded very quickly to become someone of note for the French to approach in the early 1980's once Hezbollah came into being...

Now if *that* isn't a coincidence, having Hezbollah well supplied with arms and munitions and using the Bekaa valley for training, I don't know what *is*. The deal with the French, however, is surprising as he had a murder charge in France pending against him, and yet he skated *that* by gaining diplomatic status with another Nation. He was the 'go to guy', walking the streets of Paris after charged with murder there and, yes, got the hostages taken by Hezbollah freed. You can make up your mind if *that* is pure coincidence or having a lot of good connections, but my feelings tend towards the latter as he is soon to be the most well connected man in that dark realm of narcotics, arms trafficking, money laundering and terrorism. He started out that way early, and it went on from there.

After working with the French he got tapped by someone in the know to help out a trio of guys from the US: Ollie North, Albert Hakim and Richard Secord. Remember Iran/Contra? Monzer al-Kassar worked one of the arms deals in that, which would include Polish arms transiting through the Netherlands, meeting up with a couple of the principles of Iran/Contra, and then trans-shipped via Portugal to central America. There are indications that he was also involved with a Chinese arms shipment routed through another venue. This would lead to the Reagan Administration being confronted with the fact that arms made their way *back* to Iran for US hostages in Lebanon. That is *why* Monzer al-Kassar becomes important in the deal: he had done the same for France. The man who apparently connected the North group to al-Kassar was Jackson Stephens, who would show up in that, BCCI and as an early employer of Johnny Hwang for the Clintons.

Getting the idea here?

The way that the money was worked in the deal was through BCCI, making Monzer al-Kassar one of the large group of nefarious characters, like Saddam Hussein, Bert Lance, and Nadhmi Auchi... along with just about every crook and arms dealer in the world... who did business through BCCI. Like John Keating. What is interesting, and missed by most, is that Saddam Hussein and Nadhmi Auchi had already set up one of the largest money launding and illegal arms trade systems on the planet, the Al Mahdi, to supply Saddam with weapons in his war with Iran. That system used BCCI, but was not a part *of* BCCI, just using it as a funds transfer system. The question is: did Monzer al-Kassar know about and utilize the Al Mahdi system? Considering that this system had ties to PLO, HAMAS, Hezbollah and the Italian/Sicilian Mafias, it is hard to see how he *didn't* know. And as al-Kassar's speciality was spiriting Eastern European arms out to Bosnia, Kozovo and Yemen... there are only some few indicators that he may have used an exterior system, like the Audi Bank of Switzerland (Source: PBS Frontline documentary on al-Kassar), to move funds. Actually, that is most likely the Audi Bank of Lebanon, Geneva office. Also involved in all of this is Die Erste Bank of Austria (with some background on that organization here) and Arab Bank in Geneva which was Yasser Arafat's bank of choice as his widow would use that and BNP Bank (Source: BBC, 11 FEB 2004), and that ties Auchi to Arafat directly. About the only other major figure he is tied to is that of Abu Nidal, as part of the BCCI-London Office work and moving arms via that with his brother, Ghassan, past various arms embargos and to terror organizations. Plus his connection to the supernote trade in the Bekaa valley, which most point to Iran as an early starter, but the quality of the bills point to North Korea as the expected source, with Iran being an intermediary.

The Audi Bank would also show up in the next large scale move by Monzer al-Kassar, and that would be into Argentina. Here the question is not so much *why* al-Kassar, but as to *who* made the connections. The man to make connections with in the late 1980's was Carlos Menem, Argentine politician whose parents were from Syria. With that original connection, be it from al-Kassar's deals via Iran/Contra or via Menem's connections via Syria or (most likely) needing connections and al-Kassar already had the contacts, it doesn't really matter as Hafez Assad and Carlos Menem came to an agreement whereby Assad would fund Menem's Presidential bid in return for nuclear and missile technology that Argentina had been previously working on with Egypt and Iraq - Condor II. From that Monzer al-Kassar would get many benefits, like an exchange deal with the Colombian drug cartels of heroin for cocaine, introduce Hezbollah to the Tri-Border Area of South America, work Arms shipments from Argentina to Croatia, Bosnia and Yemen, put his own network of agents into place (even into the head spot of the Buenos Aires international airport inspections department), set up his own trade bank, and punish Argentina with the help of Imad Mugniyah and Iran for Menem bowing to US pressure *not* to give advanced missile and nuclear technology to Syria.

From approximately 1988 to 1994, Monzer al-Kassar was a very busy man, bribing his way into oblivion by having Carlos Menem destroy all records of him and his transactions there, and undermine the court system via bribery. We know that as a judge sitting on the case admitted to being bribed by him. Still the Audi Bank proved a real boon in the money laundering, bribery and general mayhem that was going on around Monzer al-Kassar. Even to the point where the Swiss would freeze his account and investigate him for a few years. Of interest is it is that Swiss judge (not the bribed Argentine judge) that would start investigating the Bank of NY scandal way back on 10 JUN 2000. So, while direct connections with Auchi cannot be confirmed, the confluence of events before the BoNY scandal hit, and how money was transferred for arms deals is of a lot of interest.

Outside of the Israeli Embassy and AMIA Center bombings, Hezbollah had a couple of preparatory bombings going on before that, in 1991, and was setting up their own 'charity' in the area, as part of Mugniyah's External Security Operations. This was not Monzer al-Kassar's first dabblings in terrorism, as seen by his previous work in the early 1980's getting Hezbollah to release hostages via Iran for France and the US (Iran/Contra). He was also involved with the Achille Lauro hijacking by PLF leader Abu Abbas, and would be tried on that in Spain... only to have one witness get drunk and fall off his apartment balcony to his death, another witness have his family kidnapped by a Colombian drug cartel and a third witness in jail in Italy recant his testimony. And that is how a man charged with Piracy walks in the modern world. Strange how that happens, isn't it? The upshot of that, having cover credentials from Yemen and other Nations and, generally being well connected, is that his bank accounts in Switzerland were unfrozen and he walked free of the Piracy charges.

If you include the death tolls by Hezbollah against the US Embassy and Marine Barracks, along with French military, the Israeli Embassy bombing, AMIA cultural center bombing, Achille Lauro hijacking and such you are coming up with a man sponsoring or taking part in the deaths of hundreds, piracy and general terrorism above and beyond his ability to launder money, get arms to places under UN interdiction and somehow transform fruit into military hardware at sea. And that is *before* we get to the 21st century! Just look at that list and the backers behind it: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, PLO, Red Mafia, Iraq, China. Not to mention the individuals involved, like Imad Mugniyah or Semion Mogilevich the 'Brainy Don' of the Red Mafia. Tying Arafat to Auchi and the same banks starts to tie al-Kassar into that entire system of funds transfers that would start to smell very rotten due to the BoNY penetration by the Red Mafia... with the judge just a few months before discovering *that* working on al-Kassar's case.

Heading into 2001 he would try to work out his deal with Menem for a gold mine in Tucuman, Argentina via Imperial Consolidated, but that deal would face problems and he would put forward charges that Imperial was working with Osama bin Laden... that *before* 9/11. The status of the gold mine is not clear at this point in time, but the fall of Imperial (already having financial problems) and their counter-assertion that it was al-Kassar bringing bin Laden to *them* makes for an interesting case as bin Laden had an agent die on the way to Marbella, Spain in a plane crash. It is speculated that the agent was to meet with either with al-Kassar or Mogilevich (who kept a residence there) or *both*. Fascinating stuff happening just before 9/11!

After 9/11 we come to the Madrid Bombings of 3/11 as looked at by Joe Aguilar at Winds of Change and Barcepundit who translated an article about an undercover officer who was working on al-Kassar's case and, actually, *for* him and traces the phones used in the bombings to a company owned by Kassar. That and a number of connections to Algerian terror organizations, which look to be the perpetrators of the plot... but someone supplied the technology and know-how for them to pull it off. That gets us up to Monzer al-Kassar's arrest in Spain in 2007 as the US was looking to extradite him on a FARC sting operation and his finally arriving in the US a few days ago.

The above is the 'bare-bones' sketch of what Monzer al-Kassar has been dealing in, and does not look at a number of suppositions put out by others on things like the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie bombing or some of Kassar's other work in Iraq, where he was (at least up until last year) the #1 wanted man there for getting arms to insurgents. That without having set foot inside of Iraq, mind you.

While the charges on the DEA case are pertinent, they also point to the unraveling of FARC and the penetration of the FARC arms network. That is the integrated drug/arms/money exchange system by FARC and reaches pretty much worldwide to Russia, Central Asia, Oceania, Middle East, Africa and Europe, as well as to drug cartels in Mexico. As more comes out from that, the deeper connections with past goings-on are coming to the forefront, and the opportunity to clear up some long-standing problems of the late Cold War and post-Cold War period.

One of the central figures in that is Monzer al-Kassar.

This then puts the question of his ties to those in power in various Nations in question - the Four Degrees of Monzer al-Kassar game is no joke as he is one of the most highly connected individuals between the dark world of crime and terrorism and the gray world of political expediency. The central charges of conspiracy to terrorism and such ignore the greater problem that such corrupting influences that he represents have spread far and wide. You do not get Colombian drug Cartels kidnapping people to help out such an individual by *chance*. That points to a deep connection to the criminal world, reaching into jails across the globe. Not only does he have those connections and the higher ones to politicians, but the lateral ones to banking and finance: his work to launder money from the Bekaa valley drug trade, arms deals and various other black world projects points to a deep and long term problem uncovered by the BoNY scandal.

At heart Monzer al-Kassar is one of the prime movers in the realm of illegal war and private war, seeking to undermine the US, in particular, and the West in general. He is skilled enough to have been untouchable for decades, not only was it hard to pin anything on him, but once in court cases tended to evaporate out from under prosecutors. By using that organized crime and terrorism *reach* he could *touch* nearly anyone with threats or simple death. And that brings up a very troubling part of the DEA work: beyond the agents involved in the 'sting'... no, hold on a second... *including* them, just who does this case depend upon? Anyone with connections to arms dealing, narcotics trafficking or having contacts with the Red Mafia or the combined Kassar/Auchi contacts group may have a hard time staying alive.

Even in a supermax.

Having seen a couple of Spanish, Argentine, and Swiss cases just fall to pieces around him, there is no guarantee that even with iron-clad proof of wrong-doing that he will not walk away from the charges. He is the master of technicality, and knows how to operate so as to have ample fall-backs and back-ups in the legal realm. Two or three charges might not be enough to do it, and even those that gain a conviction have tended to be overturned on further review. Given a year of preparation, which he has *had*, getting any case to stand up against him in Federal Court is going to be a problem. If he was hit with every possible sanction, starting from the Hezbollah bombings and Iran/Contra all the way to the present, including at least one episode of piracy and another of aiding and abetting it, there might be a possibility to get *something* to stick.

The best possible world would have the Piracy charges with Abu Abbas be confirmed, they are damned simple and need to show simple collusion. With that the entire network of Kassar contacts could be brought in on the aiding, abetting, working with, giving material aid to Pirates. Those are, by far, the simplest federal charges in the world to make stick as they were aimed directly at those waging private war against any Nation. Absent that, you are stuck in the mush of the terrorism laws, RICO and various other conspiracy laws highly limited by the US territorially.

And then there is the final problem: the next President.

That Four Degrees game?

He is connected to Obama (via Auchi and Alsammarae), Clinton (via Marc Rich or Jackson Stephens) and McCain (via Deriposka if not Keating or Stephens), and there will be heavy pressure on each of them to *not* keep Monzer al-Kassar in jail due to *his* knowledge of various US Presidential Administrations and Congressmen. He is a bi-partisan threat, and one of the nastiest to have been seen in decades if not longer. I don't expect that even a supermax will hinder al-Kassar's operations and that of his family: they have been in the business far longer than the current crop of politicians have.

I expect him to walk unless he actually can exploit federal hospitality, of course...

To the Candidates for President: If you want my vote you will appoint a fully independent investigation inside the FBI, CIA, Treasury, and DoD to gather evidence of ALL wrongdoing by this guy and then follow each and every one of them up and if it leads to *you* step down from the Office of President.

Everyone who has bitched, moaned, complained about the war, FISA, 'civil liberties' and 'terrorism is just a tactic': this is the Civil side of going after terrorism and it will lead to your favorite policial party, backers, organizers, and possibly some of your friends.

If Monzer al-Kassar has Piracy charges *stick* against him, then every contact, supplier, friend, confidante... EVERYONE who knows him and has helped him can be brought up on federal charges of showing that help to a Pirate and be slammed away for a decade. Everyone that al-Kassar reaches out *to* can be brought *in* and put out of circulation.

No exceptions.

None for political party.

None for office.

None for Nation of origin.

None for who they back.

No one.

That will lead to the organizations of al Qaeda, HAMAS, PLO, Hezbollah, FARC - everyone in those organizations can be brought in as they support that ORGANIZATION. And a few of them, like Hezbollah and al Qaeda, should really be brought up on Piracy charges for their attacks on the USS Cole and the unarmed merchant vessel attacked by Hezbollah in 2006. Plus parts of the PLO have done sea born attacks and invasions of Israel, which is, yes, Piracy when done by non Nations.

You want the Civil side of confronting terrorism?

Now it the time to start.

That is if you *care* about curbing this form of private war and making it very unattractive to those doing it or those looking to do it.

These people have cast all civil rights aside and put themselves above all Nations as final arbiter of life and death.

The charges are very, very simple to figure out.

They chose this path to go down.

Now we can show them the error of their ways... if we have the guts to stand for anything and demonstrate that there is a place for the rule of law amongst men and Nations. It is nasty, it is rough, it is hard, it is not nice.

No one said being civilized was any of those things.

It is, however, necessary to uphold it so you can treat those who abide by being civilized in a civil fashion.

And those who don't?

Outside the law of civilization and adhering to the Law of Nature.

They want that.

And it is what they should get in full and complete measure.

Sphere: Related Content

Where Angels fear to tread

The following is a paper of The Jacksonian Party.

All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary.

- Andrew Jackson Attribution: Andrew Jackson (1767–1845), U.S. president. Letter, July 5, 1822, to Andrew Jackson Donelson, Donelson Papers, Library of Congress.

To secure our rights via law is set the courts, with the Supreme Court set by the Constitution and lesser courts given by Congress. The ability of citizens to have safety as citizens rests within what their Nation is: the Sovereign State that ensures that those who are members of it, the citizenry, are ensured of safety from those who are not citizens. In the creation of that Nation to ensure the safety of the State, mankind in that act of creation agrees to set aside some of the liberties that are had under the Law of Nature and give them to the State, lest they be used unwisely by individuals to involve others in things that are not of their business as a whole. Those who have sought to do otherwise have gained reputation by various names throughout history to describe their actions: thieves, cut-throats, pirates, brigands, corsairs, warlords, and barbarians.

The line of civil safety from that harsh world is demarcated by the State and ensured by the National institutions that allow Nations to regularize intercourse amongst themselves so as to gain mutual protection even when there is internecine animosity. By handing over some of those negative liberties of punishment, restriction and warfare to the Nation, we seek to live in greater liberty and to restrict the National power so as to allow each individual the greatest acceptable display within society of what makes the Nation an establishment. This is true of all Nations, be they tiny islands of some few hundred souls or great and sprawling places covering large portions of the planetary surface: from smallest to largest the formulation of intercourse between them is made acceptable as the alternative is too ghastly and horrific to contemplate.

Consider as far back at the Trojan War, and its estimable causes were that sparked on by trade competition amongst a loose confederation of City States against a more tightly controlled Hittite realm with a number of affiliated City States, of which Troy was one. When affront was given during a diplomatic mission by a young aristocrat from that Trojan realm made off with or eloped with Queen Helen of a second rank King in the Confederation, that King who was brother to the most influential King in the Confederation and brought pleading for help that went out to all of those who had agreed to protect Helen. While not the most noble of causes, this excuse to war, the other causes of trade, changing crop conditions, and opportunity for self-aggrandizement could not be passed up. Even with that diplomatic emissaries went between these City States to seek redress of grievances between them and avoid war. When that did not work the various treaties and agreements between City States came into play, putting the Confederation of Achaean Greeks to test for a long decade of vicious war against Trojan Allies and supporters was waged. Even in that time and place, we see that trade, agreements and diplomacy were at the heart of these City States and that waging war without giving the cause and reason, and allowing recompense to be made were vital to survivals of peoples in their States.

What happened afterwards, however, was the total collapse of the civilizations involved as the great Palaces of Greece went down into ruin as well as the Hittite realm and Troy, itself, was brought low and barely survived as a city for a time, and then a town, a village and then a hill of rubble for centuries. Athens would survive, but barely, with the help of nearby islands and peoples. From that destruction we can hear the faint echoes of the messages sent then:

"'My father, behold, the enemy's ships came (here); my cities(?) were burned, and they did evil things in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots(?) are in the Hittite country, and all my ships are in the land of Lukka? . . . Thus, the country is abandoned to itself. May my father know it: the seven ships of the enemy that came here inflicted much damage upon us.'" - Letter of Ammurapi to Suppululiuma II of the Hittites telling of the Sea People.

The countries -- --, the [Northerners] in their isles were disturbed, taken away in the [fray] -- at one time. Not one stood before their hands, from Kheta, Kode, Carchemish, Arvad, Alashia, they were wasted. {The}y {[set up]} a camp in one place in Amor. They desolated his people and his land like that which is not. They came with fire prepared before them, forward to Egypt. Their main support was Peleset, Tjekker, Shekelesh, Denyen, and Weshesh. (These) lands were united, and they laid their hands upon the land as far as the Circle of the Earth. Their hearts were confident, full of their plans. (Medinet Habu, Year 8 inscription.) - Inscription by Ramases III at Medinet Habu.

Thus the watchers are guarding the coasts : command of Maleus at Owitono... 50 men of Owitono to go to Oikhalia, command of Nedwatas.... 20 men of Kyparssia at Aruwote, 10 Kyparissia men at Aithalewes.... command of Tros at Ro'owa: Kadasijo a shareholder, performing feudal service.... 110 men from Oikhalia to Aratuwa. - Clay tablet found at Pylos.

