Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Osama v. The RNC: Who do you trust?

We judge the Osama voice tape to be a fraud. Bin Ladin, if he was serious about attacking the US, wouldn't have revealed his plans.

He would've just done it.

We judge the primary motivation of the tape is the problems within the RNC. We take controversial view -- that Bin Ladin is more likely cooperating with the RNC than he is doing anything else.

There are several lines of evidence to suggest this continuing cooperation. First, there is the pre-election 2004 announcement.

Second, the NYT reports that there are no active cells in the US.

* * *

We judge the timing of the release is related to the President's problems over the NSA domestic spying scandal.

He has several problems. Fist, there is no legal foundation for his claims. Second, he engaged in warrantless surveillance prior to 9-11 -- reliance on the post 9-11 Congressional authorization is irrelevant. Third, the FISA states are clear.

We judge the NSA and CIA are being positioned to take the blame. Bin Ladin, even if he were independent, has yet to be traced.

Consider the chain of events required to submit a voice tape for publication -- each of which the NSA cannot explain why it has no information. First, there is the purchase/movement of the recording device/equipment/tape; second, a discussion about the location and contents of the broadcast; third, the actual recording; fourth, the agreement the recording is suitable; fifth, a movement from the recording location to the broadcast center.

Each of these steps is ultimately linked to a physical connection with an electronic transmission, whether it be during a purchase, producing a purchase order for a product to be shipped, or in discussing details related to the broadcast.

We judge there are many opportunities for the CIA to visually scan the AlJazeera center; and it is reasonable to presume that all personnel in and out of the facility are known.

We judge there is no way the recording could be crated, aired, and subsequently discussed without NSA discovering some evidence or trace of the origin.

* * *

Had a "pre-attack announcement" been something credible, we should have heard a similar announcement prior to the November 2005 LAX missile attack, which missed an American Airlines aircraft off the coast of Los Angeles.

Bin ladin cannot explain why he has announced something -- and given fair warning; while he made no announcement over the LAX missile issue.

At the same time, if there are "no active AlQueda cells," NSA cannot explain how they reached this conclusion, despite the LAS missile firing.

We judge the pre-attack announcement to be non-credible; and any public accouchement over "peace" or "end of hostilities" to do more to benefit the White House -- conveniently, giving the President a win. However, nothing has changed in the US Strategy. At best, US Action in Iraq has merely distracted pressure on AlQueda. There is nothing that would suddenly warrant Bin Ladin to say, "OK, I give up."

Rather, it's more likely the announcement is linked with the US desire to end combat operations with a victory, despite not actual bounty to show for the efforts.

* * *

The Bin Ladin tape comes at a convenient and controversial time. It remains to be seen what calculus there is in the DoJ discussions over the President’s legal problems, and how these challenges do or do not square with the tapes release.

We find it curious despite the mighty American army, well supported by DoD's NSA, that nobody seems able to find any trace of the man. This is far too convenient.

We judge the release of the Osama tape has one goal: To distract the nation, get the public to move without thinking.

We judge DHS has no credibility in issuing terror -- read "Designed distraction, fear" -- alerts. The logical choice is to resurface Bin Ladin.

* * *

There are two scenarios going forward. First, if we are to believe the Bin Ladin tape -- in that there are imminent attacks -- then the NSA has a problem: It's doing things, but cannot find them. Thus, we are asked to believe that Bin Ladin is even more powerful than the NSA. This is non-sense.

Second, consider the other view. The President was conducting warrantless NSA wiretapping prior to 9-11, and did nothing; yet, we have no change in the warrantless surveillance. Yet, if we are to believe Bin Ladin, this means personnel connected to AlQueda are already positioned in the US, but NSA has not caught them. Again, NSA and the FBI state otherwise: There is no evidence of an active AlQueda cell. Moreover, rather than keep the details secret, DoJ openly discusses cell phone purchases, but makes no attempt to keep secret their conclusions. Why isn't DoJ keeping their findings secret, and tracing the suspected cell?

The answer is that there are no cells, NSA is engaging in warrantless surveillance, and there is no immense threat.

Rather, the problem is the White House: They are quickly running out of options. They have no legal defense to the NSA warrantless surveillance.

Also, the White House cannot explain why, four years after 9-11, the AlJazeera office is able to communicate with Bin Ladin, but NSA cannot.

There are two options going forward. Either the NSA "conveniently finds" a target -- after private officials say otherwise -- in an effort to discredit private sources; or there is an RNC-orchestrated attack -- in order to discredit NSA, and imply that despite the unlawful activity, the NSA still blundered.

This has one goal: Blame those who are violating the law, and send a message, "When we do everything -- even violate FISA -- to protect you, the NSA failed." Boo hoo.

Small problem. The RNC has a track record of conveniently being around domestic terrorism. Consider the NSA surveillance program in the wake of 9-11 -- just prior to the 2004 election, there were several attacks on the RNC offices.

Had the NSA program been targeting domestic terrorism, those behind the RNC attacks would have been discovered.

We judge the attacks on the RNC offices were done by people the NSA knew about, but failed to do anything about; and that the RNC was behind the attack on the RNC offices; and that the NSA has a list of intercepts to take no action on.

Going forward with Bin Ladin, there are two scenarios. First, is that NSA is discredited, in that "despite the illegal monitoring, the NSA cannot find what the Bin Ladin-clan is doing"; or worse, the RNC orchestrates an attack, the NSA gets blamed for not finding it, and martial law is imposed.

But do you notice the one person who has no accountability? That's right: The same man who, prior to 9-11 was monitoring "everything," but still didn't do anything prior to 9-11.


Based on the totality of the circumstances since 2000, and the existence of the unlawful, warrantless surveillance program, we judge the following:

  • A. Bin Ladin's voice release is related to RNC domestic political problems;

  • B. The voice recording is a sham:

  • C. There is no credible threat of an external attack on the US, and the White House will use the "non-attack" as "proof" that the warrantless surveillance program is needed, and it solves problems.

  • D. Not withstanding the 42-page DoJ 19 Jan 2006 memoranda, the White House has no credibility or legal foundation to justify its warrantless surveillance;

  • E. NSA and the FBI are being set-up to take the fall;

  • F. If there is an attack, it will most likely be similar to something that happened on 9-11 and during the RNC office attacks: Namely, an appearance of something, but the details will not add up; and the President is considering martial law.

    * * *

    The solution: Impeachment.