People as Playthings, Part 1

First, an excellent five-part vid from PBS Frontline, a report of an investigation done in conjuction with ProPublica and McClatchy:

Watch The Anthrax Files on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Watch The Anthrax Files on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Watch The Anthrax Files on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Watch The Anthrax Files on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Watch The Anthrax Files on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

It seems to me the government failed to make its case against Army scientist Bruce E. Ivins. As I see it, it was established that Dr. Ivins was a little eccentric; he may have committed burglary of the sorority houses, and he may have stolen some young ladies' underwear. If this indeed happened, Dr. Ivins broke some laws, but in a college prank sort of way. This does not make him a terrorist or a mass-murderer. The government failed to establish conclusively an opportunity, and it sure failed to establish a motive.

Who had both motive and opportunity? Who could access American weapons-grade anthrax, and would have motive to spread it around?

Who would target not just random American people, but specifically certain elements in the media and certain US Senators?

It seems to me the idea was not to maximize casualties among the American people, but rather, to maximize publicity about the potential for casualties. Unlike hoaxes a few years previously, this time the perpetrator did indeed have high-grade anthrax, and wanted to make sure America knew that, but without inflicting actual mass casualties, and while trying to make it look like Al Qaeda may have been responsible.

Who had both motive and opportuntity to do this?

Unto the Breach: Targeting the TSA

Needless to say, the federal government is increasingly radical and out-of-control, trampling our Constitution, and trampling us.

This is not a partisan issue. Politicians and Presidential Administrations from both sides of the aisle have greatly increased the infringements on our liberties.

It is time to counterattack.

Key features of this counterattack include these:

1) This counterattack must be peaceful and lawful. The time may come when things become violent, but let out-of-control federal authorities begin the violence, and let this happen despite the best, most honest efforts of the American people to fix this country's problems peacefully and lawfully.

2) The counterattack needs to be something Americans can do by themselves and in small groups, especially in informal, ad-hoc groups. Americans are their own leaders, and do not need some big, bureaucratic political party or political action committee to save them from a big, bureaucratic federal government.

Target: The Transportation Security Administration

The TSA presents a clear and present danger to our liberty, so we might as well begin with it.

The TSA is veering farther and farther outside the boundaries of legitimate, Constitutional conduct. Every day we hear new stories of TSA personnel committing crimes and violating our rights under the color of authority. Contrast these daily stories of TSA excesses with our rights under the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here is a list of specific, actionable things anyone can do to begin this counterattack:


1) Contact President Obama (Note: use of the title "President" with Obama's name does not constitute acknowledgement that Mr. Obama lawfully occupies the office of President of the United States; use of this title merely acknowledges that he is acting in that role, whether Constitutionally or not).

Specifically, feedback to the White House can be made in accordance with guidelines and via addresses accessible from the White House contact page. Let Mr. Obama know that the TSA, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is part of the Executive Branch of government, as outlined in Article II of our Constitution and that, ultimately, Mr. Obama will be held legally responsible for the excesses of TSA employees. Point out that these excesses represent a pattern of conduct; they are, specifically, "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object" and their pattern "evinces a design to reduce [the American people] under absolute Despotism".

We will work to remove Mr. Obama from our White House. What is negotiable at this point is the question of how many crimes he will be prosecuted for. If he will exercise his power to end the TSA's violation of our rights, then we will consider an amnesty regarding crimes in this category.

It is important to keep in mind that an amnesty does not mean Mr. Obama will go free. It means that prosecutors representing the American people will consider any extenuating circumstances while deciding what charges to press and what punishments to seek. The more he does to end the unlawful oppressions of TSA personnel, the more consideration Obama will be given as we consider, in court, Obama's culpability.


2) Contact the Department of Homeland Security and let Secretary Janet Napolitano know that we will work to remove her from office, and we will work to hold her accountable for violations of our rights. Remind her that a defense in court that she was "just following orders" will not be adequate. Point out that if she immediately begins to rein in her TSA personnel, amnesty in her case will be considered, proportional to the extent with which she begins to reverse unconstitutional actions taken by her subordinates.


