A week after a van with diplomatic plates was ambushed by Mexican Federal Police members, wounding two CIA agents, neither the U.S. or Mexican governments have much to say about the incident.

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland treated a question on the attack like the political hot potato it is. She seemed to plead for the next question, and the lack of diligence by the reporter made for an easy dodge.

QUESTION: Additionally, there’s been an increasing controversy in Mexico over the incident with the U.S. diplomatic convoy, particularly the firing on the U.S. diplomatic van. The Embassy in Mexico initially classified it as an ambush. The Mexican Government says it was an accident. Which is it? And then can you confirm some of the – what were these two individuals (inaudible) link – to what U.S. agency were they linked?

MS. NULAND: As you know, the Mexican Government is investigating this incident. Our Embassy is cooperating in that investigation and trying to assist it in any way that we can. I’m not going to get ahead of the investigation – I think we’re going to wait and see what that concludes – nor am I going to get into speculating on any of the specifics until we see what the investigation leads to.
Please.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up: Have you taken any extra steps to protect U.S. borders in Mexico after this incident?
MS. NULAND: Well, we –
QUESTION: Are you worried about this?
MS. NULAND: We always are in a strong security posture around the world as necessary, but we don’t speak about any of the details of that.
Anything else? Please.

It seems both the U.S. and Mexican governments have handed down a gag order on the strange incident. On the U.S. side the DEA came out with a statement denying that any of their agents were involved. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported what the Mexican paper La Jornada had reported earlier:

The two Americans who were wounded when gunmen fired on an American Embassy vehicle last week were Central Intelligence Agency employees sent as part of a multiagency effort to bolster Mexican efforts to fight drug traffickers, officials said on Tuesday.

What do we know and not know about the ambush?

1. The van was taking the two CIA agents to train new Navy recruits at a firing range outside Mexico City. It was clearly identified and well-known to people in the area. The U.S. government has often cited its preference for the Navy and mistrust of the Army in Mexico, so Navy war games having nothing to do with water are common in this drug war.
2. A green Chrysler drove up and blocked the way of the Toyota van. The driver immediately threw the car into reverse to escape. (First question: If this were indeed a case of mistaken identity, how did the driver immediately know this was an attack?)
3. A second car cut off passage from behind. Shots were fired but the Toyota was armored.
4. The Toyota again tried to escape and manage to proceed to a gas station where it continued to be fired on, with some bullets penetrating the protective shields and injuring the passengers.
5. The assailants fled when police cars arrived and were later captured. Twelve Federal Police agents have been arrested.

What does this bizarre incident indicate?

So far both governments seem to be preparing some version of a case of “mistaken identity”. The NYT quotes anonymous US government officials as stating that “no evidence had emerged so far that the Americans were targeted because of their affiliation.”

However, both Reforma and La Jornada gathered detailed interviews from local evidence stating that anybody could see that the vehicle had diplomatic plates and that the agents comings and goings are common knowledge in the area. The possibility that the Federal Police did not know who they were shooting at is extremely low.

The next obvious question is: why did the Mexican police shoot the CIA agents?

Speculation has emerged that these police were in cahoots with an organized crime group. That’s pretty common here. Generally speaking, when organized crime shoots a U.S. agent, it’s to send a message, not just to get rid of somebody. They know that the action will have binational ramifications.

In this scenario, it’s hard to say what the potential message was. I´m not going to speculate on that until we know more.

The officers’ families have offered explanations that it was a simple mistake and/or that their relatives were fired on first. They were quoted as fearing a frame-up to “stay on the United States’s good side”.

If history is any indication, we may never know what really happened. One certainly gets the impression that this incident is not something either drug war ally wants to talk about. Compare the response of the U.S. government to the shooting of ICE agent Jaime Zapata on Feb. 15, 2011, when it immediately demanded justice and participated in the investigation of  The Mexican government also called that a case of mistaken identity, and probably will continue to claim all such cases are mistaken identity, since admitting that US agents are targeted could jeopardize the many programs that send U.S. agents to Mexico

It also indicates that U.S. funding to the Mexican federal police force, which has run in the millions since the Merida Initiative began in 2008, is funding a force that attacks U.S. agents, not to mention the massive evidence of violation of Mexicans’ human rights and attacks on their lives.

The NYT article notes the evident irony:

Through programs like the $1.6 billion Merida initiative, the United States has spent millions of dollars on training and equipping the federal police.

 This incident further derails the Washington argument that the police force is an acceptable option for funding the drug war since it is being “reformed”.

The conservative Wall Street Journal noted the “embarrassment” to the Mexican government of having its Federal Police Force go for the jugular of the hand that feeds it:

The incident has proved an embarrassment for the Mexican government, which receives millions of dollars annually in U.S. aid for its drug war and which has touted its federal police as the most professional force.

In addition to the embarrassment of Federal Police misbehavior, there is the issue of why CIA agents are training young Mexican Navy recruits to shoot their own people.

U.S. growing involvement in Mexico has raised the eyebrows and the ire of some members of Congress here in Mexico City. Since the ambush, they have called for a hearing and demanded that the Calderon administration give out information on the extent and the activities of U.S. agents.

This is a question that many of us have had for a long time now.

AUTHOR: Laura Carlsen
URL: www.cipamericas.org and http://americasmexico.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: lecarlsen [at] gmail.com

King is alleging the source of recent news reports on a plan that should have remained secret is the Obama White House.

“The administration’s leaks must stop before they further endanger the lives of men and women sent into harm’s way on our nation’s behalf,” stated Rep. King.

“To me, all the evidence points towards the White House, and that compromises us because there were two other major allies involved with us in that, and there are tremendous hard feelings and a sense of betrayal from them,” King said on Fox News.

News reports appeared in newspapers and aired in broadcast news stories on Thursday and Friday saying the President gave the go-ahead to provide Syrian rebels with “non-lethal” aid.

For example, Reuters reported that a U.S.-supported “secret command center” against the Assad regime is located in Adana, Turkey. The story is proof that the Obama administration has a serious problem with keeping secrets secret, said King.

In response to these latest leaks, King immediately wrote a memorandum to Robert Mueller, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, requesting that the FBI special agents already investigating security leaks add these new reports to their probe.

“These reported disclosures represent additional disturbing and irresponsible leaks of potentially classified information from this Administration,” King stated in his letter to Mueller. “Obviously, the ongoing investigations have failed to deter further leaks.”

King stated on Fox News: “The only thing I can think of this is an attempt to rehabilitate the president going into an election year to show that he’s a tough guy. The president deserves credit for killing Osama bin Laden, but at that time they went beyond anything that had to be disclosed. I think it’s to enhance his reputation and it’s done in an irresponsible way.”

“This series of leaks — going back to when the Navy SEALs killed the world’s number one terrorist leader, Osama bin Laden — is by far more serious than the media circus of the Valerie Plame-CIA incident that forced the Bush administration to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the so-called outing of a CIA officer,” said former NYPD police detective and military intelligence officer Sid Franes.

“And instead of outrage in the White House over these security breaches, all we get is finger-pointing and accusations about an alleged Republican witch hunt,” said Franes.

The Obama administration has been enduring repeated criticism over not aiding the rebels against the corrupt and oppressive Assad regime. “What better way to get positive press than to create a secret plan that shows action on the part of Obama, and then leak it to news reporters who, for the most part, want to see Obama re-elected in November,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

AUTHOR: Jim Kouri
URL: http://www.renewamerica.com/
E-MAIL: COPmagazine [at] aol.com

Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland

Baroness Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice-President of the European Commission, European Union

Dear High Representative Ashton,

I am William Nicholas Gomes, Human Rights Ambassador for Salem News.com. In past I have brought different incidents of the harassment, intimidation, use of coercion, violence, and other abuses against members of the media by state security forces in Pakistan.

I am writing to express concern regarding yet another case serious attempt by security agency to murder Pakistan’s most renowned human rights activist Asma Jahangir.

Asma Jahangir, a lawyer who formerly chaired the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, has been a staunch advocate of media freedom and journalists’ rights. She has long been the target of Pakistanis of many different sorts who resent her criticism of the social and political imbalances that mar Pakistan’s society.

Asma Jahangir has revealed the details regarding the threat in an interview with Deutsche Welle. Asma was interview by shamil shams, where she has made clear about the very serious allegations against the Pakistani security agencies, including the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). She said “I am a very responsible person, and I do not usually make these kinds of allegations. I have been threatened many times in my life but I never went to the police and never made any hue and cry about it. I believe now it is my duty to speak up and say what is needed to be said. My sources are extremely reliable.”

She has also discussed about the possible reasons for the attempt to murder. She said “It is true that I have been critical of them but I have never been unduly critical. I am critical of their policies, which I do not agree with. I think that, in whatever I have said – for instance in my role as a lawyer in the missing people’s cases – I have repeated what people said in court. I hoped that there would be a change in the mindset of the establishment, which unfortunately doesn’t appear to have happened.”

Asma has revealed the ongoing impunity and role of the government in the interview . She said “Well, I have sent a very clear message to the Pakistan People’s Party’s government that they are the ones who are responsible for my protection, and if my protection is not adequate I will hold them responsible. So far, some protection has been provided to me but it is not sufficient. And more importantly, I have communicated to the government that it is not for me to go to the intelligence agencies and speak to them; it is the government’s duty to talk to them. And they should not do it only for me but to change the way they deal with the people of Pakistan.”

Asma has revealed the absent of rule of law and rule of ISI in her interview , where in answering the question You are a prominent human rights activist and lawyer. Do you think the ISI and other security agencies could kill an internationally renowned person like yourself?, she said “Let me remind you of our history. Prominent people have been killed in Pakistan just like in any other country. The difference between Pakistan and other countries is that in Pakistan nobody ever knows who is responsible for these murders. Akbar Bugti (the Baloch nationalist leader) was also a very prominent person. There was a warning that he would be killed. There was a warning that they would go after him. And when he was actually killed, nobody was held responsible.”

The interview has revealed the seriousness of the threat to murder Asma.

EU knows that Pakistan faces serious human rights challenges, including widespread killings, disappearances, and targeting of religious minorities and this specific incident attempt or plotting to murder the prominent human rights activist shows how bad in shape the protection a right to life is in Pakistan, the presence of a dysfunctional state mechanism and absence of rule of law.

I will quote what Ali Dayan Hasan, Pakistan director at Human Rights Watch said. “A threat against Jahangir is a threat to all those in Pakistan who struggle for human rights and the rule of law.”

I urge you during your meeting with the Pakistani high official, please ask them to immediately insure the security of Asma Jahangir and order an investigation on the plot against Asma Jahangir and hold all those responsible to account, regardless of position or rank. Please ask the Pakistan government to take immediate initiative to bring all intelligence agencies made accountable through “parliamentary oversight.”

Thank you for your consideration.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

It’s a government-wide call to end Islamophobia, according to a blog by a Washington, DC-based watchdog group that investigates, exposes and prosecutes government corruption.

A few months after the Obama White House ordered an investigation of government counterterrorism training, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has destroyed instructional material that characterizes Muslims as prone to violence or terrorism, according to the Judicial Watch blog.

So far 700 pages of documents from about 300 presentations given to agents since the 2001 terrorist attacks have been purged, according to a new report published this week. The White House order came after the same publication reported in late November that the FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ) and Pentagon taught employees that mainstream Muslims embrace violence and compared the Islamic religion to the death star.

And the purge of training material regarding Islamic terrorism from law enforcement training is only the beginning. Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress that anti-Muslim instructional materials hurt the country’s fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. As a result of this mentality, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were asked to collect counterterrorism training materials at all military academies and academic centers such as the National Defense Intelligence College and the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center.

“The goal, evidently, is to banish any material that could be viewed as offensive to Muslims,” said the JW blog.

To fulfill this politically-correct mission, the FBI enlisted the Army Combating Terrorism Center at West Point to purge material that conflates terrorism with mainstream Islam, according to inside information cited in the Judicial Watch report. The cleansing also includes a White House review on any information related to “cultural awareness” training for troops that were preparing to deploy to the Middle East.

This appears to be part of a wider Muslim outreach effort on the part of the Obama Administration and the president’s allies in Congress. Last spring, for instance, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee quietly scheduled a special hearing to better protect Muslim civil rights in America. Organized by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin — arguably one of the most sympathetic lawmakers to Islamic causes — the event came in “response to the spike in anti-Muslim bigotry” and marked the first ever congressional hearing on Muslim civil rights.

It was Durbin who on the floor of the Senate in 2004 called U.S. soldiers Nazis, and detention centers such as Guantanamo Bay “gulags.” He later apologized, but his constituents were happy to hear him denigrating U.S. troops since his district has a very large Muslim population, according to news reports.

According to the Examiner, other Muslim outreach efforts under Obama included; Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano meeting to discuss national security matters with a group of extremist Muslim organizations including members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the nation’s space agency (NASA) being ordered to focus on Muslim diplomacy, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signing a special order to allow the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S.

AUTHOR: Jim Kouri
URL: http://www.renewamerica.com/
E-MAIL: COPmagazine [at] aol.com

“It’s no secret that whenever there’s a terrorist bombing or other large-scale attack in any country throughout the world, within hours you’ll see New York detectives on the scene observing and reporting facts to One Police Plaza in Manhattan,” says former undercover police officer Iris Quinones.

“This is how we stay on top of information on terrorist groups, bomb-makers, weapons of mass destruction and identifying individual terror suspects,” she said.

“Like it or not, New York is the nation’s number one target for Islamic terrorists. It’s the home base for many law enforcement and government agencies and the media center of the country,” said Mike Snopes, a former detective and military intelligence officer.

The NYPD said it is increasing security at synagogues and other Jewish institutions after talks between President Barack Obama and Israeli officials about a possible attack to prevent the Iranians from constructing a nuclear weapon.

The city has invested millions of dollars in state-of-the-art equipment and vehicles. For example, as reported in the Examiner, the New York City Police Department’s acquisition of new, high-tech equipment will help police officers keep the city safe from terrorists: the NYPD’s Harbor Unit now possesses unmanned underwater drones to help bomb technicians and emergency services unit officers to detect suspected underwater explosives.

Iran Blamed for Bomb Plots by Israeli Government

Israeli officials blamed three bomb plots this week on Iranian terrorists — including one who blew off his own leg with a botched grenade toss in Bangkok.

Tuesday’s blast in Thailand followed the bombing of an Israeli diplomatic car in New Delhi, where four people were wounded on Monday.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday blamed the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah for two attacks against Israeli embassies in India and Georgia, according to a Law Enforcement Examiner source in the Israeli National Police, who requested anonymity.
“Iran is behind these attacks,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.

Last month, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress that Iranian leadership was more inclined to strike directly at the United States over real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten their regime.

The U.S. and Iran have been at odds since the ouster of the Shah of Iran during the Carter Administration. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lambastes the United States and Israel on s daily basis as his nation develops nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.

Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.) said if they decide to attack, the city would be the bull’s eye. “New York is the No. 1 target,” King said. “New York has all the targets that terrorists want.”

AUTHOR: Jim Kouri
URL: http://www.renewamerica.com/
E-MAIL: COPmagazine [at] aol.com

Brent Meersman on why we should be concerned by the Intelligence General Laws Amendment Bill.. ‘Boss, the old apartheid Bureau of State Security, is back’, says Laurie Nathan, director of the Centre for Mediation in Africa… ‘A process of ‘Stasi-fication’ is underway’, claims DA MP David Maynier…

SA will be ruled by a new Stasi

Writes Meersman: “What they are referring to is the proposed Intelligence General Laws Amendment Bill . This is the latest assault by the executive through the legislature on the democratic freedom of all South Africans, rich and poor. Alarmist? Maybe. But one should make no apology for asking a few hard questions when dealing with proposals that affect our fundamental rights.

Surveillance of interception of internet communications without a warrant

For now let’s dub it the “Stasi Bill”, because it brings into existence an organisation with the same name as the one that existed in East Germany, and it legalises broad powers of interception and surveillance of our telephone conversations, email, and internet communications without a warrant.

The Stasi Bill will bring the Secret Service, National Intelligence Agency, the Office of Interception Services among several others – under one Big Brother bureau. In 2009, this single department, the State Security Agency, was established by Presidential Proclamation (probably unlawfully).

As I wrote here a month ago, it is damaging that the debate around the Secrecy Bill has become couched in the public mind as a battle between the media and a majority government. It is much more than that. The Secrecy Bill and the Stasi Bill form part of the same revision process ordered by the president and pushed by the intelligence community.

The express purpose of the Secrecy Bill is to make for iron-clad classification of the activities of the State Security Agency. Together they will create a security state within the state.

Jacob Zuma and his closest confidantes have been spooks in one guise or another

These development need to be seen in context. Jacob Zuma was for years head of intelligence in the ANC. We must assume he knows what he wants out of this process. His closest confidantes have been spooks in one guise or another: Mac Maharaj, Moe Shaik et al.

Zuma has been the target of attempts to abuse the intelligence services for political gain (the infamous Browse Mole Report, the hoax emails, the Zuma spy tapes, Billy Masethle’s firing etcetera). Subsequently, Zuma himself has been accused (by Athol Trollip of the DA) of using the intelligence services for political surveillance.

The man running the Stasi-Operation in SA will be in charge of the entire security establishment

“Our security establishment is certainly populated with colourful and shady figures. In 2003 there was the so-called sensational “Bheki Jacobs” dossier (it led to his arrest). That dossier would have had us believe ‘Operation Vula’ was still going; that Mbeki would be deposed and replaced with Jacob Zuma and his co-conspirator Mac Maharaj. Clearly, as time has shown, this was nonsense.”

“Conflicts within the intelligence services arising from different political agendas are therefore an irrefutable reality. Amalgamation will not solve that problem; all it means is there is to be just one agenda, and the man in charge will set that agenda.

After the horror show of apartheid our state intelligence community was “reformed”. But recidivism among spooks is high. Do our intelligence operatives finally embrace the spirit of the Constitution? Has our President for that matter – with his very different intelligence roots – embraced it?
Both the apartheid securocrats and the intelligence agents of the liberation movement operated in a highly secretive ethos — very different from the democratic intelligence service we now wish to establish.

Senior politicians have this nasty habit of seeing ‘bloody agents’ and ‘foreign spies’ among civil society

“It is discouraging then when senior politicians have this nasty habit of make-believe, seeing “bloody agents” and “foreign spies” among civil society; while our officials are two-thirds of the time unable to tell State from Party. The ruling party would do well to humbly remind itself of its many intelligence failures historically, and its overzealous internal security department that still has things to answer for.

What will stop operatives interpreting their mandate as they see fit? When accountability is so low in almost every government department, how can we be assured state security will be an exception?

Times have definitely changed. Our Ministry of State Security no longer exists to strike fear into the hearts of the public. It even has a Facebook page (‘Liked’ by only 50 people) and a Twitter account (you can follow their rather wry interactions with Maynier).

What is the threat?

This is to be encouraged. A new democratic culture of intelligence has still to take root. But the Stasi and Secrecy Bills could strangle that process.That our intelligence service has in the past decade leaked like a sieve and is not widely considered to be very effective is a real concern if we accept that our national security is under threat.

But what is the threat? Is it Tibetan separatists? Industrial spy rings? Crime syndicates? The Landless People’s Movement? Political dissent? Or is it – to use that dreadfully vague, ideologically loaded word from our past and the USA’s present (which in my view we should not have imported into our legislation) – “terrorists”?

You would know if NIP, the list of National Intelligence Priorities approved annually by Cabinet, wasn’t classified.

A member of the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI) murmured darkly to me that there are malevolent forces at work in the Republic. Listening to him you would have thought the JSCI were the ‘Men in Black’ allowing us lowly citizens to happily get on with our lives oblivious to the flying saucers invading from outer space. If such threats exist, what evidence is there? Are these clear and present dangers or just the amorphous imaginings of securocrats? The government must take us into its confidence. It should keep us informed. Even the CIA manages that without jeopardising their operations.

Are these two Bills intended to bring our intelligence agencies to proper order, or is it about bringing them to political heel? What does “protecting the state” mean when politicians and state bureaucrats do and can use state power to serve their interests against their opposition or rival factions? Do these bills promote a new intelligence culture or are we backsliding?

“ Former intelligence minister Ronnie Kasrils also found that our intelligence services often do not obey the law…’

Constitutional Law Professor Pierre de Vos points to the fact that the Bills ignore some of the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, and do not take sufficient cognisance of the recommendations of the “Matthews Commission” formed under former intelligence minister Ronnie Kasrils.

The latter found that our intelligence services often do not obey the law, and that they repeatedly breach the constraints and guidance of the Constitution.
Then there is the security budget. It too is classified and that is no small matter. It was precisely this kind of classified funding that allowed the most egregious (and illegal even under apartheid law) violations to happen. Both the Treasury and the Auditor-General find it hard to see how classification is justified. The only ostensible oversight is from the JSCI’s perusal. And those minutes too are classified.

In a living democracy each and every secret should be robustly justified. Are we instead setting off down the same road of current international bad practice that we witness happening in Western democracies around the world? Why should we think South African securocrats would behave any less badly given such laws?

WE the People were not invited to the opening of our parliament – even pedestrians were banned…there were even snipers on the roofs

That our state security is on a roll was in evidence this week at the arrangements around the State of the Nation address in parliament. Even pedestrians were banned. We the people were not invited to the opening of our parliament.

Prince Buthelezi, in one of his clearer moments, complained that the “extreme”, “unnecessarily tight security measures” was proof enough that “the securocrats have taken over”. There were even snipers on the roofs. Such is the nature of any security bureaucracy once set in motion; it develops a life of its own, ever more perfected, increasingly impregnable and secret.

As its methods are refined and its abilities become more exhaustive, it transforms into something quite different from what was initially envisaged.

As perceived or actual enemies are uncovered, it expands its definition of what constitutes a threat. Success breeds suspicion. In the end, comes a mindless tyranny over which even its creators lose control – Vlakplaas, Guatanamo Bay, the Stasi.

Far-fetched? We have already deported at least one individual to extraordinary rendition. Do our agencies see international co-operation as more important than protecting our constitutional rights?

Paranoid? Of course, but I’d be less paranoid if I knew this legislation was more tightly drafted in line with the Johannesburg Principles and the 2008 Ministerial Review Commission on Intelligence (for openers); if I knew it was free of executive agendas.

We must hope our Constitutional Court will help us find the balance between democracy and secrecy. But there is enough here to unsettle one, not least the slippage between law and practice.

“When it comes to the activities of a secret police, as with the classification of state information, society needs to be extremely vigilant and everything that can be done to counter potential abuse now or in a future dispensation should be done.”

AUTHOR: Adriana Stuijt
URL: http://censorbugbear.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: a.j.stuijt [at] knid.nl

They played a key role to limit and censor media outlets that was critical, or provoked opposition against its policies, leaked US diplomatic cables revealed. The cables, published by whistleblower website Wikileaks on last August 30, say the military intelligence along with other officials discreetly phoned and suggested how to cover the day’s news, leading the media outlets to practice self censorship.

On the other hand, the rights activist Ahmed Swapan Mahmud demanded stringent data protection legislation to secure personal information and uphold privacy rights in the light of the constitution. He reiterated that any interception or surveillance of email, messaging, telephony involving recording the conversations of clients is illegal for any operator, said Mahmud.

AUTHOR: Saleem Samad
URL: http://bangladeshwatchdog.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: saleemsamad [at] hotmail.com