Paul: Israel Demanding U.S. Invade Iran

Press TV
December 25, 2007

Maverick Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul says the leaders of Israel are impelling the White House to wage war on Iran.

“The government of Israel encourages Americans to go into Iran,” Paul said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The 10-term Texas lawmaker added that neoconservatives have also been pushing the administration into ‘bombing Iran’.

When asked what he would do as the US president ‘if Iran invaded Israel’, Paul said the illusion of the Islamic Republic’s attack on Israel is like saying, “Iran is about to invade Mars.”

The 72-year-old politician made the remarks as Israeli officials are stepping up their war rhetoric against Tehran, over its nuclear program despite the recent reports confirming the peaceful nature of the country’s activities.

Ron Paul also made it clear that he would cut the ‘billions of dollars’ in annual aid Washington provides for Israel if elected President.

Sphere: Related Content

Crimes against Humanity in Gaza: Israeli Policies at Erez Crossing

Bureaucratic Cat and Mouse by Physicians for Human Rights

Global Research, December 22, 2007

Email this article to a friend Print this article

Over the past few weeks, Israeli authorities have changed their tactics regarding medical exit permits for Gaza patients: Instead of issuing a permit or a rejection on "security grounds," responses are delayed for weeks and defined as "pending." Since appeals can only be filed after a formal rejection has been issued, the significance of this tactic is denial of the possibility of appeal. 1. Eighteen urgent new medical cases are currently handled at our offices. The majority of these have waited for weeks without receiving any response - negative or positive - from the Israeli authorities. Since appeals can only be filed after a formal rejection has been issued, the significance of this tactic is denial of the possibility of appeal (see list of patients below). 2. Large, unknown numbers of patients are not accessing care, due to delays in processing permits, lack of transparency in the process, rejections on security grounds, and last-minute interrogations. Palestinian MoH estimates over 800 patients whose cases are still pending. 3. Access-related deaths are increasing. On the 9th of December alone, according to Palestinian MoH data, three patients died in connection with denial of access to care. 4. Coercion/blackmail of patients by GSS (Israeli secret service, 'shabac') continues: Interrogations are increasingly employed against patients on a routine basis, and patients are required to inform on others before being permitted to access care. 5. Passage to Egypt has been initiated but is inadequate. Bureaucratic obstacles Over the past few weeks, Israeli authorities have changed their tactics regarding medical exit permits for Gaza patients: Instead of issuing a permit or a rejection on "security grounds," responses are delayed for weeks and defined as "pending." Since appeals can only be filed after a formal rejection has been issued, the significance of this tactic is denial of the possibility of appeal. According to Palestinian Ministry of Health data, by the end of October over 200 cases were "pending" and by the end of November over 300 cases were "pending." Palestinian MoH estimates over 800 patients whose cases are still pending. PHR-Israel is of the opinion that this tactic, as well as recent attempts by the Israeli authorities to block the access of human rights organizations to the names of rejected patients, are a response to recent media exposure and legal scrutiny of serious life-threatening cases whose access to care was denied. Rather than changing its policy, the military is now attempting to veil it by blocking access to information. GSS policies Since late November, permits "pending interrogation" have become more frequent. This means patients must undergo interrogation before receiving a response to their request. Interrogations are often held close to or even after the date of the scheduled medical appointment, leading to disruption of care and repeated re-scheduling of appointments. Before interrogation, patients often wait for many hours at the Crossing, and are sometimes