3) Contact the TSA itself. There is a contact page, which specifically allows for input regarding civil rights violations. Also, familiarize yourself with the TSA's senior management. Together with the routing information on the contact page, you can send letters to specific senior managers in the TSA. Make sure they understand that their organization is committing crimes as part of official policy. Consequently, following the precedents of the SS in the wake of World War II, all TSA personnel can be held to some degree accountable for the actions of what will surely be found to be a criminal organization. Mere membership in the TSA is at least suspicious; as senior management, these people are aware of the crimes. Ask them what they are doing to stop the crimes being committed under color of authority. Make sure they understand that persistence on the TSA's present course of action nearly guarantees them a prison term at some point, whereas efforts to acknowledge and correct the problems they have, efforts made immediately and with great zeal, will mitigate their situation.


The above people can be removed from office by Congress. Congress has the power to impeach not only the President, but other officeholders as well. This is spelled out in Article I of our Constitution.

And this brings us to our Legislative and then Judicial Branches.


4) Contact your Congressional Representatives. It is simple to figure out who your representative is: merely go to the House Website and type in your zip code. Alternatively, if you know what Congressional district you are in, you can go to the list of representatives. Let your representative know that you are unhappy with the TSA. Your representative needs to cut funding for the TSA, and introduce articles of impeachment against Obama, Napolitano and other officeholders. Your representatives need to understand that we will be removing some of them from office, whether or not they fight the TSA. But, what happens afterward is still negotiable. They are going to want their Congressional pensions; they will seek other elected offices; they will work in the business world after they leave Congress. For all these things, they will need the good will of the American people, and without our good will, pensions, votes and clients for their business activities might evaporate; they can become persona non grata to the American people, and any business activity with which they are associated can be boycotted. Warn them to do their job, or they will see how fast they can become so many walking stink magnets.


5) Contact your Senators. You can find out who they are from the Senate Webpage and from the Senate's List of Senators. Let them know they need to cut off funding for these violations of our rights, and that they need to vote in favor of impeaching Obama and his minions. Explain to them how our dissatisfaction with them will manifest itself if they fail to do so (loss of votes, loss of customers for any business with which they are associated once they leave the Senate, etc).


6) Any federal judge who rules that the TSA's activities are Constitutional needs to be removed by impeachment. Get the judge's name and the specifics of the ruling, then advertise the problem. Make sure your Representative knows that articles of impeachment are in order, and that your Senators understand which way they need to vote on the impeachment.


Farther down in the Executive Branch:


7) Consider contacting your FBI Field Office. Point out that, as federal agents, their duty is to protect your rights under the Constitution. Explain how the TSA routinely violates these rights, committing sexual assualt, theft and other crimes under color of federal authority. Keep in mind that, while there is a tremendous amount of corruption among the senior leadership and in the Washington area, the field agents tend to be hard-working and honest, and perhaps even still idealistic. There may not be much that they can do, as any actions they undertake will probably be undercut by higher-ups (such as our Attorney General Eric Holder, who likes to arm Mexican drug cartels), but remind our lower-level FBI agents of their duty. Most of them would risk their lives for America; let's see how many will risk their careers. And, perhaps this investment will pay off as honest agents get promoted in coming years.


Transitioning from federal to state government, we continue:


Contact your governors and state officers. You can find out who they are by visiting Politics 1. Specifically, go to the page for governors and statewide candidates, and from there click on your state. You will see links to official websites of state legislatures and governors' administrations, as well as to the campaign websites for candidates for statewide offices.