These are the ravagers - not just pirates as many would come to try and settle once a foothold was garnered in the lands they had attacked. That is how the Philistines came to Palestine, and those from Sherden went to Sicily and perhaps points west. The more familiar litany of Huns, Goths, Vandals, Franks, and Mongols follows this same pattern of stepping in when civilization decays and crumbles. From the Lukka, Shekesh, Dananu to Huns, Goths, Vandals to those we know of by names such as Josephus, Grace O'Malley, Bartholomew Roberts, Joaquin Murrieta, and the Soviets fighting a 'bandit army' using paratroops for the first time ever, the list of worldwide banditti is long and bloody. We romanticize them because we are safe and insulated from their harsh and brutal times, and place their deeds higher because our civilization is so comfortable. And yet each were confronted by States and Nations, be they Egypt under Ramses II or the Byzantine Empire or the British Navy or even simple settlers forming up towns and establishing laws to finally put an end to those outside the law living by the Law of Nature.

We came to recognize that those living by the Law of Nature and waging war on their own are accountable to the brutality of war when confronted by the forces of States and Nations, and that their crimes of being out-law are punishable in the severest way when captured by civil forces. These ones who rule by force, by terror, by coercion and abide by no civilized norms to impose their will upon others have gotten the harshest treatment when caught as they have chosen to step outside of society on their own, without being forced to by any other person. By doing so they may still talk, think and reason, but they are man in the state of Nature not in the state of Civilization.

This view has been passed down to the United States by the Common Law of England as seen in Blackstone's Commentaries:

LASTLY, the crime of piracy, or robbery and depredation upon the high seas, is an offense against the universal law of society; a pirate being, according to Sir Edward Coke,10 hostis humani generis [enemy to mankind]. As therefore he has renounced all the benefits of society and government, and has reduced himself afresh to the savage state of nature, by declaring war against all mankind, all mankind must declare war against him: so that every community has a right, by the rule of self-defense, to inflict that punishment upon him, which every individual would in a state of nature have been otherwise entitled to do, any invasion of his person or personal property.

BY the ancient common law, piracy, if committed by a subject, was held to be a species of treason, being contrary to his natural allegiance; and by an alien to be felony only: but now, since the statute of treasons, 25 Edw. III. c. 2. it is held to be only felony in a subject.11 Formerly it was only cognizable by the admiralty courts, which proceed by the rule of the civil law.12 But, it being inconsistent with the liberties of the nation, that any man's life should be taken away, unless by the judgment of his peers, or the common law of the land, the statute 28 Hen. VIII. c. 15. established a new jurisdiction for this purpose; which proceeds according to the course of the common law, and of which we shall say more hereafter.

It is, indeed, ancient law as hostis humani generis comes from the Roman Law on how to deal with such individuals, which would include bandit armies. As Blackstone would note, the Law of Nations is deducible by natural reason and established by universal consent of those who are civilized. If you have a Nation to protect your State and the people therein, you get the Law of Nations as a result. Time does not matter as even the Brozne Age civilizations found that when they had City States they had created a system of interaction that is definable, even if they never clearly defined it for themselves, it had come into being. Thus the written Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel should come as no surprise to anyone who thinks about what Nations are and why they interact the way they do. Which is why the following should not be a surprise from Book III:

§ 1. Definition of war.(136)

WAR is that state in which we prosecute our right by force. We also understand, by this term, the act itself, or the manner of prosecuting our right by force: but it is more conformable to general usage, and more proper in a treatise on the law of war, to understand this term in the sense we have annexed to it.

§ 2. Public war.(136)

Public war is that which takes place between nations or sovereigns, and which is carried on in the name of the public power, and by its order. This is the war we are here to consider: — private war, or that which is carried on between private individuals, belongs to the law of nature properly so called.

[..]

§ 4. It belongs only to the sovereign power.(137)

As nature has given men no right to employ force, unless when it becomes necessary for self defence and the preservation of their rights (Book II. § 49, &c.), the inference is manifest, that, since the establishment of political societies, a right, so dangerous in its exercise, no longer remains with private persons except in those encounters where society cannot protect or defend them. In the bosom of society, the public authority decides all the disputes of the citizens, represses violence, and checks every attempt to do ourselves justice with our own hands. If a private person intends to prosecute his right against the subject of a foreign power, he may apply to the sovereign of his adversary, or to the magistrates invested with the public authority: and if he is denied justice by them, he must have recourse to his own sovereign, who is obliged to protect him. It would be too dangerous to allow every citizen the liberty of doing himself justice against foreigners; as, in that case, there would not be a single member of the state who might not involve it in war. And how could peace be preserved between nations, if it were in the power of every private individual to disturb it? A right of so momentous a nature, — the right of judging whether the nation has real grounds of complaint, whether she is authorized to employ force, and justifiable in taking up arms, whether prudence will admit of such a step, and whether the welfare of the state requires it, — that right, I say, can belong only to the body of the nation, or to the sovereign, her representative. It is doubtless one of those rights, without which there can be no salutary government, and which are therefore called rights of majesty (Book I. § 45).

Thus the sovereign power alone is possessed of authority to make war. But, as the different rights which constitute this power, originally resident in the body of the nation, may be separated or limited according to the will of the nation (Book I. § 31 and 45), it is from the particular constitution of each state, that we are to learn where the power resides, that is authorized to make war in the name of the society at large. The kings of England, whose power is in other respects so limited, have the right of making war and peace.1 Those of Sweden have lost it. The brilliant but ruinous exploits of Charles XII. sufficiently warranted the states of that kingdom to reserve to themselves a right of such importance to their safety.

This is not 'top-down reasoning' but reasoning from something which exists and can be defined by reason, thus it is reasonable. We create States and Nations for a reason, and that is to live in community without the fear of barbaric war between those of us inside the community. By having laws that are known between us, as individuals, and abiding by them, that thing called government is created to ensure that such laws are carried out and, by that agreement between us as citizens, we agree to those laws. Beyond regularizing commerce, trade, and other means of social intercourse, the largest liberty given up is this negative one called 'making war': as individuals we agree that it is so toxic, so highly negative that only the thing we create called the State should have say over it.

And as citizens we also agree that Nations that are the safeguards of our States should also have the means of say over those who do NOT abide by that agreement. Even more, is that if those individuals who wage private war should fall into the hands of citizens, there is little save pleading for mercy that those individuals can do. Especially once attacked, and having shown NO MERCY to the civil population, they may get NO MERCY in return as they have returned to the Law of Nature and fully know that this is what they will get in RETURN for their actions when caught as that *is* the Law they live under. In Book III this is made abundantly clear:

§ 67. It is to be distinguished from informal and unlawful war.

Legitimate and formal warfare must be carefully distinguished from those illegitimate and informal wars, or rather predatory expeditions, undertaken either without lawful authority or without apparent cause, as likewise without the usual formalities, and solely with a view to plunder. Grotius relates several instances of the latter.5 Such were the enterprises of the grandes compagnies which had assembled in France during the wars with the English, — armies of banditti, who ranged about Europe, purely for spoil and plunder: such were the cruises of the buccaneers, without commission, and in time of peace; and such in general are the depredations of pirates. To the same class belong almost all the expeditions of the Barbary corsairs: though authorized by a sovereign, they are undertaken without any apparent cause, and from no other motive than the lust of plunder. These two species of war, I say, — the lawful and the illegitimate, — are to be carefully distinguished, as the effects and the rights arising from each are very different.

§ 68. Grounds of this distinction.

In order fully to conceive the grounds of this distinction, it is necessary to recollect the nature and object of lawful war. It is only as the last remedy against obstinate injustice that the law of nature allows of war. Hence arise the rights which it gives, as we shall explain in the sequel: hence, likewise, the rules to be observed in it. Since it is equally possible that either of the parties may have right on his side, — and since, in consequence of the independence of nations, that point is not to be decided by others (§ 40), — the condition of the two enemies is the same, while the war lasts. Thus, when a nation, or a sovereign, has declared war against another sovereign on account of a difference arisen between them, their war is what among nations is called a lawful and formal war; and its effects are, by the voluntary law of nations, the same on both sides, independently of the justice of the cause, as we shall more fully show in the sequel.6 Nothing of this kind is the case in an informal and illegitimate war, which is more properly called depredation. Undertaken without any right, without even an apparent cause, it can be productive of no lawful effect, nor give any right to the author of it. A nation attacked by such sort of enemies is not under any obligation to observe towards them the rules prescribed in formal warfare. She may treat them as robbers,(146a) The inhabitants of Geneva, after defeating the famous attempt to take their city by escalade,7 caused all the prisoners whom they took from the Savoyards on that occasion to be hanged up as robbers, who had come to attack them without cause and without a declaration of war. Nor were the Genevese censured for this proceeding, which would have been detested in a formal war.

Note the city used as an example: Geneva, Switzerland. The place that would become home and synonymous with the rules of warfare known as the Geneva Conventions. It would be very strange for such a place not to know the differences between public and private war having been subject to the latter in their history. Also of interest is that de Vattel is Swiss, and it is by no means an accident that he utilizes that background to demonstrate the more general point about those who wage war for their own ends outside of Sovereignty and Nations.

What Blackstone mentions is that the trial of those who are caught as pirates moves to the civil courts in England, but only in the period after which the US SCOTUS has defined the original power of the Nation: while England changed her laws under Henry VIII, the United States derives its Admiralty power from before that time for jurisdiction. That said the US still embodies the jurisdiction in the civil courts for those declared as pirates and captured via civil means. Because of the original jurisdiction and power of the United States for the Admiralty stemming before that period, however, the US embodies that power on the military side in the Commander in Chief operating under the military laws made by Congress that is given sole right to define these laws.

Here are the parts of the US Constitution dealing with these powers, first with Congress in Article I, Section 8:

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

In the ability to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, Congress is to make laws to cover the maritime or Admiralty areas of the United States: all US flag vessels operating within reach of the high seas. That is how a Captain of a vessel is allowed to marry individuals under the Sovereign flag of their Nation and also enforces the law of that Nation on-board ship until they have fully passed beyond the reach of the high seas within a Nation. Traditionally that was marked by the furthest high tide in the Thames, but has been reduced to having obstructions of land between a current position and the high seas, such as passing the headlands of a large river like the Mississippi. Simple bays are not enough, nor are ports, as the land based portion has the law of that Nation while each ship has the law of its flag Nation still operable upon it. Ships, in that sense, operate as extensions of the Nation under the flag they fly.

Offences against the Law of Nations, and capitalized to show its importance, means that all other acts that can be considered injurious to the US on a Nation-to-Nation jurisdictional basis, say that of recruiting Americans for a foreign Army without the consent of the President, may have laws levied against them. It is this view and the permission of regular citizens to travel overseas under treaty agreements that have been regularized, that allows the US to extend its protection to its citizenry while overseas. While a citizen is liable for all laws of the host Nation, the citizen is, in return, protected by wanton assaults via warlike means against them via the laws of Congress.

Even further, however, is that Congress has, by its powers, the ability to discriminate between civil and military law for activities and address both with regard to the Law of Nations. By Congressional power to promulgate regulations and inferior tribunals, does it get the power to set the course for those captured by civil means and by martial means, and even to determine if captures in one are liable to the other! It is a huge power of Congress and, exercised well, will give any foe of the United States great pause in warlike assaults upon its citizens.

Congress has, in the past, with regards to those waging private war, done just that in the past, as seen in INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863 via the Avalon Project:

Art. 82.

Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.

This is the definition of what we would call 'terrorism', and those committing during times of military conflict are judged, summarily, as either highway robbers or pirates. The activity, in this case, sets the punishment as not being public enemies, they are given no privileges of being a prisoner of war, but receive the summary wartime treatment of those crimes. Those orders and that outlook lasted until the drafting of the Hague Conventions, and yet those Conventions did not contravene these orders in any way, as private war was not and could not be addressed by international law as it was a high crime against all Nations. How those in Geneva treated those that attacked them via private war and how peoples through the ages have done so was still in effect: mankind makes a distinction between the public waging of war, and the wholly illegitimate private war.

It is for these reasons that the Boumediene decision by the Supreme Court is more than troubling: it is stepping away not only from the Constitutional division of powers, the traditional decisions given during wartime, but also it is stepping away from Common Law and, indeed, all law that the US draws upon as its sources, including the Black Book of the Admiralty which laws it enumerates themselves coming from Roman Law. The Supreme Court attempts to place civil law where Congress places Combatant Status Review Tribunals done by the military to determine of individuals are engaging in private war. It should be noted that private war is not limited to al Qaeda or Taliban, but is practiced by many groups and individuals who see fit to divest themselves of civil society and agreement to wage war to their own ends.

The CSRT organizations fit wholly within the Article I, Section 8 power given to Congress as it, and only it, has the power and authority to determine how crimes against the Law of Nations are to be addressed. By stepping in any other direction, to assert that the summary nature of decisions, as is traditional upon military law practiced by the armed forces of the United States since at least 1863, and truly before the founding of the Nation itself as English military law had similar views, the Supreme Court has attempted to set itself up as the arbiter of what is or is not military or civil law. At no time up to the modern has any individual waging private war been given such things in a military venue as they are practicing something wholly anathema to civil society by taking up arms to fight their own war outside of any Sovereign commission. By inserting itself into this procedure set by Congress and accepted by the Executive, and that is wholly in keeping with previous law and rulings in this realm, the Supreme Court is violating its own views of letting precedent set the tone and tenor of cases.

It should also be noted that while other laws have replaced and refined General Orders No. 100 from 1863, that no law has been put in its place to address such individuals who are not public enemies, but waging private war. While newer orders are considered operable, in areas where no new orders have been set down the older are considered to be operative: in that Congress has been trying to find a way to regularize Article 82 for the modern age, but the Supreme Court has constantly been hampering that process.

I personally beg to differ with the Supreme Court on Held 2b:

(b) A diligent search of founding-era precedents and legal commentaries reveals no certain conclusions. None of the cases the parties cite reveal whether a common-law court would have granted, or refused to hear for lack of jurisdiction, a habeas petition by a prisoner deemed an enemy combatant, under a standard like the Defense Department’s in these cases, and when held in a territory, like Guantanamo,over which the Government has total military and civil control.

If the 'diligent search' of precedents has NOT uncovered General Order No.100 from 1863, then perhaps the Court has had a predetermined decision in mind. It is difficult to find, but not impossible via a public search via this thing known as a 'search engine'.

And as Sir William Blackstone had written his commentaries in 1765-1769, a mere 8 years before the Revolutionary war and his writings and scholarship were known to Jefferson, Madison and others, it is difficult to understand how his vies on private war could not be known to the SCOTUS. Indeed, his works are cited by the early Supreme Court to help garner direction of rulings and to cite when Congress has changed direction from the Common Law.

As Emerich de Vattel wrote Law of Nations in 1758 and it was widely cited and commented upon throughout the founding era and during the 1787-89 commentaries of both Federalists and Anti-Federalists and how the new Nation would embody the views of it, there is little reason to suspect that the founding generation did not know about it as they specifically capitalize the law and work in the Constitution. The private war addressing powers are given to Congress along with all other Law of Nations crimes to be addressed, plus the division of law between the civil and military side which is a specific feature of our Republic. While Admiralty courts gave way to civil courts in England, the early Supreme Court cases differed from Common Law and sought the widest possible reach of sovereign power for the new Nation and specifically and categorically struck down any attempt by Congress to limit that scope of power. As piracy is one of the problems addressed by those laws, and the fact that it has a civil and military side to it, those Courts clearly understood the differences BETWEEN civil and military law.

Anyone caught by the armed forces committing acts of war who does not conform to the rules of warfare as signed upon by treaty and enforced by Congress gets the *punishment* for not doing so. Congress and President Lincoln were quite and succinctly clear on that: all trials are summary in nature. The reason that is so is because those best suited to determine who is and is not a soldier are those in the armed forces operating under the military laws of the United States and who have been trained and taught to respect and understand those laws. That is why we give military law to them to operate upon: war is hell and they are the only ones who can make sense of it and still conform to international and national standards simultaneously.

There is a reason that the writ of habeas petition does not apply to those captured by the armed forces and judged to be fighting private war: they have dropped all pretense of holding to any civil law by their conduct and are fighting outside the norms of all laws. If they wish to get treatment by the civil courts they can give themselves up TO civil authorities. This is why the judicial power of the Supreme Court ITSELF extends to this part of the law under Article III, Section 2:

--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

Note that this jurisdiction is the civil jurisdiction to which the judicial Power is extended, to take place in the area of the admiralty and maritime, that is aboard ships at sea. And when civil controversies involve the Nation, then judicial Power is also enacted. Beyond that the Supreme Court is the court of last appeal in the United States. From all of that, however, it does NOT get to set the division between military and civil law. The former is expressly made for the conduct of the US armed forces wherever they may go and to bring regularity and order to their operations even when operating overseas. Unless it has been missed, the US has held other military tribunals overseas during previous conflicts and has every power to do due to the nature of overseas military conflicts: they are overseas against non-citizens of the United States and conducted under the agreed upon treaties making up the laws of war plus any other restrictions Congress wishes to place in their regulatory role.

In a short instance I have come up with multiple areas that distinctly demonstrate that the type of conflict and operations against those waging private war were known to the founding era: Law of Nations, Blackstone's Commentaries, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Further the SCOTUS could check all admiralty decisions of the early Courts from stand-up to the 1870's to see the type of views used by those Courts to examine admiralty cases. Beyond that Congress and President Lincoln put into place a set of General Orders for the army and navy starting in 1863 and lasting for over 30 years that dealt with this very problem of those fighting private war against the US. Finally an examination of the idea of the US conducting military tribunals overseas should yield up numerous examples of the armed forces doing so, probably since the first extra-territorial work of the armed forces starting with President Jefferson who acted under the Law of Nations in going against the Barbary Pirates as that is what a Commander of the Navies *does* when also acting as Head of State and Head of Government.

As it stands this is one of the least thought-out, most ill-conceived decisions of many the Supreme Court has handed down, including Plessy v Ferguson. Here they are attempting to say that those fighting in a barbaric mode under the Law of Nature are due all the pleasantries of civil law when captured by the armed forces. That has NEVER been the case save where a Sovereign has specifically directed for individuals that otherwise should be done and reasons given on a case-by-case basis. When Captain Henry Morgan appealed to the civil courts when charged with Piracy it was to clear his good name. He gave himself up willingly on that agreement for civil hearing and demonstrated there was no way he could know of the Treaty signed between England and Spain.

That is why we *have* civil courts and civilization: to demonstrate the ability to act in a civilized manner.

