"Labour leadership contender Michael Meacher strongly condemned the latest proposal. 'I am alarmed that this has apparently been discussed at prime ministerial level for the past six months when the rest of us knew nothing about it,' he told Sky News. 'It does have big implications for us. It puts us in the frontline.' Paul Ingram, senior analyst at the British American Security Information Council (Basic) defence policy think tank, warned that it would make Britain a potential target for a missile attack, as well as risking a new arms race. He said: 'It makes Britain more vulnerable. If there is a country which seeks to attack the US with ballistic missiles, this is the first line of defence so we would be attacked first.'"
Blow to Blair as US rejects site key offer
Irish Examiner, 24 February 2007

"Russia's presidential Security Council said Monday it was developing a new national military doctrine that will take into account the growing role of military force in global politics.... While it did not mention the United States, the statement referred to the strengthening of NATO as one of the global policy factors that explain the need for Russia to revise its military doctrine. President Vladimir Putin last month accused Washington of the unrestrained use of force worldwide."
Kremlin: Russia to revise military doctrine to respond to growing role of force in world
Associated Press, 5 March 2007

"When President George W. Bush, in June 2001, looked into the eyes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and got 'a sense of his (Putin's) soul,' he should have looked deeper. Although the two world leaders got along quite well on a personal level, their initial meeting was strained by Russian concerns over the expansion of NATO and continuing U.S. efforts to develop a missile defense shield.... The American withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the expansion of NATO up to the borders of Russia in 2004 all severely tested the Russian leader's patience and credibility. The strong-handed U.S.-led approach toward confronting Iran in 2005-2006 strained the U.S.-Russian relationship to the breaking point. But it was the announcement by the United States in October 2006 that it would construct a major missile defense base in either Poland or the Czech Republic that apparently pushed the Russians over the edge. If the Bush administration continues to pursue its reckless policies of unilateral security, and if Russia follows up on its threat to withdraw from the INF Treaty, then the world will be a much more dangerous place for us all."
Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector
Russia Could Go Ballistic on American Missile Defense
Alternet, 23 February 2007

"The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally..The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally."
Iraq war illegal, says Annan
BBC Online, 16 September 2004

"Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said that oil was one of the reasons for the US-led invasion of Iraq, a Swedish news agency reports. 'I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly dependent on oil,' news agency TT quoted Blix as saying at a security seminar in Stockholm. 'They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too hard.' Blix, who helped oversee the dismantling of Iraq's weapons programs before the war, said another reason for the invasion was a need to move US troops from Saudi Arabia, TT reported. Competition over oil is creating tension between the United States and China, Blix said........."
Blix says war motivated by oil
Australian Associated Press, 7 April 2005

"We're there because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil, especially if it were a man like Saddam Hussein, with a large army and sophisticated weapons, would have a stranglehold on the American economy and on — indeed on the world economy."
Dick Cheney, US Secretary of Defense 1990
New York Times, 24 February 2006

"For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow."
Dick Cheney, Chief Executive of Halliburton, now Vice President of the United States
Speech at London Institute of Petroleum, Autumn Lunch 1999

Continuing The British Tradition - Filling The Middle East With Arms

"Britain has almost doubled the value of arms exports to Israel, according to official figures released yesterday. Arms exports to Israel approved by the government totalled £22.5m last year, almost twice the amount in 2004, according the latest annual report on strategic export controls published by four government departments. The report was released as the Liberal Democrat Leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, yesterday urged Tony Blair to suspend any further arms exports to Israel. 'In light of disproportionate military action by Israel in Lebanon and Gaza the UK government must suspend any further arms exports to Israel,' Sir Menzies wrote to the prime minister. He said the government was right to ensure there were no arms transfers, either direct or indirect, from Britain to Syria, Iran 'or illegal armed groups such as the military wing of Hizbullah'. He added: 'The government must now comply with its own arms export rules and institute an immediate suspension of all UK arms exports to Israel.' Licences approved for Israel last year included components for combat helicopters, aircraft radars, air-to-surface missiles and airborne electronic warfare equipment. Special licences were also approved for the sale to Israel of components for military training aircraft, naval radars, naval communications equipment, and optical sensors for unmanned air vehicles. These do not include components made by British companies in US Apache helicopters and F-16 bombers sold to Israel."
British arms exports to Israel double in a year
Guardian, 25 July 2006

"The al-Yamamah arms-for-oil deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia is the largest export order signed by the UK, but even after 22 years its controversial legacy clings to those involved.  The names linked with al-Yamamah read like an encyclopaedia of the past two decades. They include Margaret Thatcher, Michael Heseltine, Mark Thatcher and Tony Blair. ... BAE’s relationship with Saudi Arabia has become the focus of much attention and both the company’s and Britain’s reputation is being dragged through the mud. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) began an investigation into BAE’s involvement in al-Yamamah in 2004 amid allegations of corruption, bribery and the use of a slush fund to entertain members of the Saudi royal family. The investigation ground on month after month, gaining little traction outside the antiarms industry lobby. However, when the SFO tried to gain access to Swiss bank accounts with Saudi links, all hell broke loose. The UK’s relationship with the oil-rich nation was in danger of breaking down and the Prime Minister decided late last year to put national interests before the pursuit of justice. ... Mrs Thatcher’s son, Mark Thatcher, was subsequently accused of receiving commission payments for helping to set up the deal, which he denied.... The first two al-Yamamah deals were complicated oil-for-arms arrangements that cost Saudi Arabia a certain number of barrels of oil a day. This oil was transferred to BP and Shell, which in turn paid the value of the oil into an escrow account from which BAE received its money. However, the ink on the first al-Yamamah contract was barely dry when allegations began circulating about huge commission payments to middlemen such as Wafic Said, the billionaire financier and benefactor of Oxford University’s business school. Mr Said denies receiving any money from al-Yamamah.   A National Audit Office investigation into the deal found that the UK government had paid no bribes, but the 1992 report has never been published and BAE’s role never clarified. The bribery suspicions intensified after the Government accidentally released to the National Archive documents detailing the cost of Tornados under al-Yamamah. These documents, subsequently reclassified, were in the form of a telegram from Sir Colin Chandler, who was head of the defence export council and is now chairman of easyJet. The telegram showed that the price of the Tornados was being increased by a third to £21.5 million each, or an extra £600 million on the contract. ... sources familiar with al-Yamamah have alleged it was members of the Saudi royal family who asked for the increase in the contract’s value so that money could be diverted to Saudi-owned Swiss accounts. It might seem strange for the Saudis to pay more to BAE and then ask the company to put that money back into their own bank accounts, but in an all-powerful monarchy, a prince who falls out with the King can lose a substantial income. Al-Yamamah was a chance to create a rainy-day fund without it becoming obvious. No wonder that there was such consternation when the SFO began digging for dirt in Zurich."
Al-Yamamah an echo of 1980s sleaze
London Times, 21 February 2007

