Thursday, October 1, 2009

American Police Force Corporation Takes Over Small Town Police Force and Prisoner-Less Jail

by Neil Katz

HARDIN, Mont. (CBS/AP) This is the strange story of how American Police Force, a little known company which claims to specialize in training military and security forces overseas, has seemingly taken control of a $27 million, never-used jail, and a rural Montana town's nonexistent police force.

After arriving in this tiny city with three Mercedes SUVs marked with the logo of a police department that has never existed, representatives of the obscure California security company said preparations were under way to take over Hardin's jail, which has no prisoners.

Significant obstacles remain - including a lack of any contracts to acquire prisoners from other jails or other states.

And on Friday came the revelation the company's operating agreement for the facility has yet to be validated - two weeks after city leaders first unveiled what they said was a signed agreement.

Still, some Hardin leaders said the deal to turn over the 464-bed jail remained on track.

The agreement with American Police Force has been heavily promoted by members of the city's economic development branch, the Two Rivers Authority. Authority Vice President Albert Peterson on Friday repeated his claim to be “100 percent” confident in the company.

The lead public figure for American Police Force, Michael Hilton, said more than 200 employees would be sought for the jail and a proposed military and law enforcement training center.

That would be a significant boost to Hardin, a struggling town of 3,500 located about 45 miles east of Billings. An earlier announcement that a job fair would be held during the last week never came to fruition.

The bonds used to pay for the jail have been in default since May, 2008.

Hilton also said he planned a helicopter tour of the region in coming days to look at real estate for a planned tactical military training ground. He said 5,000 to 10,000 acres were needed to complement the training center, a $17 million project.

But the company's flashy arrival this week stirred new questions. The logo on the black Mercedes SUVs said “City of Hardin Police Department.”

Yet the city has not had a police force of its own for 30 years.

“Pretty looking police car, ain't it?” Hardin resident Leroy Frickle, 67, said as he eyed one of the vehicles parked in front of a bed and breakfast where Hilton and other company representatives were staying. “The things you hear about this American Police, I don't know what to think.”

Hilton said the vehicles would be handed over to the city if it forms a police force of its own. The city is now under the jurisdiction of the Big Horn County Sheriff's Office.

After meeting briefly with Hilton on Friday, Mayor Ron Adams said he wanted the police logos removed.

“This helps, but it doesn't answer everything until the contract is signed,” Adams said. “Talk is cheap.”

Hilton said the company's arrival in Hardin would help allay such concerns. And he promised that on Feb. 1, 2010, Hardin would receive its first check under a deal said to be worth more than $2.6 million annually.

Little has been revealed to date about American Police Force. The company was incorporated in California in March, soon after Hardin's empty jail gained notoriety after city leaders suggested it could be used for the Guantanamo Bay terrorism detainees.

Members of Montana's congressional delegation say they have been closely monitoring the events in Hardin, but the city has largely been going it alone.

In the two years since the jail was built, city leaders have clashed repeatedly with the administration of Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who opposed efforts to bring in out-of-state prisoners.

After then-Attorney General Mike McGrath issued a 2007 opinion saying prisoners from other states were prohibited, Hardin successfully sued the state.

Despite the city's contention that the state has continued to foil its efforts to find prisoners, Montana Department of Corrections spokesman Bob Anez said his agency is no longer involved. “That's water under the bridge,” Anez said.

On Friday, American Police Force announced its first local hire: a reporter for the Billings Gazette, Becky Shay, who has covered events surrounding the jail since its construction. She will be the company's spokeswoman for $60,000 a year.

Shay said she intended to bring new transparency to the process, but declined to directly answer the first question posed to her: Where is American Police Force getting the money to operate the jail and build the training center?

“I know enough about where the money is coming from to be confident signing on with them,” she said.

Gazette Editor Steve Prosinski said he was first informed about Shay's decision to leave the paper on Friday. “We weren't aware that she was talking with them about employment,” he said.

Hilton said he also had a job discussion with Kerri Smith, wife of Two Rivers Authority Executive Director Greg Smith, who helped craft the deal to bring American Police Force to Hardin. Greg Smith was placed on unpaid leave two weeks ago for reasons that have not been explained.

Kerri Smith is one of two finalists in the city's mayoral race. Hilton said he asked her to call him about possible employment if she did not win the race.

Kerri Smith could not be reached immediately for comment. A message was left by The Associated Press at a theater owned by the Smith family. Her home number is unlisted.

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

(Analyst's note:  Absolutely must read.  This one will "curl your toes."  If you're like me, you may actually feel sick to your stomach and sense that you very much need a long shower.)


By Sibel Edmonds and Philip Giraldi


Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. She appealed her termination, but was more alarmed that no effort was being made to address the corruption that she had been monitoring.


A Department of Justice inspector general’s report called Edmonds’s allegations “credible,” “serious,” and “warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI.” Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. “60 Minutes” launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds’s revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.


John Ashcroft’s Justice Department confirmed Edmonds’s veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.”


