Liberal Repercussion

This is one story that should not be consigned to the memory hole, and so...

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Vanity_Fair_floats_allegations_GOP_chief_Hastert_took_Turkish__0803.html

Vanity Fair floats allegations GOP chief Hastert took Turkish bribes

RAW STORY

Vanity Fair’s September edition, now out in New York but yet to hit national newsstands, packs a punch with an article about Sibel Edmonds, the FBI translator who has been gagged by the Bush Administration from revealing information about conversations she translated surrounding a seemingly major corruption scandal involving Turkish nationals and U.S. lawmakers, RAW STORY can reveal.

RAW STORY acquired a copy of the article by David Rose this evening. The following are some brief excerpts surrounding the meatier allegations Edmonds has made—some of which the FBI has confirmed—about the specifics surrounding her case. According to those briefed on the case, Edmonds says she has heard classified wiretaps which indicate Turkish nationals tried to bribe both Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Chicago and Washington.

Edmonds was fired from the FBI after trying to persuade her bosses to investigate a Turkish family, the Dickersons, she said was trying to trade on her status as an FBI operative. She suspected that the American Turkish Council, which the family tried to persuade her to join, was a front group for criminal activity.

#

On top of the usual prohibition against disclosing classified information, the Bush administration has smothered her case beneath the all-encompassing blanket of the “state-secrets privilege”—a Draconian and rarely used legal weapon that allows the government, merely by asserting a risk to national security, to prevent the lawsuits Edmonds has filed contesting her treatment from being heard in court at all. According to the Department of Justice, to allow Edmonds her day in court, even at a closed hearing attended only by personnel with full security clearance, “could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the foreign policy and national security of the United States.”

Edmonds’ attorney, who works for the ACLU, says: “It also begs a question: Just what in the world is the government trying to hide?”

"It may be more than another embarrassing security scandal,” writes Rose. “One counterintelligence official familiar with Edmonds’s case has told Vanity Fair that the FBI opened an investigation into covert activity by Turkish nations in the late 1990s. That inquiry found evidence, mainly via wiretaps, of attempts to corrupt senior American politicians in at least two major cities—Washington and Chicago. Toward the end of 2001, Edmonds was asked to translate some of the thousands of calls that had been recorded by this operation, some dating back to 1997.

"Edmonds has given confidential testimony inside a secure Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility on several occasions: to congressional staffers, to investigators from the OIG, and to staff from the 9/11 commission," Rose continues. "Sources familiar with this testimony say that, in addition to her allegations about the Dickersons, she reported hearing Turkish wiretap targets boast that they had a covert relationship with a very senior Republican indeed—Dennis Hastert, Republican congressman from Illinois and Speaker of the House since 1999. The targets reportedly discussed giving Hastert tens of thousands of dollars in surreptitious payments in exchange for political favors and information. “The Dickersons,” says one official familiar with the case, “are just the tip of the iceberg.”

"Some of the calls reportedly contained what sounded like references to large scale drug shipments and other crimes," writes Rose. "One name, however, apparently stood out—a man the Turkish callers often referred to by the nickname “Denny boy.” It was Dennis Hastert. According to some of the wiretaps, the FBI’s targets had arranged for thousands of dollars to be paid to Hastert’s campaign funds in small checks. Under Federal Election Commission rules, donations of less than $200 are not required to be itemized in public filings.

"Hastert himself was never heard on the recordings, Edmonds told investigators and it is possible that the claims of covert payments were hollow boasts," Rose says. "Nevertheless, an examination of Hastert’s federal filings shows that the level of un-itemized payments his campaigns received over many years was relatively high. Between April 1996 and December 2002, un-itemized personal donations to the Hastert for Congress fund amounted to $483,000. In contrast, un-itemized contributions to the same period to the committee run on behalf of the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, were only $99,000. An analysis of the filings of four other senior Republicans shows that only one, Clay Shaw, of Florida declared a higher total of un-itemized donations than Hastert during the same period: $552,000…

"Edmonds reportedly added that the recordings contained repeated references to Hastert’s flip-flop in the fall of 2000," Rose pens, "over an issue which remains of intense concern to the Turkish government—the continuing campaign to have Congress designate the killings of Armenians between 1915 and 1923 a genocide. For many years, attempts had been made to get the House to pass a genocide resolution, but they never got anywhere until August 2000, when Hastert, as Speaker, announced that he would give it his backing and see that it received a full House vote…Thanks to Hastert, the resolution, vehemently opposed by the Turks, passed… Then on October 19, minutes before the full House vote, Hastert withdrew it. He attributed it to a letter from President Clinton.

Vanity Fair insists, however, “there is no evidence that any payment was ever made to Hastert or his campaign. Nevertheless, a senior official at the Turkish Consulate is said to have claimed in one recording that the price for Hastert to withdraw the resolution would have been at least $50,000.”