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article1415469.ece
London Times

February 21, 2007

Al-Yamamah an echo of 1980s sleaze

[Extract]

Players in controversial contract

Margaret Thatcher: The Prime Minister was heavily involved in persuading Saudi Arabia to buy British fighter jets. A Ministry of Defence briefing noted: “When, in the autumn of 1984, they seemed to be leaning towards French Mirage fighters, Mr Heseltine paid an urgent visit to Saudi Arabia, carrying a letter from the Prime Minister to King Fahd.” The King is reported to have become an admirer of Mrs Thatcher.

Mark Thatcher: The former Prime Minister’s son has been accused by Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP, and others of receiving commissions from the al-Yamamah deal. One report suggested he got £12 million.

Mark Thatcher is alleged to have been working as a back-channel negotiator for Wafic Said, an adviser on the deal. Both Mark Thatcher and Mr Said have denied receiving money through al-Yamamah.

Jonathan Aitken: As Defence Procurement Minister in 1992-93, Mr Aitken was involved in renegotiating part of the rolling al-Yamamah contract. He was accused of having a stay at the Ritz in Paris paid for by a Saudi businessman, which the minister denied. Mr Aitken was later proved to have perjured himself when he claimed that his wife paid the bill. Also at the Ritz that weekend was Wafic Said.

Doing deals

1966: Britain sells Lightning and Strikemaster aircraft to Saudi Arabia for first time
1985: Margaret Thatcher and King Fahd agree al-Yamamah arms-for-oil deal’s first phase
1988: Al-Yamamah 2 is confirmed, taking deal to more than $40 billion
1992: National Audit Office refuses to publish findings on the al-Yamamah deal
1992-93: Jonathan Aitken, the Defence Procurement Minister, negotiating later part of al-Yamamah deal. It is to be the background to his perjury trial in 1999
2004: Serious Fraud Office looks at alleged corruption in al-Yamamah deal
September 2006: UK and Saudi Arabia sign statement of understanding to replace the Tornados bought in al-Yamamah 1 and 2 with 72 Eurofighter Typhoons to be built by BAE
November 2006: Saudi Arabia says the $20 billion Typhoon deal is at risk as the SFO tries to investigate Saudi bank accounts
December 2006: The Government cites “national security” for its ending of SFO’s Saudi Arabia inquiries
2007: SFO inquiries go on into BAE deals with Chile, Tanzania, South Africa, Czech Republic and Romania

Shopping lists

Al-Yamamah 1 included:

48 Panavia Tornado Interdictive Strike Aircraft (ground attack)
24 Panavia Tornado Air Defence Variant
30 BAE Hawk Trainers
30 Pilatus PC9 Trainers
2 Jetstream jets

Al-Yamamah 2 included:

48 Tornados
60 BAE Hawks
90 helicopters

Al-Salam:

72 Eurofighter Typhoons

"Last week the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, met the US president, George Bush, in Washington for emergency talks. It is believed a congressional investigation into the September 11 2001 attacks implicates the Saudi government in financing the hijackers. Bush has refused to publish the relevant 28 pages of the report, while Riyadh has angrily dismissed allegations that have not yet been officially levelled... Britain has kept an investigation about arms sales to Saudi Arabia secret for more than 10 years, without so much as a whimper of protest from the Saudis. Following allegations of corruption in massive arms deals between Saudi Arabia and Britain in the 1980s, the national audit office (NAO) launched an investigation in 1989. The resulting report remains the only NAO document never to have been published, despite promises to release it by New Labour while in opposition. That may be about to change. In his book Investigative Reporting: A Guide to Techniques, David Spark writes that uncovering the truth about alleged corruption and the Al Yamamah arms deal is the holy grail of investigative journalists.... In October 1994, MP Tam Dalyell submitted documents to parliament that he claimed proved Mark Thatcher was also involved. The same month, the Financial Times revealed the PAC had decided not to investigate allegations that Thatcher Jr had received up to £12m from the deal. There was no mention of Mark Thatcher in the report - it was beyond the committee's remit - and Sir Mark has always denied receiving this payment or exploiting his mother's connections in his business dealings. If the Britain's relationship with the US is special, then our relationship with Saudi Arabia is staggering. The kingdom is a non-democratic state where last year 'gross human rights violations continued', according to Amnesty International in their latest human rights report. Torture and ill-treatment remain rife, and executions are still meted out for 'crimes' such as being gay, or for protesting against the closure of a mosque.... According to the Labour government's own figures, in 2001 Britain authorised £20.5m worth of arms exports to Saudi Arabia. Last year, the figure rose to £29m. Oil sales, arms sales and the kingdom's strategic position in the Middle East clearly take precedence over our government's policies towards non-democratic, corrupt and human rights abusing states.... Along with other questionable regimes, such as Indonesia, Colombia and Syria, the Saudi's were invited to shop for arms at the Defence Systems Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition in both 1999 and 2001. The Ministry of Defence refused last week to say if they were invited this year, but if the last few years are anything to go by, the Saudi's will shop for arms at London Docklands over the week of 11 September. The rest of the world will be remembering the terrorist attacks of two years before, attacks it appears the US secret document will reveal could have been partly financed by the Saudi government."
Out of arms way
Guardian, 8 August 2003

