WHY US THINKS IRAN HAS WMD – US GAVE THEM BLUEPRINTS

The Bush administration is prolonging the hunting season against journalists. The latest victim is James Risen, The New York Times reporter for national security and intelligence affairs. About three months ago, a federal grand jury issued a subpoena against him, ordering Risen to give evidence in court. A heavy blackout has been imposed on the affair, with the only hint being that it has to do with sensitive matters of “national security.” But conversations with several sources who are familiar with the affair indicate that Risen has been asked to testify as part of an investigation aimed at revealing who leaked apparently confidential information about the planning of secret Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad missions concerning Iran’s nuclear program.

Risen included this information in his book, “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration,” which was published in 2006. In the book, he discusses a number of ideas which he says were thought up jointly by CIA and Mossad operatives to sabotage Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

 

One of these ideas was to build electromagnetic devices, smuggling them inside Iran to sabotage electricity lines leading to the country’s central nuclear sites. According to the plan, the operation was supposed to cause a series of chain reactions which would damage extremely powerful short circuits in the electrical supply that would have led to failures of the super computers of Iran’s nuclear sites.

According to the book, the Mossad planners proposed that they would be responsible for getting the electromagnetic facilities into Iran with the aid of their agents in Iran. However, a series of technical problems prevented the plan’s execution.

Another of the book’s important revelations, which made the administration’s blood boil about James Risen, appeared in a chapter describing what was known as Operation Merlin, the code name for another CIA operation supposed to penetrate the heart of Iran’s nuclear activity, collect information about it and eventually disrupt it.

Operation Merlin

The CIA counter proliferation department hired a Soviet nuclear engineer who had previously, in the 1990s, defected to the United States and revealed secrets from the Soviet Union’s nuclear program. His speciality was in the field of what is called weaponization, the final stage of assembling a nuclear bomb.

The scientist was equipped with blueprints for assembling a nuclear bomb in which, without his knowledge, false drawings and information blueprints were planted about a nuclear warhead that was supposedly manufactured in the Soviet Union. The plan’s details had been fabricated by CIA experts, and so while they appeared authentic, they had no engineering or technological value.

The intention was to fool the scientist and send him to make contact with the Iranians to whom he would offer his services and blueprints. The American plot was aimed at getting the Iranians to invest a great deal of effort in studying the plans and to attempt to assemble a faulty warhead. But when the time came, they would not have a nuclear bomb but rather a dud.

However, Operation Merlin, which was so creative and original, failed because of CIA bungled planning. The false information inserted into the blueprints were too obvious and too easily detected and the Russian engineer discovered them. As planned, he made contact with the Iranian delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and handed over to them, also as planned, the blueprints.

But contrary to the CIA’s intention, he added a letter to the blueprints in which he pointed out the mistakes. He did not do this with ill intent or out of a desire to disrupt the operation and harm his operators. On the contrary, he did so out of a deep sense of mission and in order to satisfy his American operators. He hoped that in this way he would simply increase the Iranians’ trust in him and encourage them to make contact with him for the good, of course, of his American operators.

The result was disastrous. Not only did the CIA fail to prevent the Iranians in their efforts to enhance their nuclear program, this operation may also have made it possible for them to get their hands on a plan for assembling a nuclear warhead.

Freedom of the press

In Israel, military censorship would have prevented the publication of details such as these. But in the U.S., where the principle of freedom of the press is sacred and anchored in the constitution, there is no compulsory and binding censorship. There is, however, an expectation there that the press will show responsibility. This expectation has increased in recent years, particularly with the conservative Bush administration and in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Risen is not the first journalist to have been subpoenaed to give evidence before a grand jury and reveal his sources. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, some 65 journalists have been summoned for such investigations since 2001. Some agreed, cooperated and testified. Most refused, so that they would not have to reveal their sources. In this way, they exposed themselves to being charged with contempt of court.

There were some who even preferred to be jailed so long as they were not forced to reveal their source. The best-known case was that of Judith Miller, another New York Times writer. The background to her 85-day imprisonment was her refusal to reveal who had leaked the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, to the media.

“It is true that there is tension between the Bush administration and the media,” says Steve Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy on behalf of the Federation of American Scientists, an independent body which aims at analyzing the activities of government with a critical eye, “but I would not go so far as to say that the administration is waging war against the media.”

In Aftergood’s assessment, the danger to the freedom of the press comes rather from private citizens and organizations, those who feel themselves harmed by journalistic publications and commentators and who would therefore like to limit the press’ freedom. The most conspicuous of these is Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior editor at Commentary, who believes that liberal newspapers like The New York Times are not sufficiently patriotic. In his articles and in testimony before a Senate committee that discussed the issue, Schoenfeld claimed that

The New York Times reporters had revealed confidential material that weakened America’s struggle against Al-Qaida. He calls for relinquishing the soft approach which he says the administration has taken against journalists in whose publications, in his opinion, America’s security is harmed.

There are many others who take the opposite approach and believe that the right of journalists to keep their sources secret should be anchored in law. Two Congressmen, the Republican Mike Pence, and Rick Boucher, a Democrat, have proposed legislation to this effect – a law for the free flow of information. The House of Representatives has already approved their proposal but the legislation is being held up in the Senate, to the displeasure of the American Civil Liberties Union.