8) Contact your governor. Remind the governor that it is the duty of the states and their political subdivisions to provide equal protection under the law to all the states' citizens, per our Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let your governor know that federal authorities, in this case TSA personnel, are out-of-control and are committing crimes under color of federal authority. It is the legal responsibility of state law enforcement authorities to arrest TSA personnel for their thefts, sexual assaults and methodical, warrantless searches and seizures. Your governor needs to understand that state law enforcement personnel should in no way be collaborating with illegitimate activities of TSA personnel, such as establishing checkpoints for systematic and warrantless searches and seizures along roadways.

If the Obama regime wants to play hardball, and threatens to make your state a no-fly zone because the governor refuses to allow TSA personnel to abuse decent, law-abiding citizens, remind the governor that intrastate travel is off-limits to federal authorities, and that federal authorities are Constitutionally prohibited from interfering with interstate travel. Interstate commerce can be regulated in manners other than gate-raping and porno-scanning innocent travelers. If Obama threatens to shoot down passenger aircraft that take off without his FAA's approval, state governors can mobilize Air National Guard fighters to escort those civilian aircraft safely to the border of their individual states, and Army National Guard air defense units on the ground can supplement the state's ability to target any federal fighter aircraft threatening a passenger jet; should that federal fighter open fire on a passenger plane, it, in turn, will be fired upon by aircraft and air defense systems loyal to state authorities and to the US Constitution.

As some added thoughts in this category, I should like to point out that the Constitutional crisis is already upon us. The question is, how are we going to respond? Also, during America's first Civil War, President Lincoln was determined to preserve our Union. Slavery was an abomination, and the Republican Party was formed to abolish it, but the war was actually sparked over states' rights issues, with rebel forces firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. To me, another question presents itself: Were Lincoln physically among the American people today, what would be his thoughts? I can't imagine he would be in favor of saving the Union at the cost of our Constitutional form of government. Rather, I think he would be on the side of our Constitution, hoping to preserve it against an out-of-control federal government. I also think he would insist that those Americans who seek to support our Constitution against domestic enemies in the halls of power in Washington move forward with peaceful, legal means, and only resort to armed force in self-defense, leaving it to the federal authorities to fire first. In the winter of 1860-1861, rebel states seceded, then fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. We are neither seceding, nor firing the first shot.


9) Contact your state legislators and candidates for state legislative offices. State legislatures should pass resolutions calling upon the US Representatives and Senators from their states to cut off funding for TSA activities and to impeach federal officers who are violating our laws. Legislatures should also resolve to call upon the governor to stand up to federal authorities who are violating our federal Constitution, and to call upon local law enforcement personnel to arrest TSA personnel who are committing crimes under the color of authority.


10) Contact your local mayor, and have the mayor direct municipal police to take TSA personnel into custody when those TSA personnel violate our rights and commit crimes. Contact your city council, and have them pass resolutions calling upon the mayor to do this. Contact your local sheriff, and have the sheriff arrest TSA personnel who execute unlawful searches and seizures and who otherwise violate our rights. Remind local law enforcement authorities that it is their duty under our Fourteenth Amendment to protect our Constitutional rights.



Other things you can do:

11) If you have to travel by air, get to the airport early. Depending upon your stomach for confrontation and your willingness to be unlawfully detained, you can choose to not cooperate with anything you deem to be excessive or a violation of your rights. While standing in line, talk to the people around you. Find someone you can pair up with, and if TSA personnel want to conduct an intimate search of you, insist that this person witness the activity. Exchange contact information with this person, make some notes about what happened and how, and get the name and identifying data of the TSA personnel who are searching you. File charges against this TSA person, and have your airport companion offer to be a witness in court.


12) Take pictures of your TSA handler. Your TSA handler is an official government employee in a public place performing official duties, so take a photo of that person, and then exercise your First Amendment right to write about the incident at a blog or on Facebook or wherever you hang out online. Let everyone know who this TSA employee was and how this government employee treated you. Have others in line take pictures of this employee for you. If someone who is not traveling with you can accompany you to the airport, have that person film, photograph or otherwise record your experience. Make sure your TSA handler knows that violations of the law will be prosecuted. Sooner or later, justice will be done, and their uniforms and their orders will not protect them from justice any more than uniforms and orders protected Nazi officials and SS men decades ago.