But on Aug. 8, she was finally able to testify under oath in a court case filed in Ohio and agreed to an interview with The American Conservative based on that testimony. What follows is her own account of what some consider the most incredible tale of corruption and influence peddling in recent times. As Sibel herself puts it, “If this were written up as a novel, no one would believe it.”



PHILIP GIRALDI: We were very interested to learn of your four-hour deposition in the case involving allegations that Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accepted money from the Turkish government in return for political favors. You provided many names and details for the first time on the record and swore an oath confirming that the deposition was true.


Basically, you map out a corruption scheme involving U.S. government employees and members of Congress and agents of foreign governments. These agents were able to obtain information that was either used directly by those foreign governments or sold to third parties, with the proceeds often used as bribes to breed further corruption. Let’s start with the first government official you identified, Marc Grossman, then the third highest-ranking official at the State Department.


SIBEL EDMONDS: During my work with the FBI, one of the major operational files that I was transcribing and translating started in late 1996 and continued until 2002, when I left the Bureau. Because the FBI had had no Turkish translators, these files were archived, but were considered to be very important operations. As part of the background, I was briefed about why these operations had been initiated and who the targets were.


Grossman became a person of interest early on in the investigative file while he was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey [1994-97], when he became personally involved with operatives both from the Turkish government and from suspected criminal groups. He also had suspicious contact with a number of official and non-official Israelis. Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as “Susurluk” by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact.


Another individual who was working for Grossman, Air Force Major Douglas Dickerson, was also removed from Turkey and sent to Germany. After he and his Turkish wife Can returned to the U.S., he went to work for Douglas Feith and she was hired as an FBI Turkish translator. My complaints about her connection to Turkish lobbying groups led to my eventual firing.


Grossman and Dickerson had to leave the country because a big investigation had started in Turkey. Special prosecutors were appointed, and the case was headlined in England, Germany, Italy, and in some of the Balkan countries because the criminal groups were found to be active in all those places. A leading figure in the scandal, Mehmet Eymür, led a major paramilitary group for the Turkish intelligence service. To keep him from testifying, Eymür was sent by the Turkish government to the United States, where he worked for eight months as head of intelligence at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. He later became a U.S. citizen and now lives in McLean, Virginia. The central figure in this scandal was Abdullah Catli. In 1989, while “most wanted” by Interpol, he came to the U.S., was granted residency, and settled in Chicago, where he continued to conduct his operations until 1996.


GIRALDI: So Grossman at this point comes back to the United States. He’s rewarded with the third-highest position at the State Department, and he allegedly uses this position to do favors for “Turkish interests”—both for the Turkish government and for possible criminal interests. Sometimes, the two converge. The FBI is aware of his activities and is listening to his phone calls. When someone who is Turkish calls Grossman, the FBI monitors that individual’s phone calls, and when the Turk calls a friend who is a Pakistani or an Egyptian or a Saudi, they monitor all those contacts, widening the net.


EDMONDS: Correct.


GIRALDI: And Grossman received money as a result. In one case, you said that a State Department colleague went to pick up a bag of money


EDMONDS: $14,000


GIRALDI: What kind of information was Grossman giving to foreign countries? Did he give assistance to foreign individuals penetrating U.S. government labs and defense installations as has been reported? It’s also been reported that he was the conduit to a group of congressmen who become, in a sense, the targets to be recruited as “agents of influence.”


EDMONDS: Yes, that’s correct. Grossman assisted his Turkish and Israeli contacts directly, and he also facilitated access to members of Congress who might be inclined to help for reasons of their own or could be bribed into cooperation. The top person obtaining classified information was Congressman Tom Lantos. A Lantos associate, Alan Makovsky worked very closely with Dr. Sabri Sayari in Georgetown University, who is widely believed to be a Turkish spy. Lantos would give Makovsky highly classified policy-related documents obtained during defense briefings for passage to Israel because Makovsky was also working for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).


GIRALDI: Makovsky is now working for the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, a pro-Israeli think tank.


EDMONDS: Yes. Lantos was at the time probably the most outspoken supporter of Israel in Congress. AIPAC would take out the information from Lantos that was relevant to Israel, and they would give the rest of it to their Turkish associates. The Turks would go through the leftovers, take what they wanted, and then try to sell the rest. If there were something relevant to Pakistan, they would contact the ISI officer at the embassy and say, “We’ve got this and this, let’s sit down and talk.” And then they would sell it to the Pakistanis.


GIRALDI: ISI—Pakistani intelligence—has been linked to the Pakistani nuclear proliferation program as well as to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
So the FBI was monitoring these connections going from a congressman to a congressman’s assistant to a foreign individual who is connected with intelligence to other intelligence people who are located at different embassies in Washington. And all of this information is in an FBI file somewhere?


