Post away!

Sorting book folder based on Main Section of the forum

Post away!!

<span style='color:red'>Act to Prevent Authoritarian Terrorism!</span>

By SS Mani

In an article in 'The Hindu' of July 2, 200l, a former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, VR Krishna Iyer, charged Jayalalitha with "authoritarian terrorism" when she arrogantly arrested M. Karunanidhi in the middle of the night. The Judge wrote "If allowed to run berserk, this authoritarian terrorism will make Bharat a bedlam." He further warned "One day any Chief Minister with political impets and police bullies may perpetrate a similar crime on our Prime Minister himself."

Apparently, the Prime Minister will have to wait his turn. The Chief Minister is busy using the town of Kanchipuram for target practice. Having already detonated her vindictive outburst against the Sankaracharyas, Chief Minister Jayalalitha has decided that ordinary bhakthas of the Kanchi Srimatam are first in line for her blitzkrieg.

How else can one describe the barrage of charges being rained down upon defenseless people like Sundaresa Iyer and Raghu when there is not even a whiff of any prior offenses in their past?

One is a student of Rg Veda at the Mutt. The Government has yet to cite even one prior conviction to his account. For that matter, they do not proffer any tangible evidence of the charges they make against him now.

The other is a retiree from the Reserve Bank of India, a man who has traversed the span of his life in positions of responsibility, without a blemish to his good name. Following which, he has chosen to serve the people of Kanchipuram, indeed the whole of India, by helping to administer an institution that is engaged in the education, healthcare and uplift of millions, while preserving a cherished and hoary Bharatiya tradition.

Against such defenseless civilians, the Chief Minister has invoked the Goonda’s Act! Are these the people envisaged by that law? Here is what a perusal of the Goonda’s Act reveals:

“a Goonda is one who habitually commits dangerous activities, such as bootlegging, drug offences, immoral traffic (etc.).....in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order”

This law was written in order to protect the people against organized crime and habitual criminals. In what fevered delusion could Shri Raghu and Shri Sundaresa Iyer fit that description? What, Madam Chief Minister, have they ever done, that constitutes a danger to the maintenance of public order? What crimes, have they habitually committed?

Or is this invocation of the Goonda’s Act rather a relapse of one of Jayalalitha’s own criminal habits? Like the detention of MDMK leader Vaiko under POTA? Or the arrest of Tamil news editors for criticizing her government? Or indeed the instance Justice VR Krishna Iyer cited of Karunanidhi’s midnight arrest. Is this just another case of Jayalalitha’s authoritarian terrorism gone berserk?

By thrusting a succession of charges upon Raghu and Sundaresa Iyer, Jayalalitha, through cunning misuse of the law, brandishes the power endowed to her by the people like an AK-47 -- against the very citizens she is duty-bound to protect. She does not care if the charges she has framed up amount to a house of cards. She has no need to justify her arrests with evidence.

She can dispatch her gang of policemen to confiscate records, plant evidence and even falsify documents. Her mobsters get promoted to positions of power, even though they are known to be of dubious integrity. The man she appointed as Superintendent of Police in Kanchipuram had 13 arrest warrants against him. For that matter, Jayalalitha herself has a number of criminal cases pending against her. But the Goonda’s Act could never apply to these two!

Her Prosecutors will continue to present fictional evidence to the courts, defame her victims and willfully delay the wheels of justice, and no one demands an answer for any of it! Having gotten word from their Capo of what the case should conclude, they will merrily piece together “facts” to fit the conclusion. And if it turns out those “facts” are refuted. No problem! They’ll simply round up a new set of different “facts”. Who is going to question them, when the present axes of political power in the land have already said that this matter does not concern them?

Jayalalitha, by pointing the barrel of authority, can seize private assets at will, hampering her victims’ efforts to conduct their defense. Whether it is the Kanchi Mutt or the Kumbakonam Lingayat Mutt, her despotism goes unquestioned. (The Chief Minister returned the latter Mutt to its rightful heir suspiciously soon after it became clear that her own case will be tried in Karnataka, where the Lingayats are a powerful sect). Meanwhile, the constitutionally protected right to property suddenly escapes the Central Government’s memory.

“Why past midnight? Why a posse of police? The whole melodrama, prima facie, seems rudely insulting, insanely excessive and utterly lawless,” said the venerable judge. “Police power is a public trust and its brazen breach calls for condign punishment.” In 2001, after Karunanidhi’s arrest, his was a clarion call that the intelligentsia rallied around. At the Centre, demands were made to recall the Tamil Nadu governor, for countenancing such a police raj.

Three years later, when the same script is re-run, this time on a sanyasi with no political capital, no one steps forward to stop Jayalalitha’s rampage. (And as for ordinary citizens like Sundaresa Iyer, well they cannot even begin to count!)

These are not the days of benevolent kings, when swift justice was meted out to such offenders: their heads shaved, their faces marked with red and black spots, before a ceremonial ride on donkey-back through the city streets! There is no one to even shame Jayalalitha for her assault on Bharat, so it seems.

And so it is that Bharat, true to the learned Judge’s prediction, slouches towards bedlam, while those at the helm dither. Such Government Goonda-ism is bound to erode the public confidence, and consequently threaten public order, for the people’s concern has long been forgotten. A crime was committed in Kanchipuram on September the 3rd. Will the truth ever come out? Will the real culprits get punished? These pointed questions about the Sankarraman murder case are in acute danger of becoming rhetorical.

The people of Tamil Nadu have every right to expect their Government to deliver answers. But the way the investigation has been conducted by the Special Investigating team under CM Jayalalitha’s personal direction, the people of Tamil Nadu and the whole of India are increasingly losing hope.

The investigation stands tainted, first by the Government’s prejudicial actions, then because the police and the Chief Minister squandered their already threadbare credibility, by engaging in what amounts to authoritarian terrorism.

What Jayalalitha is doing to the Sankaracharyas & the Kanchi Mutt is similar to what Communist China did to the Dalai Lama and the non-violent Buddhist monasteries in Tibet in the 60s. At that time the first person to condemn China in strongest terms was our then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. It saddens me that the present Prime Minister is keeping quiet when the danger is faced by his own fellow-citizens, who have entrusted to him the charge of guarding their liberties.