Please keep in mind that most TSA personnel are trying to be decent, law-abiding Americans, and are trying to ensure our safety. Most of them are being misled and victimized by those in power in Washington. When TSA personnel deliberately make an informed decision to abuse their power and violate our rights, that is when they cross a moral line, and deserve far less consideration; until then, help them see the error of their ways, and warn them of what will happen if they insist on conducting themselves in a criminal manner.



Other resources to determine who your government officials are include links at Common Cause and at USA.gov.



From our Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Whom Thy Right Hand Possesses, Part 1

We introduce this series with excerpts from Rochdale grooming gang victim: I was raped by 5 men a day, by Tariq Tahir, May 8th, 2012:

A victim of an Asian paedophile gang described how she was forced to have sex with up to five men a day.

She was 15 when she was targeted by the men and gang-raped at least four times a week.

Speaking after nine men were convicted of plying white girls as young as 13 with drink and drugs, she said her ordeal had ruined her life.

Notice the descriptions: an "Asian paedophile gang" victimized "white girls".

She was targeted by the gang in Rochdale, who at first seemed friendly as they gave her alcohol, cigarettes, food and taxi rides.

But her nightmare began when she was raped. 'He asked me to come upstairs and I didn't really think anything of it,' said the woman, now aged 20.

'He then was saying all the things he had bought for me and that he wanted something back for it.'

The abuse continued for months, until she was arrested for smashing the counter at the takeaway where the men met the girls. She told police about her ordeal but the Crown Prosecution Service decided she would not be viewed as a 'credible witness'.

It was then that the abuse continued with more men.

The comments to the article are enlightening.

First of all, one commentator points out that the expression "Asian" is misapplied, claiming the perpetrators are all from Pakistan.

The reality is that all but one are from Pakistan; the last guy is from Afghanistan.

But, anyone following UK news understands the politically-correct codeword here: the gang was comprised of Muslim men. Two commentators point out the connection to Islam.

Other commentators make the point that the issue here is criminal activity, not religion.

Indeed, one commentator goes so far as to point out that "if Islam meant anything to these men, they wouldnt provide anyone with drugs or alcohol" and that, under Islam, the penalty for rape is death.

Furthermore, members of the Islamic community there have denounced these crimes, and not just in front of TV cameras.

A discussion on Sunni Forum (Page 1, Page 2, Page 3) shows how angry Muslims are about what is happening, and how powerless they feel to stop it. Concerns are that the imams are not addressing the matter; the question arises whether the perpetrators even attend prayers at the mosques; one commentator advises that the perps know what they are doing is wrong; and there are fears that members of the Muslim community who take action will themselves be targeted by the gangs committing these crimes.

One Muslim leader has spoken out consistently and vocally. From Rochdale grooming trial: Split views on race issue, May 8, 2012:

The conviction of nine Asian men for grooming and abusing white girls has prompted strong, split opinions on whether race is an issue in such cases.

A Muslim community leader has said there is a "problem" of British Pakistani men thinking "white girls are worthless and can be abused".

[snip]

Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of The Ramadhan Foundation, said grooming was "a significant problem for the British Pakistani community".

"There is an over-representation [of Asian men] amongst recent convictions in the crime of on-street grooming [and] there should be no silence in addressing the issue of race as this is central to the actions of these criminals," he said.

"They think that white teenage girls are worthless and can be abused without a second thought; it is this sort of behaviour that is bringing shame on our community."

'Vulnerable young children'

He said community elders were "burying their heads" over the issue and police and local councils should not "be frightened" to address the problem, as there was "a strong lesson that you cannot ignore race or be over-sensitive".

Mr Shafiq said Muslim leaders needed to "reject any attempt to silence the reaction from our community".