EDMONDS: Two sets of FBI files, but the AIPAC-related files and the Turkish files ended up converging in one. The FBI agents believed that they were looking at the same operation. It didn’t start with AIPAC originally. It started with the Israeli Embassy. The original targets were intelligence officers under diplomatic cover in the Turkish Embassy and the Israeli Embassy. It was those contacts that led to the American Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations and then to AIPAC fronting for the Israelis. It moved forward from there.


GIRALDI: So the FBI was monitoring people from the Israeli Embassy and the Turkish Embassy and one, might presume, the Pakistani Embassy as well?


EDMONDS: They were the secondary target. They got leftovers from the Turks and Israelis. The FBI would intercept communications to try to identify who the diplomatic target’s intelligence chief was, but then, in addition to that, there are individuals there, maybe the military attaché, who had their own contacts who were operating independently of others in the embassy.


GIRALDI: So the network starts with a person like Grossman in the State Department providing information that enables Turkish and Israeli intelligence officers to have access to people in Congress, who then provide classified information that winds up in the foreign embassies?


EDMONDS: Absolutely. And we also had Pentagon officials doing the same thing. We were looking at Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. They had a list of individuals in the Pentagon broken down by access to certain types of information. Some of them would be policy related, some of them would be weapons-technology related, some of them would be nuclear-related. Perle and Feith would provide the names of those Americans, officials in the Pentagon, to Grossman, together with highly sensitive personal information: this person is a closet gay; this person has a chronic gambling issue; this person is an alcoholic. The files on the American targets would contain things like the size of their mortgages or whether they were going through divorces. One Air Force major I remember was going through a really nasty divorce and a child custody fight. They detailed all different kinds of vulnerabilities.


GIRALDI: So they had access to their personnel files and also their security files and were illegally accessing this kind of information to give to foreign agents who exploited the vulnerabilities of these people to recruit them as sources of information?


EDMONDS: Yes. Some of those individuals on the list were also working for the RAND Corporation. RAND ended up becoming one of the prime targets for these foreign agents.


GIRALDI: RAND does highly classified research for the U.S. government. So they were setting up these people for recruitment as agents or as agents of influence?


EDMONDS: Yes, and the RAND sources would be paid peanuts compared to what the information was worth when it was sold if it was not immediately useful for Turkey or Israel. They also had sources who were working in some midwestern Air Force bases. The sources would provide the information on CD’s and DVD’s. In one case, for example, a Turkish military attaché got the disc and discovered that it was something really important, so he offered it to the Pakistani ISI person at the embassy, but the price was too high. Then a Turkish contact in Chicago said he knew two Saudi businessmen in Detroit who would be very interested in this information, and they would pay the price. So the Turkish military attaché flew to Detroit with his assistant to make the sale.


GIRALDI: We know Grossman was receiving money for services.


EDMONDS: Yes. Sometimes he would give money to the people who were working with him, identified in phone calls on a first-name basis, whether it’s a John or a Joe. He also took care of some other people, including his contact at the New York Times. Grossman would brag, “We just fax to our people at the New York Times. They print it under their names.


GIRALDI: Did Feith and Perle receive any money that you know of?


EDMONDS: No.


GIRALDI: So they were doing favors for other reasons. Both Feith and Perle were lobbyists for Turkey and also were involved with Israel on defense contracts, including some for Northrop Grumman, which Feith represented in Israel.


EDMONDS: They had arrangements with various companies, some of them members of the American Turkish Council. They had arrangements with Kissinger’s group, with Northrop Grumman, with former secretary of state James Baker’s group, and also with former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S. They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil. The Turks were very supportive, but wanted a three-part division of Iraq to include their own occupation of the Kurdish region. The three Defense Department officials said that would be more than they could agree to, but they continued daily communications to the ambassador and his defense attaché in an attempt to convince them to help.

Meanwhile Scowcroft, who was also the chairman of the American Turkish Council, Baker, Richard Armitage, and Grossman began negotiating separately for a possible Turkish protectorate. Nothing was decided, and then 9/11 took place.  Scowcroft was all for invading Iraq in 2001 and even wrote a paper for the Pentagon explaining why the Turkish northern front would be essential. I know Scowcroft came off as a hero to some for saying he was against the war, but he was very much for it until his client’s conditions were not met by the Bush administration.

GIRALDI: Armitage was deputy secretary of state at the time Scowcroft and Baker were running their own consulting firms that were doing business with Turkey. Grossman had just become undersecretary, third in the State hierarchy behind Armitage.

You’ve previouly alluded to efforts by Grossman, as well as high-ranking officials at the Pentagon, to place Ph.D. students. Can you describe that in more detail?

EDMONDS: The seeding operation started before Marc Grossman arrived at the State Department. The Turkish agents had a network of Turkish professors in various universities with access to government information. Their top source was a Turkish-born professor of nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was useful because MIT would place a bunch of Ph.D. or graduate-level students in various nuclear facilities like Sandia or Los Alamos, and some of them were able to work for the Air Force. He would provide the list of Ph.D. students who should get these positions. In some cases, the Turkish military attaché would ask that certain students be placed in important positions. And they were not necessarily all Turkish, but the ones they selected had struck deals with the Turkish agents to provide information in return for money. If for some reason they had difficulty getting a secuity clearance, Grossman would ensure that the State Department would arrange to clear them.

