guess u all dun know this news......
-
Nigeria: War Looms? Is The Delta About To Blow?
Stratfor
Mar 21, 2003
Summary
Trouble is brewing in the Niger Delta. The impact of the violence, triggered by the run-up to April 12 elections, may shake the foundations of the entire country.
Analysis
Something big is going on in Nigeria. While the rest of the world watches bombs falling on Baghdad, oil companies in Nigeria are declaring force majeure and the United States has just cut off military assistance to the West African state.
What is going on remains unclear. The possibilities, however, are finite: Only a few events could upset the chronically chaotic situation in Nigeria enough to scare oil companies into halting production and frighten or anger Washington sufficiently to shut down dialogue with the Nigerian military, which is the country's main powerbroker. The three most likely scenarios are: a coup in Abuja, a military massacre of mammoth proportions that has yet to be reported or the expectation that the oil-rich Delta is about to erupt into war.
What triggered the most recent trouble is unclear. Ethnic violence in the Delta region is a near chronic problem, but recent events point to something much larger. The situation's center of gravity seems to be Delta state.
Trouble has been brewing for several months, and violence erupted in early February when the rival Urhobo and Itsekiri tribes clashed over the delineation of electoral wards. Ethnic Ijaws sided with the Urhobos in the dispute, escalating the violence.
Then, on March 5, the All Nigeria People's Party vice presidential candidate, Harry Marshal, was assassinated by unknown gunmen. Marshall had been tapped to organize ANPP support in the Delta region. He was from Rivers State, another Delta region area populated by ethnic Ijaws.
Marshall was a key player in the ANPP, whose presidential candidate -- retired Gen. Muhammadu Buhari -- is the main rival to incumbent President Olusegun Obasanjo in elections. Marshall's assassination likely was a political act, and it rocked the Delta.
Nigerian naval troops on March 12 raided Okerenkoko, an Ijaw community near Warri on the Nigerian coast. According to reports, at least five people were killed. Navy officials said the raid was to pre-empt an attack on Shell operations, but Ijaws argue that the navy provoked the hostilities.
The next day, Ijaw militants took three police officers hostage in the region. The violence continued March 17 when Ijaws attacked two Itsekiri villages in Delta, torching homes and killing seven people. Ijaws also razed a Shell base camp at the nearby Escravos terminal that had been used to house company workers and supplies, a local Shell spokesperson said.
The escalation apparently frightened the oil majors, because on March 18 Royal Dutch/Shell began pulling employees out of the region and closing several flow stations. Meanwhile, a representative at ChevronTexaco -- also active in the Delta region -- said the violence had not affected the company's main export terminal at Escravos.
But the next day, Chevron Nigeria Ltd. declared force majeure following the shut-in of production from all of its onshore and swamp locations in the western Niger Delta, Dow Jones reports. In a statement, the company said it had shut in 140,000 barrels per day of crude -- up from 30,000 bpd -- as a result of growing ethnic violence.
Finally, on March 21, Royal Dutch/Shell declared force majeure.
The U.S. State Department also confirmed March 21 that it had suspended military aid to Nigeria. The actual amount of assistance has not been disclosed, but the United States reportedly has trained Nigerian forces as peacekeepers, contracted MPRI -- a Washington-based consulting group that specializes in organization and streamlining of militaries -- and provided boats for the Nigerian navy.
State officials said the cancellation was prompted by an October 2001 Nigerian military massacre of people in the Benue state village of Zaki Biam, which came after residents killed 14 troops in ethnic clashes with another village. This justification is too flimsy to be believable -- the massacre occurred more than a year ago, and if Washington was going to react, it would have done so at the time.
Earlier reports suggested that the cut-off had something to do with Abuja's anti-war stance. Washington has denied this and indeed, it is unlikely, given the context of what's been going on in the Delta and the fact that military-to-military contacts and dialogue are a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. Washington cuts off military assistance only in extreme circumstances or crises.
The ethnic clashes, the assassination of a powerful local opposition leader, the energy companies' evacuation of employees and force majeure declarations, and now Washington's severance of military aid all point to something much bigger happening in the Delta than the typical day-to-day violence and ethnic strife.