Which is most specifically NOT practicing private war.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama and Iraq

It is one of those fascinating juxtapositions that two of the people associated with Sen. Obama have had ties to Iraq. The first, of course, is Nadhmi Auchi who I detailed in this article a while ago and tangentially in this more recent one. One of his deals in post-war Iraq was with Orascom and standing up a mobile phone network which he partnered with Egyptian entrepreneur Naguib Sawiris. Orascom would get the cellphone contract for central Iraq, which was divided into North, Central and Southern zones, thus this was the area covering Baghdad and the main telecom route north to south in Iraq. With charges of vote rigging, corruption and pure inability to deliver cell phone service or even adequate handsets, the deal would be sold off in 2005 to a Kuwaiti company and renamed Iraqna.

One thing that popped up was covered in a Newsmax article of 24 NOV 2005 (via Freeper cache) which looked at one of the firms partnering with Auchi being Huawei from China, that the People's Daily Online of 24 SEP 2004 had touted previously. Huawei, as I had looked at before, is a main arm of the People's Liberation Army of China to strong-arm their way into telecom markets globally, undercut competition, practice various forms of blackmail, shady legal deals, spy on Nations, and had dealt with both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

Another deal in Iraq was between Nadhmi Auchi and Antoin 'Tony' Rezko of Chicago, the second person to have ties to Iraq, and that was to supply an electrical generation facility to northern Iraq. Auchi had previously invested in Rezko's South Loop project of land dealings in Chicago which the Chicago Business News had covered on 29 SEP 2005. That was a mere $130 million investment and a follow-on to the investments that Auchi had made in the Riverside Park project, which put him in as a General Partner.

Right after that deal, Rezmar would with a joint-venture contract to build a $150 million power plant in Iraq, one of three plants with the other two going to other bidders, as seen at Chicago Business News on 29 JUL 2005:

Rezmar Corp., a real estate development company controlled by Tony Rezko, a controversial confidant of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, entered into a joint venture with a British firm in a $150-million deal to build a power plant in Iraq.

The contract, signed with Iraq’s ministry of electricity, calls for the soon-to-be named joint venture to supply power to Iraq for 10 years, according to a spokesman for Chicago-based Rezmar.

The Rezmar joint venture will be based in Jordan. Construction is slated to begin this fall.

[..]

The project will be managed by one of Gov. Blagojevich's previous top administration officials, Michael Rumman, former director of the Illinois Department of Central Management Services, the state's internal operations real estate agency. Mr. Rumman, the former president of Peoples Energy Services, has been hired as a consultant.

He announced his resignation in April after a draft audit of CMS found problems at the agency.

Mr. Rumman, who speaks Arabic, says the project is slated to be built in northern Iraq.

Now looking at Peoples Energy at the Illinois State Board of Elections website, one can look them up to find all the people that they contributed to, which is a long list, to say the least. They would, however, give a couple of contributions to Barack Obama, or at least one of his associated groups:

Peoples Energy - PAC 130 E. Randolph Dr.23rd Floor Chicago, IL 60601 $200.00 4/20/1999 Transfer In Friends of Barack Obama

Peoples Energy 130 E. Randolph Chicago, IL 60601 $250.00 8/23/2000 Transfer In Friends of Barack Obama

Peoples Energy 130 E. Randolph Chicago, IL 60601 $250.00 10/19/2001 Transfer In Friends of Barack Obama

Peoples Energy 130 E. Randolph Chicago, IL 60601 $500.00 10/12/2002 Transfer In Friends of Barack Obama

Peoples Energy PAC 130 E. Randolph Chicago, IL 60601 $500.00 4/8/2003 Transfer In Friends of Barack Obama

And going through the list one sees Peoples Energy Corp. giving money to Peoples Energy - PAC and they give money to Peoples Energy. Say, if you ever wanted to hide a way to get lots of funds to a candidate, that is the way to do it: create lots of firms all linked via funding but with different names.

On the federal side, they would also continue supporting Sen. Obama, as seen at Campaign Money's search for them in 2004:

OBAMA, BARACK Senate Democrat IL -- G $1,000 08/03/2004

OBAMA, BARACK Senate Democrat IL -- G $1,000 09/14/2004

They are bi-partisan, however, giving to President Bush's campaign and many others across the US.

Now, back up to that Chicago Business article of 29 SEP 2005 and to dig a bit there:

Messrs. Rezko and Auchi were introduced several years ago by a mutual acquaintance in London. They teamed up recently on a $150 million contract to build a power plant in Iraq.

Mr. Rezko, a close confidante and fundraiser for Gov. Rod Blagojevich, arranged for Mr. Auchi to meet the Governor and State Senate President Emil Jones on a visit to the U.S. last year.

A spokeswoman for General Mediterranean said Mr. Auchi was unavailable for comment. Joseph Ryan, a local attorney representing the company, would only discuss the Riverside Park project.

[..]

The odds that Mr. Rezko’s partnership would be able to pull off the project fell this year, when city officials determined that he set up a minority front to obtain a concession for two Panda Express restaurants at O’Hare International Airport. The Daley Administration would have had difficulty explaining $140 million in tax increment financing (TIF)—the most ever requested by a developer in Chicago—to someone who skirted city rules, especially with corruption allegations sweeping through City Hall.

Real estate experts also questioned whether Mr. Rezko and his partner, Daniel Mahru, had the experience to pull of such a massive project. The developers paid about $70 million for the site in 2002.

Not bad, buy for $70 million in 2002 and sell for $130 million in 2005! What a deal!

Plus a new name to look up, Daniel Mahru, which is always a joy, no doubt about it. The Illinois site doesn't offer much, but the Newsmeat site offers a couple on the federal side:

Mahru, Daniel Chicago, IL 60622 Rezmar Inc./President OBAMA, BARACK H (D) House (IL 01) OBAMA FOR CONGRESS 2000 $1,000 primary 03/17/00

MAHRU, DANIEL GLENCOE, IL 60022 REZMER INC OBAMA, BARACK (D) Senate - IL OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC $5,000 primary 03/05/04

Needless to say one can also look up the Rezko support of Obama at Newsmeat as others have done, and find a plethora of family contributions. Looking at the part Daniel Mahru played with Rezko was done by James L. Merriner of Chicagomag in their NOV 2007 issue:

When Harold Washington was running for mayor of Chicago in 1983, Rezko held a fundraiser after Jabir Herbert Muhammad, who was Muhammad Ali's business manager, urged him to get involved in the campaign. Subsequently, Rezko also joined Ali's entourage, traveling the world with him for five years. Rezko apparently took little interest in boxing—he says he and Ali did watch a few matches together—but he relished putting together business and endorsement deals for the champ. "My role model in life is my father and Muhammad Ali," Rezko says.

Rezko ran Jabir Muhammad's firm, Crucial Concessions. Under Mayor Washington, Crucial won the concessions to sell food at city beaches. Rezko also directed the Muhammad Ali Foundation, formed to promote Islam around the world. But Rezko was ecumenical in his associations. Daniel Mahru's Automatic Ice sold ice to Crucial, and by 1989 Rezko and Mahru, who is Jewish, had founded Rezmar Corporation, a major development company.

[..]

Daniel Mahru was Rezko's partner in Rezmar for 16 years until the two men had, according to Mahru, "a difference of opinion" in 2005. He says they developed more than $600 million in properties, not counting a billion-dollar deal for 62 acres in the South Loop that has been stalled for years. By Mahru's account, Rezko initially showed little interest in the trappings of power. "Back in the eighties, Tony had an opportunity to go to the White House with Muhammad Ali," Mahru says. (The occasion was a dinner during the December 1987 summit of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader; Ali had been invited as a guest.) "I commented to Tony, ‘Wow, that is something I would love to do, see history in the making!' He said, ‘Dan, that doesn't make me any money. I'm not interested.'

"That changed. I think everything went to his head. After the late nineties he was more interested in being around powerful people. He went to a Christmas party at the Bush White House." Rezko cochaired a major fundraiser for President Bush's campaign in 2003.

Rezko declined to comment about Mahru, likening their breakup to a divorce. "You would hear my story; you would hear his story. I wish him no harm."

If hanging around the likes of Blagojevich and Obama went to Rezko's head, as Mahru suggests, one reason might be that Rezko had befriended them before they became famous, forming bonds of loyalty from the start. The BGA's Stewart says, "I would give the guy credit for being shrewd. He would identify young up-and-comers early. Fine, Obama, he's the editor of the Harvard Law Review, but in Chicago politics, big deal, so what. But [Rezko] approached Obama. Rod Blagojevich, he's an unimportant state legislator. What distinguishes Rezko—he didn't just give money to established figures."

Rezko read a newspaper article about Obama's Law Review election and had a colleague get in touch; in 1990 Rezko offered Obama a job at Rezmar before he had graduated from Harvard Law School. Obama declined, joining a Chicago law firm instead. There he did what he has described as a minimal amount of legal work for Rezmar. Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, author of the recently published Obama: From Promise to Power, says, "Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama at his North Shore house, and that fundraiser was instrumental in providing Obama with seed money" for his U.S. Senate race in 2004.

In our conversation, Rezko was reluctant to discuss his association with Obama, except to stress that he has had no formal role in Obama's campaigns. He would not comment on Obama's real-estate deals.

Rezko met Blagojevich in 1995, when the future governor was a state representative from the Northwest Side. Rezko helped to finance Blagojevich's runs for office, in 1996 for Congress and in 2002 for governor. The Chicago Sun-Times has reported that Rezko and his family, businesses, and business associates have contributed more than $675,000 to 15 prominent Illinois politicians since 1989. That sum includes $117,652 for Blagojevich.

[..]

The clout of Rezko and his associates reflects the growing political presence of Arab Americans as a group. Ray Hanania, author of Arabs of Chicagoland, estimates there are 250,000 people of Arab descent in northeastern Illinois. Hanania describes Rezko as "very personable and generous" and remembers that he was "a major donor" to the Arab American Democratic Club, which Hanania helped found in 1994. The club staged a major fundraiser in Bridgeview in September 2006 for Blagojevich's reelection.

One member of the club, Khalil Shalabi, was director of project development for the Illinois Department of Human Services. He left the department in October 2006 after the state's executive inspector general alleged he had arranged fundraisers for Blagojevich on state time. (Shalabi has not been charged with a crime.) Another Blagojevich appointee, Ali D. Ata, resigned as head of the Illinois Finance Authority in March 2005 after a harshly critical state audit of his agency. Ata was indicted last May as a codefendant in the Rezko case and has pleaded not guilty.

Hanania criticizes Arab American business leaders as "a small cluster of activists, and they are all in trouble. They had a push for clout empowerment, not community empowerment—you know, a hunger for being part of the system, sharing the perks among the insiders. When you connect all the names and lines, it's going to look like a spider web."

This moves the timeline for Rezko and Obama back to 1990, with Rezko noticing an article on Harvard Law Review under Obama. Even when not taking a job with Rezmar, Obama would work out of his office at the Davis law firm on Rezmar cases. It is in 1995 that Rezko both pushes for Blagojevich to go for higher office and starts raising money for Barack Obama, as seen in my previous article on Obama's early campaigns.

By this point Rezko had already teamed up with Daniel Mahru and was running not only Rezmar but a slowly building web of contacts in politics. What isn't mentioned so often is that Jabir Herbert Muhammad, son of Nation of Islam's Elijah Mohammad, would first sign most of Crucial Concessions which he started in the 1970's over to Rezko and then become a front-man for him, as seen in an article by Ray Hanania on 8 JUN 2005:

In 1997, Panda Express won the right to open a lucrative concession at O’Hare International Airport under the city’s Minority Set-Aside program which directs large contracts to companies owned by Women, African Americans or Hispanics.

The city awarded a 10-year contract for O’Hare Airport to Crucial Inc. in 1999, which the city believed was owned by an African American, Jabir Herbert Muhammad, the son of the late Elijah Mohammad.

Crucial Inc.’s annual revenues skyrocketed from under $200,000 in each year before opening at O'Hare, to nearly $6 million in 2002, according to recently published reports. Crucial Inc. has earned nearly $16 million in its first four years at the airport.

Last March, Chicago officials charged that Jabir Herbert Muhammad had acted as a front for the real owner, Rezko, who is of Syrian Arab heritage and does not qualify for minority set-asides.

According to Mayor Daley, Jabir Muhammad founded Crucial Inc. in 1976. It was certified as a minority business in 1989. Rezko had been involved with the company since 1983, serving as a vice president and general manager. In July 1997, the company’s minority status lapsed but the forms were not renewed.

Although Muhammad said he ran Crucial Inc., city officials said the company was run by Abdelhamid "Al" Chaib, and longtime friend and Rezko business associate.

In fact Muhammad Ali would sue Jabir Muhammad, as looked at in a FrontPageMag article by Andrew Walden on 11 MAR 2008:

Elijah Mohammad led the Nation of Islam until his death in 1975. Jabir Herbert Muhammad was sued in 1999 by boxer Muhammad Ali for unauthorized use of his name in connection with the Muhammad Ali Foundation. Rezko served as Executive Director of the Foundation.

That's right, son of the Nation of Islam leader getting sued by Muhammad Ali because his name was being used by the foundation being led by Rezko. And because all of these folks, Jabir Muhammad, Michael Rumman, Ali Ata, Khalil Shalabi, Abdelhamid Chaib, Daniel Mahru and Nadhmi Auchi are all connected to Rezko, they are all one-degree separated from Obama, by that alone... Auchi, of course, has direct contact in 2003 and 2004, even though Sen. Obama is very hazy about those meetings.

Now back to the electrical generation facility that led into this section and Obama's connections with Chicago resident Aiham Alsammarae. Yes, yet another name to go on this already long list of folks associated with organized crime! Who is this guy? The ex-Electricity Minister of Iraq who signed off on the power generator contracts in Iraq as a member of the Interim Governing Council of Iraq. Like Rezko he was also a graduate of the Illinois Institute of Technology (Source: Wikipedia). Popping over to Newsmeat on the fellow, we can see the following contributions by him:

Alsammarae, Aiham Oak Brook , IL 60523 KCI Engineering/Businessman OBAMA, BARACK (D) President OBAMA FOR AMERICA $250 primary 01/20/08

Alsammarae, Aiham Oak Brook , IL 60523 KCI Engineering/Businessman OBAMA, BARACK (D) President OBAMA FOR AMERICA $250 primary 01/22/08

Alsammarae, Aiham Oak Brook , IL 60523 KCI Enginerring Consultants/Busines OBAMA, BARACK (D) President OBAMA FOR AMERICA $250 primary 02/06/08

Alsammarae, Aiham Oak Brook , IL 60523 KCI Enginerring Consultants/Busines OBAMA, BARACK (D) President OBAMA FOR AMERICA $250 primary 02/10/08

Alsammarae, Aiham Oak Brook , IL 60523 KCI Enginerring Consultants/Busines OBAMA, BARACK (D) President OBAMA FOR AMERICA $500 primary 02/22/08

Alsammarae, Aiham Oak Brook , IL 60523 KCI Enginerring Consultants/Busines OBAMA, BARACK (D) President OBAMA FOR AMERICA $800 primary 03/07/08

Compared to the tens of thousands Rezko has dished out over the years, this looks pretty small, and limited to just this year, to boot. He also donated some to Mitt Romney and even President Bush, so you can't complain he is only giving to Democrats, either. So what is a nice fellow who was able to escape Saddam's Iraq doing tied up with a mob figure like Tony Rezko? Why they went to school together! This as seen at Human Events in an article by John Batchelor on 03 MAR 2008:

What connects the fugitive Mr. Alsammarae to the candidate Barack Obama? The short answer is Mr. Obama's entanglement with his long-time fundraiser and friend Mr. Rezko, who was linked to Mr. Alsammarae in at least two aborted, fraudulent contracts with the CPA and the Iraqi government before Mr. Alsammarae's conviction and flight.

The long answer starts with the fact that Mr. Aiham Alsammarae, who arrived in the United States in 1976, has been an acquaintance of the Syrian-born Mr. Rezko since they were classmates at the Illinois Institute of Technology thirty years ago.

Mr. Alsammarae was convicted, in Iraq, by Iraqis, as the lead-in to the above two paragraphs by John Batchelor:

A mysterious fugitive from Iraqi justice named Aiham Alsammarae, who is also a Chicago resident, is the focus of a politically fraught episode in the association between accused political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who goes on federal trial today in Chicago for graft, and Senator Barack Obama, the most spectacular Illinois presidential candidate in half a century.

"We want him back to serve his sentence of fourteen years," said an Iraqi government official in Baghdad last week. "He stole $650 million from the people of Iraq, and from the people of the United States, and he was tried and convicted in an Iraqi court in October 2006 for his crimes. We have a four-inch-thick file of his crimes. He plundered the Ministry of Electricity. Dates, bank accounts, dummy companies, a lot of them in the States. We want him, and we want the money back."

When asked why an American citizen with a dual Iraqi citizenship, who had served as the Iraqi Minister of Electricity from 2003 to 2005, after being convicted in an Iraqi court was living openly in Chicago in 2008 rather than in Abu Ghraib, the official said, "That's what we want to know. Armed men broke him out of jail in the Green Zone. He escaped without his U.S. passport to Amman, Jordan, where he hid in the U.S. Embassy, and then to Turkey, where he called us up and bragged he had pizza and a cold beer in his hotel room. We've asked the FBI to help us. They sent us to Interpol. We filed a report. And nothing. It's been a year. We want him back."

Have to admire the audacity of that, calling up on a traceable phone from a hotel to taunt those who had convicted you! But it gets stranger as you go along, again from Mr. Batchelor:

It is then strange to discover that, three years earlier in August 2000, Mr. Alsammarae, a board member of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, appeared in Washington alongside celebrities such as Martin Sheen and George Galloway to demonstrate against the United Nations sanctions on the regime of Saddam Hussein and against the Clinton Administration's military posture toward Iraq from 1998.

One suggestion is that Mr. Alsammarae was well-connected to American intelligence. Mr. Alsammarae is said to have enjoyed a strong link, dating back to his Baathist youth in Iraq, to Wafiq al-Samarrai, the head of military intelligence in Saddam Hussein's army. Wafiq al-Samarrai is also reported to have been a Baathist official secretly linked to pre-war American intelligence. After the fall of Saddam, Wafiq al-Samarrai was an aide to President Talibani until he was identified in the Saddam trial as involved in the gassing of the Kurds; he vanished into Syria.