Perhaps Jayalalitha calculates that in a so-called secular country like
India, with a Sikh as the Prime Minister, a Muslim as the President, and a Christian as the leader of the ruling party at the Centre, her assault on the institutions of docile, peace loving, and law-abiding Hindus, whether they number 700 million or more, will never be questioned by any authorities.

Are the President and the Prime Minister going to prove her right?

Previous version of this thread is available at ..

http://indiaforumarchives.blogspot.com/200...population.html



What is NSSM 200 "Population Control" by Kissinger?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In December of 1974, shortly after the first major international population conference was held under UN auspices at Bucharest, Romania, several of the major U.S. government agencies involved in foreign affairs submitted a detailed report on population control in developing countries. Contributions came from the Central Intelligence Agency, The Departments of States, Defense, and Agriculture, and the Agency for International Development. Their contributions were combined into one major report with the title, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." The final study, which is more than 200 pages in length, covered many topics from the viewpoint of each of the participating agencies. The following questions and answers cover just the most basic aspects of this crucial historical document.

What does the term "NSSM 200" mean? "NSSM" stands for "National Security Study Memorandum," and the number 200 identifies the order in which it was produced. The original request for a review of overseas population policies is also called NSSM 200, and was written April 27, 1974 by Henry Kissinger. The actual study, which covered 229 pages of text, represents one stage of the NSSM 200 correspondence series, and was submitted on December 10, 1974. It became the official guide to foreign policy November 26, 1975, when a National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM 314) was signed that endorsed the findings of the study.

Who actually was responsible for the study? NSSM 200 was compiled by the National Security Council, which is the highest level of command in the U.S. government. The NSC is headed by the President of the United States and his designated Security Advisor, and its purpose is to coordinate the overseas operations of all executive branches the U.S. government.

Is NSSM 200 still in force? Technically, the answer is yes. It remains the official strategy paper on population until it is replaced by another of equal importance. However, the implementation of the guidelines may differ from one administration to another. Jimmy Carter, for example, showed considerably less interest in curbing population growth than did his predecessors Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. And the Reagan administration took a somewhat different approach (i.e., the Mexico City Policy that banned direct U.S. financing for abortions). The facts that funds for population control increased rapidly and dramatically during the Reagan and Bush years does not necessarily indicate a newer NSC directive was issued.

Why was NSSM only discovered in 1990? NSSM 200 was originally classified as a secret document, meaning that neither the public in the United States nor the people of the developing world who were the subject of the study were allowed to know of its existence. A schedule for declassification appearing on the cover authorized its release in mid-1989. However, the document was not actually made public until almost a year later, when it was given to the U.S. National Archives in response to a request from a journalist working for the Information Project For Africa.

Why was the study kept confidential so long? It is difficult to promote birth control on a giant scope unless the recipients can be persuaded that it is intended for their benefit. NSSM 200, on the other hand, acknowledged that the purpose of population control was to serve the U.S. strategic, economic, and military interest at the expense of the developing countries. Such a revelation, particularly if it were to leak out prematurely, would seriously jeopardize program goals. In fact, the declassification date on the memorandum would not necessarily be mandatory, and NSC could still have kept it from public view. But by 1990, at least two very important changes had taken place. For one thing, many of the study's recommendations for pushing population reduction policies on aid-receiving countries had been accomplished. Second, the U.S. had elected George Bush, a former Director of Central Intelligence, to the White House in 1988, which may have signalled to classification review personnel that the American public had grown more tolerant of covert activities overseas.

<b>Whose population did the security advisers want controlled? The recommendations for reducing fertility applied only to the developing world -- and to all of it. However, NSSM 200 also states that 13 countries of "special U.S. political and strategic interest" would be primary targets. They are: India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia (page 15 of the introduction).</b>

What were the study's main concerns about population? NSSM 200 states that population growth in the developing world threatens U.S. security in four basic ways: First, certain large nations stand to gain significant political power and influence as a result of their growing populations. Second, the United States and its western allies have a vital interest in strategic materials which have to be imported from less-developed countries. Third, societies with high birthrates have large numbers of young people, who are more likely than older people to challenge global power structures. And last, population growth in relatively-disadvantaged countries jeopardizes U.S. investments.

Which countries would benefit politically from population growth? The memorandum cites Brazil as one example. Brazil "clearly dominates the continent demographically," the report says, noting that Brazilians could outnumber U.S. residents by the end of the century. Thus it foresees a "growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years" if population programs were not successful at curbing fertility (page 22). Nigeria was also given as an example of a nation that can benefit from population increase. "Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria's population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million," says the formerly-classified report. "This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa south of the Sahara" (page 21).

How does population control help the west acquire minerals? The study explains, first of all, "The location of known reserves of higher-grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments" (page 37). It then advises, "...the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States" (page 43).

What have youthful populations got to do with it? Young people have historically been advocates for change, and are more prone to confront imperialism. NSSM 200 quotes a June 1974 State Department cable from Bangladesh to make this point: "Bangladesh is now a fairly solid supporter of third world positions, advocating better distribution of the world's wealth and extensive trade concessions to poor nations. As its problems grow and its ability to gain assistance fails to keep pace, Bangladesh's positions on international issues likely will become radicalized, inevitably in opposition to U.S. interests on major issues..." (page 80).

How are U.S. commercial investments affected by birthrates overseas? The document points out that growing nations need to provide for their growing needs. Thus, it warns, they are likely to make increased demands of foreign investors. Under such circumstances, western corporate holdings "are likely to be expropriated or subjected to arbitrary inter- vention." The report adds that this could be a consequence of "government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance," and concludes: "Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frus- trations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth" (pages 37-38).

Did the Americans really think they could get away it? NSSM 200 repeatedly acknowledges suspicions about U.S. motives on the part of "LDC" (less-developed country) leaders, and recommends a strategy to deal with these reactions. "It is vital that the effort to develop and strengthen a commitment on the part of the LDC leaders not be seen by them as an industrialized country policy to keep their strength down or to reserve resources for use by the `rich' countries," says the study. "Development of such a perception could create a serious backlash adverse to the cause of population stability..." (page 114). The next page adds: "The US can help to minimize charges of an imperialist motivation behind its support of population activities by repeatedly asserting that such support derives from a concern with: (a) the right of the individual to determine freely and responsibly their number and spacing of children ... and (b) the fundamental social and economic development of poor countries...." (page 115).