turned back without interrogation and are obliged to reschedule with the GSS. During interrogation they are requested to provide information, not only about themselves but also about members of their families, neighbors and acquaintances. Some are asked to act as informers on a regular basis. Since PHR-Israel's intervention in court, threats that non-compliance will lead to denial of care are more veiled. However, non-compliance invariably leads to a negative response and rejection of permission to exit Gaza. After interrogation, patients are requested to return home and to wait for an answer. Since December, patients are requested to file new requests after interrogation, and to start the process from the beginning, often leading to multiple interrogations. Intimidation by GSS: One of the patients represented by PHR-Israel was interrogated after High Court petitions had secured his permission to exit. At the interrogation he was threatened by GSS officers and warned not to apply to external bodies and to the courts, with the implication that such actions would lead to denial of a permit. Passage to Egypt In December, following several High Court petitions, an arrangement was reached with the Egyptians to let out specific patients via Erez and Nitsana Crossings. However, patients were informed on the day of exit itself, 3.12.07, so that they had no time to reschedule appointments in Egyptian hospitals, to file for a passport, or to collect money for the journey. The crossing was closed on the afternoon of the next day. It was re-opened on 11-12.12.07, with no prior notification, and this time dozens of patients who arrived were turned back at the last minute: The Israelis claimed that the Egyptians denied their entry, but the patients claimed Israeli soldiers told them they were denied passage by the Israeli GSS. Currently the Israeli authorities say the passage will be opened again, but cannot say when or for how long. PHR-Israel is re-opening legal action: - Demanding exit permits for the 18 new cases. - Demanding that Israeli authorities stop the new tactic of non-response - Demanding the right of appeal and transparency in the bureaucratic process: patients must receive answers in writing within a reasonable period of time, and information on number of patients denied access should be available. - Demanding that the GSS stop its routine use of patients and their intimidation for the collection of intelligence. - Repeating its demand for a policy ensuring access of patients to medical care outside Gaza. Additionally, PHR-Israel has not closed its previous court petition, in which it challenges the practice of deliberate withholding of medical care by GSS as a form of coercion against patients, to compel them to act as informers. A third hearing on this petition is pending. PHR-Israel repeats its minimum demands - That the State of Israel ensure access of all patients who need care unavailable in Gaza to external medical centers in Israel, West Bank, Jordan or any other country, as a matter of policy - That the GSS immediately stop coercing patients at the crossing. According to the British Medical Association and others this may constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as defined under the UN Convention Against Torture and related instruments. Patients waiting for exit from Gaza: Gender Age Condition Referred to appointments missed 1 m 18 Brain tumor Nablus, WB 29.11 2 m 36 Pancreas cancer Tel Aviv since 3.12 3 m 64 Lung cancer East Jerusalem 2.12 4 m 50 Eye cancer Jerusalem 2.12 5 m 28 Liver tumor Jerusalem 26.11 6 f 37 Lymphoma Nablus, WB since 21.11 7 m 52 Bone cancer East Jerusalem 5.12 8 m 26 Eye tumor East Jerusalem 30.10, 14.11, 17.12 9 f 28 Thyroid cancer Egypt 6.12 10 m 54 Heart: bypass surgery Nablus, WB since 1.10 11 m 2 Congenital heart disease Holon, Israel since 11.9 12 f 25 Infection in both kidneys Ramallah, WB since 5.12 13 f 2 Congenital adrenal hyperplasia w.history of meningitis Tel Aviv 21.11, 5.12, 12.12 14 m 20 Rapid weight loss and suspicion of cancer in digestive system Tel Aviv since 24.10 15 m 47 Infection of tissues in spinal cord East Jerusalem since 25.11 16 m 28 Eye bleed Jordan 6.12 17 m 48 Vascular complications Jordan 9.12 18 m 31 Giant hernia Jordan since 11.11