From mid-2003 until mid-2005, Mr. Alsammarae was the potent Minister of Electricity for the Coalition Provisional Authority, in charge of building a whole new energy structure for the devastated Iraq. He participated prominently in investment forums in the Grand Hyatt and Four Seasons hotels in Amman, Jordan. Mr. Alsammarae left his post in May 2005.

Wafiq al-Samarrai has been cleared of charges on the genocide of the Kurds by the President of Iraq as of 06 MAR 2008 (Source: Wikipedia). Mr. Alsammarae has gotten assurances that he would not be extradited, which makes things even stranger still. According to James Glanz at the NYT on 19 DEC 2006, Mr. Alsammarae had a way with words to describe his escape from Baghdad:

In a lengthy phone conversation on Tuesday, the former Iraqi electricity minister who escaped from a Baghdad jail on Sunday ridiculed American and Iraqi officials and said he fled because he did not trust the police and had received a tip that he would be assassinated within days.

The official, Aiham Alsammarae, who telephoned this reporter, said, without offering proof, that he was already outside Iraq after finagling his way aboard a flight at the Baghdad International Airport.

Incredulous Iraqi security and justice officials disputed parts of his account, saying that a figure as recognizable as Mr. Alsammarae could not possibly have slipped onto a flight when he was the subject of a manhunt.

Mr. Alsammarae, who holds dual American and Iraqi citizenship, scoffed at those assertions and said they were made by officials who spent too much time inside the protected Green Zone in central Baghdad and did not understand how the country really worked.

“Those suckers who are sitting in the Green Zone, they cannot go out and see the people they are governing?” asked Mr. Alsammarae, whose unmistakable speech patterns in English reflect his Iraqi and American backgrounds. “This is a joke.

“So why I cannot take the airport? It’s not because I am a smart cookie. Any Iraqi can do it, even if they have 10,000 court orders against him. This is Iraq.”

One fact Iraqi officials could not dispute: Mr. Alsammarae, who had been jailed four months ago on corruption charges stemming from deals made when he was the electricity minister from August 2003 to May 2005, was still free.

If correct, Mr. Alsammarae’s tale of escape would mean that he not only worked his way free of the Iraqi police guarding the jail but also eluded the thousands of Western and Iraqi security forces stationed in the dense maze of checkpoints and blast walls in the Green Zone, which is the fortified heart of the American occupation and the Iraqi government.

When asked how he could have pulled off such an escape, Mr. Alsammarae, who moved to Chicago in 1976 but returned to Iraq just after the invasion, laughed uproariously for 20 seconds. Then, recycling a famous line from an exchange about Al Capone in “The Untouchables,” Mr. Alsammarae said with undisguised glee: “The Chicago way.”

In a PBS NewsHour episode on 18 JAN 2007 he would talk with Elizabeth Brackett about his escape:

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Fearing for his life, Alsammarae acted on a well-planned-out escape route.

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE: I called my friends, and the friends, they come. They brought the car close to the police station, and I walk out to the car, and I move out from the Green Zone. From the Green Zone, we change cars many times. And after that, we reached the airport, Iraqi international airport, and I just flew over the private jet to Amman. Simple. Two-hours-and-a-half, I'd be in Amman.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Although his Iraqi passport was confiscated in jail, he managed to hide a second one and then renew his American passport in Jordan.

Though Alsammarae is a U.S. citizen, he says the American embassy in Baghdad was not involved in any way in his escape. Those who helped him, he says, were mostly Iraqi friends and supporters, including the owner of the private jet.

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE: I was nervous all the way until I reach Amman, because you never know what's going to happen. Something is wrong can be done in any second.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Iraqi officials were stunned at how easily Alsammarae was able to escape from the heavily fortified Green Zone. A spokesman for the al-Maliki government said five additional corruption charges remain against Alsammarae and "the government will do whatever it can to bring him back."

Alsammarae calls the charges false and says he made the right decision to escape and return home to his family and his electrical engineering consulting business in suburban Chicago.

Even as he began to settle in at home, he continued to worry about the escalating violence in Iraq. He sees the solution as more political than military.

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE: We have to make some arrangements inside the congress of Iraq right now to bring the seculars back around the country. Religious people, they cannot run the country. If they are Shia or Sunni, they cannot run it. We need a people of both religions to run the country.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: He is considered a fugitive by the current Iraq government, but Alsammarae says at some point he will return to Iraq. Why?

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE: Well, we work very hard to see Saddam Hussein leaving. And I worked since 1980. I have to do it. This is in my blood. I don't think I can give up and give all that we worked for to those guys.

If you are a politician, you will take a risk certain times, and you have to take it. And if I got killed, probably you will say, "He lost it," but looks like I succeeded, and I'm still alive and I got my papers with me. So...

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: For now, Alsammarae will spend his time trying to pull his business and his life back together.

Hey, with $650 million dollars you can do a lot of knitting your life back together, let me tell you! And with the man running BNP-Paribas as your friend, it should be damned easy to get that money out of Iraq and available to you. But he is courageous, he tells you so! He will go back even if it gets him killed... which brings up the question of why did he run if he believed in that cause? Perhaps it was more just 'opportunism' in courage, showing up long after the running away?

Mr. Batchelor takes a look at the timeline of Alsammarae, picking up after he left his post with the CPA in 2005:

Two months later it was reported in Chicago that as early as 2004, while Mr. Alsammarae was a minister with authority to approve contracts, he had joined with Mr. Rezko and the London-based General Mediterranean Holdings, headed by the billionaire British investor Nadhmi Auchi, in a contract to construct a 250-megawatt plant in the Kurdistani city of Chamchamal.

A member of the development team at Mr. Rezko's Chicago-based company Rezmar said in 2005 that Mr. Rezko possessed a "formidable overseas network of business relationships" that permitted Rezmar to join together up to 30 companies in order to begin the plant's construction as early as January 2006.

In addition, in April 2005, one month before Mr. Alsammarae left his post, his Ministry of Electricity signed a contract for $50 million with Companion Security to provide training to Iraqis to guard electrical plants by flying them to Illinois for classes.

Companion Security was headed by a former Chicago policeman with a troubled history, Daniel T. Frawley, in partnership with Mr. Rezko and in association with Daniel Mahru, the lawyer for the original contract and Mr. Rezko's former business partner. In April 2006, Mr. Frawley entered negotiations with Governor Rod Blagojevich's staff to lease a military facility in Illinois to be a training camp. In August 2006, Mr. Frawley started negotiations with Mr. Obama's U.S. Senate staff to complete the contract.

The discussions with Mr. Obama's staff continued over many months, including e-mails and conferences with an Obama staffer, Seamus Ahern. Questions raised by this contact go to the issue of whether or not Mr. Obama ever favored Mr. Rezko's commercial ties. Mr. Obama has said often that he performed no favors for Mr. Rezko.

The timeline of Companion discussions in 2006 is important to note: April 2006 Frawley speaks to governor's office; August 2006 Frawley speaks to senator's office; October 2006 indictment of Rezko revealed; October 2006 Rezko arrested upon return from Syria; October 2006 Alsammarae convicted in Baghdad and makes his first escape attempt; December 2006 Alsammarae escapes form Baghdad.

[..]

Oddly, after Mr. Alsammarae left his ministry post in 2005, he was reported that summer to be forming a Sunni political organization with participation by insurgents, some of whom threatened in public declarations to murder him. An intelligence analyst with knowledge of Syria commented that this episode may illustrate Mr. Alsammarae's
then-strong, active links to the Baathist elite in exile in Syria, who have been a major source of money and operations to the Iraqi insurgency these last years; and that Mr. Alsammarae's freelancing rankled the so-called foreign elements in the insurgency.

The strangest of all events was not Mr. Alsammarae's arrest for theft in August 2006, nor his conviction in a Baghdad court in October 2006, but rather the two jailbreaks in October and December 2006. In the first instance, private armed men he may have hired took him from his jail cell in the Green Zone soon after his conviction in court. A report indicates that he was stopped at the Bagdad Airport carrying a Chinese passport. American officials later returned Mr. Alsammarae to Iraqi custody. At least one American with the International Police Liaison Officer program lost his job because of this first jailbreak.

This is about the time that Mr. Alsammarae's family in the United States sought help; there is a report that Mr. Alsammarae's daughter appealed directly to the office of U.S. Senator Barack Obama.

So late OCT to NOV 2006 Alsammarae fails his first jail break after already having Daniel Frawley contact Sen. Obama (APR-MAY 2005) about the Companion Security contract, run by Rezko, with Daniel Mahru from Rezmar, soon after which Mahru would have a falling out with Rezko (late 2005). This does put the contract and coordinating with Rezko, Blagojevich, Alsammarae (and then his replacement) and Frawley into the agenda and 'known persons' list for Barack Obama before all the indictments and, in the case of Alsammarae convictions, come down.

Mr. Batchelor then winds up with looking at Auchi, Rezko and Alsammarae:

The second man with much to lose regarding what Mr. Alsammarae knows is the mysterious and genuinely powerful Nahdmi Auchi of London, a British citizen who, born in Iraq in 1937, has been for decades closely linked with the Baathists. In 2005, Mr. Auchi was reported to have involved his company in the Chamchamal electrical generating plant deal that was used as a major ploy for the plundering of the Iraqi Ministry of Electricity. As recently as this month, Mr. Auchi's representative denied that Mr. Auchi's company, General Mediterranean Holding, invested in the Rezko-Alsammarae deal for Chamchamal in 2004-2005, a denial that does not explain the well-sourced 2005 published reports of the linkage.

Iraqi government officials in Baghdad speak bluntly of Mr. Auchi as a "Saddam guy," and as a member of the Baathist gang who have beggared Iraq for 50 years, a gang that now, exiled to Damascus, Syria, and headed by men wanted for war crimes in Iraq, aims to continue plundering Iraq by using their stolen fortune to corrupt other regions and perhaps some day to return to Baghdad.

A stunning 2004 Pentagon report obtained by Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has identified Mr. Auchi not only as a man who, before the fall of Saddam, had managed to "arrange for significant theft from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program. . . .", who not only had, before the fall of Saddam, sought to "bribe foreign governments and individuals before Operation Iraqi Freedom to turn opinion against the American-led mission to remove Saddam Hussein," but also since the fall of Saddam had engaged in a "conspiracy" over cell phone contracts under the CPA by "unlawful activities working closely with Iraqi intelligence operatives."

What is most striking about this Pentagon report is that it is from the year 2004, when Mr. Auchi traveled by private aircraft to Midway Airport in Chicago and then to a fete at the Four Season Hotel, where he met with his business partner in Chicago real estate, Mr. Rezko, as well as with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Also present that night, according to a fresh report by James Bone and Dominic Kennedy of the London Times, was State Senator Barack Obama, who had recently won the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat that next fall. Bone and Kennedy report that Mr. Auchi and Mr. Obama shook hands. Mr. Obama's aide does not now recall the handshake but does agree that Mr. Obama was present in the hotel that evening.

It may be significant that in a snapshot from the April hotel meeting that shows Governor Blagojevich making remarks to a dinner table beside a smiling Mr. Auchi, there is a third well-dressed man in the photograph, mustachioed, jovial, receding hairline, who greatly resembles other photographs from November 2004 of Iraqi CPA Minister of Electricity Aiham Alsammarae.

Mr. Alsammarae may or may not have been in the room that night. Pictures are useful indicators but his presence is not confirmed. However, he is certainly now accused and convicted of having been in a conspiracy in Iraq with two other men in that room: Tony Rezko, who is regarded by some intelligence analysts as a money-handler for unsavory
agents in his native Damascus, and Nadhmi Auchi, who is regarded by Pentagon analysts as a money-handler for Baathist-linked agents in the Middle East.

Actually one of the most powerful underworld banking figures on the planet pretty well describes Nadhmi Auchi running not only BNP-Paribas and Clearstream, but having contacts via the old Menatep banking system with Roman Abromavich, Michael Chernoy's old Trans World Commodities, Oleg Deripaska's follow-on to TWC being Rusal, but also to the Al Taqwa banking system of al Qaeda, the HAMAS/Citibank joint venture, the Iranian banking system via Marc Rich, and entree to the entire Bank of New York penetration staged by the Red Mafia, including Semion Mogilevich's YBM Magnex fraud. That is the man who just happened to shake hands with Sen. Obama in 2004 and, if Daniel Mahru is correct, also had a meeting with Rezko and Auchi in 2003.

So, just how many convicted felons are around Sen. Obama? Strange that such a 'Lightworker' can't look into the souls of such and see them as they are.

Nadhmi Auchi for the Elf/Acquataine work in the Oil-For-Food scandal, although given a 15 month suspended sentence, it was on a massive swindle and money laundering system for Saddam Hussein. If it isn't a felony, then the French, who prosecuted the deal, need to have their heads examined.

Tony Rezko for his land dealings and corruption of local political offices in Illinois.

Aiham Alsammarae for $650 million in fraudulent deals in Iraq, breaking jail, and on the run from further prosecution there. Too bad the US government is shielding the guy and even worse is Sen. Obama being close to him on the security contract via Rezmar.

What also starts to come clear is that an Iraq that is on the mend, that actually has time to get its act together domestically and start going after Alsammarae, Auchi and Rezko would put a lot of heat on Sen. Obama. Even more interesting is that Nadhmi Auchi, cousin of Saddam Hussein, is a Ba'athist and Aiham Alsammarae was working between Ba'athist insurgents and doing so in Ba'athist Syria during his attempts at negotiations between them and the government. Tony Rezko has obvious ties to organizations in Syria, even if those are damned hard to tease out as no one wants to talk about them. The possibility of Auchi using his funds to finance Ba'ath insurgents and/or organized crime in Iraq cannot be discounted as another Syrian, arms dealer Monzer al-Kassar, is one of the most wanted men in Iraq even without stepping foot in the place recently.

Something is seriously wrong when a Presidential candidate wants to pull out and try to put Iraq back into a very, very bad place of insurgents and competing criminal and religious groups that can do no one any good.

Why is Sen. Obama unwilling to go to Iraq since JAN 2006? What was he trying to accomplish there when he did go? Did it have anything to do with the various contracts Rezko was involved in? Or Alsammarae's negotiations with Ba'athist insurgents?

And why does he want to have the place turn into an unaccountable conflict zone by pulling out? That was what he wanted when the insurgency was just starting to get bad, so his aim was to have the place fall to pieces... or fall into the hands of well funded backers. Either way he wouldn't be accountable. An Iraq that is actually taking care of itself and able to get its act together could be a distinct threat to Sen. Obama, given the activities of those around him.

He could take Michael Yon up on his offer to show him, or any Senator, what Iraq is like... Yon has seen more of Iraq than nearly any American outside the US government these last few years. So far he has no takers.

What is Sen. Obama afraid of in Iraq?

Sphere: Related Content

Sen. Obama and early campaign funding

Taken from the list at Rezko Watch blog of 30 MAR 2008, looking at the Rezko backers and who they are from the DoJ Rezko Donation List, along with the known Obama backers of today, and then crossing that with the Illinois State Board of Elections Campaign Disclosures, some of the earliest donors to Barack Obama starting in 1995 have been doing so way before he got into State politics. Doing some cross referencing here are some of the names that show up early in Barack Obama's political career, non-Rezko list in purple (please excuse table formatting as Blogger is table hostile):

Blackwell	Jr, Robert	12/16/95	150
Mckissack	Eric T	12/16/95	150
Pfleger	Michael	10/01/95	500
Pfleger	Michael	12/21/95	500
Rogers	Jr, John W	12/12/95	1000
Rezko Foods		07/31/95	1000

And from the article there is this description of Robert Blackwell:

Robert Blackwell, Jr., Electronic Knowledge Interchange: Rezko list: 07/15/04 - $5,000.00. Obama: 2000 cycle: 07/01/99 - $3,000.00; 07/25/99 - $2,000.00; 2004 cycle: 03/12/03 - $2,000.00; 06/23/03 - $8,000.00 and $2,000.00. Blackwell was a member of Obama's 2004 Senate Finance Committee. In response to pressure from the Chicago Sun-Times's Lynn Sweet, on January 8, 2008, Obamareleased the name of hosts for a "secret" fundraiser in Chicago. Blackwell's name was on the list. Blackwell is also a bundler for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, raising over $100,000.00.

At Ariel Capital Management, also on the Rezko list:

Eric T. McKissack: Obama: Obama 2010: 04/19/06 - $2,100.00.

John W. Rogers is co-chair of Obama's fundraising efforts and an Obama bundler; CEO and founder of mutual fund company Ariel Capital Management; and a director of Exelon: Obama: 2002 cycle: 12/13/02 - $1,000.00 and $1,000.00; 2004 cycle: 03/25/03 - $4,000.00; 03/31/03 - $1,000.00; 09/23/03 - $500.00 and $500.00; 11/11/03 - $1,000; 10/27/04 - $2,000.00.

For such a 'new style' politician, Sen. Obama's roots go pretty far back into the Rezko based coterie. Mind you these are only out of 139 contributors, and not even much in the way of contributions, but one must start somewhere.

Now, in case you want to do a bit of network searching, Muckety has a nice little application that does that, just type in new names as you go.

Moving on to the 1996 list, the following name comes up from the Rezko Watch cross-check:

Davis	Allison	10/02/96	200
Narefsky	David	10/17/96	300

For those who have forgotten this is the boss of Sen. Obama at the Woods Fund and I looked at that in a previous article of mine and found this on Allison S. Davis (Source:Chicago Sun-Times report by Tim Novak on 20 NOV 2007):

Seven years ago, Sen. Barack Obama was on the board of a Chicago charity when his former boss, Allison S. Davis, came looking for money.

At the time, Davis was a developer represented by the law firm where Obama worked, as well as a small contributor to Obama's political campaign funds. He wanted the charity to help fund his plans to build housing for low-income Chicagoans.

Obama agreed. He voted with other directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago to invest $1 million with Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners L.P., a $17 million partnership that Davis still operates.

It's not clear whether Obama told other board members of his ties to Davis, whose family would go on to donate more than $25,000 to Obama's political campaigns, including his bid to be president of the United States.

"Let me get back to you on that," Obama presidential campaign spokesman Bill Burton said when asked about that two weeks ago. He never did.

[..]

As a developer, Davis' partners have included Tony Rezko, the now-indicted political fund-raiser who has been among Obama's biggest political supporters.

A few months after Davis left the law firm, Obama won his first political office -- a seat in the Illinois Senate. His campaign contributors included Rezko and Davis.

