Root Love // Cyberpunk NIFO

Everyday, water facilities world wide are exposed to a variety of threats, and the access to clean water can no longer be taken for granted. The need for investment in water security infrastructure has become apparent as unpredictable threats have lead to the exposure of how inefficient and costly current water security management solutions are. Today, government and municipality water utilities have found a solution that will allow them to efficiently manage, address, control and monitor all aspects of water from the source to the end user.

Whitewater Security, a Tel Aviv based water security company has developed a technology called the WaterWall to satisfy this need. The WaterWall is a comprehensive water security system that will revolutionize the way water security is managed.

The WaterWall is an end-to-end water security management system that provides government and municipality water utilities the ability to prevent, protect, detect, manage, and recover from everyday tasks to minor events and major crisis. These events include accidents, natural disasters, operational faults, contaminations, and sewer leaks to sabotage, chemical/biological materials, terror, and cyber crimes. Through online, real time data streaming the WaterWall collects and manages all information from the physical protection components and the water monitoring systems. The WaterWall unifies security and information systems to provide early warnings, and manage all events. It achieves this by using a sophisticated model composed of dynamic semi automatic procedures and on demand communication tools. With this, the WaterWall can manage manpower and resources to support all operational needs. Furthermore, the WaterWall reduces potentially costly human error, and makes it easier to establish and maintain compliance with industry and government regulations. The WaterWall also dramatically improves the speed and effectiveness of incident response and recovery while actually reducing operating costs. It’s a solution that creates an environment where all current and future technologies, people and actionable procedures are fused into a unified, control and management platform empowers control room and/or remote control personnel to focus on all aspects of management from one location.

Additional features of the WaterWall security management system include The Decision Support System (DSS) and the BlueBox.

The DSS is a hydraulic module that analyzes the contamination source and predicts the amount of contamination spread over time on GIS displays. The DSS system is activated as soon as abnormal behavior is recognized.

The BlueBox is a computerized system that gathers data from different water quality sensors. It recognizes abnormal behavior through historical trends analysis and constantly adapts to fresh data, minimizing false alarm rates and maximizing reliability of the alarms. Bluebox has the unique ability of learning and determining whether irregularities in the water system constitute a real contamination threat.

Using the WaterWall technology to manage the security of a water source will safeguard it in any event, providing a fast, reliable, solution to resolving even the smallest matters.

Whitewater Security, a fully-owned subsidiary of Whitewater Group, provides governments, municipalities, water utilities, and high risk facilities around the world the ability to manage their water security, protecting against the threat of accidental or intentional contamination. Whitewater Security achieves this by utilizing the known five step comprehensive solution to water security that has been developed over the past 70 years. These five steps include prevention, protection, detection, crisis management, and recovery. Its success comes from exploiting the synergies between them all aspects of water security. Using this model as a blueprint, Whitewater Security selectively integrates cutting edge technologies of companies with a clear expertise and growth path in the fields of water security and control.  In doing so, it has positioned itself to be a leader in the water security sector. Using the defensive strategy that Whitewater Security employs, the future of our most precious natural resource will be secure.

To learn more about Whitewater Security and schedule a video conference please visit us at w-watersecurity.com.

NSA monitors millions of American e-mails

by Tom Eley

.
Global Research, June 19, 2009
World Socialist Web Site

Several current and former agents within the National Security Agency (NSA), speaking on condition of anonymity, have told the New York Times that the spy agency likely monitors millions of e-mail communications and telephone calls made by Americans. The new revelations follow the disclosure in April that the NSA’s monitoring of domestic e-mail traffic broke the law in 2008 and 2009.

Last year, Congress passed legislation providing the NSA greater latitude to spy on the communications of Americans, so long as it resulted inadvertently from the agency’s efforts to spy on foreigners or those it “reasonably believed” to be outside US borders. This authorized the NSA to intercept tens of millions of e-mail and phone communications that pass through American telecommunication “gateways.” The measure was attached to a congressional law granting immunity to telecommunications companies that turned over private phone records to federal authorities.

Among those voting for the bill was then-Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. In all, 293 members of the House and 69 senators voted to pass the bill.

To launch investigations specifically targeting American “terror suspects,” the legislation requires that the NSA first gain a warrant from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). In fact, this is a mere formality. The FISC almost never turns down a government request for a warrant.

Yet the NSA’s activities have gone beyond even this pseudo-legal system specifically constructed in order to allow domestic spying. It is not known how many Americans have been spied upon, but the Times’s sources report that in 8 of 10 warrants issued by the FISC, the NSA “is believed to have gone beyond legal boundaries.” Further, “Because each order could single out hundreds or even thousands of phone numbers or e-mail addresses, the number of individual communications that were improperly collected could number in the millions,” the Times reported.

A former agent said the NSA’s illegal domestic spying operations have been underway for years. In 2005, the agent said he was trained to use a secret database called Pinwale, which allows agents “to read large volumes of e-mail messages to and from Americans.” The agent said he believes that American e-mail messages culled by the program could amount to as much as 30 percent of the total. Two current NSA agents confirmed that the program continues today.

Sources confirmed to the Times that spying on the domestic e-mail of Americans was at the heart of a bitter feud within the Bush administration in 2004 involving former Attorney General John Ashcroft and top Justice Department officials who “staged a near revolt over what they viewed as possibly illegal aspects of the NSA’s surveillance operations.” The crisis unfolded at the hospital bedside of Ashcroft, who was recovering from pancreatitis. Ashcroft and acting Attorney General James Comey refused to sign an order reauthorizing a domestic electronic surveillance program they believed to be in violation of 1978’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

“The controversy was mostly about that issue,” a former Bush administration official with knowledge of the dispute told the Times. At the time, Comey expressed concern over “the collection of ‘meta-data’ “ on Americans’ communications, which could be used to build a database that identifies both broad communication patterns as well as to map out communication links among individuals and groups. The Bush administration went ahead with the program without Justice Department authorization. (see “Former Justice Department official describes illegal actions by Bush administration in defense of domestic spying”)

The NSA has evidently told lawmakers that the known instances in which it broke legally established domestic spying guidelines were inadvertent cases of “overcollection.” While the NSA refused comment for the Times story, a spokeswoman for National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair claimed that due to legal and logistical complications, “technical and inadvertent errors can occur,” and that “when such errors are identified, they are reported to the appropriate officials, and corrective measures are taken”

The chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, Rush Holt (Democrat, New Jersey), cast doubt upon this vague explanation. “Some actions are so flagrant that they can’t be accidental,” he told the Times.

This is an extraordinary declaration. The leading member of the House committee tasked with overseeing US spy agencies is saying, in effect, that the NSA is deliberately breaking the law in order to spy on large number of Americans without warrants or any other form of legal justification. Taken together with the revelations from the Times’s anonymous sources, it paints a portrait of an intelligence apparatus that operates with impunity, unaccountable to the legislative and judicial branches of government—much less to the American people, who in the last three national elections have repudiated the anti-democratic policies of the Bush administration.

The Times followed its investigative article with an editorial that correctly points out that the NSA abuses underway were prepared by last year’s congressional revisions of FISA. The editorial notes that “President George W. Bush started violating that law shortly after 9/11 when he authorized the NSA to conduct domestic wiretapping without first getting the required warrant. When that program was exposed by The Times in late 2004, the Bush team began pressuring Congress to give retroactive legal cover to the eavesdropping operation and to the telecommunications companies that participated in it.”