The UK is facing a rash of such cases, where Muslim men of Pakistani ethnicity are grooming underage white girls for sex. Mr. Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, and quoted in the passage above, has been vocal in condemning this activity. In a press release from last year, Mr. Shafiq stated:

The convictions yesterday of two ring leaders of a grooming gang sends a clear signal that these crimes are unacceptable and those engaged in such crimes will pay a heavy price.

I pay tribute to the girls and their families who have been brave in giving evidence against these evil men, they will now need all the support from the Authorities to rebuild their lives.

I have been clear in instigatating this debate that these are criminal matters and should be seen in this way, no community or faith ever sanctions these evil crimes and to suggest that this somehow engrained in the community is deeply offensive.

I urge all engaged in this debate to do so with tolerance, honesty and above all based on evidence and not prejudiced positions.

In another statement from last November, Mr. Shafiq had the following remarks:

There must be no hiding place for these criminals, regardless of race or background in our country and we must not shy away from speaking out. The reality is that the majority of child sex cases are carried out by white man but in areas with a large concentration of ethnic minorities there are significant number of abusers who are Asian. We know from many recent convictions that these men come from the Pakistani and Indian communities, to say that ethnicity is not a factor in these crimes is a lie and abject failure of authorities whose primary role is to protect these children. We have and will continue to never hide away from speaking on this issue and the positive feedback received from all sections of our society shows utter disgust at the crimes and also disgust at the authorities for their failure in protecting our children.

Sadly when a recent white gang were convicted in Portsmouth of grooming there was very little coverage in the media but when Asian gangs are convicted there was blanket coverage, some elements of the media are feeding division when we should all be uniting to ensure that there is no safe place for these criminals from any race or background. We would urge the media to responsibly report on these crimes and ensure that they do not tarnish all Asian communities where the overwhelmly majority are disgusted by these sick evil men.

Two things jump out at me: 1) Mr. Shafiq says that it is a lie to deny that ethnicity is a factor; and 2) Mr. Shafiq goes to great pains to point out that whites are more guilty than people of "Asian" descent.

And, the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping - CROP - seems to agree that the matter needs to be addressed regardless of ethnic sensitivities, going so far as to point out the connections to British Pakistani men, but still cautioning against overgeneralizatins; from CROP News Issue 14 Spring 2011

Race and ethnicity

CROP seeks to avoid any unwarranted generalisations or extrapolations in understanding child sexual exploitation and developing responses to it. CROP's practice and philosophy is evidence-based and CROP is aware that sexual exploiters come from various ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds. However, much of the debate in the recent media coverage focused on the dominance of British Pakistani men involved in such criminal networks in the North and the Midlands. The media’s spotlight on a particular race and ethnicity of perpetrator in the context of child sexual exploitation has been controversial within the field and some might argue at odds with CROP's stance. As a parent-led charity which represents a cross-section of families, of which many have experienced the sexual exploitation of their children by British Pakistani men and who are pleased that this particularly sensitive issue is now in the public domain, engaging in the debate and accurately reflecting a diverse range of parents' experiences has been exceptionally challenging.

CROP recognises that there is clear condemnation of child sexual exploitation, as contrary to the values, beliefs and best practice of all religions and ethnicities. As such, the potential for cooperation across all communities and traditions is high. CROP is committed to sharing in and promoting this cooperation. This includes: working alongside the vast majority of the British Pakistani community who find the exploitation abhorrent; and addressing the issues which do exist within the small criminal minority within that community.

Of course, I question all this.

From Revealed: conspiracy of silence on UK sex gangs, January 5, 2011

The Times has identified 17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them during the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men. The victims came from 13 towns and cities and in each case two or more men were convicted of offences.

In total, 56 people, with an average age of 28, were found guilty of crimes including rape, child abduction, indecent assault and sex with a child. Three of the 56 were white, 53 were Asian. Of those, 50 were Muslim and a majority were members of the British Pakistani community.