Global Research Articles by Physicians for Human Rights

U.S. Soldiers Stage Mutiny

Democracy Now
December 21, 2007

We speak with a reporter from the Army Times who gives an inside account of how an army unit committed mutiny and refused to carry out orders in Iraq. After an IED attack killed five more members of Charlie 1-26, members of 2nd Platoon gathered for a meeting and determined they could no longer function professionally. Several platoon members were afraid their anger could set loose a massacre.

JUAN GONZALEZ: In what has been described as one of the most remarkable stories of the entire Iraq war, a reporter from the Army Times has given perhaps the first inside account of how an Army unit committed mutiny and refused to carry out orders in Iraq.

The incident occurred in Adhamiya, a district in northeastern Baghdad, where soldiers in the 2nd Platoon, Charlie Company, were stationed. The 2nd Platoon had lost many men since deploying to Iraq eleven months before. After an IED attack killed five more members of Charlie 1-26, members of 2nd Platoon gathered for a meeting and determined they could no longer function professionally. Several platoon members were afraid their anger could set loose a massacre. They decided to stage a revolt against their commanders that they viewed as a life-or-death act of defiance.

AMY GOODMAN: The story appears in a major four-part series called “Blood Brothers,” published in the Army Times by the paper’s medical reporter, Kelly Kennedy. She was embedded with Charlie Company in Iraq in the spring and summer of this year. Kelly Kennedy joins us now from Washington, D.C.

Welcome, Kelly, to Democracy Now! Just lay out the story for us. How did it begin?

KELLY KENNEDY: Well, it began—I went to Adhamiya. I was working on a story about medics, and I had heard that Charlie Company had been hit particularly hard, and so I wanted to ride along with their medics and see what they were doing. They were doing some amazing things: tracheotomies on the battlefield and restarting hearts and just really great things.

Our second day there, my photographer, Rick Kozak, and I had gone out on patrol with them in the morning, and then they went out on a second patrol that we didn’t go on, and that was the day that the Bradley was hit, and they lost five men. So we watched them react to that. I guess what amazed me about that day was how strong these guys were for each other, but also how they were willing to look out for us, as reporters that they had just met. They flew us out of there that night.

And then, about a month later, I got a couple of emails from the guys saying, “We just lost four more men, and they want us to go out on patrol, and we’re not going to do it.” And then, I couldn’t get back to them when I was in Iraq, but when they returned home to Germany, I went to see them.

And essentially, they’re the hardest hit unit in Iraq so far. I hope that the story would show people exactly what soldiers in Iraq are dealing with. I’m not sure Americans understand exactly what this war looks like to our soldiers. And we just went through the whole fifteen-month deployment in a four-part series, just showing exactly what had happened to them, from the youngest man in their unit throwing himself on a grenade to save four other men to battles that they went through. They were catching insurgents, and they were battling every day, but then they were exhausted, too, mentally and physically.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And in terms of the casualties, you have some startling numbers, in terms of the percentage of the men who were killed. Could you talk about that?

KELLY KENNEDY: Yeah. The company itself, there were 110 men who went out on patrol—there were probably 138 men in Charlie Company itself—and they lost fourteen men in twelve months. And the battalion, which is about a thousand people, lost thirty-one people altogether. So it’s pretty extreme.

AMY GOODMAN: You talk about right when you got there, the five men being killed by an IED. Tell us about Master Sergeant Jeffrey McKinney.

KELLY KENNEDY: OK, that was about a month later. First Sergeant McKinney was well loved by his men. He was Bravo Company. He was considered intelligent. When they had a question, he was the one they went to, because he could explain things. Everyone thought he was a great family man. One of the soldiers, Ian Nealon [phon.], told me that he used to ride to work with him every day and that he just loved him.

And one day, he went out on patrol with his guys, and they had just been called back into Apache, which was the name of the combat outpost where they were in Adhamiya, and he apparently looked—said that he had had it. He looked at a wall, he fired a round, and then he took his M4, and he put it under his chin, and he killed himself in front of his men. It left a lot of people just saddened and horrified. And then, the next week, Bravo Company was hit by an IED, and they lost four guys, too.

AMY GOODMAN: The military first ruled it an accident, then admitted that it was a suicide.

KELLY KENNEDY: Well, I’m not sure they—they did an investigation. I don’t think they admit anything until they’re done with an investigation in the military. But, yeah, I think that they were worried about morale at first, and so when they called the guys back in, it wasn’t—they didn’t announce that their first sergeant had just killed himself; they said, “There’s been an accident.” So—

JUAN GONZALEZ: Your series presents a really fascinating picture of how the medical folks who dealt with some of these soldiers, the psychologists who dealt with them, reacted to their situation, and also how the commander dealt with being faced with an actual mutiny by his troops. Could you enlighten us about that some more?

KELLY KENNEDY: Yeah, I think there’s—that’s one of the key differences of this war. I’m a veteran myself, and I served in Mogadishu, and I served in Desert Storm. We didn’t know what PTSD was—post-traumatic stress disorder. We didn’t have mental health people we could go to while we were out in the field or while we were out in battle. We didn’t talk about ethics. We didn’t talk about how we were feeling or how we would react professionally to certain situations. And these guys are. They’re going to mental health, and they’re saying, “Hey, I’m upset about this.” And the mental health people are talking with the unit commanders and saying, “Hey, maybe you need to pull your guys out Adhamiya,” or “Hey, maybe your guys need some more rest.” And they’re certainly saying, “Listen, if you think you’re going to act unprofessionally, you need to do something else. You need to take care of that.” And I think that’s huge. I don’t think a lot of people understand that that’s a big difference in this war, between the last war and this war.