"For the last fourteen years, sales to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country with an indigenous population of only 12.6 million, have been the mainstay of the UK's arms trade. From 1992-94 the UK's arms sales to Saudi Arabia were 75 per cent of its total arms exports (House of Commons Defence Committee, 1999). These surprising figures are the result of the Al Yamamah deals, the huge UK arms sales initiated in 1986 and 1988 which are the subject of this briefing. These deals require analysis and questioning because of the vast amounts of money and weaponry involved and because so little information about the transactions is available.... It was also in 1994 that scandal erupted around the former Prime Minister's son, Mark Thatcher, much of it based on allegations made by the Saudi dissident, Mohammed Khilewi (Independent, 10.10.94; Guardian, 14.10.94; Sunday Telegraph, 16.10.94). As Anthony Sampson commented at the time, 'with the huge sums at stake, it would be surprising if some money did not find its way to the British side... To reward the son of the British Prime Minister - even if he gave no help - would be as natural as rewarding the King's son' (Times, 12.10.94). In October 1994 Mr Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for Linlithgow, submitted documents to officials in the House of Commons, a US intelligence report and an internal British Aircraft Corporation memo, which he claimed proved that Mark Thatcher was involved in Al Yamamah (Financial Times, 19.10.94). The all-party Public Accounts Committee, however, decided not to investigate the allegations that Mark Thatcher received commission payments of £12m from Al Yamamah as this was outside their remit of issues concerning taxpayers' money (Financial Times, 20.10.94)."
The Arabian Connection: The UK Arms Trade to Saudi Arabia
Campaign Against Arms Trade, May 2000

'The British Disease'
Labour Or Conservative, The Story Is The Same

"The government faced criticism of its record on arms exports as it revealed the extent of the UK's weapons sales to other countries last year. Ministers published their second annual report on arms exports amid claims by critics that Labour's 'ethical' foreign policy was in tatters. The report revealed that the government issued more than 10,000 individual arms licenses in 1998, including many to controversial countries such as Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. The number of 'open licences' which allow multi-shipments of arms without further reference to the government was up from 156 in 1997 to 566.... In the wake of the East Timor crisis much attention has focused on the report's disclosure that the number of licenses to Indonesia rose last year from 41 to 49 last year. MPs expressed outrage in September when it was revealed that £130m of taxpayers' money had been used over the past year to assist the Indonesian government to continue with the purchase of British-built Hawk jets.... Shadow Defence Secretary Iain Duncan Smith accused the government of hypocrisy over its approach to arms sales. 'While Conservatives welcome the news of a strong defence industry, Labour face the continued embarrassment of their blatant hypocrisy on arms sales,' said Mr Duncan Smith. 'All of the pre-election talk of turning swords into ploughshares has been shown up to be another part of the great Labour lie. Labour preach a holier than thou policy on arms sales, but the truth is that they have continued exactly the same policy as the Conservatives.'"
UK arms exports under scrutiny
BBC Online, 3 November 1999

The Role Model Message To Our Children
'Gang Culture And Violent Crime Pays'

"The government provoked a storm of protest in 2002 by introducing new guidelines on the sale of military components. It cleared the way for head-up display units (HUDs, for presenting data without blocking view) - made by BAE Systems, Britain's largest arms company - to be sold to the US for use in F-16 planes. Ministers said the move was dictated by the interests of British arms companies. British equipment used in American Apache helicopters supplied to Israel includes missile trigger systems."
British arms exports to Israel double in a year
Guardian, 25 July 2006

"Defence firm BAE Systems has reported a substantial rise in annual profits on the back of strong US growth. The firm, which is facing allegations of corruption in several key markets, saw pre-tax profits rise to £859m in 2006 from £557m the year before. BAE has denied wrongdoing, but remains under scrutiny, despite the Serious Fraud Office dropping a probe into a huge arms deal with Saudi Arabia.  The firm said its results were driven by an 'excellent' US performance... BAE said its business continued to be boosted by military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan ... ]"
US contracts bolster BAE Systems
BBC Online, 22 February 2007

"BAE Systems is expected to reveal a boost to sales following increased US defence spending when it posts its full-year results on Thursday. The company's US peers reported strong growth during the final quarter of 2006 - largely due to supplementary spending on the Iraq war. BAE is expected to reveal a similar lift and is also set to benefit from George Bush's proposal to spend £19bn to replace and repair war-damaged equipment during 2007. Analysts predict much of this will go towards ground vehicles, which should stand BAE in good stead as a prominent market leader along with General Dynamics. BAE bolstered its US business in June 2005 when it acquired United Defence Industries for £2.25bn. The City will also be looking for any update in relation to BAE's marine businesses. In January, BAE was reported to have teamed up with private- equity group Carlyle to launch a bid for the Devonport dockyard in Plymouth. A successful bid for Devonport, which maintains the Royal Navy's submarines, would put the firm in prime position to benefit from the proposed £25bn programme to build a new fleet of nuclear submarines."
BAE benefits from US spending in Iraq
Western Mail, 19 February 2007

"Carlyle, founded 20 years ago in the shadow of Washington's power centers, long went about its business far from the public eye. Its ranks were larded with the politically connected, including former Presidents, Cabinet members, even former British Prime Minister John Major. It used its partners' collective relationships to build a lucrative business buying, transforming, and selling companies--particularly defense companies that did business with governments. Carlyle might have continued happily in that niche except for the confluence of three events. First there were the terrorist attacks of September 11. In the aftermath, conspiracy theorists seized on Carlyle's huge profits, intense secrecy, and close dealings with wealthy Saudi investors. The scrutiny reached a crescendo in Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, which made Carlyle seem like the sort of company image-conscious investors like public pension funds might choose to avoid.... At this make-or-break juncture, Carlyle's founders, billionaires all, decided to refashion their firm radically--to transform it into something more ambitious, more diverse, and more lasting. Stage I of what some have dubbed the Great Experiment was largely cosmetic. The founders asked members of the bin Laden family to take back their money. They sat down with George H.W. Bush and John Major and discussed, improbable though it might seem, how the two were no longer wanted as senior advisers because they hurt the firm's image. Out went former Reagan Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci as chairman.... Stage II went much further and, indeed, might come to redefine the very nature of private equity. While other major buyout firms raise a few massive funds that hunt big prey--companies they can take private, rejigger financially, and, eventually, sell off or take public again--Carlyle has spread its money among no fewer than 48 funds around the world.... More important, Carlyle now deals in a broad swath of alternative assets that include venture capital, real estate, collateralized debt obligations, and other investing exotica, which now make up a third of its assets. Rubenstein expects that percentage to grow to half by 2012. By getting into so many different areas, Carlyle seeks to exploit lucrative opportunities now and gain flexibility later when the booming buyout market slumps. The risk lies in getting it right. Having never managed such disparate assets before, Carlyle is on a steep learning curve.... Carlyle's radical makeover has turned the firm into the biggest fund-raising juggernaut the private equity world has ever seen. By the end of this year it expects to have an unprecedented $85 billion in investor commitments under management, up sixfold from 2001 and more than any other firm expects..... Back in 1987 no one would have imagined that Carlyle's founders would one day count themselves among the private equity aristocracy.... Their fortunes turned when they wooed former Defense Secretary Carlucci to the firm in 1989. He delivered a sweet deal in his first year--a defense think tank called BDM International that was involved in large projects like manned space stations and, eventually, the deployment of Operation Desert Shield. 'All these little jewels were coming available from larger companies that were looking to [pare their holdings to] find their core competencies,' recalls D'Aniello. Carlyle was able to sell BDM in 1997 and make its investors 10.5 times their initial stake. The firm went on to become a force in the defense industry: Carlyle was one of the nation's 15 biggest defense contractors from 1998 to 2003, according to the Pentagon."
Carlyle Changes Its Stripes
BusinessWeek, 12 February 2007