How were NSSM 200 s population goals to be pursued? In addition to disguising hostile intent by "repeatedly asserting" that birth control is useful to development, the writers demand that the United Nations and other multi-national institutions be used as fronts to conceal the extent of the U.S. involvement. They argue that the U.S. should "[a]rrange for familiarization programs at U.N. Headquarters in New York for ministers of governments, senior policy level offi- cials and comparably influential leaders from private life" (introduction, pages 20-21). In some countries, the memo reported, "U.S. assistance is limited by the nature of political or diplomatic relations ... or by the lack of strong government interest in population reduction programs (e.g. Nigeria, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil)." In these cases, it would be wise to channel population assistance should through "other donors and/or from private and international organizations (many of which receive contributions from AID)" (pages 127-128).

Did NSSM 200 mention compulsory population policies? It clearly does. It recommends, for example, that the World Bank take the lead. "Involvement of the Bank in this area would open up new possibilities for collaboration," the document says (page 148). The study also advises that the U.S. government played "an important role in establishing the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) to spearhead a multilateral effort in population as a complement to the bilateral actions of AID and other donor countries" (page 121). And it says that, "with a greater commitment of Bank resources and improved consultation with AID and UNFPA, a much greater dent could be made on the overall problem" (page 149). Moreover, the report asserts that "mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now" (page 118). It also finds that there is already "some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements" and concludes that "allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relationships, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion" (page 106- 107).

What about propaganda? NSSM 200 concentrates mostly on efforts to get heads of government to adopt population policies against their own people. In this context, it says that U.S. diplomatic and embassy officials should "be alert to opportunities for expanding our assistance efforts and for demonstrating to their leaders the consequences of rapid population growth and the benefits of actions to reduce fertility" (page 128). It also notes: "There was general consternation [at the 1974 population conference in Bucharest when] the Plan was subjected to a slashing, five-pronged attack led by Algeria, with the backing of several African countries; Argentina, supported by Uruguay, Brazil, Peru, and, more limitedly, some other Latin American countries; the Eastern European group (less Romania); the PRC [Peoples Republic of China] and the Holy See" (page 86-87). Thus the study emphasizes the need to convince foreign leaders to drop their objections: "The beliefs, ideologies and misconceptions displayed by many nations at Bucharest indicate more forcefully than ever the need for extensive education of the leaders of many governments, especially in Africa and some in Latin America. Approaches [for] leaders of individual countries must be designed in the light of their current beliefs and to meet their special concerns" (page 96).

How about the mass media? At the time NSSM 200 was written, U.S. policy makers gave only passing thought to wholesale propaganda operations, apparently concluding that this course of action would be too difficult and too controversial. "Beyond seeking to reach and influence national leaders, improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other popula- tion education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA and USAID," says the formerly-secret memorandum. "We should give higher priorities in our information programs world-wide for this area and consider expansion of collaborative arrangements with multilateral institutions in population education programs" (page 117). But it also makes reference to the risks involved: "First, there is widespread LDC sensitivity to satellite broadcast, expressed most vigorously in the Outer Space Committee of the UN. Many countries don't want broadcasts of neighboring countries over their own territory and fear unwanted propaganda and subversion by hostile broadcasters. NASA experience suggests that the US must treat very softly when discussing assistance in program content" (page 191).

Is NSSM 200 the only important policy document on population trends? Certainly not. The Central Intelligence Agency had a population and manpower subcommittee at least as far back as the 1950s. Over the past 40 years, hundreds of reports have been prepared by the Defense Department, the Department of State, the CIA and others about population control and U.S. national security. Many of them remain partially or entirely classified. To give just one example, a February 1984 CIA report called "Middle East-South Asia: Population Problems and Political Stability" warns that "one-fourth to one-third of the populations of all Middle Eastern and South Asian countries is in the politically-volatile 15 to 24 age group, a consequence of high population growth rates during the 1950s and 1960s." These young people, the intelligence analysts continued, "will be ready recruits for opposition causes [such as] Islamic fundamentalism, which currently offers the principal ideological haven for Muslim youth." Similarly a study done in 1988 for the Pentagon calls upon high-level security planners to ensure that "population planning" is given the status of weapons development (see "Global Demographic Trends to the Year 2010: Implications for U.S. Security" in The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1989). And a 1991 report to the U.S. Army Conference on Long- Range Planning warns that current population trends -- extremely low fertility in developed countries and rapid growth in the southern hemisphere -- raise serious concerns about "the international political order and the balance of world power." The document -- reprinted in Foreign Affairs, Summer 1991 as "Population Change and National Security" -- says that these changes "could create an international environment even more menacing to the security prospects of the Western alliance than was the Cold War for the past generation." Military and intelligence assessments such as these do not change the importance of NSSM 200, however, but merely update its message to address current concerns.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>Time for Action </b>

Tuesday, 18 January 2005

S.S. Mani

While the arrest of the Kanchi Sankaracharya without basis in evidence was abominable, the actions of the Tamil Nadu government since his release on bail by the Supreme Court require a rapid reaction.

The illegal detention of Sri Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal, Sankaracharya of Kanchi, on the evening of his predecessor’s release, is incompatible with the Constitution of India. It is the duty of every Indian to rise against such atrocious misuse of power. If they intend to remain true to their oath to protect our Constitution, the President and Prime Minister of India must, perforce, take summary action to halt the despicable and dictatorial course that Chief Minister Jayalalitha is taking.

On the evening of January 10, the Chief Minister sent a few truckloads of police with guns loaded, to a sanctified place of worship, the Sankara Matam. With their shoes on, and uttering harsh words towards unarmed devotees peaceably gathered there, the Chief Minister’s commando force committed a sacrilege of a venerable Indian tradition. Barring the entry of attorneys, and without informing them of the charges against Him, the Chief Minister had her police junta drag the Sankaracharya off the premises to Chennai Central Jail.