And the reason they do that is because early on in this war we did have situations where troops did not behave properly. In Vietnam, we certainly saw it. For these guys to stand up and say, “Listen, we’re not sure we can handle it right now,” could be considered very courageous, in my mind. The commander, I think, also realized that, and he said as much, that he sees the two sides of the situation.

After Bravo Company’s IED went off, Charlie Company was supposed to go back out and patrol the same area. When some of the members who had been patrolling with Charlie Company before the scout platoon went as the quick reaction force to the IED attack for Bravo Company, they were struck by how much it looked like the first IED attack that—the roadside bomb attack, and they reacted as if it were their own men, and they went right to mental health and they got sleeping medications, and they basically couldn’t sleep and reacted poorly.

And then, they were supposed to go out on patrol again that day. And they, as a platoon, the whole platoon—it was about forty people—said, “We’re not going to do it. We can’t. We’re not mentally there right now.” And for whatever reason, that information didn’t make it up to the company commander. All he heard was, “2nd Platoon refuses to go.” So he insisted that they come. They still refused. So volunteers went out to talk with them, and then he got the whole situation. In the meantime, it was called a mutiny, which is probably a bigger word than should be used for it, but that’s what the battalion called it.

And eventually, what they did was they separated the platoon. They said, you know, “You guys aren’t acting well together anymore, so we’re going to split you up, and we’re going to have you work with other platoon sergeants, other squad leaders, and see if we can turn things around this way.” But they also punished them, in a sense, by flagging them and saying that they couldn’t get promotions and they couldn’t get their awards for two months. So there was a feeling that there had to be punishment for these soldiers refusing to go on a mission, but there was also understanding that the guys may have acted properly in this case.

AMY GOODMAN: Kelly Kennedy, I think what is so profound about this story is the refusal of the men to go out. Were there women, by the way, in this unit?

KELLY KENNEDY: No, it was all infantry.

AMY GOODMAN: The refusal of these men to go out, because they were afraid they would commit a massacre. Explain that.

KELLY KENNEDY: Yeah. They’re—I need to say this: they are good guys. I mean, I saw them take care of each other. I saw them take care of Iraqis.

When the IED, the roadside bomb, went off, it was so close to one of the Iraqi police stations that they should have been able to see somebody burying that. It was right in front of somebody’s house, and nobody said anything. Nobody said to these guys, “Listen, there’s a bomb here. We’re worried about you,” even though they had been going out and patrolling and doing what they were supposed to be doing, in their minds. So when that IED went off and killed their five friends, they’re in—you have to understand, they’ve been living together for a year like brothers in the basement of this old palace. And it’s—they’re right on top of each other and going out and taking care of each other on the battlefield, daily firefights. And so, they’re closer probably than anyone could be. And when they lost their five men, they—I think they gave up on the Iraqi people.

If the Iraqi people weren’t willing to fight for them, then what was the point? And they were so angry. They just wanted to go out and take out the whole city. They didn’t understand why they couldn’t finish up what they call the war, and the whole idea of counterinsurgency is that you’re supposed to be building relationships, but they’re trying to build relationships with people who obviously aren’t that concerned about them. So this idea of a massacre was just—they were just so angry, they could barely contain it anymore.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And that sense that you capture so well in the article, the soldiers finding that they’re on a mission to help a people, but they have so much hostility from the very people that they are there to help, the impact of that on their fighting ability or on the morale.

KELLY KENNEDY: It was huge. And I think they can see it from both perspectives. We went out on patrol one morning. It was 6:00 in the morning, and they had to go in and search houses. And they were waking people up, and the Iraqis didn’t look happy to see them, and the guys weren’t happy to have to wake people up. And so, they’re sort of weary of each other anyway.

They were still doing the things that you see, handing out the teddy bears and playing with the kids and playing soccer and that sort of thing, but at the same time, they never felt safe. I mean, it was daily that they were catching grenades and live fire, and these IEDs were all over the place. They just never felt like they were getting anywhere.