In exchange for the information that these students would provide, they would be paid $4,000 or $5,000. And the information that was sold to the two Saudis in Detroit went for something like $350,000 or $400,000.


GIRALDI: This corruption wasn’t confined to the State Department and the Pentagon—it infected Congress as well. You’ve named people like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, now a registered agent of the Turkish government. In your deposition, you describe the process of breaking foreign-originated contributions into small units, $200 or less, so that the source didn’t have to be reported. Was this the primary means of influencing congressmen, or did foreign agents exploit vulnerabilities to get what they wanted using something like blackmail?


EDMONDS: In early 1997, because of the information that the FBI was getting on the Turkish diplomatic community, the Justice Department had already started to investigate several Republican congressmen. The number-one congressman involved with the Turkish community, both in terms of providing information and doing favors, was Bob Livingston. Number-two after him was Dan Burton, and then he became number-one until Hastert became the speaker of the House. Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, was briefed on the investigations, and since they were Republicans, she authorized that they be continued.


Well, as the FBI developed more information, Tom Lantos was added to this list, and then they got a lot on Douglas Feith and Richard Perle and Marc Grossman. At this point, the Justice Department said they wanted the FBI to only focus on Congress, leaving the executive branch people out of it. But the FBI agents involved wanted to continue pursuing Perle and Feith because the Israeli Embassy was also connected. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, and everything was placed on the back burner.

But some of the agents continued to investigate the congressional connection. In 1999, they wiretapped the congressmen directly. (Prior to that point they were getting all their information secondhand through FISA, as their primary targets were foreigners.) The questionably legal wiretap gave the perfect excuse to the Justice Department. As soon as they found out, they refused permission to monitor the congressmen and Grossman as primary targets. But the inquiry was kept alive in Chicago because the FBI office there was pursuing its own investigation. The epicenter of a lot of the foreign espionage activity was Chicago.

GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.


GIRALDI: So we have a pattern of corruption starting with government officials providing information to foreigners and helping them make contact with other Americans who had valuable information. Some of these officials, like Marc Grossman, were receiving money directly. Others were receiving business favors: Pentagon associates like Doug Feith and Richard Perle had interests in Israel and Turkey. The stolen information was being sold, and the money that was being generated was used to corrupt certain congressmen to influence policy and provide still more information—in many cases information related to nuclear technology.


EDMONDS: As well as weapons technology, conventional weapons technology, and Pentagon policy-related information.


GIRALDI: You also have information on al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Central Asia and Bosnia. You were privy to conversations that suggested the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda in central Asia and the Balkans, training people to get money, get weapons, and this contact continued until 9/11…


EDMONDS: I don’t know if it was CIA. There were certain forces in the U.S. government who worked with the Turkish paramilitary groups, including Abdullah Çatli’s group, Fethullah Gülen.


GIRALDI: Well, that could be either Joint Special Operations Command or CIA.


EDMONDS: Maybe in a lot of cases when they said State Department, they meant CIA?


GIRALDI: When they said State Department, they probably meant CIA.


EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.


There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.


GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?


EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey.  Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.


GIRALDI: And, of course, none of this has been investigated. What do you think the chances are that the Obama administration will try to end this criminal activity?


EDMONDS: Well, even during Obama’s presidential campaign, I did not buy into his slogan of “change” being promoted by the media and, unfortunately, by the naïve blogosphere. First of all, Obama’s record as a senator, short as it was, spoke clearly. For all those changes that he was promising, he had done nothing. In fact, he had taken the opposite position, whether it was regarding the NSA’s wiretapping or the issue of national-security whistleblowers. We whistleblowers had written to his Senate office. He never responded, even though he was on the relevant committees.

As soon as Obama became president, he showed us that the State Secrets Privilege was going to continue to be a tool of choice. It’s an arcane executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing—in many cases, criminal activities. And the Obama administration has not only defended using the State Secrets Privilege, it has been trying to take it even further than the previous terrible administration by maintaining that the U.S. government has sovereign immunity. This is Obama’s change: his administration seems to think it doesn’t even have to invoke state secrets as our leaders are emperors who possess this sovereign immunity. This is not the kind of language that anybody in a democracy would use.

The other thing I noticed is how Chicago, with its culture of political corruption, is central to the new administration. When I saw that Obama’s choice of chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, knowing his relationship with Mayor Richard Daley and with the Hastert crowd, I knew we were not going to see positive changes. Changes possibly, but changes for the worse. It was no coincidence that the Turkish criminal entity’s operation centered on Chicago.
__________________________________________
Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and the founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Philip Giraldi is a former CIA officer and The American Conservative’s Deep Background columnist.  