Hastert’s spokesman denied the allegations, and said he knew nothing of the Turkish group.

While it's posted, you can read the full PDF

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/files/vanityfair_clean.pdf

posted by Rei Toei @ 12:02 p.m.

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

posted by Rei Toei @ 5:04 p.m.

REALNETWORKS CHIEF SIGNS ON TO AIR AMERICA

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Rob Glaser, the founder and chief executive
officer of RealNetworks Inc., has been elected chairman of Air America
Radio.

The liberal talk show network, heard on 40 stations, also announced it
received $13 million in new investments. A spokeswoman said Glaser has
been an investor in AAR and is one of the lead investors in this latest
round of funding.

Air America also said it renewed contracts with Al Franken and Randi
Rhodes, two show hosts. Franken, a comedian and author, said, "I have
re-signed with Air America in order to spend less time with my family."

There was no announcement of Glaser's new role by RealNetworks (RNWK).
A company spokesman said his involvement was "personal." RealNetworks
provides Webcasting services for Air America's audio streaming.

"Air America has created the hottest new brand on radio, offering some
of the most dynamic personalities and programming found anywhere on the
radio dial," Glaser said in a statement.
_________________________________________

posted by Rei Toei @ 4:57 p.m.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31016-2004Nov6.html

Unrivaled Security Planned for Inauguration
Military Muscle, High-Tech Screening Are Features of First Swearing In Since 9/11

By Sari Horwitz and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 7, 2004; Page A10

An unprecedented level of security will frame President Bush's second inauguration, with officials planning to use thousands of police from across the country, new screening technology for inaugural guests and a military contingent that could include a combat brigade of up to 4,000 troops.

Security is always tight on Inauguration Day, but it will be magnified for the first inauguration since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Law enforcement officials have been preparing for months to protect U.S. and world leaders and citizens who attend

posted by Rei Toei @ 11:14 a.m.

Mobile/Wearable Computers Used for Security at Republican National Convention

By: Lee Thomas on Thu. Sep. 2nd, 2004, 10:44AM EDT
URL: http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/342/C3170/

Xybernaut the makers of wearable computers deployed their Mobile Assistant V – MA V to the NYPD in order to provide mobile video surveillance/security at the Republican National Convention.

The MA V used with a simple webcam or even a video camera combined with a Wi-Fi card and Managed Media Services video streaming provide an excellent solution for law enforcement to view live video from their officers.


Xybernaut Corporation and Managed Media Services LLC today announced a combined solution that incorporates mobile/wearable computers with secure video streaming software that operates over wireless networks.

The unique solution, which the companies are deploying initially with law enforcement agencies during the 2004 Republican National Convention (RNC) in New York City this week, provides one of the first truly comprehensive offerings of mobile computing and streaming technologies for a wide variety of industries.

The solution combines Xybernaut lightweight and powerful Mobile Assistant and Atigo wireless mobile computers with Managed Media video streaming software.

"The combination of our technologies is a significant step toward delivering powerful and on demand information for use by emergency and law enforcement personnel while in the field," stated Steven A. Newman, president and COO. "Our initial joint deployment is a wandering, wireless video transmitter that is enabling New York law enforcement agencies to literally walk around the RNC convention floor, as well as conduct outdoor security around the Madison Square Garden venue, by sending real-time, live video to a web page for viewing by the NYPD teams."

The combined product enables any video camera (whether it is an inexpensive webcam, a personal handy-cam, or a sophisticated television-grade camera) to be connected to Xybernaut computers via USB or Firewire ports and transmit real-time video and sound to a specific, secure Web server for viewing by authorized personnel, wherever they may be.

"Our MMS software does not require a heavy client application, and the Xybernaut wearable computers are capable of transmitting full-speed video in a highly mobile manner," stated Todd Atchison, president and founder of Managed Media Services LLC. "In fact, the MAV and Atigo products -- with the use of a Wi-Fi card or a cell card -- can become 'on-the-run' (literally) video transmission systems for anything from surveillance to point-of-action video streaming."

As part of the initial RNC application, the NYPD has deployed for several MA-V/AtigoT units in concert with the MMS video client as a part of their surveillance work during the Republican National Convention August 30- September 4.

The Xybernaut-Managed Media Services technologies are allowing the various law enforcement agencies to manage operations by having various types of critical information -- in addition to the real-time video -- at their fingertips, including building floor plans/schematics, specific images related to a facility or site, incident command protocols and other critical response data.

This equipment allows critical incident response teams to formulate tactical plans based on real-time/actual video images, decreasing deployment time and increasing operational efficiency. Once on site, responders coordinating various efforts and teams will continue to have access to critical video data via the wearable computers.

Company URL: http://www.xybernaut.com

posted by Rei Toei @ 3:08 p.m.