U.S. Master Plan to Weaponize Space
(The Memory Hole)
At one point, the US Air Force Space Command's Website contained a document titled "Strategic Master Plan FY04 and Beyond." Then the document disappeared. As my source for the document told me: "Now they only have a little blurb about what could be a huge change in space policy, the weaponization of space, including space launched conventional weapons." . . . It turns out that this erasure was only the tip of the iceberg: The Website for the Air Force Space Command has been completely offline since at least the morning of 10 June 2003. First, they deleted their master plan. Now they have the whole site down. If it reappears, it's dollars to doughnuts that a whole lot of information will have been expunged. (I'm working to recover as much of the site as possible; if anyone has documents from it, please send them.) . . . Meanwhile, you can download the master plan above and read some highlights from it below.

Space warfighting forces are our people, weapon systems and other capabilities that operate and employ space power in, from and through space. When fully and seamlessly integrated with other warfighting forces, space forces extend the reach, precision and intensity of U.S. military power and operations. Continuous deterrence and prompt global engagement ensures the ability to apply space forces when and where we need them and that our adversary understands the advantage we possess from these forces. We will also provide space support to US warfighters as well as our Allies and ensure our space systems are integrated and usable by coalition forces. Control and exploitation of space implies that we can use our space capabilities at our discretion while at the same time denying our adversaries access to space assets at their disposal. . . . Our ability to provide these supporting space capabilities to the warfighter is dependent on our ability to control space. To date, our access to space has been unchallenged, and we enjoy control of space by default. . . . A viable prompt global strike capability, whether nuclear or non-nuclear, will allow the US to rapidly strike high-payoff, difficult-to-defeat targets from stand-off ranges and produce the desired effect. This capability provides the US with the flexibility to employ innovative strategies to counter adversary anti-access and area denial strategies. Such a capability will provide warfighting commanders the ability to rapidly deny, delay, deceive, disrupt, destroy, exploit and neutralize targets in hours/minutes rather than weeks/days even when US and allied forces have a limited forward presence. Thus, prompt global strike space capabilities will provide the President and warfighting commanders with flexible options to deter or defeat most threats in a dynamic security environment. . . . As previously stated, the US military enjoys a degree of potential asymmetric advantage via our space capabilities that is not widely understood. Space is deeply imbedded in our warfighting capabilities, and we have come to rely on our space capabilities almost as a fact-of-life utility. But much more awaits us. Training and education are crucial in fostering a cultural change as we move from an air force to an integrated air and space force. We must help commanders and the forces they command become confident and competent users of space capabilities. . . . Our vision calls for prompt global strike space systems with the capability to directly apply force from or through space against terrestrial targets. International treaties and laws do not prohibit the use or presence of conventional weapons in space. Policy makers are working to create conditions for a New Triad that includes non-nuclear global strike weapons. Non-nuclear prompt global strike space capabilities are being studied. Our Nation will decide whether or not to pursue the development and deployment of conventional, space-based systems for global strike to fully exploit the advantages of space.

[Comment: The Brutal Bush Regime now appears to be in the process of positioning weapons in outer space and pointing them at you and me. Once these insane terrorists place their weapons of mass destruction in space, our species will have only two options: Extinction or Slavery. ... What are you doing TODAY to remove these brutes from power?]

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 11:41 AM

 

Event Horizon: Incoming and Fast!
(Richard Sauder, PhD, Rense.com, June 9, 2003)
The central reality of the early 21st Century is the total certainty of imminent, massive, deep-rooted change in every sphere of reality that is meaningful to the human race. This change will not be long in arriving, not at all . . . an attempt by a certain faction of the self-anointed, so-called global 'elite' to use the American military juggernaut as a violent tool to stage manage the oncoming apocalypse. (About which, more below.) Their objective is to try to control a series of large, upcoming, epochal events that are essentially uncontrollable and unmanageable. . . . It is a nightmarish vision they have and they want to impose it on the rest of the planet by brute force. . . . And in this case, the apocalypse is stamped 'Made in America'. . . . The same people who for decades have been pontificating about smaller and less intrusive government and lower taxes (right-wing Republicans), have over the past couple of years revealed themselves to be essentially a home-grown American, neo-fascist political faction, heavy on reflexive, knee-jerk flag waving and patriotic sloganeering, ugly suppression and violation of civil liberties at home, all coupled with aggressive, illegal, imperial warfare in the international arena. . . . This current effort to impose a violent, totalitarian regime on the United States and selected other parts of the world is just the first stage in a rapidly developing program to subjugate the entire planet in a violent, iron grip. . . . But this vile project (institutional religion, militarism, imperialism, i.e., mind and social control) is fast approaching a decisive turning point. In mathematical terms, the quickening trajectory of events on this planet is rapidly approaching infinity. There has been a sharp inflection in every aspect of the curve that describes the course of human events on planet Earth. Uncharted waters lie just ahead. Planet-wide chaos approaches, and quickly. . . . Hence, the Pentagon has been unleashed, essentially as a mercenary force in the service of great evil-- the violent subjugation of the human race to a planet-wide, totalitarian control. . . . The incipient neo-fascist American regime has announced plans for a Total Awareness Information computer system that will track, monitor and spy on every human being that it can, to the greatest degree possible, everywhere, anywhere, at all times, from cradle to grave. . . . Now then, what has so alarmed these Republican, neo-fascist, American desperados that they have turned loose the Beast of their Made-in-America, violent-control-at-all-costs apocalypse on the world? Several things. . . . It appears that it [Global Warming] is and that it is underway during out lifetimes, with unknown consequences. . . . If there were rapid, global climate change (whether becoming hotter or colder) the social, economic, environmental and political implications would be staggering. . . . Growing numbers of people mean growing numbers of potentially independent actors (individuals and organizations of all types and sizes) . . . potential agents of autonomous, self-directed, purposeful action in the sphere of their own choosing, whether that sphere be political, social, cultural, religious, environmental, scientific, etc. As the numbers of people increase, controlling what they do and think becomes harder and harder. Enter the Pentagon as a mercenary, social control force for the new Republican neo-fascist regime. . . . It often happens that a species will rapidly increase its numbers right up to or beyond the carrying capacity of its ecological niche -- and then it undergoes a massive and drastic die off, as its numbers radically decrease -- and it can happen real FAST. . . . We are like a horde of devouring locusts. We are overexploiting our ecological niche, which is to say, we are overexploiting the Earth. . . . Then there is the ancient Mayan calendar. . . . So what did the Mayans foresee? By implication, they have forecast some kind of abrupt break in the human experience in our very near future. . . . Is the change so great that it will be as if we have entered a new era in history? . . . In my opinion, that is very possible. It may even be likely. I don't know how they did it - perhaps by pure, direct intuition -- but the ancient Mayan time keepers seem to have somehow peered into the future and seen that a time of big turmoil and change would take place in the early 21st Century. . . . recently talked with a retired petroleum engineer (in Texas) who has long experience in the oil industry. I asked him how much longer the American people would be driving their cars, SUVs, motorcycles and pickup trucks. . . . He quietly replied: 'Twenty years.' (Then the oil runs out.) . . . Twenty years until there is a massive upheaval in American and world society. Actually less than that. In fact, the upheaval is already violently underway if you live in Iraq and maybe Iran-- as the Pentagon,s mercenary troops try to secure Middle Eastern oil fields. . . . And by the way, does anyone doubt that massive force would be/will be employed here on American soil to ensure the success of the Republican neo-fascist social-control-at-all-costs agenda? Isn,t that the plain implication of the Department of Homeland Security? . . . Of course, the smart thing to do would be to undertake a massive research and development program for environmentally benign, alternative energy sources to phase in as soon as possible. . . . What if our lives and what happens on this planet NOW are so much more important than we can imagine in our wildest imaginings? WHAT IF that is the reason that we are here? WHAT IF our life project is to WAKE UP and 'grok' the situation and throw a creative monkey wrench in a galactic program of darkly vicious control of minds, bodies and souls? Not only here on Earth for the human species, but elsewhere too, across vast reaches of space and time? . . . It all depends on us, on you and on me. How free do you want to be? Are you willing to take personal action, whether large or small, to be free? Will you do it now? Or will you put it off for years, or half a lifetime, until your options are severely constrained and your freedom to maneuver has all but disappeared? . . . The choice is before you, and before me. Either 1) we recognize and admit our precarious position and take personal action to remedy a rapidly worsening situation, in America and around the world, or 2) we go back to sleep (metaphorically speaking), join in the slaughter, cheer on the troops as they bomb and rampage, vote for the mad men (and mad women), wave the flag like a mindless maniac while shouting jingoistic, nationalistic sloagns, blend into the dumbed-down herd, become a violent, racist, fundamentalist religionist bent on annihilation of the hated other -- whether they (or we!) be Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. . . . The choice is before us. And it is a stark one. Please consider checking out the hyperlinks to the organizations and websites that I have mentioned above, and proceeding towards personal and planetary freedom in the manner that is most consistent with the best and highest reason for your being on this planet. . . . What will you do?

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 3:25 PM

 

Israel to kill in U.S., allied nations
(richard Sale, UPI, January 15, 2003)
Israel is embarking upon a more aggressive approach to the war on terror that will include staging targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries, former Israeli intelligence officials told United Press International. . . . The Israeli statements were confirmed by more than a half dozen U.S. foreign policy and intelligence officials in interviews with UPI. . . . Since Sharon became Israeli prime minister, Tel Aviv has mainly limited its practice of targeted killings to the West Bank and Gaza because "no one wanted such operations on their territory," a former Israeli intelligence official said. . . . He said Sharon is "reversing that policy, even if it risks complications to Israel's bilateral relations." . . . A congressional staff member with deep knowledge of intelligence matters said, "I don't know on what basis we would be able to protest Israel's actions." He referred to the recent killing of Qaed Salim Sinan al Harethi, a top al Qaida leader, in Yemen by a remotely controlled CIA drone. . . . But the complications posed by Israel's new policy are real. . . . "Israel does not have a good record at doing this sort of thing," said former CIA counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson. . . . He cited the 1997 fiasco where two Mossad agents were captured after they tried to assassinate Khaled Mashaal, a Hamas political leader, by injecting him with poison. . . . According to Johnson, the attempt, made in Amman, Jordan, caused a political crisis in Israeli-Jordan relations. In addition, because the Israeli agents carried Canadian passports, Canada withdrew its ambassador in protest, he said. . . . Former CIA officials say Israel was forced to free jailed Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and 70 other Jordanian and Palestinian prisoner being held in Israeli jails to secure the release of the two would-be Mossad assassins. . . . Israeli hit teams, which consist of units or squadrons of the Kidon, a sub-unit for Mossad's highly secret Metsada department, would stage the operations, former Israeli intelligence sources said. Kidon is a Hebrew word meaning "bayonet," one former Israeli intelligence source said. . . . This Israeli government source explained that in the past Israel has not staged targeted killings in friendly countries because "no one wanted such operations on their territory." . . . This has become irrelevant, he said. . . . A former CIA official who knows Dagan said the new Mossad director knows "his foreign affairs inside and out," and has a "real killer instinct." . . . Dagan has already removed Mossad officials whom he regards as "being too conservative or too cautious" and is building up "a constituency of senior people of the same mentality," one former long-time Israeli operative said. . . . Dagan is also urging that Mossad operatives rely less on secret sources and rely more on open information that is so plentifully provided on the Internet and newspapers.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 5:04 PM

 

John Dean: Bush May Be Facing Impeachment
(John W. Dean, FindLaw, 6 June 2003)
President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation. . . . Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false . . . Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.. . . . Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled. [Long list of quotations follows.] . . . So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been? . . . After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed. . . . So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist? . . . There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world. . . . But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there." . . . In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O. J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of Administration can find someone else to blame - informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it - they may not escape fault themselves. . . . Senator Bob Graham has also contemplated three other possible alternative scenarios: One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq. . . . Senator Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration." . . . Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decision making process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil." . . . Worse than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMDs Are Still Missing . . . Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed. . . . To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." . . . Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

[Comment: OR ... maybe we should hope it IS the case ... Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice belong in prison for high crimes against the people of this land and the world. Isn't it about time for some courageous members of Congress to begin the impeachment process?

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 4:39 PM

 

Does The USA Intend To Dominate The Whole World By Force?
(Noam Chomsky, ZNet, June 2, 2003)
The first e-mail is from Norberto Silva, from the Cape Verde islands, and he says: "Could the USA and president Bush lead the world into a nuclear war with their policy of pre-emptive attacks?" . . .
NOAM CHOMSKY
They very definitely could. First of all we should be clear - it is not a policy of pre-emptive attacks. Pre-emption means something in international law. A pre-emptive attack is one that is taken in the case of an imminent, on-going threat. For example, if planes were flying across the Atlantic to bomb New York, it would be legitimate for the US Air Force to shoot them down. That's a pre-emptive attack. This is what is sometimes called preventive war. That's a new doctrine that was announced last September in the National Security Strategy. It declares the right to attack any potential challenge to the global dominance of the United States. . . . that, in effect, gives the authorisation to attack essentially anyone. Could that lead to a nuclear war? Very definitely. . . . The preventive war doctrine is virtually an invitation to potential targets to develop some kind of deterrent, and there are only two kinds of deterrent. One is weapons of mass destruction, the other is large-scale terror. . . . The National Security Strategy states fairly explicitly that the US intends to dominate the world by force, which is the dimension in which it rules supreme, and to ensure that there is never any potential challenge to this domination. . . . the US record, incidentally with the support of Australia, since the period of its global dominance in the 1940s, is one of instigating war and violence and terror on a very substantial scale. The Indochina War, just to take one example in which Australia participated, was basically a war of aggression. The United States attacked South Vietnam in 1962. The war then spread to the rest of Indochina. The end result was several million people killed, the countries devastated, and that's only one example. So history does not support the conclusion and the principle that one state should have a unique right to rule the world by force. That's an extremely hazardous principle, no matter who the country is. . . . The fact that a country has a constitution and is internally democratic does not mean that it does not carry out violence and aggression. There is a long history of this. England, for example, was perhaps the most free country in the world in the 19th century and was carrying out horrifying atrocities throughout much of the world, and the case of the United States is similar. The record goes back very far. The United States was a democratic country, for example, when it invaded the Philippines a century ago, killing several hundred thousand people and leaving it devastated. It was a democratic country in the 1980s, when the current incumbents in Washington carried out a devastating war of terror in Nicaragua, leaving tens of thousands dead and the country practically ruined, an attack for which they incidentally were condemned by the World Court and the Security Council in a veto-ed resolution, but then escalated the attack, and so it continues. As to the democratic election, yes, true, there is an election, and the Republicans have explained very clearly how they intend to overcome the fact that their policies are pretty strongly opposed by the majority of the population. They intend to overcome it by driving the country into fear and panic, so that they will huddle under the umbrella of a powerful figure who will protect them. . . . At the last minute, at the Azores summit, he said that, even if Saddam Hussein and his associates leave the country, the United States is going to invade anyway - meaning the US wants to control it. . . . I have never seen, that I can recall, such clear and brazen contempt and hatred for democracy as has been expressed by US elites. Just have a look. Europe, for example, was divided into what was called Old and New Europe. There was a criterion - Old Europe were the countries where the governments, for whatever reason, took the same positions as the vast majority of their populations. That's called democracy. New Europe - Italy, Spain, Hungary - were the countries where the governments overrode an even larger percentage of their populations. The population was more opposed in those countries than in Old Europe, but the governments disregarded their populations - maybe 80 or 90 percent of them - and followed orders from Washington, and that's called good! Turkey is the most striking example. Turkey was bitterly attacked by US commentators and elites, because the government took the same position as about 95 percent of the population. Paul Wolfowitz, who is described as the great exponent of democratisation, a few weeks ago condemned the Turkish military for not intervening to compel the government to, as he put it, "help Americans", instead of paying attention to 95 percent of their own population. This expresses brazen contempt for democracy, and the record supports it. . . . the current justice department has claimed the right to arrest people, including American citizens, put them in confinement indefinitely, without charge, without access to lawyers and families, until the president declares that the war on terror is over. They have even gone beyond that. The new plans include plans to actually take away citizenship if the attorney general decides to do so. . . . Churchill had something to say about this. He said, and this is virtually a quote, [that] for a government to put a person in prison without trial by his peers is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian governments, whether nazi or communist. He said that in 1943, condemning proposals of a similar nature in England, which weren't enacted. Remember, in 1943 England was in pretty desperate straits - it was under attack and facing destruction by the most vicious military force in history, and nevertheless Churchill rightly described measures like these as "in the highest degree odious", and "the foundation of totalitarian governments". Yes, people should be very upset about it. . . . among the regions that are targeted for so-called preventive war, one of them is almost certainly the Andes region. It's a region of substantial resources. It is, to a certain degree, out of control. The US already has extensive military resources - a large military basing system in Ecuador, the Dutch islands, El Salvador - surrounding the region, and quite a few forces on the ground. My suspicion is that the US will probably, in Venezuela, once again support a coup as it did last year. But if that doesn't work, direct intervention is not impossible. Remember, this has long been planned. . . . The United States is calling on the world to proliferate weapons of mass destruction and terror, if only as a deterrent. . . . The United States is not different from other countries in the world in this respect. There is great fear and concern about the policies that the Bush administration is pursuing. If you eliminate the element of panic, which was induced by the propaganda, which is unique to the United States, then opposition to the war and to the security strategy here are approximately the same as elsewhere. I and in fact other people who are willing to speak publicly are simply overwhelmed by requests and demands to discuss these issues.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 6:52 PM