USMC Battling for the Future In QDR, Corps Presses Case for Missions, Systems

By vago muradian and kris osborn


The U.S. Marine Corps is fighting for the future of Afghanistan overseas, but back at home, officials are battling for the Corps' future in the Quadrennial Defense Review.
Virtually everything important to the service's future is up for grabs, from its core amphibious assault missions to its vehicle, ship and aircraft programs, current and former Marines say. And it's all happening as the Pentagon responds to intense budget pressure that has already forced the cancellation of several high-profile weapon programs belonging to its sister services.
Perhaps no program is bigger - or more controversial - than its $14 billion Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a tank-sized amphibian Marine leaders see as essential to preserving its core amphibious assault mission.
Long-delayed, expensive and seen as vulnerable to roadside bombs, EFV is viewed by some as a symbol of ineffective program development, but by others as a key to advancing the Marine Corps into the future.
Pentagon, Navy and Marine sources said it's too early to pass judgment on the program.
Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently labeled EFV "exquisite," a term coined by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to describe systems so ambitious in design and scope that costs become disproportionate to the advantage they bring to the war fighter. Gates used the term in connection with several systems, including the Air Force's F-22 fighter program, which the secretary ended ahead of plan earlier this year.
But to Marine leaders, the service's amphibious assault mission - and the ships and gear needed to perform it - remain critical. Without the mission, the service starts looking to some like a second Army.
That's why so many Marines say this review is the most important one in a long time.
"Since 1946, there has always been this tension about the existence of a Marine Corps so the threat is palpable in this QDR given the budget issues in the background," said retired Marine Gen. Bob Magnus, a former assistant commandant. "This happens every generation and it's fair to say that this time around there are more issues and programs at play."
The key player in making the Corps' case will be Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway. As one retired three-star observed, Conway will have to "put on his magic armor and get out his broadsword for this one."
How much capability the Corps will be left with following the review is the most important issue at play, according to Magnus and others, and that will depend largely on how many ships the Navy will buy to move Marine forces around the world.
But even within the Marines, there are a range of views about the future of the service.
Some fear giving up so-called forced entry operations - landing on opposed beaches if other unopposed options are unavailable - because losing such unique capabilities weakens the service and would be difficult to reconstitute.
Others, however, maintain that as an amphibious expeditionary force, even without assault capability, the Marines would remain potent and agile with broad application across the conflict spectrum. In fact, some maintain that killing the 20-man EFV would allow increased investment for a new eight-to-12-manvehicle equipped with more survivable features like a V-shaped hull, more powerful weapons and better command-and-control systems that could make the force more effective in both regular and irregular conflicts.
Critics of the amphibious assault mission argue the service has not performed an opposed landing since its massive 1950 operation at Inchon, Korea. Increasingly sophisticated, precise and available weapons are pushing naval forces farther out to sea, complicating amphibious landings, especially those facing enemy fire. But advocates counter that EFV's 25-knot speed closes the growing ship-to-shore gap rapidly enough to operate effectively on contested beachheads.
"Thinking about this capability in terms of Inchon is all wrong," Magnus said. "The question is what capabilities does the commander in chief and the nation need to project power from the sea to the shore. Amphibious assault is a small part of it because most of the time these are the same forces who are engaging with friends and allies around the world, performing short-notice noncombatant evacuations or humanitarian relief."
Overall amphibious capability is already shrinking, however, as the Navy cuts ships from its long-range plan, including out-year amphibious ship construction. The Navy maintains that 27 ships are enough for two Marine Expeditionary Brigades and nine Marine Expeditionary Units, but the Marines contend they need 33 ships. Navy officials explain the service's shipbuilding plans would cost $18 billion annually to realize, while the service is unlikely to get more than $13 billion annually, so something has to give.
Conway's top priorities have been to assume a larger role in Afghanistan while at the same time trying to get his Marines back to sea given so many of his units have been land-bound in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past eight years.
Marine Aviation
Another issue under scrutiny is whether the Marines need their own strike fighters, a capability the service has staunchly defended over the decades.
While critics see potential savings by reducing tactical aircraft purchases, Marines counter that their air-ground integration is what allows their relatively small sea-borne forces to pack a disproportionate punch.
The program to develop a new K-model of the Marine's CH-53 heavy-lift helicopter also is behind schedule, as costs continue to creep north.
The vertical-takeoff and -landing version of the F-35 Lightning II fighter is also a top priority for the Corps, but that program is expected to be pruned over the coming years, also driving up unit costs.
The Marines say they need unique gear to perform unique missions. For example, the CH-53 is not just another helicopter; it's vital to transport heavy cargo from ship to shore. The Marine version of the JSF is the only craft that can replace the aging AV-8B Harrier, which operates off the relatively small decks of Navy amphibious ships, as well as big aircraft carriers and austere forward airfields.
The Corps' most vulnerable program, however, remains the EFV, which has been in development for some 20 years.
Originally, the Marines wanted 1,013 EFVs, but the buy was slashed to 573 during the Bush administration. Now, further reductions are inevitable even if it survives the coming needs-based review, a move that will further raise unit costs.
Some critics, like Dakota Wood of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, think the price is already too high.