On the face of it, this is a sensitive issue that is intended to draw the lines between the freedom of information, freedom of the media, and the public’s right to know, against the right of a democracy to defend itself against enemies that are not democratic. But James Risen has no doubt that the correct and just moral act on his part has to be to defend his sources, even if this means he will lose his freedom.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/961337.html

Last update - 20:50 06/03/2008

<!–[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]–><!–[if !vml]–><!–[endif]–>

<!–[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]–><!–[if !vml]–><!–[endif]–>

<!–[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]–><!–[if !vml]–><!–[endif]–>

<!–[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]–><!–[if !vml]–><!–[endif]–>Who leaked the details of a CIA-Mossad plot against Iran? <!–[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]–><!–[if !vml]–><!–[endif]–>By Yossi Melman

Photographer’s View of Chad’s Refugee Crisis

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/world/20080215_CHAD_FEATURE/index.html

Artifacts with Politics

 

 

 

http://it.stlawu.edu/~global/glossary/newglosshome3.html

Hegemony, Subculture, Advertising and the Spectacle

Edward Ames, Julia Reid, and Tim O’Connor.

March 19, 1993
SOAN 370 – American Advertising and the Science of Signs.

RAMBLE ON EDWARD

Advertising is one of the major institutions of the intellectuals (see Antonio Gramsci) supporting the structural and ideological interests of the ruling class, the dominant cultures of our late capitalist society. Modern society, organized along the lines of capitalist production and expansion, requires advertising to engineer the ’spontaneous’ consent to, and participation in, the ideology of mainstream capitalist culture among the masses of people. This essential component serves to create the optimum conditions for capitalist expansion and furthers the elitist businessmen’s control of economic production. Stuart Ewen described this nicely in his book on the evolution of modern advertising (as did Lears in his article, though he meant not to). Due to overproduction and underconsumption created by the industrial revolution Ewen states, “It became imperative [for the businessman] to invest the laborer with a financial power and a psychic desire to consume,” or in other words to a transform the American Dream from success as an entrepreneur to success as an acquire of goods (Ewen 1976: 25). Laborers learned, with the help of advertisements, to exchange their labor for a wage which was in turn exchangeable for goods that supposedly offered them freedom and signified success and social worth, while in fact it stripped them of true empowerment, a unified identity and “evoked their participation in their own oppression” (Herskovitz, 1979: 182).

 

 

 

 

Politics of the Internet

Will American society continue to exclude ordinary citizens from important choices about the design and development of new technologies and information systems? Most likely there will continue to be unequal power over decisions about what is built and why, intensive efforts to hem in and control people’s lives in both work and consumerism, and present our future as something nonnegotiable.

Businesses will demonstrate accomplishment in what could and should be choices only to be decided by public investigation and debate – a disguised form of economic plunder. They conceal their strategy by designs that appeal to individual gratification which complicate social issues. Those with the understanding of what is happening must choose to protest or at least inform groups willing to take action on behalf of the community.

The technological vulnerability of the Internet offers the opportunity for expression of protest against agencies or corporations targeted as oppressive or exploitive. “Hacker-Activists” have previously broken into restricted websites of military agencies and financial companies in order to call attention to their insecurity and to protest against their goals.

We don’t want social outcomes “determined by market forces.” Every day, someone makes deliberate choices about the relationship between people and new technology. Should it be someone with commercial intent, concealed or otherwise? Have we traded away much of our humanity and gracious way of living for a lifestyle which leaves others hungry, plundered or dead?

Computer professionals with insight into important matters with social outcomes must express their knowledge and judgments to a broad public or be complicit in the capitalist conspiracy. Information technology and social justice are now interconnected. We need social policies that defend democratic social choice against corporate manipulation and the false labeling of dynamic changes in social or living conditions as “progress” or as “unstoppable.” Where there are obvious and increasing signs of social disorder, look for propaganda and hidden agendas. Computer professionals are not “value-neutral” any longer. They are the best positioned to help democracy and society on a global level or assist in creating victims.

Before access to information technology, our existing information systems attempted to control the flow of information through taboos, costs, and restrictions. Governments do not believe that information should be free. Corporations feel they should not only control it, but charge for it as well.

But the digital world celebrates the right of the individual to speak and be heard, the foundation of American media and democracy. The world’s information is being liberated, and so are we. The hackers and geeks who founded and shaped it believed that there should be no obstacles between people and information. They are the ones that can thwart the obstructions to freedom and democracy that are constantly being devised by government and business. The dominant ethic of this community is that information wants to be free. That idea is antithetical to the history and nature of politics and capitalism. Instead of the government watching people, people should watch their government. Power increasingly functions in global networks, bypassing the institutions of the nation-state. Social movements must be able to compete with corporations and governments in their global impact on the media. The Internet is an ideal facilitator of social movements because it cannot be disorganized or captured.

Can the Digital Revolution will show us solutions for eradicating poverty, ignorance, and war in radical and hopeful ways? Technology is power. Education is power. Communication is power. The citizens of the Digital Nation could form a political movement based on common global values, a moral ideology, and a humane agenda which could construct a more civil society, new politics based on rationalism, shared information, the pursuit of truth, and new kinds of community.