Two years later, Obama wrote to city and state officials, urging them to give money to New Kenwood LLC, a company that Davis and Rezko formed to build an apartment building for low-income seniors at 48th and Cottage Grove.

Davis and Rezko were building that project in 2000 when Davis approached the Woods Fund, seeking its investment in future projects. Besides Obama, Davis also had ties to another of the not-for-profit organization's seven board members -- Howard Stanback, a former city aviation commissioner who worked for Davis at New Kenwood.

Mr. Davis' donation, then, ties in with the time that Obama would start to work at the Woods Fund. At a later Rezko Watch article of 04 MAR 2008, the other individual is also backgrounded while looking at a later fundraiser, the one in JUN 2003 by Tony Rezko:

David Narefsky, and attorney with Mayer Brown & Platt, contributed $1,000.

Getting just ahead of things a little that would be the same fundraiser that showed up at Counter Currents on 16 MAY 2008 by Evelyn Pringle, where a man now suing Rezko was an attendee:

However, Joe Cacciatore told the Associated Press that he was a partner with Rezko in Riverside Park before Auchi showed up, and has not seen any money as a result of the sale. Cacciatore has filed a lawsuit against his
former partners, according to the article.

Carriatore says he met Auchi at an "Obama fundraising party" Rezko gave at his home several years ago. "He was well dressed," he told the Press. "He seemed distinguished."

According to Obama, Rezko only hosted one fundraising party at his home in July 2003. So exactly how many times did Obama party with Auchi?

Which is a question that Sen. Obama has yet to answer.

Back to cross-references, and now moving onto 1997 and crossing the State Election numbers with the Rezko list:

Il State Medical Society		05/12/97	250
Il State Medical Society		11/05/97	500
Katten Muchin & Zavis		09/26/97	200
Rezko Concessions Inc		01/13/97	1000
Rezmar Corp		01/14/97	1000
Rezmar Corp		07/29/97	1500
St & Muni Teamsters Chauffeurs Local U 726		04/24/97	250
State & Municipal Teamsters		10/08/97	200
Teamster Local 710		04/24/97	500
Teamsters Local 705		05/02/97	500
Teamsters Local 710		10/08/97	1000

Although SEIU, AFSCME, UAW and other union organizations have shown up, this is the first time the Teamsters started to contribute to Obama's campaign funds. The reason I consider this important is that Sen. Obama has proposed 'loosening oversight' on the Teamsters which have had long-term historic ties to organized crime. Katten Muchin shows up due to a later appearance on the Rezko list:

Illinois State Medical Society PAC: Rezko list: 07/25/03 - $25,000.00. Obama: 10/4/01 - $1,000.00; 07/31/02 - $1,000.00.

Terry Newman, Katten Muchin Rosenman: Rezko list: 07/25/03 - $25,000.00. Obama: 2008 cycle: 04/23/2007 - $1,000.00.

That catches us up to 1997. The list was 149 names long, but repeats are in there, too. So onwards to 1998 and cross-referencing I come up with:

Hobson	Mellody	09/10/98	300
Il Amoco Pac		07/30/98	500
Il State Medical Society		05/15/98	250
Kiley	Roger J, Jr	10/01/98	750
Newman	Terry E	10/08/98	200
Pfleger	Michael	10/12/98	300
Rezko	Tony	01/22/98	457.7
Teamsters Local 710		04/22/98	1000
Teamsters Local 710		09/24/98	1000

Hey! An oil company PAC - Amoco, now BP. Good going on that, getting local outlets of oil companies to donate to you... hope he sent it back to keep up with the 'new politician' credentials. Can't have simple oil companies showing up when you got folks with mobster ties contributing to you.

From the two Rezko articles listing the names of those involved with Rezko:

Ariel Capital Management - Hobson, Mellody, Vice President: Obama: 04/08/01 - $1,000.00; 07/24/02 - $2,500.00.

Roger Kiley, an attorney with Mayer Brown & Platt and former chief of staff to Mayor Daley, whose firm Mayer Brown & Platt lobbied City Hall on Rezko's behalf, contributed $1,000.

Still, not much for 1998, only 133 donors listed, although there are repeats as seen above.

And the first glance at the 1999 list looks like a PAC man game, more of them than one can easily shake a stick at really. LAWPAC, Nurses PAC, Medical Society PAC, IMPACT, American SIPS PAC, Fire Fighters PAC, Road Builders PAC, MPAC, M Power PAC. Peoples Energy PAC, UPSPAC... and then there is big business showing up in Coca Cola, CSX Transportation, Automobile Dealers
Association, MCI World Com, Novartis, Sears Roebuck, United Airlines. Some of these had shown up before, but in 1999 they outnumber individual contributors of which there are 6 out of 71 listings.

Illinois State Medical Society PAC		05/17/99	500
Mayer Brown and Platt		07/25/99	750

Remember, this is from the same guy that now looks askance at PACs of various sorts.

In Sen. Obama's run for the 2000 seat held by Black Panther Bobby L. Rush does explain that as his 2000 income report is full of corporate, labor union, and big business supporters but he is down to just three people who would contribute to his campaign in any serious manner, and a NYT article by Janny Scott would look at that on 09 SEP 2007:

The rise of Barack Obama includes one glaring episode of political miscalculation. Even friends told Mr. Obama it was a bad idea when he decided in 1999 to challenge an incumbent congressman and former Black Panther, Bobby L. Rush, whose stronghold on the South Side of Chicago was overwhelmingly black, Democratic and working class.

Mr. Obama was a 38-year-old state senator and University of Chicago lecturer, unknown in much of Mr. Rush’s Congressional district. He lived in its most rarefied neighborhood, Hyde Park. He was taking on a local legend, a former alderman and four-term incumbent who had given voters no obvious reason to displace him.

Mr. Rush’s name recognition started off at 90 percent, Mr. Obama’s at 11. Then Mr. Rush’s son was murdered, leading Mr. Obama to put his campaign on hold. Later, while vacationing in Hawaii with his family, he missed a high-profile vote in the Legislature and was pilloried. (One Chicago Tribune editorial began, “What a bunch of gutless sheep.”) Then President Clinton endorsed Mr. Rush.

“Campaigns are always, ‘What’s the narrative of the race?’ ” said Eric Adelstein, a media consultant in Chicago who worked on the Rush campaign. “In a sense, it was ‘the Black Panther against the professor.’ That’s not a knock on Obama; but to run from Hyde Park, this little bastion of academia, this white community in the black South Side — it just seemed odd that he would make that choice as a kind of stepping out.”

[..]

Mr. Obama’s Ivy League education and his white liberal-establishment connections also became an issue. Mr. Rush told The Chicago Reader, “He went to Harvard and became an educated fool. We’re not impressed with these folks with these Eastern elite degrees.”

Mr. Rush and his supporters faulted him for having missed experiences that more directly defined the previous generation of black people. “Barack is a person who read about the civil-rights protests and thinks he knows all about it,” Mr. Rush told The Reader.

Mr. Obama was seen as an intellectual, “not from us, not from the ’hood,” said Jerry Morrison, a consultant on the Rush campaign. Asked recently about that line of attack, Mr. Rush minimized it as “chest beating, signifying.”

The implication was not exactly that Mr. Obama was “not black enough,” as some blacks have suggested more recently; his credentials were suspect. “It was much more a function of class, not race,” Mr. Adelstein said. “Nobody said he’s ‘not black enough.’ They said he’s a professor, a Harvard elite who lives in Hyde Park.”

Not everything went badly. Mr. Obama proved unusually good at raising money. He raised more than $500,000 — less than Mr. Rush but impressive for a newcomer — tapping connections at the University of Chicago, Harvard Law School, law firms where he had worked, and a network of successful, black, Chicago-based entrepreneurs who have played an important role in subsequent campaigns.

He was also catching on among whites in the district thanks to Thomas J. Dart, then a popular state representative who is now Cook County sheriff.

Considering he only got three people to contribute to his campaign, one can say that the rest of the support from unions, PACs and business constituted a 'machine politics' campaign. Of course the Chicago Machine couldn't overcome a well known individual like Bobby Rush, so Barack Obama would get his only defeat in campaigning.

Illinois State Medical Society PAC		02/16/00	250
Illinois State Medical Society PAC		08/21/00	1000

After that solid, Chicago machine cash flow, his 2001 money reflects the support of those that follow that pattern when the lower-level supporters get tapped for help. So now the 2001 cross-reference with Rezko Watch highlights:

Ayers	William	04/02/01	200
Bynoe	Peter	04/10/01	6768.73
Bynoe	Peter	10/15/01	1500
Exelon PAC		10/30/01	500
Hobson	Mellody	04/09/01	1000
Illinois State Medical Society PAC		04/12/01
Illinois State Medical Society PAC		10/04/01
Katen Muchin Zavis		04/06/01	250
Katten Muchin Zavis		10/30/01	250
Mayer Brown & Platt		04/20/01	1000
Mayer Brown & Platt		10/03/01	500
Melton	David	11/08/01	1500
Pfleger	Michael	04/10/01	200
Rogers	John	04/09/01	1000
The Northern Trust Co.		10/15/01	1000

From the Rezko Watch look at contributors:

Peter Bynoe, an attorney, lobbyist and partner in Piper Rudnick LLP: Rezko list: 07/25/03 - $25,000.00. Obama: Bynoe is a bundler for Obama, reportedly raising more than $100,000.00 for his presidential campaign. Bynoe has also made numerous individual contributions to Obama since 1999: 09/24/99 - $1,000.00; 2002, 2004 (and here: 12/10/02 - $1,000.00 and $1,000.00; 03/31/03 - $1,000.00; 01/26/04 - $1,000.00; 06/30/04 - $2,000.00; 01/26/04 - $1,000.00; 02/14/07 - $2,100.00 and 02/23/07 - $200.00. See Laura MacCleery, They talk big, but will candidates deliver the fundraising transparency we need?, MyDD, August 8, 2007, on Obama's lobbyist contributors. Also see Lynn Sweet, Obama, at Sun-Times request, releases names of finance committee members, Senate interns, Chicago Sun-Times, March 24, 2008.

John W. Rogers is co-chair of Obama's fundraising efforts and an Obama bundler; CEO and founder of mutual fund company Ariel Capital Management; and a director of Exelon: Obama: 2002 cycle: 12/13/02 - $1,000.00 and $1,000.00; 2004 cycle: 03/25/03 - $4,000.00; 03/31/03 - $1,000.00; 09/23/03 - $500.00 and $500.00; 11/11/03 - $1,000; 10/27/04 - $2,000.00.

Kelly Dibble, formerly Illinois Housing Development Authority, a state agency that loaned Rezko money, and now an attorney with The Northern Trust Company which in June 2005 financed Obama's Hyde Park mansion, contributed $250.

David Melton worked at Mayer, Brown & Platt according to a Chicago Sun Times article 17 DEC 2007.

Plus the assortment of PACs from various groups.

Moving on to 2002 the cross-referencing from the Illinois State Board and those two Rezko Watch articles looks like this:

Ariel Capital Management		07/24/02	2500
Exelon PAC		08/12/02	500
Hobson	Mellody	07/24/02
Illinois State Medical Society PAC		07/31/02	1000
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw		07/31/02	1000

Then 2003:

Illinois State Medical Society PAC

05/16/03

1000

And that gets us up to the US Senate run by Sen. Obama! Remember that these are the State of Illinois numbers captured for local races only, not for federal races.

What can one take away from these earlier, pre-federal and near federal campaigns?

First - Barack Obama is a machine politician. His support that he garners is from, as one article pointed out, a network of small businesses and law firms. Beyond that the big business, major in-State PACs and other political organizations fielded by Unions and special interest groups gave Barack Obama the ability to garner nearly as much support as the old Black Panther Bobby L. Rush.

Second - Barack Obama has strong ties to the Chicago machine, meaning mob ties. Those ties show up in the very first year of donations to Barack Obama way back in 1995. Those ties to well known 'bundlers' and connected criminal figure Tony Rezko allowed Barack Obama to build the network of the first point. That group of John W. Rogers, Robert Blackwell, Tony Rezko and Fr. Pfleger have remained with him up to today but its basis started in 1995, and was dirty, then, with Chicago machine backing.

Third - Barack Obama was seen as too cerebral to win in middle and lower income neighborhoods. That was not about 'race' but about 'class', and by demonstrating his Ivy League education at every turn, Barack Obama came off as too distant to take those neighborhoods against established politicians from those areas. That said the 'grooming' process to higher office, by Rezko, Rogers, Blackwell, and Pfleger allowed Barack Obama to think of actually challenging Bobby Rush and being competitive on a fund-raising venue.

Fourth - The idea of Barack Obama not taking PAC money from across the board, be it big business, big labor or special interests is laughable. His money raising efforts demonstrate just the opposite: he raises money well from such organizations. He could no more disdain the influence of PACs and multiple 'political wings' of large organizations than he could his 'associates'. As we have seen he is far more ready to toss his pastor, grand-mother and, indeed, anyone who detracts from him in a personal way, to the wayside. It is, apparently, a lot easier to give up on these sorts of individuals than the ones gaining money input for campaigning.

Fifth - For a reformer, Barack Obama has not taken on the Chicago machine and its mob ties. In fact he has cultivated that machine and its donor base to his benefit as the top local donor base of PACs, Unions, and political interest groups outweighs the donor base at the minimum level of reporting for Illinois, which looks to be at the $150 range. When a politician, even at a local level, cannot stimulate interest amongst the citizenry, even in poor neighborhoods (and Hyde Park is far from poor) and yet can still be competitive on a funding basis with established 'grass roots' politicians, you have an indication of a politician with big donor backing. As Chicago has been the center of 'politics for cash' since the turn of the 20th century, actually going against it as a 'reformer' with 'hope & change' for a clean political venue would have been a major point in favor of Barack Obama if he had done so. Taking on the mob and a huge political machine is a noble endeavor and points to a politician who is serious about changing politics. At even the local level, Barack Obama does not evidence that.

Sphere: Related Content

It isn't what you know but who you know

The sweetness of my Uncle Joe! That was, perhaps, his most favorite saying about life in general and how things worked in organizations. As a long-haul trucker in the pre-Interstate days, he got to see a lot of different operations in action and the brown-nosers always seemed to rise up in an organization: It isn't what you know but who you know. And when it comes to knowing people politicians are supposed to be experts at it, wheeling and dealing and knowing just who to call to address a problem inside or outside of government.

Thus it comes as a bit of a shock when a candidate doesn't, apparently, know what their associates are up to, this on 04 JUN 2008 at FoxNews:

Barack Obama issued a statement Wednesday responding after former fundraiser Tony Rezko was found guilty on 16 counts in his corruption trial in Chicago.

Rezko was convicted on fraud and money-laundering charges in federal court. Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing.

Obama: “I’m saddened by today’s verdict. This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform. I encourage the General Assembly to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent these kinds of abuses in the future.”

Ah, not the same Tony Rezko he knew, is it?

From John Fund's article of 03 MAR 2008 at Jewish World Review:

Mr. Obama has admitted that the 2005 land deal that he and Mr. Rezko were involved in was a "boneheaded" mistake, in part because his friend was already rumored to be under federal investigation. The newly elected Mr. Obama bought his $1.65 million home on the same day, June 15, that Mr. Rezko's wife bought the plot of land next to it from the same seller for $625,000. Seven months later she sold a slice of the land to the trust that Mr. Obama had put the house into, so the senator could expand his garden.

Mr. Obama has strenuously denied suggestions that the same-day sale enabled him to pay $300,000 under the house's asking price because Mrs. Rezko paid full price for the adjoining lot, or that he asked the Rezkos for help in the matter. Both actions would be clear violations of Senate ethics rules barring the granting or asking of favors.

Still, there are anomalies. Mr. Obama admits that he and Mr. Rezko took a tour of the house before it and the adjoining plot were sold. Financial records given to federal prosecutors a year later show Mrs. Rezko had a salary of only $37,000 and assets of $35,000. In court proceedings at that time, to explain how much his bail should be, Mr. Rezko declared that he had "no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets."

So where did the money for Mrs. Rezko's $125,000 down payment — and the collateral for her $500,000 loan from a local bank controlled by Amrish Mahajan, like Mr. Rezko a Chicago political fixer — come from?

The London Times reports that, three weeks before the land transactions, Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire living in London, loaned $3.5 million to Mr. Rezko, who was his Chicago business partner. Mr. Auchi's office says he had "no involvement in or knowledge of" the property purchase. Mr. Auchi is a press-shy property developer (estimated worth: $4 billion) who was convicted of corruption in France in 2003 for his involvement in the Elf affair, the biggest political and corporate fraud inquiry in Europe since World War II. He was fined $3 million and given a 15-month prison term that was suspended provided he committed no further crimes.

Mr. Auchi was also a top official in the Iraqi oil ministry in the 1970s. He has for years vigorously denied charges he had dealings with Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. However, an official report to the Pentagon inspector general in 2004 obtained by the Washington Times cited "significant and credible evidence" of involvement by Mr. Auchi's companies in the Oil for Food scandal and illicit smuggling of weapons to the Hussein regime.

So Tony Rezko hooks up with Nadhmi Auchi for a sweetheart $3.5 million loan of which Mr. Obama gets a lovely $300,000 discount on an adjoining house, and he didn't ask the Rezko's for help on the matter? That sounds pretty much like the *same* Tony Rezko to me. I am sure that getting a price break on a house like that from a woman who can't afford it is a normal, everyday happening in Chicago.

And when it comes to associates of Tony Rezko asking Sen. Obama for help, you need look no further than Aiham Alsammarae. Who is he? Well, according to John Batchelor at Human Events on 03 MAR 2008, Mr. Alsammarae is a fugitive from justice in Iraq convicted of stealing $650 million from the government there:

A mysterious fugitive from Iraqi justice named Aiham Alsammarae, who is also a Chicago resident, is the focus of a politically fraught episode in the association between accused political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who goes on federal trial today in Chicago for graft, and Senator Barack Obama, the most spectacular Illinois presidential candidate in half a century.

"We want him back to serve his sentence of fourteen years," said an Iraqi government official in Baghdad last week. "He stole $650 million from the people of Iraq, and from the people of the United States, and he was tried and convicted in an Iraqi court in October 2006 for his crimes. We have a four-inch-thick file of his crimes. He plundered the Ministry of Electricity. Dates, bank accounts, dummy companies, a lot of them in the States. We want him, and we want the money back."