Given Nigeria's high tolerance for chaos and violence, whatever has happened has shaken the entire country. A coup is a possibility. There have been no sightings of Obasanjo, although he reportedly spoke at a conference in Abuja on March 19. But Stratfor for several months has predicted wide-scale ethnic and political violence would occur in the days and weeks before the elections. It's highly likely that with the elections weeks away and the stakes so high, the ethnic violence is a cover for political violence -- and politicians stirring up trouble -- and that the Delta is about to blow. -
mi news reporter oso dun know..u power sia
guess many are concentrating on the Gulf War
Current Affairs Manager, COB
Singapore -
and this 1 from america .........shocking eh?
http://www.newswithviews.com/your_govt/your_government52.htm
SENATE POISED TO VOTE ON HUGE LAND GRAB
By Tom DeWeese
March 20, 2003
NewsWithViews.com
Choosing a time when the attention of all Americans is on our conflict with Iraq, the Senate is poised to vote on a bill that would unleash a major attack on private property rights. It would empower environmental groups and government agencies to use taxpayer funds to purchase land.
The bill, S. 476, called the "Faith-based Initiative" (S.476), has two insidious sections, 106 and 107, that call for a 25% tax cut on capital gains of land sales, but only if the land is sold to an "environmental group" or a government agency.
This legislation is a classic Trojan Horse. No other "faith-based" groups would benefit, but all Americans would suffer the economic losses as more and more land is taken off the tax rolls and all access and use of that land would be restricted. The proposed legislation would create a huge potential for government-funded land grabs.
The legislation is a roadmap to economic disaster. It is a sneak attack by environmentalists to line their pockets and grab more land from private property owners. Only this time they will have access to taxpayers dollars to undermine the ability to extract natural energy and mining resources, expand our agricultural base, harvest timber, or use such lands for any form of recreation.
The Nature Conservancy would be the largest beneficiary. It is the richest, most powerful environmental colossus in the nation. It claims more than 700,000 individual members and 405 corporate members operating out of eight regional offices and fifty chapter offices across the nation. The Nature Conservancy has assets of over $2.6 Billion, with an annual income of $785 million, and an annual operating budget of over $400 million. TNC has 274 employees who are paid more than $50,000 per year.
THE SCAM: Real Estate. THE HOOK is "conservation through private action." According to the party line, The Nature Conservancy simply buys land with private money and sets up nature reserves, thereby helping the environment without infringing on anybody. It sounds like a wonderful, charitable idea, if only it was true.
In truth, The Nature Conservancy buys private land from owners (usually at drastically reduced, land-grab prices) who think it will remain in private hands and then sells it to the government! In fact, TNC has sold more than 9 million acres to the government at a nice profit.
THE VICTIMS are unsuspecting property owners, often elderly. THE METHODS utilized include hiding behind phony corporations; serving as a shill for government agencies; and working behind the scenes with more visible environmental groups to intimidate property owners into selling. THE GOAL is money and power.
The Nature Conservancy frequently uses phony front companies to get land from owners who wouldn't knowingly sell to an environmental group. It used this tactic to purchase most of the islands off the coast of Virginia, containing 40,000 acres and sixty miles of coastline. In doing so, The Nature Conservancy was able to stop all private development and control the use of the land, damaging the tax base, killing thousands of jobs, and severely curbing the locals from hunting, fishing, camping and joy riding on the islands.
Don't think the purpose was to preserve these beautiful, pristine islands for nature. The Nature Conservancy did bar others from developing the land, but not itself. Far from it. At a huge profit, the Conservancy developed upscale homes for the rich.
The problem is that The Nature Conservancy is a non-profit organization with tax-exempt status and they maintain that status because of their tightly protected image as benevolent conservationists. This is far from the truth.
For example, property owners on the islands wanted to invest in development and thought they were selling their land to developers. They were aware of and frightened by the Nature Conservancy and would never have sold to the group. That's why The Conservancy hid behind a phony land company, grabbed power, foiled the development, and made a huge profit on tax-exempt money. Today much of the coast of Virginia is off-limits to tourists and other development.
Other times, The Nature Conservancy acts as a shill to a government agency to acquire land cheaply and sell it to the government at a huge profit. One of its favorite scams goes something like this. Your grandmother owns land close to a historic site or a wilderness area. The government wants the land to expand a park, but grandmother won't sell.
One day a representative of the Nature Conservancy shows up, well dressed, smiling, but concerned. He tells your grandmother that he's just learned that the government intends to take her land after she passes away. She won't be able to sell it or give it to her children. However, he can offer a solution. If Grandmother will sell her land to The Nature Conservancy he can assure her that the land will stay in private hands and not be taken by the government. Well, a relieved grandmother is much happier and she agrees to sell. However, because the government has threatened to take the land, its value is now only about half its reported market value. That's all he'll be able to pay her. Well, thinks grandmother, half is better than nothing, so she sells.
The next day our friend from The Nature Conservancy makes a call to the Department of the Interior (or some other appropriate federal agency) informing them that their plan has worked. The whole thing had been pre-arranged between them before anyone ever knocked on Grandmother's door. As arranged, The Nature Conservancy then sells the land to the Interior Department for full market value, plus overhead, financing, and handling charges.
The truth is The Nature Conservancy is little more than a massive, ruthless real estate machine using its tax-exempt status and ties to the government to create wealth for itself.
The entire concept of the Faith-based Initiative is ill conceived. Its virtually hidden exemptions will benefit The Nature Conservancy and land-hungry government agencies. Americans must contact their Senators today to insure that the hidden sections of S.476 are removed. It may come up for a vote at any time
© 2003 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom DeWeese is publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, a grassroots, activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, VA. The Center maintains an Internet site at www.americanpolicy.org. -
U.S. Wins Appeal on Domestic Spy Powers
11 minutes ago
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rejected a civil liberties challenge to post-Sept. 11 law enforcement spying on Monday, refusing to be drawn into a dispute over the boundaries of a law that gave the government broader surveillance authority after the terrorist attacks.
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and other organizations wanted the justices to consider when the government should be allowed to monitor someone's telephone conversations and e-mail, then use the information to prosecute them.
The Bush administration has argued that the surveillance, and a special court that oversees sensitive domestic espionage tactics, are indispensable tools in the war on terror.
The ACLU used an unusual maneuver to get the case to the Supreme Court, filing an appeal on behalf of people who don't even know they're being monitored. The justices would have had to give special permission to allow it. They refused, without comment.
The action was not a ruling on the merits of the ACLU's challenge, and the issue is expected to return to the high court later.
The administration has aggressively defended its use of wiretaps approved by the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or "spy court," which deals with intelligence requests involving suspected spies, terrorists or foreign agents.
Even the spy court had reservations about that aggressiveness. Last May, the court ruled that the USA Patriot Act did not justify the use of certain investigative techniques proposed by the administration. Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) appealed to a review court which had never met, or issued a decision, during the spy court's 25-year existence.
That review court sided with the administration and said government officials did not have to limit their monitoring to foreign intelligence. That means law enforcement officers can use the information to build cases for prosecution.
The review court decision "opens the door to surveillance abuses that seriously threatened our democracy in the past," justices were told in the filing by the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services.
To get a warrant from the spy court, the government must show that a suspect probably is a "foreign power or agent of a foreign power." Law enforcement must meet a higher standard — probable cause that a crime was committed — to get an ordinary criminal warrant for wiretapping or other electronic intrusion.
The administration did not respond to the ACLU's appeal. Any of the nine justices could have demanded a response, but none did.
The spy court has approved thousands of warrants since it was established by Congress in 1978, and it only rarely turns down the government.
The case is one of two at the Supreme Court involving issues related to the terrorist attacks. The other challenges the government's holding of closed deportation hearings after the attacks.
Ashcroft has approved more than 170 emergency domestic spying warrants, triple the number used in the previous 23 years.
The emergency warrants, which are authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, permit authorities to tap telephones and fax numbers and conduct physical searches for up to 72 hours before they are subject to review by the special, secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
In testimony to Congress earlier this month, Ashcroft said there were more than 1,000 applications for FISA warrants in 2002, including the emergency warrants.
The ACLU had filed challenges in Michigan and New Jersey, on behalf of media organizations seeking access to hearings involving foreigners swept up in the terrorism probes.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in Philadelphia ruled that the attorney general has the right to close the hearings for reasons of national security. The ACLU appealed the decision. The government has until next month to appeal an appeals court decision that went the other way.
"The courts continue to have a critical role in ensuring that the government's efforts to protect national security are done in a manner that is consistent with protecting civil liberties," said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU's legal director. -
wah kaoz!
they are diverting attention man.. while they attacking, they actually doing something man... damn the usa.. -
The weakness of the US Legal System is that it places Individual Liberties above the Logical Safety and Security of the Community.
This way of life accepted and valued by the US Citizens, was abused by those terrorists, and their cells that remain hidden within the communities across the USA.
In the Philippines and Indonesia, where supposed "human rights" and "individual liberties" are valued, it has resulted in terrorist bombings that occur regularly even in the Capital City.
In Singapore, and Malaysia, we have little problem with the Internal Security Act that gives broad powers to "nip problems in the bud".
However, it is unfortunate that this same legislation has often been abused by the "Politicians in Power" to thwart real political challenges put up by credible members of the Community, who have the ability to articulate a sensible alternative view.
This is an anomaly that needs correction, as it reflects political immaturity of the present system of Government in Singapore and Malaysia. -
Bush Issues Order on Sealed Documents
2 hours, 18 minutes ago
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Millions of government documents will remain sealed under a new executive order that delays their automatic declassification for more than three years and makes it easier to reclassify some papers that might damage national security.
Amending a less restrictive order signed by President Clinton (news - web sites), President Bush (news - web sites)'s action Tuesday gives agencies until the end of 2006 to release the documents, which include military, diplomatic and foreign policy papers expected to shed light on national security decision-making.
Historians and declassification experts have mixed reactions to the order that Bush signed three weeks before the government's April 17 deadline for declassifying papers 25 years or older. Some say its provisions are less restrictive than they expected; others argue it further cloaks government activities.
"Given that the Bush administration is the most secretive presidency in recent decades, this order is not as bad as it might be," said Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project.
But others, like Thomas Blanton at the National Security Archive, a group that works to get government documents declassified, says it's a step backwards.
He's especially upset over a provision stating that foreign government information is presumed classified. Under the Clinton order, this type of information was kept classified or declassified on a case-by-case basis.
"Making foreign government information presumptively classified drops us down to Uzbekistan's openness norms," Blanton said.
An administration official who talked to reporters on condition of anonymity said this was done to assure foreign governments that the information is being handled appropriately, but it doesn't mean it will remain classified forever.
He said delaying the release would give agencies more time to review the thousands of documents in the latest batch set to be automatically declassified to make sure nothing is released that compromises intelligence sources and methods or disseminates details about weapons of mass destruction.
The order also makes it easier for the government to reclassify sensitive information that had previously been made public. The administration official said there may be cases in which information that has already been made public needs to be retrieved and made confidential because it compromises national security.
"That's not surprising post-Sept. 11," said Bruce Craig, director of the National Coalition for History.
But Anna K. Nelson, an American University history professor, said reclassifying documents defeats the purpose of having a declassification system.
"If it's already out there, the national security has already been compromised," she said. "If you can turn around and reclassify them, what's the point?"
Clinton's order stated that if there is a significant doubt about the need to declassify certain papers, they should be released. Bush's order deletes this provision.
"The Clinton order resulted in the release of nearly 1 billion pages of historically valuable documents — all kinds of records about the Vietnam War, the history of nuclear weapons development and deployment, relations with the Soviet Union," Aftergood said. "Nobody has managed to go through all of the documents."
Aftergood said he was happy to see that Bush's order did not abolish the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel, set up under Clinton's order in 1995. If an agency refuses to declassify a certain document, requesters can appeal to the panel, which has overruled agencies 76 percent of the time.
But Blanton noted a new provision in Bush's order that gives the CIA (news - web sites) the authority to reject appeals panel decisions.
"Giving the CIA a get-out-of-jail-free card at ISCAP means the current 76 percent rate at which it rules for requesters will soon drop — maybe not all the way to Uzbekistan's levels, but to Langley's, which are close," he said.
The administration official noted that the director of central intelligence is in the best position to know if certain information compromises national security. He added that the order allows the CIA's decision to be appealed directly to the president.