"Carlyle Group this morning completed the sale of its 10.3 per cent stake in QinetiQ, the UK defence research company, at 205p per share, netting the US private equity group a £290 million cash return on its original investment. Carlyle, which has counted the UK's former Prime Minister, John Major, and former US President, George Bush, as directors, will reap a return of nearly eight times over five years after first acquiring a 30 per cent stake in QinetiQ in 2002 for just £42.4 million."
Carlyle nets almost £300m from QinetiQ sale
London Times, 9 February 2007

"Bosses at a defence firm mired in controversy over its privatisation have pocketed an £8m windfall which critics say should have gone to the taxpayer..... The Government, which still holds a 19% stake in the firm, also handed shares in the taxpayer-funded organisation to the US private equity company Carlyle in 2003 at a knock-down price. ..... Accusations of cronyism arose again last month when ministers awarded Qinetiq a £16bn contract to train the Armed Forces. Opposition MPs and rival bidders claimed the decision was politically motivated because the Government - as a major shareholder in the firm - had effectively awarded itself and its friends a lucrative 25-year contract. The announcement also helped drive up Qinetiq's share price. Career civil servant Love, who trained as a chartered accountant, became chief executive of Qinetiq in 2005 and led it to float on the London Stock Exchange in February 2006. He is now estimated to be worth £16m. Former MoD official Andrew Sleigh, right, who is the head of the company's defence division, is now thought to be worth around £7.7m. Qinetiq executives have been locked into a three-year deal which has meant they cannot sell their shares until now. They will be able to benefit from further windfalls over the next couple of years.... Liberal Democrat MP David Heath said that the taxpayer should be benefiting from the multi-million pound windfalls. He said: 'This was an extraordinarily well-built public sector company. But the MoD have sold it off under price and individuals are now cashing in vast sums of money which should have been returned to the Treasury for investment. I cannot believe that the public are not getting something back from these massive returns.' Carlyle - which counts President Bush and George Bush Senior as former advisers - last week announced it was selling its remaining stake for a £342m. Qinetiq last night refused to comment. The privatisation of the company is currently being scrutinised by the National Audit Office."
Anger at £8m for Qinetiq chiefs
Daily Mail, 16 February 2007

"Why are we not surprised at QinetiQ boss Graham Love's rush to sell a large wodge of his shares at the earliest possible opportunity? QinetiQ, for those with short memories, is the defence technology group privatised by the government last year in a controversial move that generated paper fortunes worth more than £20m for the group's chairman and chief executive, Sir John Chisholm and Love. Yesterday Love and Andrew Sleigh, managing director of the business, leapt at the chance to turn their shares into real money - about £6m and £1.8n respectively. They acted just days after the first phase of a lock-in agreement came to an end. The three-phase lock-in allows directors to sell about a third of their shares after 12, 24 and 36 months. Love chose to flog 27% of his holding ASAP.... His dealings came days after the US private equity group Carlyle cashed in its last chips in QinetiQ. The sale ended a highly lucrative and controversial investment for the Americans. They acquired 31% of QinetiQ from the UK government for £42m in 2003. They then raised some £160m selling part of their stake at flotation and a week ago sold the rest, raising £140m. Carlyle, whose image was so battered by Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and whose directors once included the former president Bush and ex-prime minister John Major, is now out of the picture and evidently attempting an image makeover. For shareholders who rushed to buy QinetiQ at the float, it has not been an impressive year. The shares, floated at 200p, were standing at 206p last night. And the company, which recently installed the former CIA boss George Tenet on its board, remains contentious. Only last month the government, - QinetiQ's biggest shareholder with a 19% stake - was involved in a row after making consortiums led by the company preferred bidders on a £16bn private finance initiative contract for the MoD. Why does the defence business always seem so tawdry?"
QinetiQ stock dealings make some trigger happy
Guardian, 16 February 2007

The Priority Is Arms Sales Not Counter-Terrorism

"Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, but said Wednesday that the oil-rich kingdom bears no responsibility for their actions."
Official: 15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi
Associated Press, 6 February 2002

"Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Senator Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday. The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers 'would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,' the Florida Democrat wrote. And in Graham's book, 'Intelligence Matters,' obtained by The Miami Herald yesterday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees. ..... According to Graham, the FBI and the White House blocked efforts to investigate the extent of official Saudi connections to two hijackers. Graham wrote that the staff of the congressional inquiry concluded that two Saudis in the San Diego area, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassan, who gave significant financial support to two hijackers, were working for the Saudi government."
9/11 hijackers tied to Saudi government, Graham says in book
Boston Globe, 5 September 2004

Saudi Arabia's Dictatorship Is A Massive Market For British And American Arms
But Comparatively Democratic Iran Won't Be Until There Is 'Regime Change'

"For the last fourteen years, sales to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country with an indigenous population of only 12.6 million, have been the mainstay of the UK's arms trade. From 1992-94 the UK's arms sales to Saudi Arabia were 75 per cent of its total arms exports (House of Commons Defence Committee, 1999)."
The Arabian Connection: The UK Arms Trade to Saudi Arabia
Campaign Against Arms Trade, May 2000

"Saudi Arabia is America’s top customer. Since 1990, the U.S. government, through the Pentagon’s arms export program, has arranged for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in  foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Department’s direct commercial sales program during that same period."
Country Profile, Saudi Arabia
Federation of American Scientists, March 2002