The reference to the Times exposing the article in late 2004 is rather self-serving. In fact, the Times shielded the evidence of NSA domestic spying from the American public until after the 2004 election, at the behest of the Bush administration. (See, “A damning admission: New York Times concealed NSA spying until after 2004 election”)

Congressmen have not revealed to the American public details of their concerns over the NSA domestic spying program, and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Wednesday rushed to deny the implications of the Times story. “Everything that I know so far indicates that the thrust of the story—that there are flagrant actions essentially to collect content of [American e-mails]—is just simply not true, to the best of my knowledge,” she claimed.

In fact, the Obama administration and leading Democrats are fully committed to advancing the power of the police state built up during the Bush years.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to state that warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ phone conversations is illegal, a position both he and President Barack Obama advocated before Obama’s inauguration. He also refused to say whether or not the Justice Department would rescind a 2006 Bush administration White Paper that attempted to provide a legal rationale for the warrantless wiretapping program.

The revelations also serve as another indication of the powerful domestic role of the military-intelligence apparatus—a power increasingly independent of the nation’s political institutions and laws.

In April, after voices within or close to the “national security community” launched high-decibel criticism of President Barack Obama’s decision to comply with a court order and release Bush administration legal memorandum that sought to create a pseudo-legal basis for torture, Obama responded by promising that there would be no investigation of those who ordered or carried out torture.

This only emboldened the military-intelligence apparatus and the Republican right. Top generals supported Obama when he reversed his earlier acceptance of a court order to release dozens of photos depicting US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners. Then, buckling under pressure from the military-intelligence apparatus, Obama also backtracked on campaign promises to end the military tribunal system for trying alleged terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

Indeed, the congressmen ostensibly tasked with overseeing the nation’s spy agencies are themselves the subjects of its espionage. It is openly acknowledged that the NSA carries out spying operations on members of the US Congress and prominent political figures. In April, it came to light that the NSA had been wiretapping the conversations of Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat and then the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, as she promised to intervene on behalf of two indicted pro-Israeli lobbyists in return for political favors. Harman had herself been an outspoken advocate of the NSA’s warrantless spying operations.

The former agent interviewed by the Times also confirmed that Pinwale had been used by an agent to access the e-mail account of former President Bill Clinton. He indicated that the agent who had done so was investigated, but not whether or not he was dismissed.

In a related development, within days the military is expected to release details of a new “Cyber Command” that would oversee and develop the military’s espionage and war-making capabilities on computer systems. The NSA, which controls most of the functions that would be associated with cyberwarfare, will figure prominently in the new command.

Iran’s Election And US -
Iranian Relations
By Stephen Lendman
6-19-9

In the run-up to Iran’s June 12 presidential election, early indications suggested the media’s reaction if the wrong candidate won. On June 7, New York Times writer Robert Worth reported “a surge of energy (for) Mir Hussein Mousavi, a reformist who is the leading contender to defeat Mr. Ahmadinejad (and) a new unofficial poll (has him well ahead) with 54 percent of respondents saying they would vote for him compared with 39 percent for Mr. Ahmadinejad.” No mention of who conducted the poll, how it was done, what interests they represented, or if Mousavi winning might be the wrong result. More on that below.

Writing for the influential far right Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Fariborz Ghadar described the contest as “pit(ting) the hard-line Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against two relatively moderate and one conservative challenger.” In spite of one or more independent polls showing Ahmadinejad way ahead, he suggested that “the outcome (isn’t) all that clear.” More on the poll results below.

The Wall Street Journal sounded a similar tone in calling Ahmadinejad’s opponents “two reformists and one conservative (who) criticized his government for its lack of tolerance. Each has promised more personal and social freedom if elected.”

Newsweek quoted Iranian historian Mohammed Javad Mozafar saying:

“The choice is….between democracy and an authoritarian government. If Ahmadinejad wins, that means the end of this reformist dream for a while. Many of these young people will be depressed and even leave the country. But if Mousavi wins, that means the citizens have won despite Ahmadinejad’s deceitful policies and the support he receives from above (meaning Iran’s Guardian Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei).”

The dominant US media repeated similar comments to the above ones, so their post-June 12 response was no surprise.

On June 13, Robert Worth and Nazila Fathi in The New York Times headlined: “Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote,” then described “the most intense protests in a decade….with riot police officers using batons and tear gas against opposition demonstrators who claimed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had stolen the presidential election.”

The Wall Street Journal called the election “a sham” and cited the AP reporting that “election authorities were miraculously able to count millions of paper ballots (in just hours) after the polls closed to hand Mr. Ahmadinejad his supposed victory.” It quoted writer Laura Secor in the New Yorker saying: “What is most shocking is not the fraud itself, but that it was brazen and entirely without pretext.”

Perhaps she meant “precedent,” but either way she ignored two stolen US elections for George Bush and the shameful media response to them.

Also disturbing are more moderate, supposedly even-handed, and progressive US voices. On June 13, Stephen Zunes asked “Has the Election Been Stolen in Iran?” Again with no evidence he wrote:

“….predictions of knowledgeable Iranian observers from various countries and from across the political spectrum were nearly unanimous in the belief that the leading challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would (win) decisively..” Given the results, “the only reasonable assumption was that there has been fraud on a massive scale.”

Juan Cole admitted “difficulties of catching history on the run (and said evidence) may emerge for Ahmadinejad’s upset that does not involve fraud,” yet he concluded on first reaction that “this post-election situation looks to me like a crime scene.”

The Nation magazine has had a shameful record since inception. In more recent years, it called the US-led NATO Serbia-Kosovo aggression “humanitarian intervention.” Initially it supported the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war in its run-up and early months. In 2000 and 2004, it ignored blatant electoral fraud for George Bush. It attacks Hugo Chavez, and was hostile to Jean-Bertrand Aristide during his years as Haiti’s President. It called the 2008 US presidential campaign the “Obama Moment” for his “historic candidacy” and keeps supporting him despite his brazen betrayal of voters who elected him.

Now it’s at it again in a June 13 Robert Dreyfuss article headlined, “Iran’s Ex-Foreign Minister Yazdi: It’s a Coup” in which (without no substantiating evidence) he called the election “rigged,” referred to Ahmadinejad as “radical-right,” and said “his paramilitary backers were kept in office.” Now “Iran’s capital (is) steeped in anger, despair, and bitterness” as he almost cheerled for a “color revolution” with comments like:

“For years, the hardline clergy and their allies, including Ahmadinejad, have feared nothing more than an Iranian-style ‘color revolution.’ Now, Mousavi – with solid establishment credentials, an Islamic revolutionary pedigree second to none, and an outspoken pro-reform message – finds himself at the head of a green parade” in contrast to “Ahmadinejad’s Red Tide,” a reference to “the red-armband-wearing, virtual fascist movement in support of reelecting” him.

A lack of journalistic and analytical integrity on the left and right continues to hype fraud without a shred of supportive evidence, so something sinister may be visible on Iranian streets. If true, the Obama administration likely is behind it or at least in support, so Iranians need remember their history.

More on that below, but first some background. Four candidates participated, each of whom was vetted and approved by Iran’s Guardian Council and most importantly Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – a system similar to America where democracy is illusory because party bosses choose candidates, big money controls them, key outcomes are predetermined, horse race journalism and media hype substitute for honest coverage, independent voices are suppressed, vital issues go unaddressed, voter disenfranchisement is rife, and corporate-run electronic voting machines decide winners, not the electorate.

In Iran, the Guardian Counsel’s approved candidates seek closer relations with America and less confrontation. In deference to Iran’s business and elitist interests, they favor austerity measures against Iranian workers. In March, Ahmadinejad’s budget called for reduced spending by eliminating subsidies on water, fuel and electricity but kept “targeted” ones in place for the nation’s poor.

On November 6, Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama on his election and wrote: “The great civilization-building and justice-seeking nation of Iran would welcome major, fair and real changes, in policies and actions, especially in this region.” On February 10, he said he was willing to negotiate “in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect,” short of surrendering Iranian sovereignty. Given 30 years of confrontation since 1979, it’s doubtful that’s enough, despite recent hints of rapprochement from Washington.

The four candidates included:

– current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; in 2005, he scored a decisive second round victory over former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (61.69% – 35.93%), one of Iran’s wealthiest men, notoriously corrupt, and despised by Iranian workers and the poor; since elected, Ahmadinejad has been mischaracterized, misquoted, and vilified in Washington, Tel Aviv, and the West for supporting Palestine’s legitimate Hamas government, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran’s right to peaceful commercial nuclear power development; he’s supported by Iran’s military, conservative elements, Iranian workers, and the nation’s urban and rural poor;

– Mir Hossein Mousavi served earlier (from 1981 – 1989) as Iran’s Prime Minister (before constitutional changes ended the position) and is currently president of the Iranian Academy of Arts and a member of the Expediency Discernment Council and High Council of Cultural Revolution; earlier he served as Foreign Minister; as Prime Minister, he was hardline and anti-Western during the Iran – Iraq war when he imposed austerity measures to finance it; today, he draws support from portions of Iran’s ruling elite and urban middle class, especially students and youths who favor better relations with America;

– Mohsen Rezaei is a politician, economist, and former Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) commander; he’s currently Secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council and drew sparse support in the June 12 election; and

– Mehdi Karroubi is a cleric and former parliamentary speaker; he’s currently chairman of the National Trust party and founding member and former chairman of the Association of Combatant Clerics party; he also scored poorly in election results that came down to a contest between the two leading candidates.

On June 13, Iran’s Interior Minister, Sadeq Mahsouli, announced the following results after which street protests erupted:

– turnout was 85% of eligible voters

– Ahmadinejad won with 62.63%

– Mousavi was second with 33.75%

– Rezaei got 1.73%

– Karroubi had 0.85%, and

– 1.04% of ballots were voided.

Evidence that Ahmadinejad Really Won

One or more independent pre-election polls conducted several weeks before June 12 provide evidence of Ahmadinejad’s strong victory, and it shouldn’t surprise. It was comparable to his sweeping 2005 runoff win in which he trounced former President Rafsanjani as explained above. This time, no second round was needed because only two dominant candidates contested. The others needn’t have bothered as final results showed.

Although Iran is a theocracy with standards leaving a lot to be desired, it’s one of the few Middle East countries holding real elections, unlike regional monarchies or dictatorial states like Egypt where Hosni Mubarak has ruled for nearly 30 years and wins easily with well over 90% of the “vote” in little more than a sham process.

Pre-Election Independent Poll Results

Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: the Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation Washington-based think tank chaired by Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

On June 15 in the Washington Post, they reported the results of their May 11 – 20 poll based on 1001 nationwide Iranian voter interviews (in all 30 provinces) with a 3.1% margin of error.

While Western media reported a surge for Mousavi, the results showed Ahmadinejad way ahead. “The breadth of Ahmadinejad’s support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, (Iran’s second largest ethnic group after Persians), to woo Azeri voters.” Yet poll results showed they favored Ahmadinejad 2 – 1.

Also, 18 – 24 year-olds strongly supported Ahmadinejad while Mousavi scored well only among university students and graduates and Iran’s “highest-income” earners. The writers concluded “the possibility that the vote (was) not the product of widespread fraud” but reflected the electorate’s true choice. They also said:

“Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.”

Perhaps so according to University of Michigan Professor Walter Mebane. He used statistical and computational “election forensics” to detect fraud in comparing 366 Iranian district results with those in the 2005 election and concluded that “substantial core” local results were in line with basic statistical trends. “In 2009, Mr. Ahmadinejad tended to do best in towns where his (2005) support was highest, and he tended to do worst (where) turnout surged the most.” He didn’t rule out the possibility of manipulation but found no evidence to prove it.

Nonetheless, Washington may be capitalizing on a pretext to stir trouble with large protests continuing for days. Obama hinted it in a June 12 statement several hours before polls closed by saying: “….just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you’re seeing people looking for new possibilities” – perhaps aided by covert CIA mischief, comparable to earlier decades of subversion, beginning in Iran in 1953.

America’s Post-WW II Meddling in Iran

Before becoming Prime Minister in 1951, Mohammed Mossadegh served in parliament beginning in 1944 and also worked with other members of the National Front of Iran (Jebhe Melli) to establish democracy, free of foreign influence, especially with regard to oil.

In December 1944, he introduced a bill to bar foreign country oil negotiations, yet Britain retained control through its Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) at a time Iran’s southern region had the world’s largest known reserves. In late 1947, the government demanded a greater revenue share but Britain refused. In 1951, one month before Mossadegh became Prime Minister, Iran’s parliament nationalized the AIOC and paid fair compensation for it.

Economic sanctions and an oil embargo followed. Iranian assets were also frozen in British banks. Major Anglo-America oil interests supported London, while a CIA coup aimed to oust Mossadegh. Conceived by Theodore Roosevelt’s grandson Kermit, it took two attempts to succeed, and began each time by filling the streets with protesters against a leader The New York Times called “the most popular politician in the country.” Nonetheless, a military showdown followed against pro-Mossadegh officers with each side staking their careers on choosing the winning one.

Mossadegh was ousted. Reza Shah Pahlavi returned to power. Sanctions were lifted, and America and Britain regained their client state until February 1979 when the same Anglo-American interests turned on the Shah and deposed him.

F. William Engdahl explained it in his important book, “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order.” In 1978, a White House Iran task force recommended ousting the Shah and replacing him with Ayatollah Khomeini, then living in France. It was part of a larger scheme to balkanize the Middle East along tribal and religious lines and create an “Arc of Crisis” from Central Asia to the Soviet Union.

Doing it in 1978 became urgent at a time the Shah was negotiating a 25-year oil agreement with British Petroleum (BP), but talks broke down in October. BP demanded exclusive rights to future output but refused to guarantee oil purchases. The Shah balked and looked for new buyers in continental Europe and elsewhere.

He also sought to create a modern energy infrastructure built around nuclear power generation to transform the region’s power needs. He envisioned 20 new reactors by 1995, wanted to diversity Iran’s dependence on oil to weaken Washington’s pressure to recycle petrodollars, and also increase investments in leading continental European companies.

Washington was alarmed, tried to block the plan but failed, and resorted instead to destabilization, starting with cutting Iranian purchases. Economic pressures and oil strikes followed along with US and UK agitators fanning religious discontent and other turmoil. The Carter administration urged Iran’s Savak secret police to crack down as a way to arouse anti-Shah sentiment. Western media highlighted it, gave Khomeini a public stage to speak and prevented the Shah from responding.

In January 1979, things came to a head. The Shah fled the country, Khomeini returned, and proclaimed a theocratic state. By May, he cancelled Iran’s nuclear plans. America thought it could control him and his nation’s oil but calculated wrongly. Tensions built, thirty years later they continue, and post-June 12 they may again be coming to a boil.

Iranian Street Protests and Their Ominous Possibilities

Leading up to and after the Iranian election, The New York Times played its customary role as lead media gatekeeper/instigator doing what it does best – sanitizing news, filtering out uncomfortable truths, and presenting distorted opinions for the powerful interests it represents.

Roger Cohen’s June 17 op-ed said 40 million Iranian “votes (were) flouted,” many of whom “have crossed over from reluctant acquiescence to the Islamic Republic into opposition. (The Republic) has lost legitimacy. It is fissured. It will not be the same again.” Does he know something we don’t?