When the police finally articulated the charges before the magistrate, we discovered that the Sankaracharya was being arrested, as was his senior, Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, on murder and conspiracy charges. On the present occasion, neither the Chief Minister nor her police chief deigned to describe the basis of these charges. However, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court of India stipulated in its order granting bail to Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, (whom the Chief Minister declared the prime conspirator in the same case) that Madam Jayalalitha and her police had not produced any evidence linking the Sankaracharya to the crime. Yet, Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal has been arrested for the very same crime.

In effect, the Supreme Court ruling indicated that there was no basis in law for effecting the first arrest. Despite this repudiation of her exercise of police powers, Chief Minister Jayalalitha did not hesitate to ponder the legal grounds of ordering a second arrest. Suo moto, without even an articulation of the evidentiary basis for such action, she rushed in where angels would fear to tread. Such dictatorial exhibitionism deserves immediate dismissal of Jayalalitha’s government.

Next, the Chief Minister froze 183 accounts of the Kanchi Mutt, and its various Trusts, paralyzing the delivery of countless medical, educational & social benefits to millions of our citizens throughout the country. Again, she did not even bother to give any rhyme or reason for her actions. Such arbitrary sequestration of property deserves condemnation from any political entity that cares for India’s economic well-being. One would like to ask the Prime Minister & the Finance Minister whether any organization or individual would ever like to invest in a country where politicians can seize personal property without any due process of law. In many countries, such action would be punishable with punitive fines and imprisonment.

The Jayalalitha Government has the audacity to question even the Supreme Court’s verdict on the bail application. The Supreme Court is the final authority in all legal matters. But, without regard to this constitutional authority, the Chief Minister voices opprobrium against their judgment. To her no Court of Law can give a decision or opinion not in conformity with hers! What is objectionable is the tone finding fault with the legal analysis of the submitted evidence by the apex court. This amounts to contempt of court. It goes to the very root of our democracy, that the executive, that too at the State level, cannot trump the judiciary. The Centre has got to take action to preserve the constitutional integrity of the Supreme Court. The Jayalalitha Government, which has violated the oath of office, should be sacked.

The untold harassment and sufferings meted out to the officials of the Mutt by Jayalalitha’s Police before their arrests (Raghu, Sundaresa Iyer & Vishwanatha Iyer) are condemnable by one & all. Horrific tales of psychological torture, repeated harassing interrogations, and threats of harm have abounded Kanchipuram without the slightest notice from the Centre. Mr Subramaniam Swamy humorously mentioned in one of his interviews that if anyone was to show up at Kanchipuram Bus stand seeking directions, that person would be hauled off to the Forest Bungalow for questioning. Is this a Police State undertaking ethnic cleansing against Hindu devotees of the Kanchi Mutt? How long will Jayalalitha be allowed to commit such atrocities in the name of upholding law? Only Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Kalam can answer that question.

Against all propriety and decency, the video taken during the police custody of Sankaracharya was released to TV Channels. Oddly enough, in this videotape, Swamiji has categorically stated that he never told anyone to kill or even hurt anybody. Unmindful of this rather essential fact, Jayalalitha’s Government, via its counsel, told Justice Balasubramaniam that they have a confession, albeit inadmissible as evidence. The Acharya’s clear denial is a confession? What a blatant lie! The Human Rights Commission has sent Jayalalitha’s government a notice seeking explanation for the release of the tape, but will she care for the Commission when she does not even bother to heed the Supreme Court?

Madam Jayalalitha has a history of misusing her political power for personal vendetta. She used excessive brute force of the police in arresting DMK Leader Karunanidhi just for personal vendetta. She leveled indecent charges against Dr Chenna Reddy, a leader of Congress party and then Governor of Tamilnadu. A senior IAS Officer of the Government of Tamilnadu, who did not see eye to eye with her was brutally attacked with acid and there was no concluding investigation. She harassed a former judge of the High Court of Tamilnadu, who was elevated to the Supreme Court, through frivolous and unfounded charges against his close relatives. Political murders regularly take place during her Chief Ministership, and remain uninvestigated. Will the political parties & the Central Government, particularly Dr.Manmohan Singh (& Sonia Gandhi) take strong action to dismiss her or remain imbecile spectators and derelict in their duties? It must be kept in mind that Jayalalitha did not spare even Sonia Gandhi in her vicious pre-election speeches.

Summary dismissal of Jayalalitha’s government has become necessary because she does not understand the language of reason. She claims, in her recent letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, that there has been no protest against the Sankaracharya’s arrest. Over half a million Citizens from India & abroad have signed petitions to the President of India, the Prime Minister of India & the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asking their intervention. A variety of political parties, from the Sangh Parivar to the Muslim Ulema Council have condemned the arrest in the harshest terms. But these are of no consequence to her. The only thing she respects is the goonda-ism that she herself has been known to engage in. For example, inciting her followers to burn a few buses filled with innocent travelers, as happened to three college girls after her arrest by then Chief Minister Karunanidhi. To her, only such anti-social, illegal and despicable acts are real protests. I wish her mentor, Dr MG Ramachandran was alive to-day. He would have banished her outright for such atrocities.

Some political leaders have cited vote bank politics for her current actions. However, the reason may be far more insidious. Rumours are floating that behind Sankara Raman’s murder there was the hand of Jayalalitha and that is why she hastened to buy Sankar Raman’s family through a donation of 5 lakhs. Also that is the reason why she opposes any enquiry by outside agency - the CBI. It is here that all political parties must unite and demand an independent enquiry by CBI, so that the real culprit(s) in the murder are punished. Pending the conclusion of the enquiry, Jayalalitha should resign or be removed by the Centre so that she is unable to perpetrate illegal activities professing to be an upholder of law.

Previous thread

`Cut the fat, not the muscle'

In wake of UC Bannerjee report which found that the kar-sevaks armed with trishul's burned themselves alive in S-6 coach of the Sabarmati express in Godhra.I am opening this thread to collect information from various sources to establish the facts.The findings can perhaps later be published as a rebuttal to Mr Bannerjee's great work.
Please look for the following points.
1)The timeline of various incidents.
2)The distance between Godhra and Signal Falia.
3)Number of people in the mob that surrounded the train at Signal Falia.
4)Barricades put in place to stop the fire brigade

An incisive strategic report. India's role should be to encourage USA to be weaned away from Pakistan, citing the nuclear skullduggery of the Paki regime. The test of US sincerity should be judged by the support given to India's Fast Breeder Technology, to arrive at 20,000 MW of fast breeder power generation (with dual use of bred fuel) by 2020. Dhanyavaadah. Kalyanaraman

January 17, 2005 | New Yorker


THE COMING WARS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.
Issue of 2005-01-24 and 31
Posted 2005-01-17

George W. Bush’s reëlection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as “facilitators” of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way.

Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush’s reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America’s support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing.

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

Bush and Cheney may have set the policy, but it is Rumsfeld who has directed its implementation and has absorbed much of the public criticism when things went wrong—whether it was prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib or lack of sufficient armor plating for G.I.s’ vehicles in Iraq. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have called for Rumsfeld’s dismissal, and he is not widely admired inside the military. Nonetheless, his reappointment as Defense Secretary was never in doubt.

Rumsfeld will become even more important during the second term. In interviews with past and present intelligence and military officials, I was told that the agenda had been determined before the Presidential election, and much of it would be Rumsfeld’s responsibility. The war on terrorism would be expanded, and effectively placed under the Pentagon’s control. The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.

The President’s decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books—free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of scandals in the nineteen-seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) “The Pentagon doesn’t feel obligated to report any of this to Congress,” the former high-level intelligence official said. “They don’t even call it ‘covert ops’—it’s too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their view, it’s ‘black reconnaissance.’ They’re not even going to tell the cincs”—the regional American military commanders-in-chief. (The Defense Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)

In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. “Everyone is saying, ‘You can’t be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,’” the former intelligence official told me. “But they say, ‘We’ve got some lessons learned—not militarily, but how we did it politically. We’re not going to rely on agency pissants.’ No loose ends, and that’s why the C.I.A. is out of there.”



For more than a year, France, Germany, Britain, and other countries in the European Union have seen preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon as a race against time—and against the Bush Administration. They have been negotiating with the Iranian leadership to give up its nuclear-weapons ambitions in exchange for economic aid and trade benefits. Iran has agreed to temporarily halt its enrichment programs, which generate fuel for nuclear power plants but also could produce weapons-grade fissile material. (Iran claims that such facilities are legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or N.P.T., to which it is a signator, and that it has no intention of building a bomb.) But the goal of the current round of talks, which began in December in Brussels, is to persuade Tehran to go further, and dismantle its machinery. Iran insists, in return, that it needs to see some concrete benefits from the Europeans—oil-production technology, heavy-industrial equipment, and perhaps even permission to purchase a fleet of Airbuses. (Iran has been denied access to technology and many goods owing to sanctions.)

The Europeans have been urging the Bush Administration to join in these negotiations. The Administration has refused to do so. The civilian leadership in the Pentagon has argued that no diplomatic progress on the Iranian nuclear threat will take place unless there is a credible threat of military action. “The neocons say negotiations are a bad deal,” a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) told me. “And the only thing the Iranians understand is pressure. And that they also need to be whacked.”

The core problem is that Iran has successfully hidden the extent of its nuclear program, and its progress. Many Western intelligence agencies, including those of the United States, believe that Iran is at least three to five years away from a capability to independently produce nuclear warheads—although its work on a missile-delivery system is far more advanced. Iran is also widely believed by Western intelligence agencies and the I.A.E.A. to have serious technical problems with its weapons system, most notably in the production of the hexafluoride gas needed to fabricate nuclear warheads.

A retired senior C.I.A. official, one of many who left the agency recently, told me that he was familiar with the assessments, and confirmed that Iran is known to be having major difficulties in its weapons work. He also acknowledged that the agency’s timetable for a nuclear Iran matches the European estimates—assuming that Iran gets no outside help. “The big wild card for us is that you don’t know who is capable of filling in the missing parts for them,” the recently retired official said. “North Korea? Pakistan? We don’t know what parts are missing.”

One Western diplomat told me that the Europeans believed they were in what he called a “lose-lose position” as long as the United States refuses to get involved. “France, Germany, and the U.K. cannot succeed alone, and everybody knows it,” the diplomat said. “If the U.S. stays outside, we don’t have enough leverage, and our effort will collapse.” The alternative would be to go to the Security Council, but any resolution imposing sanctions would likely be vetoed by China or Russia, and then “the United Nations will be blamed and the Americans will say, ‘The only solution is to bomb.’”

A European Ambassador noted that President Bush is scheduled to visit Europe in February, and that there has been public talk from the White House about improving the President’s relationship with America’s E.U. allies. In that context, the Ambassador told me, “I’m puzzled by the fact that the United States is not helping us in our program. How can Washington maintain its stance without seriously taking into account the weapons issue?”

The Israeli government is, not surprisingly, skeptical of the European approach. Silvan Shalom, the Foreign Minister, said in an interview last week in Jerusalem,with another New Yorker journalist, “I don’t like what’s happening. We were encouraged at first when the Europeans got involved. For a long time, they thought it was just Israel’s problem. But then they saw that the [Iranian] missiles themselves were longer range and could reach all of Europe, and they became very concerned. Their attitude has been to use the carrot and the stick—but all we see so far is the carrot.” He added, “If they can’t comply, Israel cannot live with Iran having a nuclear bomb.”

In a recent essay, Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (and a supporter of the Administration), articulated the view that force, or the threat of it, was a vital bargaining tool with Iran. Clawson wrote that if Europe wanted coöperation with the Bush Administration it “would do well to remind Iran that the military option remains on the table.” He added that the argument that the European negotiations hinged on Washington looked like “a preëmptive excuse for the likely breakdown of the E.U.-Iranian talks.” In a subsequent conversation with me, Clawson suggested that, if some kind of military action was inevitable, “it would be much more in Israel’s interest—and Washington’s—to take covert action. The style of this Administration is to use overwhelming force—‘shock and awe.’ But we get only one bite of the apple.”

There are many military and diplomatic experts who dispute the notion that military action, on whatever scale, is the right approach. Shahram Chubin, an Iranian scholar who is the director of research at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, told me, “It’s a fantasy to think that there’s a good American or Israeli military option in Iran.” He went on, “The Israeli view is that this is an international problem. ‘You do it,’ they say to the West. ‘Otherwise, our Air Force will take care of it.’” In 1981, the Israeli Air Force destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor, setting its nuclear program back several years. But the situation now is both more complex and more dangerous, Chubin said. The Osirak bombing “drove the Iranian nuclear-weapons program underground, to hardened, dispersed sites,” he said. “You can’t be sure after an attack that you’ll get away with it. The U.S. and Israel would not be certain whether all the sites had been hit, or how quickly they’d be rebuilt. Meanwhile, they’d be waiting for an Iranian counter-attack that could be military or terrorist or diplomatic. Iran has long-range missiles and ties to Hezbollah, which has drones—you can’t begin to think of what they’d do in response.”

Chubin added that Iran could also renounce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. “It’s better to have them cheating within the system,” he said. “Otherwise, as victims, Iran will walk away from the treaty and inspections while the rest of the world watches the N.P.T. unravel before their eyes.”



The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer. Much of the focus is on the accumulation of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and missile sites, both declared and suspected. The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids. “The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible,” the government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon told me.

Some of the missions involve extraordinary coöperation. For example, the former high-level intelligence official told me that an American commando task force has been set up in South Asia and is now working closely with a group of Pakistani scientists and technicians who had dealt with Iranian counterparts. (In 2003, the I.A.E.A. disclosed that Iran had been secretly receiving nuclear technology from Pakistan for more than a decade, and had withheld that information from inspectors.) The American task force, aided by the information from Pakistan, has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan in a hunt for underground installations. The task-force members, or their locally recruited agents, secreted remote detection devices—known as sniffers—capable of sampling the atmosphere for radioactive emissions and other evidence of nuclear-enrichment programs.

Getting such evidence is a pressing concern for the Bush Administration. The former high-level intelligence official told me, “They don’t want to make any W.M.D. intelligence mistakes, as in Iraq. The Republicans can’t have two of those. There’s no education in the second kick of a mule.” The official added that the government of Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani President, has won a high price for its coöperation—American assurance that Pakistan will not have to hand over A. Q. Khan, known as the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, to the I.A.E.A. or to any other international authorities for questioning. For two decades, Khan has been linked to a vast consortium of nuclear-black-market activities. Last year, Musharraf professed to be shocked when Khan, in the face of overwhelming evidence, “confessed” to his activities. A few days later, Musharraf pardoned him, and so far he has refused to allow the I.A.E.A. or American intelligence to interview him. Khan is now said to be living under house arrest in a villa in Islamabad. “It’s a deal—a trade-off,” the former high-level intelligence official explained. “‘Tell us what you know about Iran and we will let your A. Q. Khan guys go.’ It’s the neoconservatives’ version of short-term gain at long-term cost. They want to prove that Bush is the anti-terrorism guy who can handle Iran and the nuclear threat, against the long-term goal of eliminating the black market for nuclear proliferation.”

The agreement comes at a time when Musharraf, according to a former high-level Pakistani diplomat, has authorized the expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear-weapons arsenal. “Pakistan still needs parts and supplies, and needs to buy them in the clandestine market,” the former diplomat said. “The U.S. has done nothing to stop it.”

There has also been close, and largely unacknowledged, coöperation with Israel. The government consultant with ties to the Pentagon said that the Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. (After Osirak, Iran situated many of its nuclear sites in remote areas of the east, in an attempt to keep them out of striking range of other countries, especially Israel. Distance no longer lends such protection, however: Israel has acquired three submarines capable of launching cruise missiles and has equipped some of its aircraft with additional fuel tanks, putting Israeli F-16I fighters within the range of most Iranian targets.)

“They believe that about three-quarters of the potential targets can be destroyed from the air, and a quarter are too close to population centers, or buried too deep, to be targeted,” the consultant said. Inevitably, he added, some suspicious sites need to be checked out by American or Israeli commando teams—in on-the-ground surveillance—before being targeted.

The Pentagon’s contingency plans for a broader invasion of Iran are also being updated. Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. Updating the plan makes sense, whether or not the Administration intends to act, because the geopolitics of the region have changed dramatically in the last three years. Previously, an American invasion force would have had to enter Iran by sea, by way of the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman; now troops could move in on the ground, from Afghanistan or Iraq. Commando units and other assets could be introduced through new bases in the Central Asian republics.

It is possible that some of the American officials who talk about the need to eliminate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure are doing so as part of a propaganda campaign aimed at pressuring Iran to give up its weapons planning. If so, the signals are not always clear. President Bush, who after 9/11 famously depicted Iran as a member of the “axis of evil,” is now publicly emphasizing the need for diplomacy to run its course. “We don’t have much leverage with the Iranians right now,” the President said at a news conference late last year. “Diplomacy must be the first choice, and always the first choice of an administration trying to solve an issue of . . . nuclear armament. And we’ll continue to press on diplomacy.”

In my interviews over the past two months, I was given a much harsher view. The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act. “We’re not dealing with a set of National Security Council option papers here,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “They’ve already passed that wicket. It’s not if we’re going to do anything against Iran. They’re doing it.”

The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran’s ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work. The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership. “Within the soul of Iran there is a struggle between secular nationalists and reformers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fundamentalist Islamic movement,” the consultant told me. “The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse”—like the former Communist regimes in Romania, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share that belief, he said.

“The idea that an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would produce a popular uprising is extremely illinformed,” said Flynt Leverett, a Middle East scholar who worked on the National Security Council in the Bush Administration. “You have to understand that the nuclear ambition in Iran is supported across the political spectrum, and Iranians will perceive attacks on these sites as attacks on their ambitions to be a major regional player and a modern nation that’s technologically sophisticated.” Leverett, who is now a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at the Brookings Institution, warned that an American attack, if it takes place, “will produce an Iranian backlash against the United States and a rallying around the regime.”