"It has been another awful week for Tony Blair, perhaps even worse than the mid-summer meltdown triggered by his fatally misjudged support for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. First there was the craven surrender to Saudi Arabia’s demand for the suspension of Britain’s anti-corruption laws if they impinge on the personal finances of Saudi princes.... Take yesterday’s speech in Dubai, in which Mr Blair denounced Iran and called for an 'alliance of moderation' to challenge this founder member of what Mr Bush called the 'Axis of Evil'.... Mr Blair delivered his diatribe just days after Iran held a reasonably fair election that resulted in a victory for the country’s more pragmatic politicians and a considerable setback for its anti-Western extremists. Mr Blair constantly cites the supposed democracy in Iraq as the main reason for persisting with the Occupation and hoping for stability. But now he describes the Government produced by Iranian democracy, which for all its flaws seems no worse than the Iraqi version, as the greatest 'strategic threat' in the region..... Most bizarrely of all, Mr Blair’s identification of Iran as the source of the 'ideological battle' that would dominate the 21st century came less than a week after his very personal interaction with the country that really is the financial and spiritual homeland of al-Qaeda, the 9/11 terrorists and the majority of foreign insurgents fighting in Iraq. This country is, of course, Saudi Arabia. That Saudi Arabia remains deeply involved in the terrorist nexus was implicitly acknowledged by Mr Blair himself when he declared last week that Britain would face a greater risk of terrorist attack if the Saudi Government withdrew its security co-operation. That the Saudi Government has made its security co-operation conditional on Mr Blair blocking any further investigations into the sweeteners paid to Saudi princes by British companies shows the shallowness of the country’s supposed commitment to the War on Terror....Why, then, have Mr Blair and Mr Bush identified Iran as the main enemy in the struggles that lie ahead? There seems to be only one plausible answer. Iran may be closer to democracy and less involved in anti-Western terrorism than other important Middle Eastern countries, but it is also much larger, more powerful and therefore potentially threatening to the interests of the two dominant, but inherently unstable, powers in the region — Saudi Arabia and Israel."
You're attacking the wrong nation, Mr Blair
London Times, 21 December 2006

In 20 or 30 Years From Now All The Outstanding Instalments
From The Al-Yamamah and Al-Salam Arms Deals Will Have Been Paid
Then Maybe We Can Discuss 9/11?

But More Than One Foreign Government Involved?

".... I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States. I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots. To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. .... I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government .....  It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now."
Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Select Committe On Intelligence
Improving Intelligence
PBS Online, 11 Dec 2002

Both Saudi Arabia And Pakistan Stand Accused

"A top FBI counter-terrorism official told the US Senate governmental affairs committee on Thursday that investigators have 'traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan.' John S Pistole, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counter-terrorism division, however, did not specify how those accounts in Pakistan were funded, or the role of Pakistani elements. The Times of India first reported on October 10, 2001 that India told the US that some $100,000 had been wired to the leader of the hijackers, Mahmud Atta, by British-born terrorist Ahmad Saeed Umar Sheikh. Indian authorities also told the US that the trail led back from Sheikh to the then chief of ISI, Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmad who was subsequently forced to retire by Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf. The FBI had been provided with the details, including Sheikh’s mobile numbers. But Pistole’s testimony is silent on these issues.... The FBI has estimated the September 11 attacks cost between $175,000 and $250,000. That money — which paid for flight training, travel and other expenses — flowed to the hijackers through associates in Germany and the United Arab Emirates. Those associates reported to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who managed much of the planning for the attacks from Pakistan, US officials have said. The Bush Administration is being cagey about declassifying 28 secret pages in a recent report on the 9/11 incident which officials say outline connections between Saudi charities, royal family members and terrorism. US authorities are silent about the role some Pakistanis may have played in the conspiracy. The role of Sheikh and Lt Gen Ahmad has yet to see the light of the day. Sheikh, wanted for kidnapping and terrorist conspiracy in India, has since been sentenced to death in Pakistan for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl."
9/11 funds came from Pakistan, says FBI
Times of India, 1 August 2003

"The London School of Economics, known for its far-Left radicalism in the 1960s, has been host to at least three al-Qa'eda-linked terrorists, The Telegraph has been told. The three - including one man called Ahmed Omar Sheikh - have been revealed as having links with the LSE in an intelligence file seen by this newspaper and now being studied by police....  Omar Sheikh... has... been named as one of the key financiers of Mohammed Atta,  the pilot of one of the jets that hit the World Trade Centre on September 11."
Al-Qa'eda terror trio linked to London School of 'Extremists'
Daily Telegraph, 27 Jan 2002

"There are reports that US investigators have uncovered evidence of financial transfers linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks on America. According to FBI sources, Mustafa Mohamed Ahmad, a suspected Bin Laden financial operative, transferred money to Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, in the days running up to the attacks. Furthermore Atta and two of the other hijackers transferred some $15,000 back to an account under the same name just two days before the attacks. Mr Ahmad, also known as Sheikh Saeed, [and also as Omar Sheikh who is not mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission report published July 2003] is one of 27 individuals or groups with a known link to Bin Laden who have had their assets in America frozen.... Cash transfers were made to Atta via a money service in Florida on 8 and 9 September from an account in Dubai, under the name of Mustafa Ahmad."
Bin Laden's 'cash link' to hijackers
BBC Online, 1 October 2001

"A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened. She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was 'an outrageous lie'. Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used 'state secrets privilege'. She told The Independent yesterday: 'I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily.'".
'I Saw Papers That Show US Knew al-Qa'ida Would Attack Cities With Airplanes'
Independent, 2 April 2004

One Little Clue As To Why
Sibel Edmonds Had A Gagging Order Placed On Her

The Hijacking of a Nation
Part I: The Foreign Agent Factor 
by Sibel Edmonds
November 15, 2006
© Copyright 2006, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

Sibel Edmonds is the founder and director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her case have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege”; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. The PEN American Center awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006 PEN/Newman's Own First Amendment Award.

It has been established that two of the 9/11 hijackers had a support network in the U.S. that included agents of the Saudi government, and that the Bush administration and the FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship.

 

In his book, "Intelligence Matters," Senator Bob Graham [Chairman of the Senate Select Committe On Intelligence] made clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties in the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Here is an excerpt from Senator Graham’s statement from the July 24, 2003 congressional record on the classified 27 pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11: “The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4 of the report, which is entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters. Those 27 pages have almost been entirely censured. . . . The declassified version of this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. In other words, officials of a foreign government are alleged to have aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, which took over 3,000 lives.”