When they thought that they had built a relationship with a Sunni colonel, the colonel was fired because the Baghdad government is Shiite, and they didn’t trust him as a colonel in the Iraqi army. So, as soon as he was gone, they had to start all over again. It just seemed like every time they made progress, it was slammed back down again. They just weren’t getting anywhere

AMY GOODMAN: Kelly Kennedy, I want to thank you for joining us and for doing this series of pieces, the medical reporter for Army Times. She’s the author of a four-part series, “Blood Brothers.” We’ll link to it at our website, democracynow.org.

Sphere: Related Content

DHS Finalizing Spy Satellite Program To Watch Americans Without Congressional Oversight

Plans also include "cyber-security strategy" to "protect" domestic computer networks

Steve Watson Infowars.net Thursday, Dec 20, 2007

The Department of Homeland security is forging ahead and finalizing plans to use a network of spy satellites for domestic surveillance despite the fact that the Congressional committee supposedly overseeing the program has had no update on it for over three months.

A report in today's Wall Street Journal suggests that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is in the process of finalizing a charter for the program this week, regardless of the fact that it is supposed to be suspended.

The DHS had declared that the program was "on hold" after its existence was made public in August, prompting an outcry amongst civil libertarians and lawmakers.

Demands to justify the congressional legality of the satellites, which were originally mandated for foreign surveillance, followed the revelation that a new department branch called the National Applications Office would oversee the program and be responsible for providing images from the satellites to non military law enforcement agencies.

Critics have called for cuts to DHS funding, stressing that the program is in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus act, which prevents the use of military for domestic law enforcement. It also violates the fourth amendment as the satellites are capable of seeing through the walls of people's homes.

(Article continues below)

Domestic intelligence and security agencies are now receiving more funding for spy satellites than the military.

"We still haven't seen the legal framework we requested or the standard operation procedures on how the NAO will actually be run," House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie G. Thompson told the WSJ.

In addition to the satellites, the surveillance program also includes new forms of internet monitoring:

Mr. Chertoff also plans soon to unveil a cyber-security strategy, part of an estimated $15 billion, multiyear program designed to protect the nation's Internet infrastructure. The program has been shrouded in secrecy for months and has also prompted privacy concerns on Capitol Hill because it involves government protection of domestic computer networks.

Essentially the program would allow the DHS to regulate and control access to the internet in the name of "protecting" national security.

The news comes on the back of separate revelations that another military spy agency, the NSA has increasing control over SSL, now called Transport Layer Security, the cryptographic protocol that provides secure communications on the internet for web browsing, e-mail, instant messaging, and other data transfers.

In other words the agency is capable of intercepting and reading your emails and instant messages in real time.

We also learned this week that the lawyer for an AT&T engineer has alleged that "within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.” That is BEFORE 9/11, before the nation was embroiled in the freedom stripping exercise commonly known as the "war on terror" had even begun.

We shouldn't be surprised obviously, Government surveillance programs targeting Americans are legion and have been in place for decades.

FBI Now Admits Evidence Used to Connect Oswald to Kennedy Assasination Was Bogus

Jonathan Elinoff
TruthAlliance.net
Thursday December 20, 2007

The front page of the Sunday Washington Post features, "FBI Forensic Test Full of Holes." It claims that hundreds of defendants sitting in prisons nationwide have been convicted with the help of an FBI forensic tool that has been found to be completely full of inconsistent results and has actually been discarded by the FBI for such reasons more than two years ago. But the FBI lab has failed to take or attempt to alert any of the affected defendants or courts, even though the window for appealing convictions is closing.

As early as 1991, the FBI conducted studies on the reliability of the "bullet-lead" analysis used to connect bullets found at the scene of a crime to bullets in thepossession of a suspect. The studies found that lead composition of bullets in the same box didn't always match, which should have been a sign that the test was completely unreliable. Further analysis discovered that bullets packaged15 months apart in different areas of the country in different boxes, unexpectedly matched - a gap the forensic testing originally claimed had different bullet lead make-up.

The Innocence Project is a group of individuals who have committed their time and finances to investigate claims of innocence in convicted cases where DNA testing was never available. To date, over 200 individuals have been set free due to the DNA analysis of many rape cases confirming that the child born from a rape victim's DNA didn't match the accused and convicted individual. Hopefully, they will pick this flawed forensic test up and begin to look at the tens of thousands of people estimated to have been placed in prison solely on this bogus "bullet-lead analysis."

(Article continues below)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The test, now confirmed by the FBI's own admittance, has actually been used to connect people to crimes they never committed. The test was first initiated and used on July 8, 1964 by order of J Edgar Hoover for the Warren Commission to connect Lee Harvey Oswald to the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy. Throughout the following decades, this same test has been used to convict civil rights activists and gang members, many of which have maintained their "innocence."

The forensic test was the only major connection Oswald had to the actual scene of the crime. For Kennedy assasination researchers, this is a big leap. For years, the only evidence outside this forensic connection has been completely circumstantial. Oswald never confessed to the murder and actually stated to the public that he believed he was being made a patsy. Oswald was only picked up because an APB had been ordered in Dallas in his description, even though no one saw the shooter.

Oswald maintained that he had gone down to the parade to see the President's motorcade pass, as did everyone, when he was working that day. A famous picture surfaced that many researchers believe identifies Oswald in the doorway of the School Book Depository as the motorcade passed and was not in the sixth-floor window as he was accused to have been.

The interrogation which took place for several hours was not recorded, a violation of standard operating procedure. Oswald was murdered the next morning on live television while being transported in the parking garage at the local jail. Jack Ruby, the man who shot Oswald, was a major mafia/CIA connected nightclub owner and hated Kennedy with a passion. Kennedy's younger brother, Bobby Kennedy, was mounting a large scale war against organized crime, even though the Kennedy's had used the mafia in voter fraud crimes to get elected. The Kennedy empire was built from bootleging alcohol in an organized crime syndicate that Joe Kennedy, John and Bobby's father, ran with connections to Al Capone. Of the many odd factors in the assasination of the former president, it turns out Jack Ruby ran bootleging in Chicago for crime boss Al Capone in his early years as well.

'My husband is planning an accident in my car': Diana's sensational letter is revealed in full

TOM KELLY
UK Daily Mail
Thursday December 20, 2007

A handwritten letter from Princess Diana claiming that Prince Charles was plotting to kill her was shown to her inquest yesterday.

In the note, sent to her butler Paul Burrell, Diana suggested that her husband was "planning an accident in my car".

She also made the astonishing suggestion that Camilla Parker Bowles was just a "decoy" while Charles's real desire was to marry William and Harry's nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke.

A copy of the letter has previously been published, but the references to "my husband" and to Miss Legge-Bourke were blacked out. The uncensored version was revealed to the public after being read to the London hearing into the death of Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed.

(Article continues below)

It was sent in October 1993, ten months after Charles and Diana's separation was announced. Handwritten in black pen, it reads: "I am sitting at my desk today longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head high.

"This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. My husband is planning an accident in my car, brake failure or some serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry Tiggy. Camilla is nothing more than a decoy so we are being used by the man in every sense of the word."

Dodi's father, Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed, is convinced that the couple were killed by MI6 on the orders of Prince Philip because she was pregnant and they were about to announce their engagement.

The jury has already heard that Diana told her solicitor she feared both she and Camilla would be assassinated to allow the prince to marry the nanny.

She insisted to Lord Mishcon at a tense private meeting in October 1995 that "reliable sources" had informed her of the plan.

He kept it secret until after the Paris crash in which she died almost two years later.

The respected royal lawyer and Labour peer, who died aged 90 last year after a long illness, also said that the princess told him that Tiggy had undergone an abortion and that she would obtain a medical certificate to prove it.

Charles and Diana finally divorced in July 1996. Tiggy Legge-Bourke is now 42-year-old Mrs Alexandra Pettifer and runs a bed-and-breakfast business near Abergavenny, South Wales.

The inquest had earlier heard claims that the letter is a fake.

Lucia Flecha de Lima, a close friend of the princess, said the butler was "perfectly capable of imitating" her handwriting.

She added: "I still don't believe in it. I still don't believe she was fearing for her life, especially from Prince Charles, the future king of your country."

Full article here.

I TOLD YOU IT WAS COMING: Morgan Stanley issues full US recession alert

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
London Telegraph
Tuesday December 11, 2007

Morgan Stanley has issued a full recession alert for the US economy, warning of a sharp slowdown in business investment and a "perfect storm" for consumers as the housing slump spreads.

In a report "Recession Coming" released today, the bank's US team said the credit crunch had started to inflict serious damage on US companies.

"Slipping sales and tightening credit are pushing companies into liquidation mode, especially in motor vehicles," it said.

"Three-month dollar Libor spreads have jumped by 60 to 80 basis points over the last month. High yield spreads have widened even more significantly. The absolute cost of borrowing is higher than in June."

(Article continues below)

"As delinquencies and defaults soar, lenders are tightening credit for commercial, credit card and auto lending, as well as for all mortgage borrowers," said the report, written by the bank's chief US economist Dick Berner. He said the foreclosure rate on residential mortgages had reached a 19-year high of 5.59pc in the third quarter while the glut of unsold properties would lead to a 40pc crash in housing construction.

"We think overall housing starts will run below one million units in each of the next two years -- a level not seen in the history of the modern data since 1959," he said.

Although the US job market has apparently held up well, an average monthly fall of 138,000 in the number of self-employed workers over the last quarter suggests it may now be buckling. "Consumers face what could be a perfect storm," said Mr Berner.

The partial freeze on subprime mortgage rates announced last week by US treasury secretary Hank Paulson may help cushion the blow for some banks, but it could equally backfire by adding a "risk premium" that drives even more lenders out of the mortgage market.

U.S.: Iran Halted Nuke Work In 2003

By Ray Locker and Richard Willing

12/03/07 "USA TODAY" -- -- WASHINGTON — Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and has not resumed work toward building nuclear weapons, a National Intelligence Estimate released Monday said.
The estimate, reflecting the collective judgment of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies, also concludes that Tehran likely is "keeping open the option" to develop nuclear weapons in the future by continuing to build missiles and pursue a civilian nuclear power program.

The estimate reverses claims made two years ago that Iran appeared "determined to develop" a nuclear weapons program.

"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," the report said. "Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously."

President Bush was briefed on the findings Wednesday. The Bush administration, which has vigorously claimed Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, called the estimate good news, although it undercut some of the administration's claims.

"Today's National Intelligence Estimate offers some positive news," national security adviser Stephen Hadley said in a prepared statement. "It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen."

The estimate also concluded with "moderate-to-high confidence" that Iran has not obtained enough materials from abroad to build a nuclear weapon. Iran, the report said, has probably imported some "fissionable" material, such as uranium, to develop a weapon.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly insisted that his nation's nuclear program is aimed only at developing a power source for civil society.

The report also said:

— The earliest Iran could assemble enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb is late 2009, although that is "very unlikely."

— Iran would be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb in the 2010-2015 time frame.

— Iran is developing the scientific capabilities to create a bomb if it chooses to do so. For example, its "civilian uranium enrichment program" is continuing.

— Iran retains the "scientific, technical and industrial capacity" to produce nuclear weapons in the future if its leaders decide to.

Silvestre Reyes, D-Tex, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, called the about face on Iran's nuclear program a "remarkable shift." He vowed to question intelligence officials closely about the classfied sources upon which they based their judgment.

Intelligence officials who helped prepare the estimate made no apologies for overlooking that the weapons program had been halted in the 2005 NIE. The officials said new information indicates that the Iranians halted their secret program in late 2003, less than 12 months before the 2005 estimates was prepared. New information causing the intelligence agencies to conclude that the program had been halted continued to be evaluated until a few weeks ago.

In 2007, the Iranian government allowed some journalists to visit a nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz. U.S. intelligence officials viewed photographs the journalists made and concluded that Tehran continues to face "significant technical problems" in using the facility to enrich uranium.

The estimate said officials lack sufficient intelligence to "judge confidently" whether Iran plans to re-start its weapons program.

Iran's decision to halt the program was "guided by a cost-benefit approach" that took into account the "political, economic and military costs" of continuing in the face of world scrutiny and possible sanctions.

Continued pressure, combined with "opportunities" for Iran to obtain prestige and regional influence without a weapons program, might encourage Tehran to continue the current halt.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released about 2 1/2 pages of the NIE's declassified "key judgments." The full estimate is about 140 pages.