Rumsfeld planned and lobbied for more than two years before getting Presidential authority, in a series of findings and executive orders, to use military commandos for covert operations. One of his first steps was bureaucratic: to shift control of an undercover unit, known then as the Gray Fox (it has recently been given a new code name), from the Army to the Special Operations Command (socom), in Tampa. Gray Fox was formally assigned to socom in July, 2002, at the instigation of Rumsfeld’s office, which meant that the undercover unit would have a single commander for administration and operational deployment. Then, last fall, Rumsfeld’s ability to deploy the commandos expanded. According to a Pentagon consultant, an Execute Order on the Global War on Terrorism (referred to throughout the government as gwot) was issued at Rumsfeld’s direction. The order specifically authorized the military “to find and finish” terrorist targets, the consultant said. It included a target list that cited Al Qaeda network members, Al Qaeda senior leadership, and other high-value targets. The consultant said that the order had been cleared throughout the national-security bureaucracy in Washington.

In late November, 2004, the Times reported that Bush had set up an interagency group to study whether it “would best serve the nation” to give the Pentagon complete control over the C.I.A.’s own élite paramilitary unit, which has operated covertly in trouble spots around the world for decades. The panel’s conclusions, due in February, are foregone, in the view of many former C.I.A. officers. “It seems like it’s going to happen,” Howard Hart, who was chief of the C.I.A.’s Paramilitary Operations Division before retiring in 1991, told me.

There was other evidence of Pentagon encroachment. Two former C.I.A. clandestine officers, Vince Cannistraro and Philip Giraldi, who publish Intelligence Brief, a newsletter for their business clients, reported last month on the existence of a broad counter-terrorism Presidential finding that permitted the Pentagon “to operate unilaterally in a number of countries where there is a perception of a clear and evident terrorist threat. . . . A number of the countries are friendly to the U.S. and are major trading partners. Most have been cooperating in the war on terrorism.” The two former officers listed some of the countries—Algeria, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and Malaysia. (I was subsequently told by the former high-level intelligence official that Tunisia is also on the list.)

Giraldi, who served three years in military intelligence before joining the C.I.A., said that he was troubled by the military’s expanded covert assignment. “I don’t think they can handle the cover,” he told me. “They’ve got to have a different mind-set. They’ve got to handle new roles and get into foreign cultures and learn how other people think. If you’re going into a village and shooting people, it doesn’t matter,” Giraldi added. “But if you’re running operations that involve finesse and sensitivity, the military can’t do it. Which is why these kind of operations were always run out of the agency.” I was told that many Special Operations officers also have serious misgivings.

Rumsfeld and two of his key deputies, Stephen Cambone, the Under-secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and Army Lieutenant General William G. (Jerry) Boykin, will be part of the chain of command for the new commando operations. Relevant members of the House and Senate intelligence committees have been briefed on the Defense Department’s expanded role in covert affairs, a Pentagon adviser assured me, but he did not know how extensive the briefings had been.

“I’m conflicted about the idea of operating without congressional oversight,” the Pentagon adviser said. “But I’ve been told that there will be oversight down to the specific operation.” A second Pentagon adviser agreed, with a significant caveat. “There are reporting requirements,” he said. “But to execute the finding we don’t have to go back and say, ‘We’re going here and there.’ No nitty-gritty detail and no micromanagement.”

The legal questions about the Pentagon’s right to conduct covert operations without informing Congress have not been resolved. “It’s a very, very gray area,” said Jeffrey H. Smith, a West Point graduate who served as the C.I.A.’s general counsel in the mid-nineteen-nineties. “Congress believes it voted to include all such covert activities carried out by the armed forces. The military says, ‘No, the things we’re doing are not intelligence actions under the statute but necessary military steps authorized by the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to “prepare the battlefield.”’” Referring to his days at the C.I.A., Smith added, “We were always careful not to use the armed forces in a covert action without a Presidential finding. The Bush Administration has taken a much more aggressive stance.”

In his conversation with me, Smith emphasized that he was unaware of the military’s current plans for expanding covert action. But he said, “Congress has always worried that the Pentagon is going to get us involved in some military misadventure that nobody knows about.”

Under Rumsfeld’s new approach, I was told, U.S. military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used in nuclear-weapons systems. In some cases, according to the Pentagon advisers, local citizens could be recruited and asked to join up with guerrillas or terrorists. This could potentially involve organizing and carrying out combat operations, or even terrorist activities. Some operations will likely take place in nations in which there is an American diplomatic mission, with an Ambassador and a C.I.A. station chief, the Pentagon consultant said. The Ambassador and the station chief would not necessarily have a need to know, under the Pentagon’s current interpretation of its reporting requirement.

The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls “action teams” in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. “Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?” the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. “We founded them and we financed them,” he said. “The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.” A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said, “We’re going to be riding with the bad boys.”

One of the rationales for such tactics was spelled out in a series of articles by John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, California, and a consultant on terrorism for the rand corporation. “It takes a network to fight a network,” Arquilla wrote in a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle:

When conventional military operations and bombing failed to defeat the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya in the 1950s, the British formed teams of friendly Kikuyu tribesmen who went about pretending to be terrorists. These “pseudo gangs,” as they were called, swiftly threw the Mau Mau on the defensive, either by befriending and then ambushing bands of fighters or by guiding bombers to the terrorists’ camps. What worked in Kenya a half-century ago has a wonderful chance of undermining trust and recruitment among today’s terror networks. Forming new pseudo gangs should not be difficult.


“If a confused young man from Marin County can join up with Al Qaeda,” Arquilla wrote, referring to John Walker Lindh, the twenty-year-old Californian who was seized in Afghanistan, “think what professional operatives might do.”

A few pilot covert operations were conducted last year, one Pentagon adviser told me, and a terrorist cell in Algeria was “rolled up” with American help. The adviser was referring, apparently, to the capture of Ammari Saifi, known as Abderrezak le Para, the head of a North African terrorist network affiliated with Al Qaeda. But at the end of the year there was no agreement within the Defense Department about the rules of engagement. “The issue is approval for the final authority,” the former high-level intelligence official said. “Who gets to say ‘Get this’ or ‘Do this’?”