"I think it's time to go back to the drawing board because while the Marines need the ability to get from ships to shore, the EFV is not the best solution to do that," Wood said.
Making a 38-ton vehicle streak across the water at 25 knots and then fight effectively on land is a tall order, Wood argues. What's needed is for the Marines to reconsider how they are going to do their job in the future.
The cruise missile attack on an Israeli patrol boat by Hizbollah forces during Israel's 2006 war with Lebanon is forcing the Navy to push its ships farther offshore and jeopardizing craft like EFV. Instead, Wood says, the Navy needs new systems including better protected ships and faster ways to get heavy combat equipment from ship to shore.
Wood conceded, however, that doing that will be difficult given defense spending is likely to drop over the coming years.
"We're in the same situation American families are in," Wood said. "Many bought too much house on adjustable mortgages, levered themselves up on available credit, and they've either seen pay cuts or lost their jobs. But when they meet with the credit counselor, they don't want to give up their broadband smart phone, their $5 lattes or their big SUV. They don't want to change, but they're confronted with bills that are coming due and can't be ignored."
As for EFV, despite a redesign last year, it continues to suffer from reliability problems that will delay production until 2014.
The 38-ton armored infantry carrier is designed to speed to shore at 25 knots, five times faster than the current Amphibious Assault Vehicle it's slated to replace, thanks to two 22-inch waterjets that spew 100,000 gallons of water a minute. The aim is to ferry Marines from ships 25 miles offshore to the beach as quickly and with the best protection and firepower possible.
"The biggest capability is the capability to reach from ship to shore and follow-on objectives at a distance of 25 miles," said Emanuel Pacheco, the EFV program's spokesman. "In today's environment, Navy ships don't want to come any closer than that."
The Marines plan to buy 573 EFVs, according to the Corps' tactical wheeled vehicle strategy.
The Corps has $316 million slated for EFV research and development work in 2009 and has requested $293 million for 2010, an amount not appropriated yet by Congress.
"We have had a lot of issues in the past, but everything we have done has been an open book," Pacheco said. "We've implemented the required improvements. We've had a lot of congressional inquiries, and people have been positive about the program."
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee, has expressed concern about the vehicle's survivability and the program's costs.
"Mr. Murtha has been concerned with the EFV for some time now, particularly the fact that the program is years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget," Murtha spokesman Mathew Mazonkey said in a written statement. "He has spoken with both the commandant [of the Marine Corps] and [Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates about it. Also, many (including Mr. Murtha) on the subcommittee have been concerned with the 'flat hull' design of the vehicle."
One analyst said recent improvements to the vehicle may still give the program a chance.
"This is a tough challenge, to build a fast-moving amphibious combat vessel," said Daniel Gouré of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank. "We've never been able to design something which can move fast on land and in water. This is a real combat vehicle that will get to the shore and go immediately into combat. Overall, the product is pretty good. It is mostly a successful program. It has overcome the criticism; the question is whether that is enough."
Program Changes
Over the last several years, the Marine Corps studied the EFV's reliability problems and developed a number of design changes.
The new EFVs have rewired electronics, a rebuilt gun turret and added trim tabs to stabilize it in water. Five new EFV prototypes have been built at the U.S. military's joint tank manufacturing facility in Lima, Ohio. After further testing and electronics integration, they will come off the assembly line in early 2010, said Dave Branham, a spokesman for Marine Corps Program Executive Office Land Systems.
The Marines and EFV builder General Dynamics signed the System Design and Development II contract for the new prototypes in August 2008, Dan Keating, a combat systems specialist with General Dynamics, said last year.
Since then, the Corps has been testing and evaluating the EFV, even building upgrades into older prototypes to prove out designs.
"We have been learning daily from older prototypes we still have," Pacheco said. "With the new ones, there will be more than 400 upgrades overall, from hydraulic systems to computers and more. At least from an electronic standpoint, we are incorporating or planning to add evolving technologies over time."
The Corps also has been conducting ocean, river and ballistic-fire testing on the old prototypes to pave the way for the emerging new design.
"Lessons are being put to the test with the old prototypes," Pacheco said. "We've been doing ballistic testing up at Aberdeen [Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md.]. We did river testing at [Camp] Lejeune [in North Carolina] a few months ago, and we have been doing a lot of saltwater testing in California. The idea is to test the differences in different environments."
The ballistic testing is aimed at proving out a more survivable chassis design - complete with additional underbelly armor for roadside bomb protection. The chassis is being built to withstand fire from 14.5mm rounds or greater, Pacheco said.
"We are developing a bolt-on armor that will be similar to what the Abrams uses," he said. "Ideally, the ballistic protection will be equal to a [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle] or an Abrams with a TUSK [Tank Urban Survivability Kit]."
The survivability and lethality enhancements are aimed at improving the vehicle's forced entry capability.
"The ability to engage targets at 2,000 meters at high speeds allows us to come to shore at a time of our choosing," said Pacheco.
Additional details regarding the EFV redesign include:
■ Improving wiring to better resist saltwater corrosion.
■ Strengthening the Mk 44 gun turret to solve ammunition feed problems.
■ Adding trim tabs to make the EFV more stable on the water.
"Once the vehicle is put into the water, it can steam ashore at 40 knots and hit the beach and go inland an additional 28 miles before being refueled," Branham said. "The vehicle can be delivered to the sea base from a San Antonio-class vessel, or an LPD 17. There is no vehicle like this in the world." ■

Homecoming With a surge in the number of American residents joining Al Qaeda, its menace to Homeland Security is now more acute than at any time since September 11.