In his book Graham reveals, “Our investigators found a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia.” He then cites another case, “We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close relationship with two of the terrorists; a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family.”

 

The most explosive revelation in Graham’s book is the following statement with regard to the administration’s attitude on page 216: “It was as if the President’s loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America’s safety.” Further, he states that he asked the FBI to undertake a review of the Riggs Bank records on the terrorists’ money trail, to look at other Saudi companies with ties to al-Qaeda, to plan for monitoring suspect Saudi interests in the United States; however, Graham adds: “To my knowledge, none of these investigations have been completed . . . Nor do we know anything else about what I believe to be a state-sponsored terrorist support network that still exists, largely undamaged, within the United States.”

 

What Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed ‘secrecy and classification’, is that the classification and cover up of those 27 pages is not about protecting ‘U.S. national security, methods of intelligence collection, or ongoing investigations,’ but to protect certain U.S. allies. Meaning, our government put the interests of certain foreign nations and their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own people and their interests. While Saudi Arabia has been specifically pointed to by Graham, other countries involved have yet to be identified.

In covering up Saudi Arabia’s direct role in supporting Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission goes even a few steps further than the congress and the Executive Branch. The report claims "there is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before 9/11." Their report ignores all the information provided by government officials to Congress, as well as volumes of published reports and investigations by other nations, regarding Muslim and Arab regimes that have supported al Qaeda. It completely disregards the terrorist lists of the Treasury and State Departments, which have catalogued the Saudi government's decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Why in the world would the United States government go so far to protect Saudi Arabia in the face of what itself declares to be the biggest security threat facing our nation and the world today?

Why is the United States willing to set aside its own security and interests in order to advance the interests of another state?

How can a government that’s been intent upon using the terrorist attacks to carry out many unjustifiable atrocities, prevent bringing to justice those who’ve been established as being directly responsible for it?

More importantly, how is this done in a nation that prides itself as one that operates under governance of the people, by the people, for the people?

How did our government bodies, those involved in drafting and implementing our nation’s policies, evolve into this foreign influence-peddling operation?

In order to answer these questions one must first establish who stands to lose and who stands to gain by protecting Saudi Arabia from being exposed and facing consequences of its involvement in terrorist networks activities. In addition to identifying the nations in question, we must identify the interests as well as the actors; their agents. Let’s look at Saudi Arabia as one of the successful foreign nations that have mastered the art of ‘covering all the bases’ when it comes to buying and peddling influence in Washington DC, and identify its hired ‘agents’ and ‘agents by default.’

Foreign Agents by Default

Although when it comes to our complex diplomatic threading with Saudi Arabia the easiest answer appears to be the ‘oil factor,’ upon further inspection the Saudi’s influence and role extends into other areas, such as the Military Industrial Complex and the too familiar Lobbying Games.

According to the report published by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Saudi Arabia is America’s top customer. Since 1990 the U.S. government, through the Pentagon’s arms export program, has arranged for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in  foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Department’s direct commercial sales program. Oil rich Saudi Arabia is a cash-paying customer; a compulsive buyer of our weaponry. The list of U.S. sellers includes almost all the major players such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.

 

The report by FAS establishes that despite the show of U.S. support demonstrated by this astounding quantity of arms sales, Saudi Arabia’s human rights record is extremely poor; see the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report. Saudi Arabia’s position as a strategic Gulf ally has blinded U.S. officials into approving a level and quality of arms exports that should never have been allowed to a non-democratic country with such a poor human rights record.

 

Further, there are indications of Saudi’s active role as a player in the nuclear black-market. According to Mohammed Khilewi, first secretary at the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, the Saudis have sought a bomb since 1975; they sought to buy nuclear reactors from China, supported Pakistan's nuclear program, and contributed $5 billion to Iraq's nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the U.S. government vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic missiles by non-allies, it has been very quiet in Saudi Arabia’s case, considering the fact that it possesses the longest-range ballistic missiles of any developing country.

 

The Military Industrial Complex certainly seems to be a winner in having the congressional report pertaining to the Saudi government’s role in supporting the 9/11 terrorist activities being classified. The exposure would have meant grounds for U.S. sanctions and retributions; it would have risked the loss of billions of dollars in revenue from its ‘top customer.’ These companies don’t even have to officially register as foreign agents; after all, their strong loyalty and unbreakable bond with foreign elements exists by default; it is called mutual benefit. They are ‘Foreign Agents by Default.’

 

This holds true for other parties and players involved within the MIC network; the contractors and the investors. Let’s look at one of these famous and influential players; another foreign agent even if only by default; a man who defended the Saudis against a lawsuit brought by the 9/11 victims’ family members; a man who happens to be the senior counsel for the Carlyle Group, which invests heavily in defense companies and is the nation's 10th largest defense contractor with ties to the Saudi Royal Family, Enron, Global Crossing, among others; James Baker; Papa Bush’s Secretary of State. On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Baker was reportedly at a Carlyle investor conference with members of the Bin Laden family in the Ritz Carlton in Washington DC, while Bush Sr. was on the payroll of the Carlyle group.

 

The Carlyle Group, a Washington, DC based private equity firm that employs numerous former high-ranking government officials with ties to both political parties, was the ninth largest Pentagon contractor between 1998 and 2003, an ongoing Center for Public Integrity investigation into Department of Defense contracts found. According to this report, overall, six private investment firms, including Carlyle, received nearly $14 billion in Pentagon deals between 1998 and 2003. Considering the fact that Saudi Arabia is the top buyer of the U.S. weapons industry, Carlyle’s investment and its stake, and of course Jimmy Baker’s far reaching influence within the Pentagon and congress, everything seems to come together and fit perfectly to shield this foreign interest no matter the price to be paid by the American public.

 

The political action committees (PACs) of the biggest defense companies have given $14.2 million directly to federal candidates since Clinton's first presidential bid, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). In 1997 alone the defense industry spent $49.5 million to lobby the nation's decision-makers.

 

Between 1998 and 2004, for the six-year period, Boeing Company spent more than $57 million in lobbying. For the same period of time, Lockheed Martin poured over $55 million into lobbying activities. Northrop Grumman exceeded both by investing $83 million in lobbying, and based on a report issued by POGO, it contributed over $4 million to individuals and PACs.

 

With ‘dime a dozen’ generals on their boards of directors, numerous high-powered ex congressmen and senators at their disposal in the ‘K Street Lobby Quarter,’ tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations, and billions of dollars at stake, the Military Industrial Complex surely had all the incentives to act just as foreign agents would, and fight for their highly valued client; the Saudi Government. They appear to have had all the reasons to ensure that the report would not see the light of the day; no matter what the effect on the country, its security, and its interests. [continues, Click Here]

"... more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high- level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing '302' forms, and the translator, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, Thomas Frields, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ‘keep quiet’ regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing (Please refer to Chicago Tribune article, dated July 21, 2004). Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to the 9/11 Commission on February 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, location, witness names, and the contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information. I provided the 9/11 Commission with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this case.... The new [post 9/11] translation [of the pre 9/11 document] revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas (country name omitted). It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery.... I provided this information to the 9/11 Commission on February 12, 2004, and to the Department of Justice Inspector General in May 2002... To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence... If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi- legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited ‘direct pressure by the State Department,’ and in other cases ‘sensitive diplomatic relations’ is cited. I provided the Department of Justice Inspector General and the 9/11 Commission with detailed and specific information and evidence regarding this issue, and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and the names of certain U.S. officials involved in these transactions and activities.... Why has the 9/11 Commission intentionally omitted this info; although they’ve had it all along?"
Sibel Edmonds
Her own web site, 20 June 2005

"Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator. She blew the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. These culprits are protected by the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee. They are foreign nationals and Americans.  Ms. Edmonds is under two gag orders that forbid her to testify in court or mention the names of the people or the countries involved."
Sibel Edmonds Interview
Baltimore Chronicle, 7 May 2004

"...we fear that the designation of information as classified in some cases [brought forth by Sibel Edmonds] serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability... "
U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft, 9 July 2004

More On 9/11 Intelligence Held By The FBI Not Included In The Official 9/11 Report - Click Here
More On Sibel Edmonds - Click Here

Who Else Besides Saudi Arabia?
"What [Senator Bob] Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed ‘secrecy and classification’, is that the classification and cover up of those 27 pages is not about protecting ‘U.S. national security, methods of intelligence collection, or ongoing investigations,’ but to protect certain U.S. allies. Meaning, our government put the interests of certain foreign nations and their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own people and their interests. While Saudi Arabia has been specifically pointed to by Graham, other countries involved have yet to be identified."
The Hijacking of a Nation - Part I: The Foreign Agent Factor 
Sibel Edmonds, Former FBI Language Specialist
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, 15 November 2006

Who Else?

Californian  'war on terror' researcher Paul Thompson has produced a 9/11 'Terror Timeline' which is considerably more comprehensive than that of the official 9/11 Commission. Its usefulness is to the point where Thompson reports that Richard Clarke, formerly the US government’s head of counterterrorism under the administrations of both Bill Clinton and George W Bush, has put the timeline on the required reading list for his terrorism class at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (Clarke is a strong critic of the conduct of the 'war on terror' having warned the Bush administration in July 2001 that a spectacular terrorist attack on the United States homeland was going to "happen here soon").

Below is a quotation from a video recording of a presentation of his reasearch and analysis that Thompson gave at conference in Los Angeles October 2004 which focused on America's relationship with Pakistan.

"In my 9/11 timeline, everything that's in the timeline I use only mainstream sources - New York Times, Newsweek, that king of thing....  everything I am going to be talking about today is going to be coming from these types of sources. And if you listen to what I say you might wonder why you're not familiar with this material. How come I've never heard of any of this stuff before? How come I've never seen these reports? And that's because this material often gets in the mainstream but in [page] 'B17', some sort of small mention in the back of the newspaper..... 

So we find that a lot of curious connections between some very important governments in the Middle East - Saudis, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, the Taliban - and we find these strange connections with the CIA. And then we find this [... ] extensive cover up and rewarding of Pakistan [after 9/11], when you would think that Pakistan would be punished. You know, why are we going after Iraq and attacking Iraq, when we have all this evidence here of Pakistani involvement [in 9/11]? And yet we have this very strange behaviour by the Bush Administration.

And so I would pose one of two possibilities to consider from all this information I have given you. One is, either the US was directly involved with Pakistan, and these other countries, in the 9/11 plot, and allowed it to happen or helped make it happen. Or the US government was completely taken for fools, and then aftewards they covered up their foolishness and have actually, instead of punishing these countries and these actors, they've actually rewarded them. And I would argue that - personally I would favour the first - but I would argue in either case, this is really treasonous behaviour to deceive the American people in this way, to let the true perpetrators of 9/11 go free, and in either case it should lead to impeachment of President Bush."

To View Thompson's Full Presentation Click Here

".... I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.  It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today...."
Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Select Committe On Intelligence
Improving Intelligence
PBS Online, 11 Dec 2002

"There are reports that US investigators have uncovered evidence of financial transfers linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks on America. According to FBI sources, Mustafa Mohamed Ahmad, a suspected Bin Laden financial operative, transferred money to Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, in the days running up to the attacks. Furthermore Atta and two of the other hijackers transferred some $15,000 back to an account under the same name just two days before the attacks. Mr Ahmad, also known as Sheikh Saeed, [and also as Omar Sheikh who is not mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission report published July 2003] is one of 27 individuals or groups with a known link to Bin Laden who have had their assets in America frozen.... Cash transfers were made to Atta via a money service in Florida on 8 and 9 September from an account in Dubai, under the name of Mustafa Ahmad."
Bin Laden's 'cash link' to hijackers
BBC Online, 1 October 2001

"Director General of Pakistan's Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmed has been replaced after the FBI investigators established credible links between him and Umar Sheikh, one of the three militants released in exchange for passengers of the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in 1999. The FBI team, which had sought adequate inputs about various terrorists including Sheikh from the intelligence agencies, was working on the linkages between Sheikh and former ISI chief Gen Mahmud which are believed to have been substantiated, reports PTI website. Informed sources said there were enough indications with the US intelligence agencies that it was at Gen Mahmud's instruction that Sheikh had transferred 100,000 US dollars into the account of Mohammed Atta, one of the lead terrorists in strikes at the World Trade Centre on Sept 11, it adds."
Gen Mahmud's exit due to links with Umar Sheikh
Dawn (Pakistan), 9 October 2001

More On This - Click Here

"My fellow Americans.... America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment... This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.... we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.... America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals."
Dwight Eisenhower, Farewell Presidential Address, 17 January1961
(Real Video of Eisenhower Speech - Click here)

'Arms To Iraq'
British Intelligence And The Astra Scandal

"The 1994 Scott Inquiry into Britain's illegal supply of arms to Saddam Hussein found that deception was widespread among senior British officials and diplomats. One of those commended by Sir Richard Scott for the honesty of his evidence was the former head of the Iraq Desk in Whitehall, Mark Higson, who described 'a culture of lying' in the Foreign Office."
IRAQ: THE LYING GAME
The Mirror, 27 August, 2002

"My company Astra gave rise to much of the circumstances which created the [Arms to Iraq] Scott Inquiry, the Supergun revelations (we reported it first), the Aitken affair, the murder of Gerald Bull in Brussels  in March 1990 and much else..... The story of Astra is too long to recount here but a summary is contained in my book, 'In the Public Interest' published by Little Brown UK hardback 1995, Warner paperback 1996, London. Astra became involved in covert weapons and ammunitions operations organised by MI5 and MI6 and the CIA, the MOD, DOD, FCO and the State Department and the DTI..... In 1989/90, following a reappraisal of Foreign Policy in the light of the demise of the Cold War and changing circumstances in the Middle East, where it became apparent the US, UK and EEC had transferred Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons technology as well as conventional weapons to countries like Iran and Iraq, and the discovery Pakistan had the atomic bomb, the whole covert network was reorganised.... The directors of Astra were to a large extent ignorant of the full range of covert activities carried out in their name but aware of some of these activities and the likely destination of their goods. As however all operations were sanctioned by the DTI, MOD, FCO, and in the US by the DOD and the State Department and in Belgium by the Belgian Government, not too many questions were raised initially. However, in late 1988 and 1989 it became clear to me as Chairmen that the clandestine operations far exceeded anything remotely sanctioned by the full Board and I set out to investigate in depth.  I became aware that certain plants were used to secretly store and ship goods; that monies were being transferred to other operations without book records or board approval in secret commission payments; that our paper work and parallel bank accounts were being used to process arms shipments from major UK defence companies like British Aerospace, Royal Ordnance, GEC Marconi, Thorn EMI etc.... [It] also became clear that all our main operations were involved in covert operations in the USA Belgium and the UK, and that Astra, when it acquired these companies, had inherited a hard core of MI6, MI5, DIA agents who operated behind the back of the original directors and who treated them as 'useful idiots'. All our main companies were involved with Space Research Corporation ('SRC') and the late Dr Gerald Bull who was behind the Supergun and other secret projects which Astra companies were also involved in. In 1989 I realised we had a hugely dangerous individual on our main Board and the BMARC Board who was an MI6 agent.  This individual, Stepahnus Adolphus Kock had high level political connections to Thatcher, Hesletine, Younger, Hanley, etc as well as MI5 and MI6 connections.  It is now clear to me that he was involved in the murder of Gerald Bull in Brussels on 22nd march 1990 and Jonathan Moyle in Santiago, Chile on 31st March 1990.... Kock had a cover as a consultant in Midland Bank’s secret arms department, Midland and Industrial Trade Services   ('MITS'). This was staffed by ex service officers, MI5, MI6, agents and intelligence affiliated bankers. Midland with the Bank of Boston were Astra’s main bankers and dominated by MI6 CIA agents. Kock was also said to be head of Group 13, the Government’s assassination and dirty tricks squad according to Richard John Rainey Unwin, a close associate of Knock himself who was a contract MI6 agent and Consultant to Astra.  Kock and Unwin, with Martin Laing Construction, negotiated the £2bn Malaysian defence deal before George Younger, the Defence Secretary even knew of it..... All these cases and others and the Astra case involved the gross abuse of power by Government and its agencies and servants, concealment of key evidence, intimidation, threats, false and selective prosecutions, manipulation of evidence, perversion of the course of justice..... As Douglas Hurd told a Commons Select Committee regarding nuclear proliferation they are but two tributaries of the main stream of intelligence..... Each regularly circumvents domestic laws for the benefit of the others under programmes like 'echelon' and agreements between UK and USA. Politicians and civil servants and other leading figures who get out of line can be surveyed or bugged and then threatened, blackmailed, framed up or worse."
My Experiences, the Scott Inquiry, the British Legal System
Gerald Reaveley James, former Astra Holdings PLC Chairman from 1980-90
Extract From Speech Given At The Environmental Law Centre, UK, 2000
(includes typographical transcript errors)

"A British defence journalist whose body was found hanging in a wardrobe in a hotel room in Chile eight years ago was unlawfully killed, an inquest found yesterday. Jonathan Moyle, 28, a former RAF pilot from Branscombe, Devon, was investigating links between the Chilean arms industry and the Iraqi regime at the time that he died. According to a new book on the case, he was supplying information to MI6 about Saddam Hussein's international arms procurement network as part of an espionage operation codenamed Valkyrie. Mr Moyle, editor of Defence Helicopter World, was working on a story about plans by Chilean manufacturers to turn civilian helicopters into gunships for the Iraqis. He was found dead hanging in room 1406 of the Hotel Carrera, Santiago, on March 31 1990, four months before Iraq invaded Kuwait. A shirt was tied around his neck and he was naked from the waist up. Chilean police said at the time that they were investigating a suspected suicide. Richard van Oppen, the East Devon coroner, opened the inquest in 1990 but has had to wait until now to resume it because of lengthy delays in receiving documents from Chile. Mr Moyle's death has been investigated by two Chilean judges who concluded that he was murdered but were unable to discover who the murderer was. They discovered that Mr Moyle had been sedated at least two hours before he died."
Arms trade journalist 'was killed'
Daily Telegraph, 28 February 1998

"And speculation still surrounds the 'suicide' of Jonathan Moyle, the 28-year-old editor of the British trade journal Defence Helicopter World in March 1990—he was found hanging in a closet in a hotel room in Santiago, Chile. Intelligence sources have long suggested that there was a, so far unproven, SIS [MI6] involvement in Moyle's death as his 'Iraqgate' investigations were believed to be uncovering highly embarrassing facts for the senior management at Century House, then the headquarters for M16 and the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher....."
Assassination And The License To Kill
Asia Times, 13 June 2003

No Solution In Sight?
The Biggest Challenge Of All Is Changing The Way People Think
Transforming Global Consciousness - Before It's Too Late

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex