Category: America

  • CIA shifts focus to killing targets

    CIA shifts focus to killing targets

    By Greg Miller and Julie Tate

    Behind a nondescript door at CIA headquarters, the agency has assembled a new counterterrorism unit whose job is to find al-Qaeda targets in Yemen. A corresponding commotion has been underway in the Arabian Peninsula, where construction workers have been laying out a secret new runway for CIA drones.

    When the missiles start falling, it will mark another expansion of the paramilitary mission of the CIA.

    In the decade since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the agency has undergone a fundamental transformation. Although the CIA continues to gather intelligence and furnish analysis on a vast array of subjects, its focus and resources are increasingly centered on the cold counterterrorism objective of finding targets to capture or kill.

    The shift has been gradual enough that its magnitude can be difficult to grasp. Drone strikes that once seemed impossibly futuristic are so routine that they rarely attract public attention unless a high-ranking al-Qaeda figure is killed.

    But framed against the upcoming 10th anniversary of the 2001 attacks — as well as the arrival next week of retired Gen. David H. Petraeus as the CIA’s director — the extent of the agency’s reorientation comes into sharper view:

    ●The drone program has killed more than 2,000 militants and civilians since 2001, a staggering figure for an agency that has a long history of supporting proxy forces in bloody conflicts but rarely pulled the trigger on its own.

    ●The CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, which had 300 employees on the day of the attacks, now exceeds al-Qaeda’s core membership around the globe. With about 2,000 on its staff, the CTC accounts for 10 percent of the agency’s workforce, has designated officers in almost every significant overseas post and controls the CIA’s expanding fleet of drones.

    ●Even the agency’s analytic branch, which traditionally existed to provide insights to policymakers, has been enlisted in the hunt. About 20 percent of CIA analysts are now “targeters” scanning data for individuals to recruit, arrest or place in the cross­hairs of a drone. The skill is in such demand that the CIA made targeting a designated career track five years ago, meaning analysts can collect raises and promotions without having to leave the targeting field.

    Critics, including some in the U.S. intelligence community, contend that the CIA’s embrace of “kinetic” operations, as they are known, has diverted the agency from its traditional espionage mission and undermined its ability to make sense of global developments such as the Arab Spring.

    Human rights groups go further, saying the CIA now functions as a military force beyond the accountability that the United States has historically demanded of its armed services. The CIA doesn’t officially acknowledge the drone program, let alone provide public explanation about who shoots and who dies, and by what rules.

    “We’re seeing the CIA turn into more of a paramilitary organization without the oversight and accountability that we traditionally expect of the military,” said Hina Shamsi, the director of the National Security Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.

    CIA officials defend all aspects of the agency’s counterterrorism efforts and argue that the agency’s attention to other subjects has not been diminished. Fran Moore, head of the CIA’s analytic branch, said intelligence work on a vast range of issues, including weapons proliferation and energy resources, has been expanded and improved.

    “The vast majority of analysts would not identify themselves as supporting military objectives,” Moore said in an interview at CIA headquarters. Counterterrorism “is clearly a significant, growing and vibrant part of our mission. But it’s not the defining mission.”

    CIA2Agency within an agency

    Nevertheless, those directly involved in building the agency’s lethal capacity say the changes to the CIA since Sept. 11 are so profound that they sometimes marvel at the result. One former senior U.S. intelligence official described the agency’s paramilitary transformation as “nothing short of a wonderment.”

    “You’ve taken an agency that was chugging along and turned it into one hell of a killing machine,” said the former official, who, like many people interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters. Blanching at his choice of words, he quickly offered a revision: “Instead, say ‘one hell of an operational tool.’ ”

    The engine of that machine is the CTC, an entity that has accumulated influence, authority and resources to such a degree that it resembles an agency within an agency.

    The center swelled to 1,200 employees in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and nearly doubled in size since then.

    The CTC occupies a sprawling footprint at the CIA campus in Langley, including the first floor of what is known as the “new headquarters” building. The chief of the center is an undercover officer known for his brusque manner, cigarette habit and tireless commitment to the job.

    A CIA veteran said he asked the CTC chief about the pace of strikes against al-Qaeda last year and got a typically profane reply: “We are killing these sons of bitches faster than they can grow them now.”

    The headquarters for that hunt is on a separate floor in a CTC unit known as the Pakistan-Afghanistan Department, referred to internally as PAD. Within the past year, the agency has created an equivalent department for Yemen and Somalia in the hope that it can replicate the impact of PAD.

    Inside the PAD entrance is a photographic tribute to the seven CIA employees who were killed by a suicide bomber in December 2009 at a remote base in the Afghan city of Khost. Two were former targeters who had worked in the CTC.

    Beyond that marker is a warren of cubicles and offices. On the walls are maps marked with the locations of CIA bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as whiteboards with lists of pending operations and code names of spies. Every paid informant is given a unique “crypt” that starts with a two-letter digraph designating spies who are paid sources of the CTC.

    PAD serves as the anchor of an operational triangle that stretches from South Asia to the American Southwest. The CIA has about 30 Predator and Reaper drones, all flown by Air Force pilots from a U.S. military base in a state that The Post has agreed, at the request of agency officials, not to name. The intelligence that guides their “orbits” flows in from a constellation of CIA bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    More here >> www.washingtonpost.com, 2 September 2011

  • Ex-leader of fundamentalist Islamic group is new military commander of Tripoli

    Ex-leader of fundamentalist Islamic group is new military commander of Tripoli

    BelhajjThe former chief of the terrorist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Abdelhakim Belhadj, who led the “rebel” onslaught on Tripoli and on Muammar Gaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziyah compound, is now leader of the newly established Tripoli Military Council.

    As reported last Thursday by the Algerian daily El Khabar, Belhadj had been arrested, in 2004, by the CIA in Malaysia for terrorist activities and later handed over to Libya. In March 2010, Belhadj was released by Saif al Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader, following a national amnesty which benefited hundreds of Libyan Islamists. Belhadj’s group who, according to the Libyan authorities, was linked to the Al Qaeda terrorist network, was granted amnesty on the promise that it had renounced violence.

    According to the Algerian outlet, the very fact that this former emir – linked to a fundamentalist Islamic group – was designated to deliver Tripoli from the “tyrant’s rule” would clearly indicate that Salafism (Editor’s note: an extremist Sunni movement advocating a return to the fundamentals of Islam as laid down in the Koran and the Sunnah.) is rife in the ranks of the Libyan armed opposition, dubbed as “the rebels”.

    Moreover, Belhadj’s frequent appearances on Al-Jazeera (television channel based in Qatar, a country which participated in the aggression on Libya together with the United States and France) foreshadow the influential role that he will play in post-war Libya. At a press conference on Friday, Belhadj said that the Tripoli Military Council “was the first step in a process to bring the fighters into a new national army.”

    It should also be recalled that Abdelhakim Belhadj, now an all-powerful military “rebel” commander in Tripoli, was once hosted in the prisons of the CIA and is well known to the U.S. authorities.

    Better known within Islamist circles by his alias “Abu Abdallah al-Sadek,” Belhadj boasts a reputation as a very experienced mujaheddin commander. In Afghanistan, before the attacks of September 11, he ran two training camps for Al-Qaeda volunteers coming from abroad. Their current collaboration with Western intelligence services is evidence of the fact that Al Qaeda has always been controlled by the CIA.

    Protests against Muammar Gaddafi, in power for over 40 years, erupted in Libya in mid-February before gaining momentum and being supported militarily by NATO countries.

    On 22 August the rebels finally took the capital [thanks to the military aid of the Western powers] and are currently believed to control more than 90% of the territory. However, many pockets of pro-Ghaddafi resistance are still being reported in the city.

    https://www.voltairenet.org/Tripoli-Ex-leader-of, 29 August 2011

  • Rebel commander in Tripoli was tortured by CIA

    Rebel commander in Tripoli was tortured by CIA

    CIAAbdulhakim Belhaj, a key rebel military commander whose group has been trying to overthrow Gaddafi since the 1990s, reported in an interview that he was captured by the CIA in 2004 and tortured in custody.

    Belhaj is now a key NATO ally but insists he still hopes to take legal action for his abuse at the hands of the CIA.

    via Antiwar, 02 September 2011


     

  • WikiLeaks cables expose Washington’s close ties to Gaddafi

    WikiLeaks cables expose Washington’s close ties to Gaddafi

    by Bill Van Auken

    Gaddafi US luvUS embassy cables released by WikiLeaks on Wednesday and Thursday expose the close collaboration between the US government, top American politicians and Muammar Gaddafi, who Washington now insists must be hunted down and murdered.

    Washington and its NATO allies are now determined to smash the Libyan regime, supposedly in the interests of “liberating” the Libyan people. That Gaddafi was until the beginning of this year viewed as a strategic, if somewhat unreliable, ally is clearly seen as an inconvenient truth.

    The cables have been virtually blacked out by the corporate media, which has functioned as an embedded asset of NATO and the so-called rebel forces that it directs. It is hardly coincidental that the WikiLeaks posting of the cables was followed the next day by a combination of a massive denial of service attack and a US judge’s use of the Patriot Act to issue a sweeping “production order” or subpoena against the anti-secrecy organization’s California-based Domain Name Server, Dynadot.

    The most damning of these cables memorializes an August 2009 meeting between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his son and national security adviser, Muatassim, with US Republican Senators John McCain (Arizona), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), Susan Collins (Maine) and Connecticut “independent” Joe Lieberman.

    McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, has in recent speeches denounced Gaddafi as “one of the most bloodthirsty dictators on Earth” and criticized the Obama administration for failing “to employ the full weight of our airpower” in effecting regime change in Libya.

    In the meeting held just two years ago, however, McCain took the lead in currying favor with the Gaddafis. According to the embassy cable, he “assured” them that “the United States wanted to provide Libya with the equipment it needs for its security” and “pledged to see what he could do to move things forward in Congress.”

    The cable continues to relate McCain’s remarks: “He encouraged Muatassim to keep in mind the long-term perspective of bilateral security engagement and to remember that small obstacles will emerge from time to time that can be overcome. He described the bilateral military relationship as strong and pointed to Libyan officer training at U.S. Command, Staff, and War colleges as some of the best programs for Libyan military participation.”

    The cable quote Lieberman as saying, “We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi.” It states that the Connecticut senator went on to describe Libya as “an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting that common enemies sometimes make better friends.”

    The “common enemies” referred to by Lieberman were precisely the Islamist forces concentrated in eastern Libya that the US then backed Gaddafi in repressing, but has now organized, armed and led in the operation to overthrow him.

    The US embassy summarized: “McCain’s meetings with Muammar and Muatassim al-Qadhafi were positive, highlighting the progress that has been made in the bilateral relationship. The meetings also reiterated Libya’s desire for enhanced security cooperation, increased assistance in the procurement of defense equipment, and resolution to the C130s issue” (a contract that went unfulfilled because of previous sanctions).

    Another cable issued on the same meeting deals with McCain’s advice to the Gaddafis about the upcoming release from a Scottish prison of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who had been convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. McCain, who now fulminates about Gaddafi having “American blood on his hands,” counseled the Libyan leader that the release was a “very sensitive issue” in the US and that he should handle it discreetly, “in a way that would strengthen the growing relationship between our two countries, rather than hinder its progress.” Ultimately Gaddafi and other leading Libyan officials gave a hero’s welcome to Megrahi, who has proclaimed his innocence and had been set to have his appeal heard when the Scottish government released him.

    Other cables highlight the increasingly close US-Libyan military and security cooperation. One, sent in February 2009, provides a “security environment profile” for Libya. It notes that US personnel were “scheduled to provide 5 training courses to host government law enforcement and security” the next month. In answer to whether the Libyan government had been able to “score any major anti-terrorism successes,” the embassy praised the Gaddafi regime for having “dismantled a network in eastern Libya that was sending volunteer fighters to Algeria and Iraq and was plotting attacks against Libyan security targets using stockpiled explosives. The operation resulted in the arrest of over 100 individuals.” Elements of this same “network” make up an important component of the “rebels” now armed and led by NATO.

    Asked by the State Department if there existed any “indigenous anti-American terrorist groups” in the country, the embassy replied “yes”, pointing to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which it noted had recently announced its merger with Al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Again, elements of the LIFG are active in the leadership of the so-called rebels.

    An April 2009 cable preparing Muatassim Gaddafi’s trip to Washington that month stresses plans for anti-terrorist training for Libyan military officers and potential arms deals. In its conclusion the embassy states: “The visit offers an opportunity to meet a power player and potential future leader of Libya. We should also view the visit as an opportunity to draw out Muatassim on how the Libyans view ‘normalized relations’ with the U.S. and, in turn, to convey how we view the future of the relationship as well. Given his role overseeing Libya’s national security apparatus, we also want his support on key security and military engagement that serves our interests.”

    A May 2009 cable details a cordial hour-long meeting between Gaddafi and the then-head of the US Africa Command, General William Ward.

    An August 2008 cable, a “scene setter” for the “historic visit” of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Tripoli, declares that “Libya has been a strong partner in the war against terrorism and cooperation in liaison channels is excellent … Counter-terrorism cooperation is a key pillar of the U.S.-Libya bilateral relationship and a shared strategic interest.”

    Many of the cables deal with opportunities for US energy and construction firms to reap “bonanzas” in the North African country and note with approval privatization efforts and the setting up of a Tripoli stock exchange.

    Others, however, express concern, not about the Gaddafi regime’s repressive measures, but rather foreign policy and oil policy moves that could prejudice US interests. Thus, an October 2008 cable, cynically headlined “AL-QADHAFI: TO RUSSIA, WITH LOVE?” expresses US concern about the Gaddafi regime’s approach to Russia for lucrative arms purchases and a visit to Tripoli harbor by a flotilla of Russian warships. One month later, during a visit to Moscow, Gaddafi discussed with the Putin regime the prospect of the Russian navy establishing a Mediterranean port in the city of Benghazi, setting off alarm bells at the Pentagon.

    Cables from 2008 and 2009 raise concerns about US corporations not getting in on “billions of dollars in opportunities” for infrastructure contracts and fears that the Gaddafi regime could make good on the Libyan leader’s threat to nationalize the oil sector or utilize the threat to extract more favorable contracts from the foreign energy corporations.

    The cables underscore the hypocrisy of the US and its allies in Britain, France and Italy, who have championed “regime change” in the name of protecting Libyan civilians and promoting “democracy.”

    Those like Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron and Berlusconi who have branded Gaddafi a criminal to be hunted down and murdered were all his accomplices. All of them collaborated with, armed and supported the Gaddafi regime, as US and European corporations reaped vast profits from Libya’s oil wealth.

    In the end, they seized upon the upheavals in the region and the anti-Gaddafi protests in Libya as the opportunity to launch a war to establish outright semi-colonial control over the energy-rich country and rid themselves of an ally who was never seen as fully reliable or predictable and upset his patrons with demands for better deals with big oil, closer ties with Russia and China and the threat of replacing the euro and dollar with a “gold dinar.”

    Bill Van Auken is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

    www.globalresearch.ca, 27 August 2011

  • Islamophobia in America: Some finance it, while others fight it

    Islamophobia in America: Some finance it, while others fight it

    By Elizabeth Flock

    Girls wearing Islamic headscarves play in a park in Istanbul. (Osman Orsal/AP)
    Girls wearing Islamic headscarves play in a park in Istanbul. (Osman Orsal/AP)

    Girls wearing Islamic headscarves play in a park in Istanbul. (Osman Orsal/AP) Last Friday, the Center for American Progress released a report that found a group of writers and activists spent millions over the last decade to spread fear about Islam in America.

    Almost $43 million from seven charitable groups went toward financing anti-Muslim campaigns, the report said, including proposed state laws to ban judges from considering Islamic laws in U.S. courts, opposition to the Islamic center near Ground Zero, and a general encouragement of anti-Muslim rhetoric in politics and elsewhere.

    There’s no denying that there is anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. Only 37 of all Americans say they have a favorable view of Islam, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll taken in 2010.

    However, just as some seek to fan the fires of anti-Muslim sentiment, so do others work to put them out. My Fellow American, a new online film and social media project by Unity Productions Foundation, wants to remind Americans that Muslims are “fellow Americans,” too. The project asks people to contribute stories either about themselves as Muslims, or about their Muslim friends. The group produced an unforgettable introductory film juxtaposing anti-Muslim rhetoric with images of everyday Muslims.

    According to a 2010 TIME poll, 62 percent of Americans claim to have never met a Muslim. Instead, Americans shape their views of Muslims from what they hear in the media and from political rhetoric, Unity Productions Foundation says, writing on the site:

    American Muslims are so often vilified as ‘the other’ that it is possible not to recognize that most were born in the U.S…[or] came seeking the same freedoms and opportunities that have always attracted people to America.

    The cost of feeding the fear of Muslims is high. “Very high,” according to Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a professor at the Chicago Theological Seminary.

    “This point has been made shockingly evident in the murderous rampage of right-wing Norwegian extremist, Anders Breivik,” Thistlethwaite wrote in a column in The Washington Post last week. Breivik’s ”Manifesto” cited many of the people profiled in the Center of American Progress report.

    The strongest argument against Islamophobia, Thistlethwaite writes, it that it “actually accomplishes the opposite of what its purveyors claim to want [it to].”

    via Islamophobia in America: Some finance it, while others fight it – BlogPost – The Washington Post.

  • ‘WikiLeaks docs exposing Mossad agents’ names leaked’

    ‘WikiLeaks docs exposing Mossad agents’ names leaked’

    LEAKS ASSANGEGerman press reports original cables kept by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange accidentally released online. Information exposes identities of US sources as well as Israeli, Iranian intelligence agents

    The original US State Department documents obtained byWikiLeaks were accidentally leaked online revealing the names of sources that have thus far remained anonymous, German newspapers Der Spiegel and Freitag Der reported Monday. The names include possible Israeli, Iranian and Jordanian intelligence agents.

    The unedited cables could put the sources in danger as many of them are located in countries whose governments are hostile to the US. The classified documents were edited before their distribution over six months ago, but the original key file which has been leaked reveals information originally censored by WikiLeaks editors.

    More Wikileaks exposures:

    • Lieberman wanted Egypt to give land to Gaza
    • ‘Syria aimed chemical weapons at Israel
    • ‘Netanyahu endorsed land swap concept
    • ‘Israel overestimating Iranian nuke program’
    • ‘Israel planned large-scale war in 2009

    According to the German reports, one of the documents quotes an Iranian informant as saying that the Iranian people have always tried to maintain the impression they were following the “stupid and crazy ayatollahs.”

    Internal struggles

    The uncensored documents were exposed in the backdrop of internal disputes between WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and some of his colleagues who had left the site. Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Assange’s former deputy and spokesman, was the only person to have access to the original cables which were kept on an external server and locked with a password.

    At the end of 2010, Domscheit-Berg returned documents he had taken with him back to WikiLeaks, including the original copy of the unedited cables. A group of Assange’s supporters uploaded the information, which was encrypted, to the internet without noticing the documents had not been edited and include the names of the US administration sources.

    Several months ago, an associate of Assange revealed the code which allows access to the original documents. He never imagined that the password would enable access to documents which were already online, as he thought they were saved on an external server. The accident went undetected for weeks before WikiLeaks’ competitors exposed it.

    Domscheit-Berg’s news site OpenLeaks exposed the blunder to prove that Assange’s site was unprotected.

    www.ynetnews.com, 30.08.2011