Are US taxpayers funding the Taliban?

(Analyst's note:  I'm sure we will hear more on the troubling information reported here.)
 

It’s organized crime,” sighed the embassy official, who spoke on the condition that his name would not be used. “It’s insidious.”

It is also going to be very difficult to establish, let alone control. Most of the monetary  transactions take place at a sub-contractor level, invisible to balance sheets or oversight committees. Any records that are kept are not likely to make their way into the U.S. government accounting system.

As GlobalPost reported, the Taliban allegedly receives kickbacks from almost every major contract that comes into the country. The arrangements are at times highly formalized and, as GlobalPost spelled out, the Taliban actually keeps an office in Kabul to review major deals, determine percentages and conduct negotiations. The arrangements are often more personal, as when a local supplier pays off a small-time Taliban commander to allow free passage of goods through his patch of insurgency-controlled terrain.

Precise amounts are almost impossible to pin down, but it is, according to those knowledgeable of the process, a conservative estimate that the amount going to the Taliban is in the tens of millions of dollars a year. If the allegation that the Taliban takes 20 percent off big contracts is true, it is possible the Taliban is receiving as much money from the billions of dollars in assistance funds as it does from what traditionally has been its leading source of income: drugs.

With the poppy crop reported to be down this year in Afghanistan and the Afghan and U.S. government boasting of successful interdiction of the crop which fuels what the U.N. has estimated in the past to be a $4 billion a year heroin trade in Afghanistan, U.S. intelligence officials say the Taliban is seeking other sources of funding.

U.S. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke has recently asked the Treasury Department to look into the matter of Taliban funding, and has stated publicly that opium and heroin most likely account for far less of the Taliban budget than had previously been thought.

In Afghanistan — the world’s fifth most corrupt government on the Transparency International index — few would raise an eyebrow at graft. Contracts in the relatively stable north of Afghanistan are subject to just as many kickbacks as in Helmand or Kandahar; the difference, according to the embassy official, is the end recipient and the use to which they put the proceeds.  “Warlords take the money (in northern Afghanistan),” the source said. “But they are not using it to buy guns to kill our soldiers.”

As the largest international donor, the United States is the major source of such funding, but it is by no means the only one. In an upcoming article, Time magazine outlines similar types of pay-offs to the Taliban in Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, which is now experiencing a major increase in insurgent activity. The contracts belonged to GTZ, a German aid organization, but the procedures were very much the same as with USAID-funded projects.

With the practice so widespread, it is a wonder to many, including USAID’s own internal sources, how it has taken so long for it to come to light. The problem, say longtime observers, is partially the fortress in which USAID, the U.S. embassy and other international aid organizations live and work.

“[These people] really had very little idea of how Afghanistan operates,” said a USAID contractor who spent several weeks in Helmand province. “[They] could have as easily been working in an office in Washington as Lashkar Gah. Although some of them had been there for three years, they had had almost no contact with Afghans except for the cooks and cleaners. So, they have no ears to the ground.

Obama, Dictators and democrats How many rogue nations can President Obama hold in one hand?

by Daniel Henninger

In his Inaugural Address, President Obama spoke directly to the world's rogue nations. "[W]e will extend a hand," he said, "if you are willing to unclench your fist."

Question: How many rogue nations can you hold in one hand? Let's try to count. ....

Elected and Appointed U.S. Government Officials Who Violate Their Oath of Office and The Constitution Must Resign

(Analyst's note:  Do you ever wonder what you can do about the growing corruption & pure arrogance of power that we see in all three branches of government for the last several years in Washington?  You absolutely must read this article carefully and think ... "We the People" hold the real power over these rascals ... get out and vote.  Let your voice be clearly heard.)

Call for Mass Resignation

By Gerald Molen and Vallely MG, US Army (Ret)

The Declaration of Independence states in part: “…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness...” The arrogance of power in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government has reached epic and intolerable proportions and generated significant dissent and protest in Town-hall meetings and Tea Parties across the nation.

The U.S. President, Vice-President, cabinet members and senior appointed officials, members of Congress, and members of the Supreme Court take the following sacred oath of office:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Sadly, we have seen most of them violate their oath. Fraud and corruption is rampant in the institutions of government, and some have engaged in treasonous activities. They know who they are, as do the people.

Some of the main offenses are:

* Berated and condemned the actions of the United States before the United Nations in New York City and overseas.
* Acted outside the boundaries of our nation’s founding principles by nationalizing significant segments of the U.S. automobile, banking, housing, and (if they get their way) healthcare industries.
* Appointed more than 30 czars to important policy positions in the executive branch and immune from congressional advice and consent and oversight requirements.
* Passed and signed the $787 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Bill without thoroughly reading and adequately debating the bill’s merits.
* Engage in judicial activism which may grant captured terrorists the same constitutional due process rights as American citizens.

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson was overheard saying to James Madison, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories.”

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln’s issued this warning in his inaugural address, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one. This is a most valuable and sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.”

The U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section Five, Clause II and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution provide the constitutional authority the President, Vice-President, cabinet appointees, members of Congress and members of the Supreme Court to be removed from office for failure to properly discharge their constitutional duties and responsibilities.

The U.S. Constitution allows the citizens of their country to freely elect their government leaders. Americans elect the president and vice-president every four years, members of the House of Representatives every two years, members of the Senate every six years. Members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the president and receive lifetime appointments if confirmed by the Senate. And political appointees in the executive branch serve at the pleasure of the president if confirmed by the Senate.

We, the People” have had enough of this current government. They, not the American People, are on a socialist and treasonous death march and bankrupting the country. We have watched the President and members of his Cabinet, Vice-President, members of Congress, and members of the Supreme Court, defile our nation’s founding documents and sacred principles – and violate their sacred oath of office.

These are extraordinary times. “We, the People” cannot wait for the next round of elections because of the urgent and deteriorating national security and economic conditions. The time has come to call on these public servants to put the interests of “We, the People” above their own self-interests by resigning from their government positions immediately.

Gerald Molen is a world famous film Producer and winner of the Oscar for Schindler’s List.

Paul Vallely is a retired MG, US Army and is Chairman of Stand Up America USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record! 1.5 million 'pink slips' to Congress in 6 days

Jihadist War May be Ramping-Up Against America’s Homeland

W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

In the wake of several recent arrests of Jihadists across North America
as well as the Obama administration’s insistence on renaming the very real global war on terror as simply a “transnational challenge,” U.S. Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R.-NC) is connecting the dots in a commonsensical show-don’t-tell approach to fact: Why this asymmetrical war by the Jihadists against us is every bit a full-blown war and not some politically diluted “challenge.”

According to Myrick, though there may be no current evidence materially connecting any of the recently revealed terror plots, FBI investigative documents and press releases, clearly indicate a coordinated effort by the enemy based on a single objective.

These plots are all tied together by one thing: a global ideology that is self-identified by its believers as jihadist, or ‘jihadiyya,’” says Myrick in a published statement, last week. “It is hard to ignore this fact when in these cases below several of these men very clearly, and very directly, state that they followed this ideology (jihad), and wanted to kill.”

Myrick adds, “I find this connection disturbing seeing as these plots come on the heels of the Administration's efforts to rename ‘jihadists’ – which is what they [the terrorists] call themselves – ‘violent extremists.’” [See letter from Myrick to Barack Obama, Sept. 10, 2009.]

The cases Myrick points to include:


* FBI Arrests Jordanian Citizen for Attempting to Bomb Skyscraper in Downtown Dallas:
“Smadi made clear his intention to serve as a soldier for Usama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and to conduct violent jihad.”



* Illinois Man Arrested in Plot to Bomb Courthouse and Murder Federal Employees:
“…Finton expressed his desire to receive military training and to travel to Gaza or other overseas locations to become a jihadist fighter.”



* NC Boyd Case—New Charges…Possible Target was Marine Corps Base Quantico:
“According to the indictment, during the period from 1989 through 1992, Daniel Boyd traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan where he received military-style training in terrorist training camps for the purpose of engaging in violent jihad.”



* NY Transit Terror Case- indictment handed down- conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction—explosive bombs—in the United States:
Zazi has told FBI investigators that he “attended courses at an al Qaeda training facility” while in Pakistan.



* Brooklyn Resident Indicted for the Conspiracy to Commit Murder Overseas and Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Terrorists:
“According to the indictment and other documents filed by the government, in early January 2009, Kaziu devised a plan to travel abroad for the purpose of joining a radical foreign fighter group and to take up arms against perceived enemies of Islam.”


Dr. Walid Phares, an international terrorism expert, echoes Myrick’s concerns in a piece, this week, “Warning: The Jihadists are Mushrooming Inside America”:

According to Phares, “The immediate question raised by an increasingly worried public is the connection between these terror cases. While law enforcement and judicial authorities proceed in a bottom-up reasoning, that is to build the case for a global connection between what is happening with the help of legal evidence, counterterrorism and conflict analysts are already understanding what is happening inside America.”

Rep. Myrick, who serves on the serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (which has jurisdiction over the U.S. Intelligence community, including intelligence-related activities of the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, other agencies of the Department of Defense, and the Departments of State, Justice, and Treasury), is the founder of the 120-member Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus.