In this issue:

Gen. Shinseki's Farewell Speech Will Rally Patriots Against Rumsfeld Utopians

Bush Lectures Israel After Assassination Attempt

GOPers Will 'Review,' Not Investigate, Iraq Intelligence

Senate Dems Want Full Investigation of Intel Manipulation

Senate Defeats Privatization of Air-Traffic Control

DOJ Report: Targetting of Arabs, Muslims a 'Total Failure'

DOJ Plans To Expel More Than 13,000 Immigrants

Former CIA Counterterror Chief Says Ashcroft Policy 'Worthless'

Ashcroft 'More Dangerous Than Immigrants Wrongly Detained'

From Volume 2, Issue Number 24 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Tuesday, June. 17, 2003

United States News Digest

Gen. Shinseki's Farewell Speech Will Rally Patriots Against Rumsfeld Utopians

On June 11, the highly respected Gen. Eric Shinseki retired from the Army's top position—Army Chief of Staff—after 38 years of service, starting as an enlisted man. He lost part of his foot in Vietnam, and had to fight to remain in the Army. General Shinseki's farewell speech was widely and correctly interpreted as containing sharp criticisms of the current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

"My name is Shinseki, and I am a soldier," he began. He praised his predecessors, who he said "understood the important distinction between command and effective leadership," describing "command" as being "about authority, about an appointment to position—a set of orders granting title.

"Effective leadership is different. It must be learned and practiced in order for it to rise to the level of art. It has to do with values internalized and the willingness to sacrifice or subordinate all other concerns—advancement, personal well-being, safety—for others.... You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader. You can certainly command without that sense of commitment, but you cannot lead without it; and without leadership, command is a hollow experience—a vacuum often filled with mistrust and arrogance."

Since "arrogance" is almost Donald Rumsfeld's middle name, there can be little doubt who was the target, when Shinseki continued: "Our mentors understood that mistrust and arrogance are antithetical to inspired and inspiring leadership—breeding discontent, fostering malcontents, and confusing intent within the force."

Shinseki discussed at length the principle of civilian leadership—a principle which Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz have accused the Army's uniformed leadership of ignoring, as he cited a prime example, Secretary of the Army Thomas White, fired by Rumsfeld after he refused to denounce Shinseki's warning of the need for several hundred thousand troops in postwar Iraq. "So when some suggest that we, in the Army, don't understand the importance of civilian control of the military—well, that's just not helpful—and it isn't true. The Army has always understood the primacy of civilian control—we reinforce that principle to those with whom we train all around the world. So to muddy the waters when important issues are at stake, issues of life and death, is a disservice to all of those in and out of uniform who serve and lead so well."

This week, it was revealed by reporter Wayne Madsen in a column entitled "Unfit for Office: Time for Rumsfeld To Resign," in the online publication CounterPunch, that seven generals have turned down Rumsfeld's offer to become Army Chief of Staff, including CENTCOM Commander Tommy Franks, Deputy CENTCOM Commander John Abaziad, and the current Vice Chief of Staff, John Keane. Others who refused to take the post were Gen. B.B. Bell of the U.S. Army European Command, Gen. James Campbell of the Pacific Command, Gen. Larry Ellis of the Army Forces Command, and Gen. Philip Kensinger of the Army's Special Forces Command. Madsen reports that Franks, Keane, and Abazaid, along with Shinseki, "could not stand the idea of putting up with Rumsfeld and his Chickenhawk advisers on a daily basis."

Bush Lectures Israel After Assassination Attempt

In stronger comments than have been made for some time, President Bush and other Administration spokesman last week criticized Israel for its attacks on Palestinian targets, saying that the Israeli military actions could derail the peace process known as the Road Map.

"I am troubled by the recent Israeli helicopter gunship attacks," Bush said during an appearance with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni at a White House press briefing June 10. "I regret the loss of innocent life."

"I'm concerned that the attacks will make it more difficult for the Palestinian leadership to fight off terrorist attacks," Bush continued. "I am determined to keep the process on the road to peace. And I believe with responsible leadership by all parties, we can bring peace to the region. And I emphasize all parties must behave responsibly to achieve that objective."

Later, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer made it clear that the President's remarks were aimed at Israel:

"But this attack deeply troubles the President, particularly as a result of the new environment that has been created in the post-Aqaba era, that means both parties agree that the best way to dismantle terror, and therefore, enhance Israel's security and the livelihood of the Palestinian people, is through the actions laid out in the Road Map. Both parties said they would follow the Road Map. And the President wants to remind all parties about their responsibilities. Today, he reminds Israel."

Fleischer described the Administration's message to Israel as a "full-court press." Involved were Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, U.S. Ambassador Kurtzer, Elliott Abrams at the NSC, and others.

GOPers Will 'Review,' Not Investigate, Iraq Intelligence

Apparently succumbing to pressure from the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney, in particular, Congressional Republicans announced June 11 that they are reviewing intelligence concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but that this does not constitute a formal investigation, as some Democrats had demanded.

Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that a "joint formal investigation ... is very premature," and charged that some of the criticisms are "simply politics." "I will not allow the committee to be politicized or to be used as an unwitting tool for any political strategist," Roberts said.

Senator John Warner (R-Va.), head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that "the evidence that I have examined does not rise to give the presumption that anyone in this Administration has hyped or cooked or embellished such evidence to a particular purpose, and I regret that those allegations have been made."

Senate Dems Want Full Investigation of Intel Manipulation

It was notable that no Democrats appeared in the press conference June 11, held by the heads of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the House Intelligence Committee, since the two Intelligence Committees normally pride themselves on operating in a completely bipartisan manner.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed his disagreements publicly, saying that "closed hearings and a review of documents presented by the Administration are not sufficient. We need to be able to request additional intelligence documents; interview intelligence community and Administration officials past and present; hold closed and open hearings, and a prepare a final public report."

He charged that the Republican plan is "entirely inadequate and slow-paced," and he said he is unconvinced that they "really want to get to the facts."

Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the leading Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that "the issue of whether U.S. intelligence was shaded or embellished is critically important."

Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, charged: "They took a truth and embellished it. What I'm accusing them of doing is hyping it. They created a false sense of urgency."

Senate Defeats Privatization of Air-Traffic Control

Senator Frank Lautenberg's (D-N.J.) amendment to stop the privatization of air-traffic control passed the U.S. Senate June 12, by a vote of 56-41, with the support of 11 Republicans.

"Today the Senate spoke loud and clear: The nation's air-traffic-control system is not for sale," Lautenberg said. "One thing we learned from 9/11 is that the public does not want private contractors responsible for the safety and security of air travellers. I was shocked when I learned that the Bush Administration wanted to contract out air-traffic control to the lowest bidder."

Lautenberg pointed to the privatization of British air control, where near-misses of crashes have increased by 50% since privatization, debt service has increased by 80%, and delays caused by air-traffic control have increased by 20%. Canada's privatized system has run up a $145-million deficit in the past year, resulting in an added cost tacked onto every ticket.

Under Lautenberg's amendment, air-traffic controllers, air-traffic-control specialists, and flight service-station controllers are reclassified as "inherently governmental," and the attempt to change these categories to "commercial," which would allow their jobs to be privatized, defeated. (The Office of Management and Budget requires 15% of the jobs of all Federal agencies to be privatized, and rates the agencies on this.)

Last week, the House passed a narrower version of a bill to block privatization offered by Rep. Don Young (R-Ak.). Both bills will now go to conference. Republican Senators who voted to block privatization included: Gregg (N.H.), Bond (Mo.), DeWine (Ohio), Talent (Mo.), Voinovich (Ohio), Chaffee (R.I.), Domenici (N.M.), Inhofe (Okla.), Murkowski (Ak.), Fitzgerald (Ill.), and Specter (Pa.).

DOJ Report: Targetting of Arabs, Muslims a 'Total Failure'

Professor David Cole of Georgetown University Law School, reviewing the recently issued Inspector General's report on the Justice Department's post-9/11 preventive detentions, says that the report deals with only part of the preventive-detention campaign; it does not deal with those detained on criminal charges or as material witnesses, or those picked up when they showed up for the DOJ's Special Registration program. Nevertheless, says Cole in the Washington Post June 8, the report, which is based on interviews of more than 730 detainees, "paints a stark picture of practices previously kept secret."

Although all were innocent of terrorism, they were treated as terrorists, held in secret, and tried in secret on routine immigration charges. Of the total of 4-5,000 people detained, only one has been convicted on terrorism charges. "The targetting of Arabs and Muslims has been a total failure," writes Cole, "and it has so alienated the targetted communities, that we have almost certainly lost opportunities for gathering information that might help us find real terrorists."

Cole draws the comparison with the 1919-20 Palmer Raids, and notes that they are now viewed as a tragic mistake. But not so at the time: The Washington Post wrote then, that "there is no time to spend on hairsplitting over infringement of liberty."

DOJ Plans To Expel More Than 13,000 Immigrants

More than 13,000 Arab and Muslim men who came forward and registered with immigration authorities under a new DOJ program may face deportation, the New York Times wrote June 7. "What the government is doing is aggressively targetting particular nationalities for enforcement of immigration law," says the director of the ACLU's project on immigrants' rights. Some of those facing deportation have waited months or years for immigrant authorities to process their applications to legalize their status. Officials acknowledge that most of those caught up in counter-terrorism sweeps, have no connection to terrorism.

Former CIA Counterterror Chief Says Ashcroft Policy 'Worthless'

Citing Attorney General John Ashcroft's widespread detentions of Arab and Muslim immigrants since 9/11, without providing them any due process, or access to lawyers or family, former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro asked: "What has that meant in terms of preventing terrorism?" He answered: "This has resulted in no net benefit to the United States, it has resulted in no deterrence to any acts of terrorism." Noting how the FBI has gone into mosques, schools, etc., and simply alienated people, Cannistraro called this "a worthless, feel-good measure that alienates communities in the United States that law enforcement is totally dependent on, for assistance in preventing terrorism."

Cannistraro added that there is a backlash beginning within the Department of Justice, the FBI, and other agencies, in which law-enforcement officers are beginning to understand that "they can't do this job by themselves, unless they have cooperation, and the only way to get cooperation, is to treat people differently."

Cannistraro was addressing a conference of the American Muslim Council in Washington June 8. He began his presentation by explaining that since 9/11, the Bush Administration has operated as an alliance of neo-conservatives who were originally Democrats, and Evangelical Christians, and that this amounts to an anti-Muslim alliance. He identified John Ashcroft as one of the most influential of the Evangelicals in the Bush Administration, who has allowed his religious beliefs to influence the way he enforces the law, to the detriment of American Muslims.

Ashcroft 'More Dangerous Than Immigrants Wrongly Detained'

"The Attorney General is far more dangerous than any of the immigrants he wrongly detained," wrote Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen June 10. The column, entitled "Ashcroft's Attitude Problem," goes after Ashcroft for his refusal, during a recent appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, to admit that there was anything wrong with the Justice Department's detention of hundreds of Arab and Muslim immigrants after 9/11—none of whom were ever linked to any terrorist activities. Cohen reviews the reports of abuse of the detainees reported by the DOJ Inspector General.

"To hear him, the system worked perfectly," Cohen writes. "This is precisely the mind-set he brings to capital punishment, of which he clearly cannot get enough."

"Go ahead, connect the dots on Ashcroft yourself. A cavalier attitude toward civil liberties, an inability to concede mistakes, a refusal to see imperfections in the criminal justice system, a zealously irrational belief in the death penalty—and pretty soon you can read between the lines of that Justice Department report. The Attorney General is far more dangerous than any of the immigrants he wrongly detained."

All rights reserved © 2003 EIRNS