Now from that you can gather that this is not a simple situation and right you are! Say, when you hear complaints of 'mismanagement' of the effort in Iraq, remember that it doesn't help when one of those doing the complaining, Sen. Barack Obama, has ties to one of those doing the problem-making. Just what are those ties? Well it is through that guy he says that has changed so much:

What connects the fugitive Mr. Alsammarae to the candidate Barack Obama? The short answer is Mr. Obama's entanglement with his long-time fundraiser and friend Mr. Rezko, who was linked to Mr. Alsammarae in at least two aborted, fraudulent contracts with the CPA and the Iraqi government before Mr. Alsammarae's conviction and flight.

With political and INTEL connections in the US, Mr. Alsammarae would land a job in the immediate post-war Ministry of Electricity in Iraq, and then hit up Nadhmi Auchi for some help:

Two months later it was reported in Chicago that as early as 2004, while Mr. Alsammarae was a minister with authority to approve contracts, he had joined with Mr. Rezko and the London-based General Mediterranean Holdings, headed by the billionaire British investor Nadhmi Auchi, in a contract to construct a 250-megawatt plant in the Kurdistani city of Chamchamal.

A member of the development team at Mr. Rezko's Chicago-based company Rezmar said in 2005 that Mr. Rezko possessed a "formidable overseas network of business relationships" that permitted Rezmar to join together up to 30 companies in order to begin the plant's construction as early as January 2006.

Yes, Tony Rezko has 'formidable overseas network of business relationships' via his friends Nadhmi Auchi, head of BNP-Paribas bank and Mr. Alsammarae who had contractual obligation authority in the CPA in Iraq. And then the contract gets signed:

In addition, in April 2005, one month before Mr. Alsammarae left his post, his Ministry of Electricity signed a contract for $50 million with Companion Security to provide training to Iraqis to guard electrical plants by flying them to Illinois for classes.

Companion Security was headed by a former Chicago policeman with a troubled history, Daniel T. Frawley, in partnership with Mr. Rezko and in association with Daniel Mahru, the lawyer for the original contract and Mr. Rezko's former business partner. In April 2006, Mr. Frawley entered negotiations with Governor Rod Blagojevich's staff to lease a military facility in Illinois to be a training camp. In August 2006, Mr. Frawley started negotiations with Mr. Obama's U.S. Senate staff to complete the contract.

The discussions with Mr. Obama's staff continued over many months, including e-mails and conferences with an Obama staffer, Seamus Ahern. Questions raised by this contact go to the issue of whether or not Mr. Obama ever favored Mr. Rezko's commercial ties. Mr. Obama has said often that he performed no favors for Mr. Rezko.

The timeline of Companion discussions in 2006 is important to note: April 2006 Frawley speaks to governor's office; August 2006 Frawley speaks to senator's office; October 2006 indictment of Rezko revealed; October 2006 Rezko arrested upon return from Syria; October 2006 Alsammarae convicted in Baghdad and makes his first escape attempt; December 2006 Alsammarae escapes form Baghdad.

Did Mr. Obama's staff and Governor Blagojevich's staff not know how these events related to their discussions with Mr. Frawley? Importantly both Governor Blagojevich's office and Mr. Obama's office later explained they did not know of the link between Mr. Frawley and Mr. Rezko. Senate staffs are expected to perform due diligence on inquiries, such as is this matter about campaign contributions or unsavory activity. What was the nature of Mr Obama's staff's inquiry into the Ilinois resident Mr. Frawley's ability to secure a contract with the CPA's Ministry of Electricity in Bagdad from April, 2005?

Well, that is 'hope and change' for you, no?

Don't investigate and hope for the best, as that is really a change from business as usual: don't look at all!

But then things turn worse with Mr. Alsammarae doing even more damage in Iraq:

Oddly, after Mr. Alsammarae left his ministry post in 2005, he was reported that summer to be forming a Sunni political organization with participation by insurgents, some of whom threatened in public declarations to murder him. An intelligence analyst with knowledge of Syria commented that this episode may illustrate Mr. Alsammarae's then-strong, active links to the Baathist elite in exile in Syria, who have been a major source of money and operations to the Iraqi insurgency these last years; and that Mr. Alsammarae's freelancing rankled the so-called foreign elements in the insurgency.

The strangest of all events was not Mr. Alsammarae's arrest for theft in August 2006, nor his conviction in a Baghdad court in October 2006, but rather the two jailbreaks in October and December 2006. In the first instance, private armed men he may have hired took him from his jail cell in the Green Zone soon after his conviction in court. A
report indicates that he was stopped at the Bagdad Airport carrying a Chinese passport. American officials later returned Mr. Alsammarae to Iraqi custody. At least one American with the International Police Liaison Officer program lost his job because of this first jailbreak.

This is about the time that Mr. Alsammarae's family in the United States sought help; there is a report that Mr. Alsammarae's daughter appealed directly to the office of U.S. Senator Barack Obama.

Well, if you are going to decry violence in Iraq as a reason to leave, it is good to have an 'insider' that can cause such violence, no? And once caught and convicted who does his daughter turn to? The President, perhaps? You know, Commander in Chief and Head of State? Or to a junior Senator of Illinois? And what happens then but the second jailbreak, this one successful:

According to an Iraqi official with knowledge of the case, the Iraqi government wants to know how Mr. Alsammarae was able to go from Iraq to Jordan without a passport. This official also wants to know why the U.S. Embassy in Amman gave Mr. Alsammarae shelter.

And how did Mr. Alsammarae obtain a new U.S. passport to travel from Amman to Turkey? Days afterward, from his Turkish hotel room Mr. Alsammarae telephoned not only the Iraqi government to taunt them after his escape, boasting of pizza and cold beer, but he also called a New York Times reporter, James Glanz, and boasted of his getaway, which Mr. Alsammarae described as "the Chicago way."

[..]

Who are the people who have most to worry about what Mr. Alsammarae knows and can tell the federal court in Chicago, and the Iraqi court in Baghdad when Prime Minsister Nouri al-Maliki's government recaptures Mr. Alsammarae?

The man with the most to lose right now is Mr. Rezko, because he is already in custody as a flight risk and on trial for gross graft in Illinois, the first of what is said to be many trials against the Chicago political elite that Chicago columnist John Kass calls "the combine." Potential revelations in that four-inch-thick file in Baghdad about Mr. Rezko's link to Mr. Alsammarae threaten indictment and trial on two continents.

The second man with much to lose regarding what Mr. Alsammarae knows is the mysterious and genuinely powerful Nahdmi Auchi of London, a British citizen who, born in Iraq in 1937, has been for decades closely linked with the Baathists. In 2005, Mr. Auchi was reported to have involved his company in the Chamchamal electrical generating plant deal that was used as a major ploy for the plundering of the Iraqi Ministry of Electricity. As recently as this month, Mr. Auchi's representative denied that Mr. Auchi's company, General Mediterranean Holding, invested in the Rezko-Alsammarae deal for Chamchamal in 2004-2005, a denial that does not explain the well-sourced 2005 published reports of the linkage.

[..]

What is most striking about this Pentagon report is that it is from the year 2004, when Mr. Auchi traveled by private aircraft to Midway Airport in Chicago and then to a fete at the Four Season Hotel, where he met with his business partner in Chicago real estate, Mr. Rezko, as well as with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Also present that night, according to a fresh report by James Bone and Dominic Kennedy of the London Times, was State Senator Barack Obama, who had recently won the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat that next fall. Bone and Kennedy report that Mr. Auchi and Mr. Obama shook hands. Mr. Obama's aide does not now recall the handshake but does agree that Mr. Obama was present in the hotel that evening.

It may be significant that in a snapshot from the April hotel meeting that shows Governor Blagojevich making remarks to a dinner table beside a smiling Mr. Auchi, there is a third well-dressed man in the photograph, mustachioed, jovial, receding hairline, who greatly resembles other photographs from November 2004 of Iraqi CPA Minister of Electricity Aiham Alsammarae.

Mr. Alsammarae may or may not have been in the room that night. Pictures are useful indicators but his presence is not confirmed. However, he is certainly now accused and convicted of having been in a conspiracy in Iraq with two other men in that room: Tony Rezko, who is regarded by some intelligence analysts as a money-handler for unsavory agents in his native Damascus, and Nadhmi Auchi, who is regarded by Pentagon analysts as a money-handler for Baathist-linked agents in the Middle East..

A lingering question about that Four Seasons evening four years ago is, did Mr. Alsammarae, if he was present, meet the senatorial candidate, Mr. Obama?

Today the questions include: does Senator Obama know that, through his unfortunate association with Mr. Rezko, he was once exposed to grand larceny at the Iraqi Ministry of Electricity from 2003 to 2006? Does Senator Obama know that the Iraqi government wants Mr. Alsammarae returned to face his punishment and to cooperate in ongoing discoveries about additional crimes? Does Senator Obama know that there is a fugitive in Chicago who creates unhappy questions about his recent political associations?

That is definitely the same Tony Rezko that Mr. Obama claims not to know how he got the way he is when he knew him when he was exactly like he is now. Of course he has no recollection of even meeting Nadhmi Auchi, either, does Sen. Obama, as reported at Counter Currents on 16 MAY 2008 by Evelyn Pringle, that one may not stand up so well, either:

The line from Obama spokesman, Ben LaBolt, was again: "As he has said previously, Senator Obama does not recall meeting Nadhmi Auchi at any time or on any occasion, and this includes any event that may have been held for Mr. Auchi."

"Senator and Mrs. Obama have no recollection of attending any such event," he stated.

But on April 16, 2008, Sun-Times columnist, Michael Sneed, reported that Obama had even made toasts at Rezko's party, and wrote:

“Dem presidential contender Barack Obama's handlers may be telling the press Obama has NO "recollection" of a 2004 party at influence peddler Tony Rezko's Wilmette house, but a top Sneed source claims Obama not only gave Rezko's guest of honor, Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, a big welcome . . . but he made a few toasts!”

Michael Sneed runs a gossip column in Chicago with the benefit of having a number of stringers that are well connected and willing to spill juicy gossip to her about insider events. That is a necessary thing to have when working with the Chicago political 'Combine' that crosses both parties.

In an April 26, 2008, interview with Tribune reporter, John McCormick, Obama did not deny that he and Michelle were at the party but said he did not recall being there, stating:

"I have to say that I just don't recall it. I mean this has been, I guess, four years ago. My understanding, through his lawyer, Mr. Auchi doesn't recall meeting me and you know, I can't speak for other people's recollections.

“But I've said publicly, on many occasions, that I had a social relationship with Mr. Rezko."

The last comment is ridiculous because what Obama has said on “many occasions,” is he only had lunch or breakfast with Rezko once or twice a year and he and Michelle had dinner with Rezko only three or four times in the 15 years they knew each other. When asked whether Rezko may have been using him to impress potential investors, Obama replied:

"I just don't have a recollection of the event. As I said, I was in the middle of running a U.S. Senate race. So, you know, I was speaking all the time, probably six, seven, eight times a day."

“Right,” McCormick said, “but why go to this event that was specifically designed for Rezko investors?”

"As I said, I have no recollection of the event. Alright?" Obama replied. When asked whether he would remember making a toast to Auchi, Obama stated:

"I'm fairly certain I would remember giving a specific toast to somebody. Keep in mind, though, that this was right in the midst of my U.S. Senate campaign, so I was doing three or four events a day.

“So, I mean, there were very few events where I wasn't speaking on anything. But I have no recollection of this particular event."

However, the Tribune has obtained a copy of an Obama "upcoming events" schedule on his old Senate campaign web site which shows Obama had no personal campaign activities on April 3, 2004, the day of the party.

Riverside Park funds legal defense for Board Games defendants.

'Board Games' is the name of the operation netting in those involved with the Rezko scheme at Riverside Park where Auchi had invested and Alsammarae would plunk down a large sum of cash to invest, also. But the real kicker comes from an ex-partner of Tony Rezko suing him:

However, Joe Cacciatore told the Associated Press that he was a partner with Rezko in Riverside Park before Auchi showed up, and has not seen any money as a result of the sale. Cacciatore has filed a lawsuit against his former partners, according to the article.

Carriatore says he met Auchi at an "Obama fundraising party" Rezko gave at his home several years ago. "He was well dressed," he told the Press. "He seemed distinguished."

According to Obama, Rezko only hosted one fundraising party at his home in July 2003. So exactly how many times did Obama party with Auchi?

Yes, that 2003 meeting at Rezko's home with Auchi took place before the 2004 alleged meeting when Auchi came over for a visit. Campaigning hard from JUL 2003 to APR 2004?

Ok, so Sen. Obama has poor judge of character and a faulty memory, not being able to pin down 'when' exactly Tony Rezko started to be a crook although he was acting crooked for a number of years while helping Sen. Obama, and a man who was at two meetings, minimum, with Sen. Obama that he just can't recall.

Sen. Obama has been a busy guy, what with Mr. Alsammarae's daughter asking him to get her dad out of a tight spot after swindling the Iraqi people and the US taxpayers in Iraq and then forming an association with insurgents. Can't help it that he flees justice to put his ill gotten gains into a land deal run by his 'social friend' and connection to billionaires.

Then there is the other part of this, the spiritual part. You know the whole 'what do you believe and how are you with God today' sort of deal? If you remember back on 18 MAR 2008, Sen. Obama was lauded for a speech which would be 'for the ages'? Lets take a look at that verbal Rock of Gibraltar:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

[..]

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

[..]

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

[..]

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Not having such a pastor or priest or some such, I have always taken it for granted that a good pastor or priest holds religious views for private meetings and not public ones. Peace of Westphalia and all that, not having religion trying to take over National politics so as to kill a whole bunch of non-believers in other Nations because they just don't believe in the same thing you do, religion-wise. Apparently Rev. Wright, himself, had told Sen. Obama that his presence would be problematical and that he might have to disown him. This from 06 MAR 2007 article by Jodi Kantor at NYT:

CHICAGO, March 5 — The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., senior pastor of the popular Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and spiritual mentor to Senator Barack Obama, thought he knew what he would be doing on Feb. 10, the day of Senator Obama’s presidential announcement.

After all, back in January, Mr. Obama had asked Mr. Wright if he would begin the event by delivering a public invocation.

But Mr. Wright said Mr. Obama called him the night before the Feb. 10 announcement and rescinded the invitation to give the invocation.

“Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack,” Mr. Wright said in an interview on Monday, recalling that he was at an interfaith conference at the time. “One of his members had talked him into uninviting me,” Mr. Wright said, referring to Mr. Obama’s campaign advisers.

Some black leaders are questioning Mr. Obama’s decision to distance his campaign from Mr. Wright because of the campaign’s apparent fear of criticism over Mr. Wright’s teachings, which some say are overly Afrocentric to the point of excluding whites.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said the campaign disinvited Mr. Wright because it did not want the church to face negative attention. Mr. Wright did however, attend the announcement and prayed with Mr. Obama beforehand.

“Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church, but because of the type of attention it was receiving on blogs and conservative talk shows, he decided to avoid having statements and beliefs being used out of context and forcing the entire church to defend itself,” Mr. Burton said.

[..]

In Monday’s interview, Mr. Wright expressed disappointment but no surprise that Mr. Obama might try to play down their connection.

“When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, “with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.” Mr. Wright added that his trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan’s views or Qaddafi’s.

Mr. Wright said that in the phone conversation in which Mr. Obama disinvited him from a role in the announcement, Mr. Obama cited an article in Rolling Stone, “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama.”

According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

So by the time the campaign got into high gear, Sen. Obama already KNEW that Rev. Wright was not preaching something that most would find palatable or even acceptable. Or even demonstrate an understanding of history, come to that. So on 29 APR 2008 when Sen. Obama comes out with this news conference, transcript from NYT, we start to see the pattern:

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: Before I start taking questions I want to open it up with a couple of comments about what we saw and heard yesterday. I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That's in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That's who I am. That's what I believe. That's what this campaign has been about.

Yesterday, we saw a very different vision of America. I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday.

You know, I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I have known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

Yes, indeed, Rev. Wright has somehow, mysteriously, changed from 06 MAR 2007 to 29 APR 2008 in a way that Sen. Obama didn't notice until Rev. Wright started making speeches that, if a white man had made them, would have been roundly condemned as racist. Yet he already knew that Rev. Wright was not among the 'ready for prime time' preachers in the political arena. But his church, well that he could depend on and sustain as it was, as he said earlier, an embodiment of the black community. Right?

From Politico, 31 MAY 2008 transcript of Sen. Obama press conference in South Dakota:

Q: On the church decision do you feel this will put the issue behind you politically or do you feel it will persist and having done this now, do you wish you had done it several months ago?

BO: Well, you know, after the National Press Club episode, as I said, I had a long conversation with Michelle and also had a long conversation with Reverend Moss. We prayed on it and you know, my interest has never been to try to politicize this or put the church in a position where is subject to the same rigors and demands of a presidential campaign. My suspicion at that time, and Michelle, I think, shared this concern, was that it was going to be very difficult to continue our membership there so long as I was running for president. The recent episode with Father Pfleger I think just reinforced that view that we don't want to have to answer for everything that’s stated in a church. On the other hand, we also don't want a church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes. I mean, that’s … I don't want Reverend Moss to have to look over his shoulder and see that his sermon vets or if it’s potentially problematic for my campaign or will attract the fury of a cable program. And so, I have no idea how it will impact my presidential campaign. But I know it's the right thing to do for the church and for our family.

Here's the deal: name one other candidate running for ANY office that has had to leave their church of 20 years because they didn't want it to 'face scrutiny'. I am sure that one or two can be dug up in this long history of campaigns in the US, but the fact is that any candidate running for any public office should and DOES welcome people to know which church or denomination he or she is a member of. It shows character and that their church is a normal, everyday church that is not doing inflammatory things from the pulpit or in their activity roster. Yes, Sen. Obama was in a hard place having to decide between his campaign and his church and all, but who put him in that positions?

Yes, Barack Obama did! Had to extricate himself from a fringe church that he had put himself into!

That was because of his long-time friend and supporter, Father Pfleger. You do know that Fr. Pfleger has been supporting Sen. Obama for awhile, no? To refresh the memory banks, here is a bit from an article of 09 SEP 2007 by Janny Scott at the NYT:

In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama wrote: “Less than halfway into the campaign, I knew in my bones that I was going to lose. Each morning from that point forward I awoke with a vague sense of dread, realizing that I would have to spend the day smiling and shaking hands and pretending that everything was going according to plan.”

Billboards in the district read: “I’m sticking with Bobby.” A few black elected officials endorsed Mr. Obama but most fell in line behind the incumbent. Ministers closed ranks. The Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of the St. Sabina Catholic Church, said other ministers and congregation members called to complain when he endorsed Mr. Obama.

Matt C. Abbott at Renew America would cite this on 17 JAN 2007:

Chicago's liberal activist priest, Father Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina, an "African-American Catholic Church," is warning people not to "touch" U.S. Sen. (and possible 2008 presidential candidate) Barack Obama.

Pfleger, according to a Jan. 16, 2007 story on WBBM780.com, said the following:

"I think Barack Obama is in a class of his own. I think he is the best thing that has come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy.

"When anybody comes with that much hope, whether it's a Bobby Kennedy or whether it's a Martin Luther King Jr., they do become vulnerable. They become vulnerable because they tell the country and the world that we can be better and we don't have to accept what is. And unfortunately, we live in a world where not everybody wants it to be different.

"Do not touch this man, for if you do, you will answer to us all."

So I guess Pfleger doesn't want anyone to criticize Obama for anything, or else...

Isn't that special? One of the first people to bring up Bobby Kennedy in the campaign was *not* Sen. Clinton but Fr. Pfleger and he associated two assassinated political leaders with Sen. Obama. He may have been the first Obama supporter to do that this long campaign, but certainly not the last. Still Fr. Pfleger is only associated with good things, like the seniors low-income housing development he is sponsoring via his company Senior Lifestyle Corp. (Source: Chicago Tribune 31 DEC 2006). Now one of the men tied up in the Rezko scandal is Alderman Edward M. Burke (Source: Chicago Sun-Times 04 OCT 2007) and he has been accused of fixing a murder trial in Chicago (Source: Newsalert blog FEB 2008). And one of the companies on Alderman Burke's client list is Senior Lifestyle Corp., way down at 29 on the list. Alderman Burke's ties go far back, and during the 1979 campaign by Jane Byrne against Richard J. Daley, she would say that he was 'part of an evil cabal' (Source: Time Magazine, 10 DEC 1979).

Now where are we at?

Rev. Wright - The Reverend at TUCC and an individual that Sen. Obama's family has known for 20 years in Chicago, and who had known 'issues' with inflammatory and political sermons far before Sen. Obama came to the spotlight. He somehow 'changed' into something that Sen. Obama couldn't recognize, even though the evidence of previous sermons and publications point to a continuity between Rev. Wright today and his long history at TUCC and with Obama.

TUCC itself - It must still be fully representing the black community, but that community isn't up to any intense scrutiny. Just what kind of church is it that isn't up to scrutiny? I am sure that there is a skeleton or two in every closet, but to leave a church because it can't take scrutiny? Just what sort of church is this? Has to say something about the community it represents this not being able to stand up to scrutiny deal.

Tony Rezko - Chicago Syrian-American political 'fixer' who knows some of the big fish in Transnational Organized Crime and money laundering. Apparently he, too, like Rev. Wright has transmogrified over the last year or so. Strange this sudden set of changes to happen to two people and, possibly, an entire church in the same time span.

Aiham Alsammarae - Convicted felon in Iraq for stealing large amounts of money while Electricity Minister their while the CPA was in power. After a failed jail break his daughter phoned up Sen. Obama's office and the next jail break went much better with 'no questions asked' transportation out of Iraq and then new passports available along the way so that he could get back to Chicago to invest his ill-gotten gains in the Rezko deal. Just what *was* the part that Sen. Obama's office played and why did he not disclose an association with a thief and insurgent backer in Iraq while decrying the problems in Iraq?

Fr. Pfleger - He has always been the way he is, and his ready backing of someone who would come to prominence in the political machine and his ties to a powerful Alderman in Chicago speak to his ability to intimidate others in the Catholic Church leadership and in and around Chicago itself. Fr. Pfleger lauded Sen. Obama first and highest and that helped his political career no end. Just how is his over-the-top activities *now* different than the ones he has done in the past, like threaten gun store owners?

Nadhmi Auchi - Cousin of Saddam Hussein, billionaire, international financier and crook. Apparently there was more than one meeting with him and one of those was at a fundraiser staged by Rezko for Obama. Just how, praytell, does one forget meeting a multi-billionaire and business partner of your 'social friend'? Sen. Obama appears to have some deep and grave memory problems, not being able to keep tabs on such a powerful individual in international finance. And you would think that with such Iraqi connections that Sen. Obama would try to utilize them to help quiet things down in Iraq so that fewer US soldiers would get killed there.

So if you believe Sen. Obama there is a sudden 'change of mental attitude' disease that is infecting some of those around him and turning them into very vile individuals and making them unrecognizable to him. Further he has been attending a church so weak that the scrutiny it would get from a Presidential campaign would 'hurt' it, so he had to leave the frail thing with 8,000 members because it just couldn't stand up to that. And then there is the non-remembering by Sen. Obama about a billionaire investing in Chicago and who has ties to Iraq, plus an Iraqi-American hailing from Chicago whose daughter asked for help in getting her dad out of Iraq from Sen. Obama's office, while he was sitting in jail convicted on fraud.... plus he took some role in the insurgency getting US soldiers killed in Iraq. How does a staff misplace what happens to someone like that who then turns up in Chicago with hundreds of millions to invest in the 'social friend's' land dealings?

And this hasn't even gotten into the relationship between Obama and Raila Odinga, yet another politician who ran on the 'hope & change' theme while utilizing criminal ties, who would then stage a violent and bloody uprising when national elections didn't go his way. Somehow we don't hear much about the nightly phone calls between Sen. Obama and Raila Odinga these days...

Quick, someone contact Steve Jobs!

His Reality Distortion Field has been stolen by Barack Obama.

Sphere: Related Content

The Hard Part

The reports from Iraq show promise and much of it, while those of Afghanistan are turning upwards, the ability to get a stable government and State that rejects the Taliban is also going forward, though much more slowly. These are both cause for optimism, by and large, although the underlying problems of both Iraq and Afghanistan are only partly due to the extremists within each Nation: the source of the problem lies elsewhere in the world and it is those places where extremism can find easy home that are of the gravest concern. Taking out the prestige and visibility of these organizations, al Qaeda, Jaish al-Mahdi & Iranian Qods/Secret Cells is not the end of the process, nor even close to it. The fangs of these groups have been filed down, but the venom of them and the other organizations that have gone unaddressed as they are only our Private enemies who have killed our people and threatened our Nation.

But then, so are al Qaeda and JaM, and Iran has been an enemy since its invasion of our embassy in Tehran, twice, in 1979.

Of these groups a few are ready stand-outs: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's group that spans across central Asia and has even performed terror attacks in China and Europe, Hezbollah acting as the Foreign Legion of Iran and stretching from central Asia through Europe and even into the Americas, Muslim Brotherhood the base organization of HAMAS and supporter of Islamic extremists in Sudan, Somalia, Algeria, Albania, and into South America. Hezbollah, collecting any profit off of the Syrian Bekaa Valley drug trade can easily pull in hundreds of millions of dollars and can likewise garner tens of millions more downstream via threats, extortion and 'terror taxation'. Just from the narcotics trade alone, that may nearly be as much as FARC, close to $1 billion/year. Similarly Hekmatyar's group is set up for a like-size amount from the Golden Triangle traffic under its control in parts of Pakistan, Kashmir, China, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, probably in partnership with the Mogilevich Red Mafia group

On the non-Islamic side of things, the IRA has worn itself down to criminal status and finding it hard to compete with the Red Mafia. FARC has been an enemy of the US for decades: capturing our citizens for ransom or just killing them, attack US government officials, and even trying to assassinate a sitting President on state visit to Colombia. Of all the non-Islamic groups FARC is arguably the worse and most connected having a long-term vehemence against personal liberty and freedom, and moving into the drug trade in place of the cartels as they fell. Still the profit from the drug trade, alone, is estimated at a minimum of $1 billion/year. Because of the nature of the narcotics trade, even taking FARC out of the equation will just shift export production elsewhere: Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Bolivia... you have choices and, of course, a broken up FARC will still have its contacts base and ability to shift some operations for some sub-portions of the organization. Also there would be the expectation of transatlantic trade picking up both from the Middle East, via Europe, and Africa via S. America and the Caribbean. Beyond that the Golden Triangle trade could re-expand as most of that is in some of the vast, lawless territory stretching from Western China into Central Asia. Plus the Magic Kingdom of Mr. Kim in North Korea has demonstrated capability to refine narcotics to something far better than even the Yakuza can do: N. Korea is becoming a prime supplier of the West Asian illicit drug trade, including knock-off above-manufacturers standards pharmaceuticals.

From S. America there is Hezbollah, HAMAS and al Qaeda, along with Shining Path and a few other smaller terror organizations, currently living in the shadow of the FARC drug trade and the emerald gangs. In the Far East the Hekmatyar organization would be a prime one to benefit from increased narco-trafficking, but so would Abu Sayyaf and al Qaeda directly. From Africa it would be GIA, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, HAMAS. If you are getting the feeling that the narcotics trade is merging with terrorism, then you have the right feeling. On the other side the Red Mafia is far more brutal in its commercial operations than mere terrorists could ever be: the Red Mafia doesn't want limelight, just cash. No need for a jihad when just killing you solves the problem... the commercial and capitalist end of organized crime needs to up its ante to compete with the brutality of terrorists, and since organized crime has no ethics or compunctions about their operations, they are actually colder than any hot blooded jihadi blowing himself up: the mobster expects to live and hone his trade. That is terror to intimidate and work one's ends, just as terrorism has just the same though different ends.

So, beyond narcotics, where is the money coming from? Oil and natural gas. Saudi Arabia and Iran both export billions in cash to their favorite terror groups, and while Iran concentrates on Hezbollah and less on HAMAS, the Saudi oil families concentrate on the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, HAMAS and various lesser groups across the Far East and Pakistan. Organized crime in the old USSR bloc is also benefiting from this with billions in cash transactions used to hide illegal monetary gains in the vast flux of oil and natural gas from Central Asia to Europe. The fund transactions necessary to facilitate the energy movement also goes to hide the other funds not part of that movement. Regularized large accounts shifting funds between 'known' and 'legitimate' institutions that undergo 'scrutiny' can, by having such large transaction types, hide the other sort of funds shifts. The post-9/11 world where banking has, in theory, 'tightened up' the banking system via a 'know your customer' concept falls apart when that bank knows that customer and doesn't care about that customer's other connections. If you want to fund terrorism and organized crime and filter the profits from it, there is nothing like large cash transactions in other venues bundled along with 'transaction fees' to third parties to help slide that money around. As I went through previously, the idea of 'legalizing narcotics' when those in control of the trade, now at its BASE, makes little difference as the profits might go down, but the steadiness of them becomes an assured income platform.

I will get to banking in a bit, but what other venues beyond human trafficking, white slavery, narcotics trafficking, and outright oil profits funding terrorism are there? One of the highest profits, lowest risk criminal activities is cigarette smuggling to avoid State or National taxes, and this proves to be a very lucrative business on a global scale. Cigarette manufacturers based in Nations with minimal oversight and legal overhead farm out work to smaller production plants. Those plants, having an 'in' to the supply system of the brands they work for can then order more paper, wrappers and packaging material, buy low-grade tobacco and stuff that material into said wrappers and sell them on the gray market'. While this does 'impact brand name' it doesn't do it at a high amount as everyone knows they are gray market' and not 'up to snuff', which some folks took up instead. So while brand name and marketing overhead, distribution and other costs are 'piggybacked' by these 'gray market' smokes, the actual cost of production gets to set the price of initial purchase and then the entire supply chain avoids tax stamps and import duties and such via various means. That then winds up in a host nation and distributed via those same 'gray market' networks that, also, support organized crime and terrorism. The big windfall, though, is on the LEGAL cigarettes coming in post-import duty, and then grabbed up by 'wholesalers' who then are supposed to follow National legal codes for taxation and distribution. Instead those on the criminal support side ship these and sell them as 'gray market' goods, but the 'real deal' and not a knock-off, and pocket the sub-tax cost they charge as profit. See that tax cost on a pack of cigarettes? Would you pay the cost, non-tax, to get them? Many do, and that funding stream, while illegal, is difficult to stop. A single Hezbollah cell in the US working between Toronto, Canada, North Carolina and Detroit was able to send back a minimum of $10 million per year on just this alone. Not bad for 6 or 7 guys, really, and they did account for all their costs in what they took, so the $10 million/year is their PROFIT.

Hezbollah, actually, is becoming the quintessential institutionalized terror organization stretching from extortion via terrorism in Lebanon, absurd oil profit pay outs from Iran, getting 'a piece of the action' on the Syrian, S. American, African, Caribbean, N. American and Middle Eastern narcotics trade, melding with Albanian organized crime and Algerian terrorists to sponsor criminal rings in the West stretching from Europe to the Americas of which the auto-theft rings are the most well known of the Albanians, whatever their overseas mosques can get in 'charitable donations for Lebanon', and gray market goods rings that reach as far as Los Angeles hawking knock-offs from the Far East in designer clothing, cigarettes and anything else they can get their hands on. All of these are money making institutions for Hezbollah, and while the oil pay outs may account for 1/3 to 1/2 of their income, the *rest* of it comes from a diverse source base including the Iranian sponsored beef packing facilities that show up wherever Hezbollah roams, like in Colombia. Iran, BTW, is a net exporter of beef globally due to this arrangement, too. Said beef slaughterhouses and packaging companies serve as excellent places to train terrorists, what with the open spaces, loud noises and blood everywhere. To facilitate this Hezbollah has branched out into intellectual property theft via gray market software distribution, with one hacker in Brazil making $100,000 on just one line of products in a year. If that is starting to hit a bit closer to home, to those in the software community, the fact that it was a major brand name probably soothes some. What may be less soothing is that one could purchase those goods at a shopping mall in Ecuador one-half owned by Hezbollah. HAMAS, on a smaller scale, performs many of these same operations, seeking to utilize multi-source funding bases to keep operations going.

When we hear about individuals all hopped up on 'jihad' and being somewhat witless about 'how to do it' being 'amateur terrorists', we should take little solace due to the fact that the more 'professional ones' are widespread and relatively easy to find (as these things go). Really, most suicide-bombers blowing themselves up in Israeli restaurants, Baghdad ice cream shops, or gatherings in Pakistan are NOT professionals: they are one use munitions for their cause. It is the 'professionals' that walk between organized crime and black market goods to gray market goods to terrorism to money laundering that have a real impact on these networks. If a few thugs in Florida want to do jihad on their own, they are snickered at by the absent minded, and declaimed as 'not a threat' while, in fact, they are one decent drug purchase away from that network of sustainment. And as Islam spreads into the US prison system, those coming out already have their contact base for outside work and means to support jihad if they so desire it. So what was a simple and quite clueless 'thug' can get an 'education' in prison and be well on his way to a 'professional career' of transnational terrorism. Clueless today and in 5 or 10 years a possible *real* threat to society.

The link at the low level back to the high level becomes complete with the other end of banking: person to person banking. This is the exact opposite end of the scale spectrum from hiding money in large transfers and then siphoning off 'transaction' and 'payments & processing' fees to third parties. P2P banking is indigenous via culture and community and relies on family, tribe, clan and other localized trust associations that then span the world as people migrate. The most cited is the hawala concept in the Middle East which was typified as 'small cash amounts' continuously on the move. Get under the 'banking scrutiny' sieve by being too small, and no one pays any attention to the transactions. Some banking institutions noted oddities, but for sub-$3,000 transactions it is not worth deploying more than a letter of inquiry. In theory you can move it so every transaction down to the sub-penny is tracked, traced, and verified, but then you run into the 'front companies' and financial institutions that don't really care about their customers. Even that, however, has been worked around ahead of time via the Black Market Peso Exchange system where all transactions are 'white world' and yet black market funds are laundered. How is that done? Small purchases of *goods* that are then shipped/smuggled to areas where they have high overhead and then sold at a profit with that profit pocketed by those in the system (usually the smugglers and a small kickback to the 'banker') and the rest of the funds then go to its intended recipient which then verifies, via local contact to the originator contact that the funds, in full, have arrived. This system is absolutely ingenious and can even work with absolute and fully 'white market' transactions, just by shipping low cost for procurement goods to areas with degrees of restriction that inflate its cost. Cigarettes come to mind.

This low-level integration is one that no law enforcement system on the planet can stop. How do we know this? It is culturally affinitive, requiring cultural contacts at both ends of the exchange system to be analyzed (or even found) and the problem of 'white market purchases' makes the originator Nation unlikely or unwilling to even investigate 'small crimes' if, indeed, there is a crime involved with, on the purchase end, there isn't. The transaction, from start to finish, is illegal, but the transaction method and mode is not: to get the criminal activity the entire chain of transfers must be brought in at one time to demonstrate the money transfer, which goes from original customer, originating 'banker', wholesale purchase, shipment (via legal or illegal means), receipt of goods, sale of goods, payment of goods to destination recipient. That is at least 7 chain parts to pick up and more if multiple shipment/sales are involved, and the individuals in-between can each claim that they did NOTHING WRONG. Again, if $10 million per year from one small cell in the US can get funds to Hezbollah in Lebanon via a route like this (when not outright using fraudulent transaction methods in banking) then just *how* can you de-fund terrorism? The world can't even crack down on the organized crime base for this work, so getting terrorists via it is an even dicier prospect.

How about the high level integration, then, is that amenable to being stopped via banking regulation?

The answer is: no. Why? It is too late to do that.

Consider the friend of 'Tony' Rezko and Barack Obama: Saddam Hussein's cousin, Nadhmi Auchi. In 1968 Saddam Hussein started a system of fraudulent bank accounts, paper financial groups and paper industries, with the sheets of paper being the only 'real' holdings of these groups. During the 1970's the Al Mahdi system stretched from Baghdad to Zurich, Switzerland and from there throughout Europe and to the US. This growing system facilitated the growth of BCCI and profited from it via utilizing it as a 'holding system' for money and money laundering of Saddam's accounts in the Al Mahdi system. Nadhmi Auchi was put in charge of this just prior to Saddam seizing power and killing off some of his extended family, but Nadhmi was fine with *that*. Utilizing BCCI and, later, helping BNL transfer agricultural funds to Saddam, this system grew and would extend down to the Cardoen industries in South America from which Saddam would purchase US cluster bomb technology and manufacturing licensed by the US to Cardoen. From those humble beginnings, the Al Mahdi system would work with HAMAS and its partner Citibank, and reach out to the Al Taqwa banking system set up by bin Laden and Zawahiri to ensure funds distribution to their terrorists overseas.

Luckily, by then BCCI had gone under.

Unluckily the next large scale bank penetration would join with this joint system of Saddam, Auchi, Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda and a few others, plus have its own bank in the way of BNP. What would serve in its place came from the Red Mafia and is a problem that cannot be pulled apart to this day, nearly 9 years after its discovery: the Bank of New York penetration. In one of the least looked at and hardest to understand bank frauds, the BoNY system penetration would encompass financial institutions stretching from the West Coast of the US all the way to Europe and from there the Far East and then cross the Pacific to link up as a global funds transfer network for organized crime and terrorism. At least three Red Mafia groups worked on this and very few of the individuals involved, save for those staging the penetration in NY, have seen any jail time. The system was the 'mass cash transfer hiding illegal funds' system, that depended on the 'Heavy Metals' Oligarchs taking over the production of aluminum, steel, and other products in Russia. The TransWorld Commodities group would become, for a time, the third largest aluminum producer behind Alcoa and Alcan. This would start to unravel, somewhat, after a few killings in the US by a Red Mafia crime boss and the defrauding of stock and securities exchanges of hundreds of millions of dollars by another, but the magnitude only started to set in during late 1999 and early 2000 that this compromise was not limited in scope nor extent. Consider that the fall of BCCI effected banks from Hong Kong, Switzerland, Abu Dhabi, UK, France, Germany, US, and France (amongst its largest placements with smaller banks scattered all over the place). One regulator put BCCI *below* the scale of the BoNY scandal. And the reason for that is that the European clearinghouse for financial transactions, in charge of the SWIFT system, Clearstream had been penetrated by the Red Mafia to launder its funds from the BoNY system.

It is at this point that Nadhmi Auchi becomes involved in Clearstream scandals under Oil For Food, BNP purchases Paribas bank as it is privatized, then BNL and then, because a minor criminal indictment under OFF is no deterrent to crime, Nadhmi Auchi went on to procure a controlling interest in Clearstream.

Yes, one of the largest verification systems for funds transfers is owned by an individual who has used it for money laundering in the past.

The reason that more cannot be pinned on Clearstream is that the BoNY system of transactions for money laundering staggers the imagination. In London a man by the name of Simon Reubens instituted a system whereby paper companies of all sorts were started up in the Bahamas, Grand Caymen Islands, Cyprus, Switzerland, Monaco... well, you name it, there is probably a sheet of paper with a company there that is part of this systems. The one estimate given by MI5 and FBI is that 200 people controlled 300 companies and no one knew them all save for Simon Reubens. And he disdained computers. It was all kept track of in his head. Any man willing to start three companies to pay his rent has got something going for him, and that virtual web of systems includes things like Highrock Holdings run by Mogilevich for his procurement of oil and gas resources in Central Asia to augment his Golden Triangle trade. Although TransWorld Commodities would fall, Oleg Depripaska helped by Auchi and a group of banks that tend to align with BNP-Paribas, has slowly pieced it back together and Rusal is now looking at the #2 spot in global aluminum production. And Mogilevich would leverage a commercial empire based on natural gas through his associate Dmitri Firtash. Together they have caused Russia to fall for the exact, same industrial swindle three times, under different names, and each time there is a stipend paid to the intermediary company that ranges in the $10 billion range per year. That is above and beyond cost of operation or any other profit.

You cannot get a banking system that is 'secure' with folks like this running around and Nations like China sponsoring Huawei, which has its own terrorist and criminal dealings, in any way, shape or form. When a notable venture capitalist who ran for President, Gov. Mitt Romney, can't understand the role that off-shore banking and financial institutions play in his OWN commercial empire, then how can we expect BUREAUCRATS to do so? They aren't making the money that Gov. Romney does nor have the incentive to shut down such things and even if they could CONGRESS created the loopholes that organized crime and terrorism are exploiting via the tax code.

Iraq and Afghanistan? Dead easy compared to this!

Complain about the pittance being spent on those ventures and not one, single, solitary CENT being spent on tightening up our financial institutional structure that makes US money 'easy pickings' to support terrorism and you get an idea of what is involved in scale differences. Put up those lovely counters of the money spent on those ventures, but the moment you look at the tens of billions going into the undermining our own banking and financial system via Congressional votes, and the actual idea of what the cost of fixing *that* will be starts to come into focus. Every 'special privilege' or 'tax benefit' or 'trade subsidy' that the US encourages makes organized crime and terrorism able to expand its networks deeper into the legitimate institutions of the West. Consider that in 2000 the drug trade from the Bekaa valley to Europe was on the order of $40 billion/year, or about 10% of global drug trafficking, all of which is supporting this entire system to undermine Western culture, values and finances. Now that this has only gone in one direction, cost wise, those relatively small amounts, perhaps only 10% being skimmed by terrorists or even less, ends up at billions per year not just on bombs and guns, but for 'outreach' and sustainment. Add in the tens of billions from oil profits from the Saudis and Iran, and you get Hezbollah having missiles costing tens of millions of dollars apiece and having a 6,000 or so. Some of that does go through the old gas pump, yes, but even if oil dried up as a commodity and the entire world went 'green' on energy tomorrow, the residual problem would still be very close to what the US spends on Iraq and Afghanistan per year.

Notice the problem? All of these terrorist organizations don't have government overhead or infrastructure to take care of, and in the case of Iran they don't bother taking care of theirs, anyway. With all the heavy weapons Hezbollah gets, the fact that the small arms, bombs, and generally more normal terror organization underneath it would still exist based on its other sources of incomes, makes taking Iran out and expecting Hezbollah to crumble a non-starter. Hezbollah's heavy weapons would need maintenance from Syria, which would be paid for via the drug trade, thus putting Hezbollah in a 'use it or lose it' for the high cost overhead items. They would want to expend all of those to get back to the sustainable organization, which would *not* go away. While taking Iran out of the picture would lower the long-term threat problem, the short term gets very nasty without addressing Syria and Hezbollah, too.

Then there is Pakistan, heart of multiple Islamic terror groups and having two native populations, Baluchs and Pashtuns, really feeling that they got a raw deal as becoming part of Pakistan. The top money maker in Pakistan is its *own* transnational terror group run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar out of a 'refugee camp' that is now devoted towards his organization. Stretching from the semi-precious stone smuggling in the East to narcotics in the North and West, then stretching terror arms out to Europe and China, this organization escapes Western sight as it is not al Qaeda or the Taliban. When the Taliban needed weapons it went to Hekmatyar's group to get illegal arms dealer Victor Bout to start supplying them. And as Semion Mogilevich has an airline under his control in the Far East, the contacts to the Red Mafia for Golden Triangle trade in opium are already in place. Clearing Afghanistan of its support for terrorism will only come via the end of the opium trade there and an inter-tribal accommodation on not starting it up again. This would deprive the Taliban and Mehsud organizations of funding, while leaving the other crop areas under Hekmatyar as the only viable source of those funds. Needless to say all of these organizations, to one degree or another, emulate Hezbollah's lead in diversification beyond the committed base of fighters. And many of these groups are, indeed, Private or Personal armies: that is the definition of Lashkar.

What routes can be utilized to curb this problem? And notice it is 'curb' not 'end' or 'eradicate' it?

On the Nation State side the US would have to take a very, very, very hard turn in its foreign policy away from its current, bland multicultural view towards religion. The one thing that the Peace of Westphalia did establish was the separation of the Secular State from Religious Institutions, and that single, sole view is one that has been lost on the US by so many bemoaning the 'separation of church and state'. Not doing so led to the 30 years war and between 15-20% of Europe dead as a result of it. Our current policy of not enforcing the Peace of Westphalia via Foreign Policy is leading to a likewise end on a global scale. But as so many intellectual elites want to end the Westphalian State and put religion as a guiding precept of International Affairs... what?

You say they want only Secular States?

Ok, prove it.

The net effect of not supporting Westphalia has been to encourage the most venomous of religious institutions backed by tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to radicalize Islamic populations globally. Westphalian States would prohibit that amongst themselves and put those States not doing so under careful scrutiny and possible ban as not upholding Westphalia ends up with lots of people killed over religion. The Transnational Progressive Left does not believe that religion has a role to play in the affairs of Nations and yet will refuse to do anything to stop Transnational establishment of State sponsored religious organizations overseas. The Tranzi Left, instead, equalizes all religions with blandness, thus making, for example, Inuit cultural beliefs the exact same as Islamic terrorists blowing folks up in shopping malls. By equalizing all religions, and not differentiating between them, the Tranzi Multiculti Left upholds nothing and encourages death by destructive religion and will do nothing to stop it. It is unfortunate that the US State Dept takes similar views about not wanting to 'offend' those using Islam as a reason to kill by NOT doing a damned thing to stop the spread of Wahhabi Madrassas and Schools *anywhere* on Rock 3. Mind you, no President has, either, which is why I can find 'al Qaeda High School' as we call it locally, within a few miles of where I am sitting.

The Tranzi Right, likewise, wants no part in anything that upholds cultural identity or gets in the way of economic efficiency. This concept flies in the face of Transnationalism and points out that by not sustaining National culture you lose the ability to get sustainment of Transnational institutions. Without those Transnationalism falls apart as the world goes into chaos because the replacement concepts being put in place by those following strict Islamic Totalitarianism are non-profit seeking and very backwards on personal liberty: you can't be a multiculturalist or a capitalist profit seeker under that formulation as it gets you killed.

Westphalia has a point and a hard one: religion is personal and each individual has freedom to worship inside their Nation. The Nation can have an overall religion but may not ENFORCE IT upon anyone. And as Nations should enjoy survival, keeping external State Sponsored religious institutions OUT of one's Nation should be a goal of Foreign Policy as well as discouraging non-locals from using cash from those exterior States from doing so.

That is a tough nut to sell in the US, as the left would get anaphylactic shock from mere exposure to it. Actually *keeping* to ideals on religious freedom of worship via Foreign Policy is a great big non-starter in the Land of Liberty: can't put forward that human liberty is worth any sacrifice in dollars or comfort now, can we?

That is not going anywhere, I'm afraid, so we must look to other options as a Nation and recognize that venomous religion as sponsored by Nations to undermine and dissolve other Nations is a fact of what is going on. If, say, Turkey tried to manipulate the fast food market by putting in a mega falafel chain that would offer good products at lower prices to gain market share, we would have some heartburn. If they subsidized it to operate at a loss so they could drive competitors OUT, we would seek to end trade with Turkey in this area. If they shifted and opened up a value chain of TurkMart stores, using goods made by low cost labor in Central Asia to compete with US stores and gain market share, we would continue with heartburn. Operated at a loss to drive out competitors? Soon the Foreign Policy wheels would be in motion and things would deteriorate as we would want to know *why* the Turks were doing this. And if they responded, 'to undermine your domestic economy and take it over' we would laugh, of course, but take the threat seriously.

So, why not do this with Saudi Arabia?

Yeah, oil? So?

Yet, in the case of religious intrusion to utilize domestic means to undermine the US legal system, the Left in America is more than willing to roll over, whimper and expose its neck and say 'please don't kill me'.

To put our money where our anti-terror desires are requires the US to utilize both Foreign and Domestic policy to end the threat and seek to our own internal accord and safety. Externally, however, the US has an opportunity that no other Western Nation has had for decades: start to teach something a slight bit different in one of the oldest capitals of Islamic knowledge on the planet. We also have a native population that may just be willing to listen to us and hear us out on the subject of human liberty and accountability, what with all the killing of their people by religious fanatics propagated by the Saudi's and Iranians. If the Saudi and Iranian threat is to use culture and religion to undermine Nations wherever their followers go, it would be a fair fight to start setting down academies to teach Western economics, jurisprudence, culture and traditions and *why* we can live with those who adhere to ideas of human liberty and freedom and having common government that respects those things. In Michael Oren's Power, Faith and Fantasy, we get a rare glimpse into the successes that early US church based schools and teaching hospitals had on the Middle East in a very limited way. Those were private institutions set up to teach the private values of how Americans see their faith and common government as a single whole, and when the earliest explorers brought along books like Tom Paine's Common Sense, and those that heard it from the banks of the Nile to the interior of the area we think of as Kudish it was seen as, indeed, having some common sense to it.

For those on the Left and Right who see the Middle East from Northern Africa to as far out as Afghanistan as still being relatively backwards and primitive culturally, would not teaching the most revolutionary of ideas for human liberty from their source allow the US to make its case that Islam can and indeed MUST adapt to the modern world so as to avoid a global bloodbath on the scale of the 30 years war but without borders? We already have some of the finest of our Citizens demonstrating that this can work and give a culture that is at peace with its beliefs and yet can still advance in material ways in common accord, while allowing each man his say on his own life. These respected Citizens who show and demonstrate respect can also demonstrate how this works, perhaps with the help of the Poles, and give a new context for Islam that allows each to take it up or not as the case may be.

The Hard Part of Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't even started yet.

It is the part where we either demonstrate the courage of our beliefs in how we make our world better by giving each man his due and not threatening him with death if he believes differently, or where we demonstrate an inability to understand that All Men Are Created Equal even on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates.

Cash? Damned easy to come by.

Belief in ourselves?

That is the Hard Part.

Sphere: Related Content

Give to a good CAUSE, helping those protecting us

H/t: Ace

The wounded men and women of the Armed Forces have a wishlist at Amazon for things they would like to help keep their minds busy while on the mend. Mostly movies and some computer games wanted by those who have sacrificed much to protect our liberty and freedom.

From Ace's:

The movies and games are part of a larger effort by CAUSE, a group founded
in 2003 by 4 West Point grads who had served together in Vietnam. The idea
behind CAUSE is that morale among active and recovering soldiers and Marines can
be dramatically improved through R&R activities. At Walter Reed, CAUSE has
facilities at the Mologne House, which is an outpatient dormitory for personnel
and their families. The CAUSE library carries DVDs, as well as video games and
equipment and is open to anyone at Walter Reed, free of charge.

My goal this summer is to try and fulfill the wish list...

And please feel free to pass this link on for others to contribute and
for those of you with blogs (you know who you are), please consider publicizing
this effort.

Help those that need it, our fellow citizens who have paid the price to secure the blessing of our land and lives for us. They have asked for little, those who give so much.

Sphere: Related Content

Is it the software or the hardware?

Ah, that Dell Inspiron 1721 that I moved over to WinXP Pro x64 had a hard drive problem: the 'access of forever' problem where it spent hours thrashing on the poor drive and did nothing. At that point it was obvious that it would never stop and so the time was to admit that there was something wrong with it. Pull plug, pull batteries and let the poor thing rest a minute or two and then power-up.

"Disk Read Error Has Occurred" and the three finger salute to restart as the OS just doesn't show up.

The fun I have not had!

Thus I have been through the world of looking at hard drive recovery tools as this same drive has now gone belly up across two operating systems with the same problem. It *is* the hardware, just reliable enough to make you think its ok, and just unreliable enough not to be trusted. And this strange world is populated by high price, guaranteed data recovery services and the 'freebie' end where a bit of elbow grease just might get you somewhere. Maybe.

Normally I would go mid-tier with a relatively cheap set of tools, but free and time is always enticing. One thing I did note, is that Windows will not actually recognize the disks from the install CD... neither XP nor Vista. But, that is not the end of the OS spectrum, and when looking at diagnostics I hit upon the folks at Ultimate Boot CD which is a look at how to make a LiveCD with all sorts of neat recovery tools on it... and their follow up at UBCD4Win on the howtos of doing this, which is often less than obvious. The problem is, of course, that Win isn't seeing the drives. From there it was a check out of Knoppix, which has many neat distros including the one from INSERT which has a nice load of disk and forensics tools that can fit on a mini-CD, just in case you are the kind of person who needs that sort of thing on short notice. Linux has come a long way! And as soon as the folks at NTFS-3G get an equivalent chkdsk routine to run natively, things will be nice.

On the Win side there are many promises that a new, cheap environment that MS distributes for free to OEMs, Windows PE or Pre-install Environment will actually allow nearly anything to run on it... from the Windows Automated Installation Kit (AIK) which is Win PE built on Vista. It is, as they say, a fascinating area where a number of developers are now flipping this around and saying: 'Since MS doesn't want to make that more widely available and since so many of us have install disks, why not make a WinPE via the install disks?' Which is a damned good question, actually, if you want to have a very portable version of Windows that boots up from CD or from USB drives. Most of the installs are aimed at the low end of things: under 200 MB and many under 100 MB and a few aimed at 20-30MB.

For a full Windows install.

They are centralizing at winbuilder.net and are getting a set of automated scripts to lowball a lot of tools and capability into as little space as possible for portable Windows environments. Like the Asus Eee... luckily I don't have one of those, but at the rate I'm going... Most of the projects are over at boot-land.net your place for all sorts of fun OS projects beyond Windows and Linux.

From all of this I find yet more neat tools that I never knew existed, like MagicISO Virtual CD/DVD and its ability to mount an ISO image normally used to burn a CD as a virtual drive. Neat! Especially with the MS WinPE download, mount it and *boom*, insty-drive. Also a previously known favorite imgburn which is a down and dirty CD/DVD burner, with all sorts of goodies packed into it... found that with DVD Flick awhile ago for taking that video you found and burning it to CD or DVD. The folks at the Ultimate Boot CD have more free tools than you can reasonably want for everything you can imagine. Chock-a-block full of them. And a nice nod to DiskInternals with a suite of free and pay-for software for addressing hard drive issues.

So what I am slowly narrowing this down to is a Linux LiveCD distro that can handle WinXP Pro x64 in a Virtual Machine, on CD, and run the chkdsk from that. Or otherwise pull off that stunt.

Next path forward is to try and 'finesse it' with one of the WinBuilder groups, of which the one run by thuun looks the most interesting, although there are a couple of others to try out.

After that (assuming it doesn't work) is the other thing to do: hardware.

That path leads to a 2.5" SATA notebook drive enclosure for USB hook-up to my main system and then hitting *that* with disk diagnostic tools. Might work, too! As it is there is something broken where the files are not recognizable by the the Security Knoppix disk running the NTFS-3G system, so copying the files looks like a non-starter. Would have done that first and just reformat the things while looking for replacement (not refurbished, ie. used, drives). Software first, then hardware.

There is always Dell, but I have come to find them untrustworthy. YMMV.

Sphere: Related Content