He called Mousavi “the reformist of impeccable revolutionary credentials.” He’s “a credible vehicle for a reform regime that serves to preserve it – an acceptable compromise to most Iranians.” No matter that most of them apparently preferred Ahmadinejad, an outcome neither Cohen nor the Times accepts, or perhaps they and Washington do to be able to use his victory to incite trouble.

On June 17, The Times’ feature story highlighted “Iranians angry at the results of last week’s election (marshaled) tens of thousands (in) the streets (in spite of) signs of an intensified crackdown….the government expanded (it) with more arrests and pressure against journalists to limit coverage of the protests.”

Scant mention was made of huge pro-Ahmadinejad crowds in central Tehran nor has there been in other media reports, especially on television where, not surprisingly, coverage has been distorted, one-way, and hostile to the Iranian president and regime, much as it’s always been.

What’s going on? Are anti-Ahmadinejad protests spontaneous or are covert instigators inciting them?

The Pak Alert Press reported that former Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beig claims that the CIA distributed around $400 million inside Iran to incite revolution. In a June 15 interview with Pashto Radio, he cited “undisputed” intelligence proving interference.

“The documents prove that the CIA spend $400 million inside Iran to prop up a colorful-hollow revolution following the election” to incite regime change for a pro-Western government. He called Ahmadinejad’s victory “a decisive point in regional policy and if Pakistan and Afghanistan unite with Iran, the US has to leave the area, especially (from) occupied Afghanistan.”

Writing in the New Yorker’s June 29, 2008 issue, Seymour Hersh said “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.”

Involved is support for Iranian dissidents and “gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.” Perhaps later to disrupt the presidential election with Hersh saying Bush’s Finding “focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change (by)working with opposition groups and passing money,” according to a person familiar with its contents. His account is a year old but may be relevant to today, hopefully something he’ll substantiate in a future report given what’s now playing out.

On June 16, Computerworld’s Robert McMillan reported more of it in writing about key Iranian web sites knocked offline. “On (June 15), sites belonging to Iranian news agencies, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran’s supreme leader (Khamenei) were knocked offline after activists opposed to the Iranian government posted tools designed to barrage these websites with traffic.”

“This type of attack, known as a denial of service (DoS) attack, has become a standard political protest tool, and has been used by grassroots protesters” in previous cyber-incidents, including Georgia in 2008. Initial efforts were to recruit Iranian protesters, but international users are now being targeted.

Dancho Danchev is a security consultant. He counted 12 Iranian sites under attack, including news agencies, the Foreign Affairs Ministry, National Police, and Ministries of Interior and Justice. Iranian officials have responded in kind to prevent protesters from social networking. Iran’s General Internet service was also disrupted for a short time. It’s again operating but anything may happen going forward. Computer World said Twitter “emerged as the major source of information on the protests, and is being” picked up in major media coverage.

Of interest is a June 18 Yaroslav Trofimov Wall Street Journal online article headlined “Some Israelis Prize Ahmadinejad’s Role.” He explained that some high level Israelis prefer him in power. One is Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, telling a closed Knesset committee hearing that his controversial reputation “makes it easier for Israel to enlist international support against Iran’s nuclear program.” Mousavi winning, however, would have created “a graver problem.”

Israeli officials said that in the 1980s, Mousavi “jump-started Iran’s nuclear drive” as prime minister. Both he and Ahmadinejad “pose the same threat. But it’s better for Israel that you have a leader with a very dangerous ideology who speaks clearly so that nobody can ignore him,” according to Knesset deputy speaker Danny Danon. A more soft-spoken president promising improved relations “would have made it harder for us to recruit the world to our side,” he added, and the same argument holds for America.

Addressing the issue of a stolen election, Dagan dismissed it out of hand in saying alleged ballot-stuffing in Iran is no worse than common electoral fraud in all democracies. In his judgment, protests will fizzle in several days.

Ardesir Ommni, co-founder and president of the American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC), headlined his June 16 Mathaba.net article “Iran: Another Face of Velvet Revolution” in suggesting that Ahmadinejad’s opposition “is doing its utmost to create unrest and prepare the ground for a velvet takeover” much like others in Georgia and Ukraine as well as twice before in Iran.

It’s not “realizable in Iran,” he said, “because the workers and farmers, the millions who gave the lives of their children for the cause of independence and sovereignty, defend the Revolution and their real President who has frustrated the schemes and plots of the warmongers. (They’re proud that) Ahmadinejad has defied and resisted the war threats and sanctions by the same powers that have ruined the lives of” millions throughout the world and want no part of it themselves.

On June 15, Marxist.com editor Alan Woods expressed another view in headlining “Iran: the Revolution has begun.” He cited “dramatic events” with hundreds of thousands in Tehran and other city streets disputing the election results. Some marched silently. Others were vocal, angry and confronted by riot police crackdowns.

“The protests have marked the most serious display of discontent in the Islamic Republic in years. The breath of the mass movement is unprecedented (expressing) the accumulated rage and frustration that has been accumulating for the past 30 years….Power is slipping from the trembling hands of the leaders and passing to the streets….Nobody can say where events will end. But one thing is certain: Iran will never be the same again….the Iranian Revolution has begun!”

Woods sees it growing and suggests it’s progressing “through a whole series of stages before it has finally run its course. But in the end we are sure that it will triumph. When that moment comes, it will have explosive repercussions throughout the Middle East, Asia, and the whole world.”

Who can say if he, Ommni, or others are right or if Washington is plotting regime change, much like before in Iran and throughout the world. Thus far, events are fast moving with no clear outcome in sight. It remains to be seen whether Iranians or imperial America will prevail, then what happens next in this volatile part of the world.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at <mailto:lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net>lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday – Friday for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

The high travel season is at the corner now. People from all walks of life around the world are currently busy searching for the best offers of air and land travel, accommodations, vacation packages to suit their dreams, needs and budgets. Some of them have even started to make their reservations.

Here I would like to emphasize one vitally important thing, which is a must to remember when booking a trip, but ignored by a great number of travelers.

Much has been written on the importance of having insurance coverage while you are on a trip, away from home. This is an issue that remains somewhat ignored by many travelers. After all, they have been traveling frequently for many years, and nothing happened so far to worry about. So, to buy a travel insurance should not a be a must. It is only an optional precaution!

But, reality urges us to believe traveling anywhere in the world without protection today, is a vital mistake. Regardless of where you are traveling in the world, you must have an insurance coverage to survive any unexpected attacks and disasters, especially after the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.A.

Let’s say, you have been planning the trip of your dreams for a long time; you have finally found the opportunity to make your long time dreams of a special trip come true.

You are so excited! You have thought of all the details. You have been actively preparing for this travel; thinking, programming, shopping . . . spending a lot of time, money, and energy! You are proud of yourself that you have finally managed to materialize your dream!

Your trip can really be an unforgettable experience from start to the end, on one condition.

When booking your trip, you should have remembered that, like most exciting events in our lives, travel has some important risks, too. For example, potential medical and/or financial risks associated with travel, can suddenly turn all the excitement and pleasures of the trip to a nightmare.

Your baggage and/or your hand bag with your money, passport, credit cards in, can be stolen leaving you desperate & frustrated in a foreign country.

No one can guarantee that a natural disaster would not happen at the place you would be staying during your trip.

An unexpected accident, injury or illness would suddenly ruin everything. In fact, in the recent years medical costs have increased dramatically, worldwide. How would you be able to pay the emergency medical expenses, expensive hospital bills if you needed an urgent treatment, or surgery and care during your travel when you have lost your money, credit cards, and passport? Isn’t it a real nightmare?

In such a frustration, the only thing you would have needed to survive was a reliable medical and travel insurance policy, wasn’t it?.

Especially in the light of the horrible threats on and after September 11 terrorist attacks, the war on terror, other ruthless terror attacks in Istanbul, Spain, Egypt and London, frequent flight disruptions and cancellations, airlines’ bankruptcies, and more. In addition, travel suppliers such as tour operators and airlines worldwide have made cancellation policies more restrictive.

Therefore, if you have to cancel a trip, it’s likely that a big portion of your pre-paid travel expenses will not be refunded by travel suppliers.

Recent SARS and bird flu threats have also been urging travelers and vacationers to seriously consider to buy a travel and medical insurance.

Travel Insurance types and prices defer from one travel insurance provider to another.

You have to review, compare and select the best offers to suit your personal needs.

For instance, some insurance providers do not offer coverage outside the U.S.A. Some companies do not provide emergency medical coverage and care, while others do.

Some airlines do not accept to be held responsible for the acts of God, weather problems, natural disasters, riots and unrests, SARS, bird flu, and similar outbreaks.

The Insurance types you will need on a trip are reviewed below:

Last Minute Cancellation Insurance
With the last minute cancellation and/or interruption insurance you will get coverage on non-refundable deposits you had made when you bought your travel insurance. Read the fine print on the policy carefully when buying this insurance. You should discuss your personal needs with your insurance agent before buying it.

Medical Insurance
This is one of the most important insurance policies you should have. Buying health and medical insurance must be considered as an important part of your travel budget. You can face a health problem or an accident anywhere and anytime during your trip. Be sure your medical and health insurance policy covers illness, accidents, surgeries, hospitalization bills in the countries you will be visiting, emergency medical transportation to your home country. Please remember to have your policies with you when traveling, leaving the copies of your insurance policies with a relative in your home country, in case the policies you have with you are lost.

Comprehensive Insurance Policy
This policy generally covers emergency medical transportation and trip cancellation and interruption, plus other needs you would expect. This insurance costs 5 to 7 percent of the total cost of the trip. You should have it for your safety.

What types of insurance policies do we need for a full protection?

The Essential Insurance Types offered by most providers are Travel, Last Minute, Medical, Health, Life, Hotel, Cruise, Air, Vacations, Luxury, car insurance, sports, and Spa Insurance policies.

Some travel insurance companies also offer affordable coverage for a wide range of winter sports including Ski, Off-Piste and Snowboarding.

We might need not one, but several types of insurance policies according to the general conditions at the destinations we’re going to.

If your your kids are going with you, many travel insurance providers let them go free with adults.

Some companies provide policies for students, backpackers, cheap travel, holiday insurance, long stay, international, family travel, single travel, annual travel, annual multi-trips, and more. It’s good to know that in this cyber age, you can buy the insurance policies you need online, without even leaving your home.
Most Travel Insurance policies cover Luggage Loss, too.

But you should definitely ask about what’s covered and what’s not when choosing Travel Insurance Policy to buy. Do ask questions, all questions you might have in mind, until you get all the information you need. It’s much better to ask questions when buying insurance than to be sorry later.

How can I find the best insurance type to suit my personal or family needs?

When choosing a travel insurance policy to buy, you should get information on the offers of various insurance providers to compare.

Knowing how time consuming is to search, compare and choose the best travel and medical insurance types and prices to suit your needs and budget, we advice to visit the websites where you can find lists and information about various offers, then compare them, and choose the best ones to suit your needs.

You should keep in mind that buying your travel insurance through travel insurance providers, instead of travel agencies, would save you money in most cases.

In the light of terrorist attacks, unexpected natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, deadly hurricanes, floods, epidemics, accidents, illness, SARS, bird flu, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives at many places around the world, especially in the recent years, every traveler must seriously consider to buy a travel health and a medical insurance, and some other insurance policies if needed, providing a reliable full coverage against both expected and unexpected threats.

Copyright © Aall-Dreamlands.com 2005

A lot of students considering a civil service career think that a criminal justice degree is only good for being a law enforcement officer or, in combination with a legal degree, a criminal lawyer. Here are a whole range of criminal justice career choices that many degree-holders overlook, but are well worth consideration:

Social Work/ Personal Cases
These may include child support and child protective services, missing persons, domestic violence and spousal or elderly abuse. Domestic legal social work is often identified as having extreme pros and cons to it. On the one hand, you’re working to make everyone’s home life better. On the other, the work can be stressful when confronting a perpetrator or heart-wrenching when confronting a victim. Social workers will work with law enforcement officers to assess a domestic situation, monitor a case to ensure that the desires of the court are carried out, and make further recommendations to the court for the disposal of cases.

Criminal Investigators and Special Agents
Also known as “the Feds”. Working in federal investigations is a whole new ball game compared to municipal police work. As for special agents, these are not limited to the FBI; nearly every federal agency has some type of special agent. These include the Department of Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division, the United States Marshals Service, the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the National Park Service. Special agent work is a way to combine a criminal justice career with many other fields of government work and specialty interests.

Immigration and Customs Inspectors
These are the public servants who control access of persons and property into and out of the United States. Quite a high-profile job lately, with today’s concerns over terrorism. A challenging job, with being able to speak multiple languages fluently a big plus (in some cases a requirement). Sometimes your biggest concern will not be stopping a terrorist, but preventing a confused, but innocent person from being mistaken for one! In addition, you maybe on the spot to check or clear visiting diplomats and dignitaries from other lands.

Police Detectives
This is usually an after-the-fact officer. The law enforcement officer does the arresting; you just solve the crimes. Be aware that it’s hardly the glamorous job Hollywood movies would have you believe; your reality will be day-to-day mundane tasks such as collecting forensic evidence, checking background records, interviewing witnesses, and testifying in court. Police detectives are of course categorized into many department specialties. Robbery and burglary alone accounts for a very large portion of police detective work.

Correctional Officers and Jailers
Well, that’s pretty self-explanatory, isn’t it? You’ll be responsible for the care, custody, and control of inmates, whether they have been arrested and are awaiting trial or have been convicted of a crime and sentenced to serve time in jail. A prison or jail is a controlled environment which in many ways is a microcosm of a society, with it’s own challenges to face. While the controlled environment of the jail or prison will seem a more secure niche, unexpected surprises can develop – particularly in the intake zone. And when things get out of hand in a prison, they tend to escalate quickly.

Homeland Security
Responsible to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. Currently a high-profile job to say the least, and not for the faint of heart, but you can count on lots of federal support during this time of national crisis. You’ll be working with other federal agencies as well, such as the FBI and CIA, military counter-intelligence, and the NSA. The specialties with the Department of Homeland Security include collecting and sorting data on potential threats, surveillance, investigation, and assessing and alerting other agencies to potential threats.

Private Detective/ Investigator
The number-one most mythologized profession, misrepresented in movies and television about equally with spies. As opposed to the high drama and dangerous intrigue portrayed in fiction, your typical jobs as a private investigator might include tracking cheating spouses, gathering evidence for private attorneys in civil cases, or investigating spurious claims for an insurance company. Leave your Magnum, your Porche, and your nubile blond mistresses home – but always carry a notepad and pen.

Criminal Intelligence
Well away from any street work, the criminal intelligence agent works behind the scenes, gathering data on gang members, fugitives, and organized crime and logging it into databases where it will be accessible to officers and detectives in the field. This is often an under-recognized profession but obviously essential; when the officer types a gang member’s name into the computer in his patrol car and discovers the identities of the other five members of that gang, a criminal intelligence worker at the base made this possible.

Computer Crime
Not a specific specialty just yet, but dealing with the cyber-side of criminal justice is one of the most in-demand fields as the number of computers in society grows each year. You’ll of course need to combine your criminal justice degree with a computer science degree. Crimes committed through or with a computer may include fraud, offensive content, harassment and hate groups, drug trafficking, and cyberterrorism. If you imagined computer viruses or email scams were perpetrated by individual kids, think again: Computer fraud and data theft is actually an international organized crime operation and a multi-billion dollar per year industry! Police departments also need forensic data analysts on hand to find and recover evidence which may be on a suspect’s computer and may have been encrypted or deleted. In the future, a special department may be created within the criminal justice system to deal with this special category, as currently many police departments have to outsource their computer-related work.

This list hardly scratches the surface of every career opportunity available in the criminal justice field, but should provide a broad sample of what’s out there. Far from regular street police work, there are career opportunities to satisfy every interest and skill set.

Online banking; online shopping; online gaming; online dating; and now online Government. With many aspects of 21st century life having a major web-based element to them, the UK Government has recognised the benefits and urgency to follow suit. However, this is likely to have a significant impact on the wider government workforce, as online efficiencies lead to less dependence on offline resources.

The move towards greater efficiency was given a major push by the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR 07), which included a five per cent budget cut in real terms, over the next three years for the Treasury and Cabinet Office.

Essentially, the review demands that all Government departments must improve delivery of citizen-centric public services through the innovative use of new technology, while continually reviewing efficiency, including how to maximise capability with a reduced resource pool.

Addressing 21st century citizens’ needs

In future, Central Government will look to work more closely with local government offices, using the local government infrastructure to service Central Government citizen touch points.

Currently, the most expensive element of serving citizens is face-to-face contact through regional offices all over the UK. Through the development of more online ‘tools’, citizens will be provided with a self serve facility, thus reducing dependence on the existing regional office workload. Consequently, agencies will be enabled to combine regional office capabilities, providing technological support to deal with issues from several departments.

Achieving all this, however, is highly dependant on technology and changing business processes.

Tangible savings and benefits

The benefits of this shift in emphasis are numerous; firstly by developing automated online citizen-centric processes, the public, who are increasingly demanding and time-driven, will be better serviced through a faster turnaround. Secondly, central Government is likely to generate further significant efficiency savings through the consolidation of departments’ regional offices. Thirdly, brown site land, which is no longer needed for offices, can be made available for ‘social’ housing, and lastly with the more ‘mundane’ processes being dealt with online, jobs will become more interesting, as staff are cross-trained and freed up to do more interesting and challenging work.

Countering the terrorist threat

As Central Government becomes more open, it also faces the paradoxical challenge of implementing wider and more stringent security practices to ensure the security of UK citizens, information, interests and infrastructure. The Comprehensive Spending Review outlined plans to significantly boost investment in homeland security to deal with the “severe and sustained” threat of terrorism.

The fundamentalist nature of 21st century terrorists means that countering this threat is increasingly reliant on better intelligence. This demands investment in technology and resource, especially as the terrorist threat is increasingly technologically-based.

The importance of this investment is obvious when one considers the London Olympic Games are less than five years away. The size and profile of this international event identifies it as a major potential target for both terrorist atrocities and criminal cyber attacks.

Collectively, the Security Service (MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and Government Communications Headquarters have a combined budget that will rise from £2.5bn in 2007-08 to £3.5bn in 2010-11 – an average of 9.6 per cent a year over the next three years.

Since 9/11, employment levels in counter-terrorism, intelligence and resilience have risen sharply, with M15 going from 1,800 staff in 2001, to 3,200 this year. Although 300 more staff are likely to join the agency by the end of this financial year, recruitment is likely to stabilise, with more emphasis and financial resource focusing on supporting technology. This is to address the increasingly data intensive world we live in. As negative elements of society make use of evermore sophisticated technology, the real challenge is to be able to extract nuggets of information from the sea of data that mankind generates, and then derive real intelligence from this information in a timely manner.

Defending UK interests abroad

As well as boosting investment in homeland security, CSR 07 outlined the Government’s commitment to addressing the challenges faced by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), including increased funding for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the enhancement of conventional capability across the Armed Forces such as future Aircraft Carrier (CVF), and funding the renewal of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

By confirming the Government’s pledge to such expensive, large-scale programmes and its continued funding of the two theatres of operation, CSR 07 puts greater pressure on those responsible for defining the MoD’s future Defence Programme, and its upcoming Programme Review (PR08), to ensure they make correct decisions on what, when and how capability is delivered to the UK armed forces.

The ability to do this will be strongly influenced by Through Life Capability Management (TLCM), which looks to ensure decision-makers choose the most effective capability decisions, as defined by all Defence Lines of Development, and prioritise the development of each individual programme to deliver best value overall capability to the Front Line Commands.

Finally, as with all Government departments, CSR 07, alongside the soon–to-be updated Defence Industrial Strategy, will help define and fund an improved UK military acquisition infrastructure that has the ability to deliver TLCM with reduced timescales and costs.

Companies such as VEGA are already engaged with Government and Defence sector clients, enabling them to make these tough decisions; and with the provision of extensive knowledge and experience can aid the client teams responsible for the successful delivery of new capability and improved services as the initiatives funded by CSR 07 begin to manifest themselves and Gordon Brown’s team focuses on its vision of a citizen-centric and secure future.

Security is great concern for all the people of the world. Security is needed everywhere at home, offices and at even big industries. Industrial security is great concern for all developing countries. Increase of industries will give more employment opportunities and more will be the growth of the country’s economy. But with rise of terrorism security for industries is must. Employee can work only in such companies were there is proper security services. For better growth of the economy and profit it is the duty of the company to ensure proper security to its employee. Employer then only can put his soul and mind together for increasing the productivity.

It is only possible where there is healthy environment. Multi dimensional threats to the national security, corporate world and industrial organizations have increased many folds from international terrorism, communalism, gears, strikes, sabotage, espionage, subversion, pilferages, thefts, cyber & white collar crimes, bomb threats, natural and manmade disasters etc. It leads into loss prevention and crisis management. Industrial security includes asset protection, Crime Control, intelligence, Safety and Disaster Management thus preventing all types of losses and adding to productivity, contrary to earlier notion that all expenditure on security was no return on investment.

Steps for security management in organization such as thorough threat assessment to eliminate strikes, mob violence and bomb threats, formulation of security plan and organizational security policy, proper selection of security agency, judicious integration of men and machines for cost effective security, preparations of standing orders, Standard Operating Procedures(SOPs) and guidelines, training and motivation of security personnel, preparation of disaster management plan, sensitization of personnel at various levels and periodic security audit for organization. Industrial security should always be planned at the conceptual or design stage of the plant or industry and much importance to production or profit by the management. Electronic Article Surveillance (EAS) Systems EAS systems are designed to help retailers increase their sales.

For security at industries one need proper guidelines and the entire senior should work out the plan first. It should also have fire extinguisher, CCTV cameras for noticing people the card should check all the visitors and proper entry should be made. All the employee should be given identity cards and should enrolled properly with the address. The team leaders should always be alert and should keep close watch on the employee. All this can help to ensure proper security to industries. For maintaining their profit increasing day by day.

Absolute Security & Lock is premier provider of Security Equipment in Florida. We are providing 24 hour emergency locksmith services since 1997 to our numerous clients. For more information, visit: http://www.greenlocksmith.com

IS NATO “Alive and Kicking” OR dying Out?

By Prof. Hasan Yahya

 In two months, NATO the world’s largest  and most durable military alliances will celebrate its 60th anniversary. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has racked up four incomplete achievements, One was facing down the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The other,  the process of “war on terror”  in Iraq and Afghanistan which still bringing  serious challenges, especially in Afghanistan, the third is the tension between the U.S. and some of its European allies, and finally,  the newly resurgent Russia through the SCO.

Email Picture

In a gesture during a NATO-Ukraine Commission roundtable at the NATO defense ministers meeting in Krakow, Poland, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer,  NATO secretary-general acknowledges that the challenge in Afghanistan is complex. But added that no current rift in the alliance. While he has been an outspoken advocate of sending more troops to Afghanistan and a critic of some allies members hesitates to provide more assistance in the NATO operations.

This year marked the end of the five-year term as secretary-general which will end two months after the 60th anniversary celebration this year in May. While in his office in Brussels. Some critics asked him about one of the challenges face NATO in terms of  incongruity  and divisions  among the allies. He denied drifting of members because NATO is operating in two different political and security environments which certainly different 60 years ago. Now NATO is facing cyber-defense and energy security discussions. In addition to the fifty thousand soldiers in Afghanistan and will be more soon.  He emphasized that NATO  still in the process of transformation, NATO is “as alive and kicking as it has ever been”  as if NATO still in a child in his mother’s womb. He did not say reviving or dying [After 60 years old] as some might describe such transformation.

  The idea of NATO death

NATO as a global arm force may face various obstacles. Some people  say that crisis among the allies are not simply post-cold war or post 9/11, phenomena, the best times of NATO are when serious disputes occur. International events and disputes create opposing divisions in NATO with less influence on the forces vitality. In 2003, comments were made by commentators such as the need for existence of NATO. They say NATO is aging now and is dying, so time has come and gone, and today there is no legitimate reason for NATO to exist. Although the strong difference exhibited in the alliance over the war on Iraq have accelerated NATO irrelevancy, the root causes of its problems go much deeper, Consequently for bothy the US and EU, NATO is the best an errilevent distraction, and at worst toxic  to their responsive contemporary security needs.

Challenges for the NATO:

NATO’s faces three broad  challenges in it 60th anniversary, the map future for NATO reform has something to do with the long term vitality which is ultimately determined by several influences:

• 1. the challenge posed by future international events to its existing structure;
• 2. the challenge of existing abilities; and ;
• 3. the challenges of existing quality of relations between the allies, through the idea of keeping solidarity alive.

Concerning events, it is near impossible to assess NATO response to events that are as yet unknown. But the problem NATO will face is the future of the loss of threat NATO originally designed to counter. What NATO will do? How its structure will be in terms of enlargement or reduction of membership and abilities.

Concerning the quality of relations between NATO allies, it is more uncertain. The state of transatlantic relations was widely debated subject before 9/11. The divisions were obviously perceived to the war on Iraq, where demonstrations covered too many European nations against the war on Iraq. The period after 9/11, until now, has been some of the greatest highs for NATO, and the greatest lows between NATO allies. The high point certainly was on September 12, 2001, when NATO invoked the principle of Article 5. The lowest point however, was in 2002, the run up to the course of Operation Iraq Freedom (OIF) as they called it. Such war created an ample discussion and debate among NATO allies. Those who support and those who opposed the war on Iraq, but they remained convinced of the case against it.

Colin Powell asked NATO in Dec. 2003 to consider expanding its role. But many aspects have yet to be clarified, such as where and how about involvement in training forces, numbers, and states. On training Iraqi security forces was the most debate, two views arise: one with and one without, for the plans of US in the area which has less concern among the allies. This division of opinions may threat solidarity. Afghanistan was and still considered a tough job for the NATO and need more elaboration.

Afghanistan Challenge:

NATO’s role in the fight against terrorism is a complex challenge in Afghanistan the troops have increased by almost tenfold since 2004, and NATO still calling on its member states to do more. But the alliance essentially failed to achieve as recently announced by the British and France. Justification of increasing troops by President Barack Obama was that Afghanistan is a nation from the Middle Ages in 2001 and one of the poorest in the world, no one expect to finish the job in the marsh to democracy in eight years to the model of the United States or the Netherlands. Therefore, to do better, NATO need more forces. (President Obama recently authorized deploying an additional 17,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan). Such troops are needed to  rebuilding, helping to reconstruct, and to develop a nation. In fact, Afghanistan is more serious problem for not for the governments of NATO only, but also the EU, the World Bank, the United Nations, important individual donors like Japan and others which need a comprehensive approach. Despite the role NATO plays in Afghanistan, polls show negative support of the troops on Afghan Land. What was striking about these polls was for the question: “By whom would you like to be governed — by an Afghan government or by the Taliban?” 82% say by the Afghan government and only 4% select Taliban. But in terms of the civilian casualties from air strikes in an environment like Afghanistan no one can avoid civilian casualties completely, the polls negatively high. This issue will have negative consequences as expected for the hearts and minds.

While the US stressed the need for alliance members besides the U.S. to step up to the plate and take on more responsibility, many of them disagree that  Afghanistan is different than Iraq. Because  NATO’s objectives in the region is to look at Afghanistan in a much stronger regional context with Pakistan where such concern is not shared by NATO members.

Other challenges: The dangerous proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the missiles to transport those weapons over longer distances which make NATO emphasizes on the core function which is defending the integrity of NATO members. These two challenges may be dealt with in another article. (1205 words)

** Hasan Yahya is columnist at worldfutures.info, Malaysia and TINA international News Agency, Chicago, USA. His email: hy2006us@yahoo.com   www.hasanyahya.com

Businesses of all types need to understand the importance of disaster recovery solutions.  Even call centers are at risk for down time and if a system for recovery is not in place, it could be the end of the business.  Unforeseen events happen, whether manmade or natural and when they do, the entire business operation can be disrupted.  For every minute a call center’s computer and phone systems are down, they are not only losing a lot of money but also potential patients/customers.

Simply put, every call center should have a disaster recovery plan, which is a detailed plan on how the different disaster recovery solutions would be implemented in case of trouble.  Disasters can be the result of sabotage, break-in, cyber attack, utility outages, earthquake, flood, tornado, hurricane, fire, and even terrorism.  These are serious problems, which can bring an entire company down.

One of the reasons disaster recovery solutions are so vital has to do with the amount of money being lost when systems and components are down.  To a call center, an answering service company or any company for that matter, a disaster could permanently cripple operations.  For instance, studies show for companies that have experienced a major loss of documents and records maintained on a computer system hit with a disaster, only 43% of those companies ever reopened for business.

Interestingly, the companies that realized the value of disaster recovery solutions prior to the terrorism attack on the New York Trade Centers, those businesses were completely functional within less than one week.  Any business needs to have a number of plans in place and knowing the plan needed associated with disaster recovery solutions is by far one of the most critical.  Today, both inshore and offshore call centers are implementing plans that include more seating space to handle overload such as:

* Site Level Disaster Recovery Solutions – This means additional seating within a facility was increased by 50% should disaster strike
* State Level Disaster Solutions – More seats were reserved within the same city or state of the call center
* National Level Solutions – Again, additional seats were reserved in a different city or stat

Coming up with all the necessary disaster recovery solutions is complex, which is why companies hire professionals in the field to devise appropriate recovery plans.  Not only do these plans focus on computer and phone systems, they also look at insurance coverage, businesses processes, backup and recovery for customer support, administration, documentation, information, essential equipment, and the premises.  Protecting the call center is a primary focus and understanding different disaster recovery solutions so a plan can be developed is the key to success.

An American ‘Yezhovschina’?

by William Norman Grigg

by William Norman Grigg: And We, Like Sheep…

Maxwell Smart: Are you a psychologist, Dr. Stueben?

Dr. Stueben: I’m the president of the psychologist society for mental health and adjustment through fulfillment.

Smart: What kind of an organization is that?

Stueben: We’re a hate group.

Smart(following a double-take): A hate group?

Stueben: Oh, in the sense that we cure hate and fear. We hate hate. Hate it.

From “All in the Mind,” a 1965 episode offering redundant proof that Get Smart was the work of perceptive and prescient satirists.

A September 1996 American Bar Association conference on terrorism and the law in Washington, D.C. presented me with an opportunity I had long coveted.

Among the presenters at that event was former New York Times legal and political affairs columnist Anthony Lewis, long one of the most predictable journalistic voices on the left. One of his favorite tropes was the description of the American Right as “merchants of hate,” an expression that seemed to serve as the title for every second or third column Lewis wrote.

During a break in the proceedings I cornered Lewis. By way of introduction, told him (in all sincerity) that I had enjoyed reading his book Gideon’s Trumpet as a High School student.

“I’ve long wanted to ask you something about a subject you frequently address in your column,” I continued. “You often make reference to `right-wing hate groups.’ Do you acknowledge the existence of left-wing hate groups, as well – and do you consider them to be a potential threat to society?”

Lewis stood in genuinely stunned silence for a good half a minute or so before tentatively saying, “Well, I suppose there could be such a thing as a left-wing hate group” – made with the same grudging, reluctant tone one might use when conceding the possible existence of unicorns, extra-terrestrial intelligence, or cerebral matter inside of Sean Hannity’s skull.

Like many others of his political persuasion, Lewis was hard-wired in such a way that he could clearly discern “hate” only when it manifested itself among his political opponents.

He had internalized the conceit that the left, as the embodiment of progress and tolerance, was utterly devoid of hatred and similar base motivations; those impulses are monopolized by the forces of “reaction.” Since, according to this ideological model, conservatives are hostage to false consciousness, they really aren’t honest about their own motives and indeed cannot be.

Even if they don’t consciously hate anybody, the politics of conservatives and other “right-wingers” are objectively hateful, you see, because they oppose inevitable social progress. What other motive could exist for such behavior, apart from simple, irrational belligerence or even outright hatred?

The only politically acceptable hatred, therefore, is to hate the haters – those whose attitudes and opinions are irreconcilable with progressive prejudices. Where possible, efforts should be made to rehabilitate haters into useful members of the collective – useful, that is, if only as informants and teaching examples. But when dealing with authentically incorrigible haters – particularly those unwilling to confess that hatred is their genuine motivation – sterner measures may be necessary.

This was the logic – if that word applies – behind the political use of psychiatry in the Soviet Union: Only someone clinically deranged could hate socialism, and since such people were a danger to themselves and society, they had to be incarcerated in the psiushka (psychiatric gulag) and forcibly cured of their anti-social(ist) tendencies. The heroic former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky recounts his own experience in the Soviet psycho-gulag in his memoir, To Build a Castle.

The Soviet use of psychiatry was an outgrowth of the Regime’s longstanding policy of pre-emption: Threats to “stability” and “social order” had to be recognized and aborted before they reached maturity.

This concept was embedded in the Soviet Union’s Fundamental Principles of Penal Legislation, which identified the central mission of the state’s law enforcement apparatus (chiefly the Ckeha or secret police, by whatever acronym it was later known) as that of identifying, and removing the threat of, “socially dangerous persons.”

This notion was encapsulated in Article 58 of the penal code, which served as the legal foundation for the Soviet regime’s perpetual war of terror against dissent.

The law dealing with “socially dangerous persons,” observes the authoritative Black Book of Communism, dealt with “any activity that, without directly aiming to overthrow or weaken the Soviet regime, was in itself `an attack on the political or economic achievements of the revolutionary proletariat.’ The law thus not only punished intentional transgressions but also proscribed possible or unintentional acts.”

And the term “socially dangerous persons” was based on “extremely elastic categories” that permitted the imprisonment of people in the gulag “even in the absence of guilt.” This is because what the Soviet rulers were pleased to call “the law” specified that incarceration, exile, or execution could be employed as means of “social protection” against “anyone classified as a danger to society, either for a specific crime that has been committed or when, even if exonerated of a particular crime, the person is still reckoned to pose a threat to society.”

Note carefully here how Soviet “law” discarded entirely with the idea of punishing overt acts, focusing instead on the supposed motivations of those deemed innately threatening to the regime. Note as well how the system was rigged to nullify exculpatory verdicts.

Of course, the Soviet government punished common criminals, at least those it didn’t recruit into the ranks of its enforcement agencies. But as Paul Gregory points out in his book Lenin’s Brain, most of those imprisoned in the gulag were there not because of what they had done, but because of what the state suspected they could do; they were being isolated from the rest of society “because of actual or suspected opposition to the Soviet state.”

In 1935, an individual best described as five feet of feculent malice added another key element to the Soviet formula for institutionalized terror. A foul, vulgar little creature named Nikolai Yezhov, an intimate associate of Stalin, wrote a pseudo-academic paper contending that any form of political opposition should be treated as incipient terrorism.

The “Poisoned Dwarf”: Nikolai Yezhov, diminutive in stature, crippled in body and morals, was the intellectual architect and, as head of the NKVD, chief enforcer of Stalin’s Great Purge.

Yezhov, who came to be known as “Stalin’s Poison Dwarf,” lusted to be head of the secret police. He secured that post following the assassination of Stalin’s rival Sergei Kirov, an act of terrorism orchestrated by Stalin that inaugurated the campaign of official terrorism known as the Great Purge. Yezhov toppled his predecessor as head of the NKVD, Genrikh Yagoda, by accusing the old Bolshevik of being inadequately zealous in finding and eliminating Stalin’s enemies. Yezhov distinguished himself by his murderous zeal until he, too, was denounced, tortured into multiple confessions, and executed.

Viewed in the context of the Soviet regime’s decades-long campaign of repression and terror, Yezhov’s role in building the body count was relatively modest. The same really can’t be said of his distinctive contribution to the art and practice of totalitarianism, namely the reductionist claim that all anti-statist activism will eventually beget terrorism.

Trace elements of the Poisoned Dwarf’s influence – or, at least, a toxin very similar in composition – can be found in the Pentagon’s claim that political protests are a form of “low-level terrorism.”

Echoes of Yezhov’s claim, and the Soviet doctrine of dealing pre-emptively with “socially dangerous persons,” can also be heard in demands for federal action to imprison “haters” even in the absence of overt criminal acts.

Bonnie Erbe, who has afflicted public television for decades and now scribbles the occasional cyber-screed for CBS News, recently gave full-throated expression to the Soviet perspective on “pre-emption.”

“If yesterday’s Holocaust Museum slaying … is not a clarion call for banning hate speech, I don’t know what is,” shrilled Erbe, insisting that something must be done about ridding the Internet and the public dialogue of hate speech. But she wouldn’t stop there; the purge would mean doing away with the “haters,” as well.

Referring to the accused murderers of security guard Stephen Johns, abortionist George Tiller, and military recruiter William Long (whose alleged murderer was an American convert to Islam), Erbe insists: “It’s not enough to prosecute these murders as murders. They are hate-motivated crimes and each of these men had been under some sort of police surveillance prior to their actions. Isn’t it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?”

String up the barbed wire, sharpen the guillotine, fire up the crematoria: There are haters in our midst to be dealt with!

June 20, 2009

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] writes the Pro Libertate blog.

Copyright © 2009 William Norman Grigg