A retired four-star general said, “The basic concept has always been solid, but how do you insure that the people doing it operate within the concept of the law? This is pushing the edge of the envelope.” The general added, “It’s the oversight. And you’re not going to get Warner”—John Warner, of Virginia, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee—“and those guys to exercise oversight. This whole thing goes to the Fourth Deck.” He was referring to the floor in the Pentagon where Rumsfeld and Cambone have their offices.

“It’s a finesse to give power to Rumsfeld—giving him the right to act swiftly, decisively, and lethally,” the first Pentagon adviser told me. “It’s a global free-fire zone.”



The Pentagon has tried to work around the limits on covert activities before. In the early nineteen-eighties, a covert Army unit was set up and authorized to operate overseas with minimal oversight. The results were disastrous. The Special Operations program was initially known as Intelligence Support Activity, or I.S.A., and was administered from a base near Washington (as was, later, Gray Fox). It was established soon after the failed rescue, in April, 1980, of the American hostages in Iran, who were being held by revolutionary students after the Islamic overthrow of the Shah’s regime. At first, the unit was kept secret from many of the senior generals and civilian leaders in the Pentagon, as well as from many members of Congress. It was eventually deployed in the Reagan Administration’s war against the Sandinista government, in Nicaragua. It was heavily committed to supporting the Contras. By the mid-eighties, however, the I.S.A.’s operations had been curtailed, and several of its senior officers were courtmartialled following a series of financial scandals, some involving arms deals. The affair was known as “the Yellow Fruit scandal,” after the code name given to one of the I.S.A.’s cover organizations—and in many ways the group’s procedures laid the groundwork for the Iran-Contra scandal.

Despite the controversy surrounding Yellow Fruit, the I.S.A. was kept intact as an undercover unit by the Army. “But we put so many restrictions on it,” the second Pentagon adviser said. “In I.S.A., if you wanted to travel fifty miles you had to get a special order. And there were certain areas, such as Lebanon, where they could not go.” The adviser acknowledged that the current operations are similar to those two decades earlier, with similar risks—and, as he saw it, similar reasons for taking the risks. “What drove them then, in terms of Yellow Fruit, was that they had no intelligence on Iran,” the adviser told me. “They had no knowledge of Tehran and no people on the ground who could prepare the battle space.”

Rumsfeld’s decision to revive this approach stemmed, once again, from a failure of intelligence in the Middle East, the adviser said. The Administration believed that the C.I.A. was unable, or unwilling, to provide the military with the information it needed to effectively challenge stateless terrorism. “One of the big challenges was that we didn’t have Humint”—human intelligence—“collection capabilities in areas where terrorists existed,” the adviser told me. “Because the C.I.A. claimed to have such a hold on Humint, the way to get around them, rather than take them on, was to claim that the agency didn’t do Humint to support Special Forces operations overseas. The C.I.A. fought it.” Referring to Rumsfeld’s new authority for covert operations, the first Pentagon adviser told me, “It’s not empowering military intelligence. It’s emasculating the C.I.A.”

A former senior C.I.A. officer depicted the agency’s eclipse as predictable. “For years, the agency bent over backward to integrate and coördinate with the Pentagon,” the former officer said. “We just caved and caved and got what we deserved. It is a fact of life today that the Pentagon is a five-hundred-pound gorilla and the C.I.A. director is a chimpanzee.”

There was pressure from the White House, too. A former C.I.A. clandestine-services officer told me that, in the months after the resignation of the agency’s director George Tenet, in June, 2004, the White House began “coming down critically” on analysts in the C.I.A.’s Directorate of Intelligence (D.I.) and demanded “to see more support for the Administration’s political position.” Porter Goss, Tenet’s successor, engaged in what the recently retired C.I.A. official described as a “political purge” in the D.I. Among the targets were a few senior analysts who were known to write dissenting papers that had been forwarded to the White House. The recently retired C.I.A. official said, “The White House carefully reviewed the political analyses of the D.I. so they could sort out the apostates from the true believers.” Some senior analysts in the D.I. have turned in their resignations—quietly, and without revealing the extent of the disarray.



The White House solidified its control over intelligence last month, when it forced last-minute changes in the intelligence-reform bill. The legislation, based substantially on recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, originally gave broad powers, including authority over intelligence spending, to a new national-intelligence director. (The Pentagon controls roughly eighty per cent of the intelligence budget.) A reform bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 96-2. Before the House voted, however, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld balked. The White House publicly supported the legislation, but House Speaker Dennis Hastert refused to bring a House version of the bill to the floor for a vote—ostensibly in defiance of the President, though it was widely understood in Congress that Hastert had been delegated to stall the bill. After intense White House and Pentagon lobbying, the legislation was rewritten. The bill that Congress approved sharply reduced the new director’s power, in the name of permitting the Secretary of Defense to maintain his “statutory responsibilities.” Fred Kaplan, in the online magazine Slate, described the real issues behind Hastert’s action, quoting a congressional aide who expressed amazement as White House lobbyists bashed the Senate bill and came up “with all sorts of ludicrous reasons why it was unacceptable.”

“Rummy’s plan was to get a compromise in the bill in which the Pentagon keeps its marbles and the C.I.A. loses theirs,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Then all the pieces of the puzzle fall in place. He gets authority for covert action that is not attributable, the ability to directly task national-intelligence assets”—including the many intelligence satellites that constantly orbit the world.

“Rumsfeld will no longer have to refer anything through the government’s intelligence wringer,” the former official went on. “The intelligence system was designed to put competing agencies in competition. What’s missing will be the dynamic tension that insures everyone’s priorities—in the C.I.A., the D.O.D., the F.B.I., and even the Department of Homeland Security—are discussed. The most insidious implication of the new system is that Rumsfeld no longer has to tell people what he’s doing so they can ask, ‘Why are you doing this?’ or ‘What are your priorities?’ Now he can keep all of the mattress mice out of it.”

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

This is serious
<b>14 Indian soldiers abducted in Nepal</b>

<b>RSS ideology is a serious threat: Natwar Singh</b>
Sombody tell this mad man, there was no Islam 3000 years back. Islam came from outside and forced on Indians. His own ancestors were abused by invaders. He himself was against of his muslim daughter-in-law and later she was found murdered in Delhi Hotel.