Several police sources have told The Times that those convicted represent only a small proportion of what one detective described as a "tidal wave" of offending that has been uncovered in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and some Midlands counties.

A senior West Mercia detective has now called for an end to the "damaging taboo" surrounding gang-led on-street grooming, which he blames on a fear among police and child protection workers of being branded racist. Detective Chief Inspector Alan Edwards said: "These girls are being passed around and used as meat. To stop this type of crime you need to start talking about it, but everyone's been too scared to address the ethnicity factor. No one wants to stand up and say that Pakistani guys in some parts of the country are recruiting young white girls and passing them around their relatives for sex, but we need to stop being worried about the racial complication."

Race is not the issue here, and pointing out the ethnicity of the perpetrators is not racist.

The issue here is more cultural: what makes ethnic Pakistani men feel that they can do these things to girls from outside their community?

Victory Is Ours: Introduction

In Land of the Blacks, Part 1, we very briefly reviewed Sudanese history, and provided the background leading up to the referendum that led to South Sudan's independence. Reviewing this post today, I discovered that the links to embed an audio and a video no longer function. There is now a link to take you to the video, and I am looking for a replacement for the embedded audio.

In Land of the Blacks, Part 2, we reviewed expert testimony before Congress to get an idea of how Bashir's regime in Khartoum operates. In particular, we saw how Bashir lets militias do his dirty work, supporting them by airstrikes which serve little military purpose, but which terrorize the civilian villages and refugee camps. We also saw how International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Bashir invents conflict to create a better negotiating position, and heard of allegations that Bashir was embezzling billions of dollars of oil money.

In Land of the Blacks, Part 3 we heard of violence leading up to the January, 2011, plebiscite on independence, considered how oil would become a key issue, and noticed that 20% of Sudan's civil service were southerners.

These first three parts were published on January 8, 2011. Land of the Blacks, Part 4 came out on June 6, 2011, and in it we considered the oil from Abyei and the Unity oilfield, and saw how hostilities were already breaking out around Abyei. Governor Taban Deng Gai of Unity State was quoted as stating that there already existed a de facto state of war. And, we put it together: Bashir was using proxy militias backed by his airpower to drive tribes hostile to his rule out of disputed areas, with the goal of moving his own people in. He obviously sought de facto control of disputed areas, which could later be legitimized through votes for "self-determination".

By Land of the Blacks, Part 5, we were considering the mechanics of the hostilities, especially the background of Ahmad Muhammad Harun, and ICC-indicted war criminal whom Bashir had named governor of Southern Kordofan. We came to the conclusion that Bashir had been planning this fight for more than two years, and had been getting his assets (people, militias, military units) in place. And, we saw how, in testimony before Congress, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, pointed out that President Obama was following the same flawed policy relative to Sudan and Bashir that Obama had criticized in 2008.

By this point, it was obvious to me a war was breaking out, so I began the next series on Sudan, entitled The Inter-Sudan War, in June; the title was chosen because the war was obviously beginning along the poorly-defined border between the Republic of Sudan ("rump" Sudan, the north) and the other Sudanese daughter country, the Republic of South Sudan. In The Inter-Sudan War, Part 1, we considered how easy it would be for Bashir to attain his goals in the absence of an effective international response, and we also saw how easy an effective international response could be, given the political will to confront this indicted war criminal.

The Inter-Sudan War, Part 2 outlined Bashir's emerging ethnic cleansing of his border areas, and drew parallels with the genocide in Rwanda. We also pointed out a general regional trend of secular dictators and infidels being targeted by Islamic militants, and how Obama was always either doing nothing, or supporting the Islamic militants.

The Inter-Sudan War, Part 3 provided more information to support the contention that it was not merely a question of ethnic cleansing, but of Islamic militants doing exactly what Bashir had promised would happen in the event the South seceded: turn the North into an Islamic state governed by sharia law.

It was only this month that The Inter-Sudan War, Part 4 pointed out the conflict was really beginning to heat up, not just with militias terrorizing civilians, but with troops from North and South fighting it out, and in The Inter-Sudan War, Part 5 we considered the political and economic aspects of this fight, and saw how the heavier fighting was sparked by an incursion by Northern troops, which was met by Southern forces pursuing them northward in "hot pursuit" - a "hot pursuit" denounced by the international community, resulting in South Sudan's President Kiir withdrawing those troops, but then facing some domestic pressure as a result.

So, we saw how a war was developing while the rest of the world hoped for peace. Then, we saw how the war was breaking out, while the rest of the world thought it was merely a possibility.

Now, we will begin a new series, entitled Victory Is Ours, in which we will examine how Bashir is winning, while the rest of the world is beginning to realize a war is actually being fought.

The Inter-Sudan War, Part 5

In Part 4 we began an overview of recent events in Sudan. We now go more into depth. In this post, we start by examining some aspects of China's concerns regarding the situation along the inter-Sudan Border. From Sudan tensions imperil China's investments, April 7, 2012, we have a report by Al Jazeera's Nazanine Moshiri:

Mentioned in the report is South Sudan's expulsion of Liu Yingcai, head of South Sudan's biggest oil company, the Chinese and Malaysian-owned Petrodar. Liu was accused of helping the government in Khartoum steal $815 million worth of oil; we examine excerpts of South Sudan expels Chinese oil firm boss from February 22, 2012:

South Sudan has stopped production after Sudan seized oil - Khartoum says this is because of unpaid transit fees.

[snip]

Oil makes up 98% of Juba's budget - but its only export route is through its northern neighbour.

Before the shutdown, China was the biggest buyer of Sudanese oil, relying on it for nearly 5% of its needs.

It has good relations with the Khartoum government - and was a key player in trying to get the two sides to come to an agreement over the oil crisis.

In Part 4 we heard about this, and we heard, in an interview with South Sudan's Minister of Information Dr. Marial Benjamin, that Khartoum ("North" Sudan) was charging Juba (the Republic of South Sudan) exhorbitant transit fees, until Khartoum just started stealing the oil altogether - allegedly, nearly $1 billion worth. It was at this point that South Sudan cut off the flow of oil through the north.

This situation regarding oil was one of four causes identified by Professor Alex de Wall as combining to generate the current crisis.

From Alex de Waal: Currently, it’s war for North and South Sudan, April 24, 2012:

Economic Factors

Pre-secession oil revenues for North Sudan constituted 55 percent of its national budget. North Sudan has experienced a 40 percent drop in oil revenues since secession, a decrease in budget which would require mitigation either by austerity, international assistance or transitional financial assistance from the South. None of these three has taken place. In December, as a result of the dire economic situation in the North, the Khartoum government started taking oil that rightly belonged to the South. This prompted the South's oil shutdown – de Waal states that the South "didn't really do their sums" with regard to the financial implications of this this decision. At some point, in the near future, the South Sudanese government will simply run out of money. If the government has no money then quite rapidly the South may become ungovernable.

It is with the greatest of hesitation that I dispute the conclusions of Professor de Waal, who is very well-versed on the situation in Sudan.

However, I think that perhaps the South did "do their sums" - at first, they paid exhorbitant transit fees, as indicated by Dr. Benjamin, in order to keep the oil flowing and their own money coming in from the proceeds of its sale.

But, then, when Khartoum just started stealing the South's oil outright, Juba was in a position where, instead of getting an income at an exhorbitant fee, Juba was simply pumping oil and essentially giving it away to Khartoum which, in turn, was using the money not to build agricultural infrastructure, which the North desperately needs, but to prosecute a war against rebels which the North claimed were being supported by the South.

Why give something - oil - and get nothing in return? Worse, why give resources for free to a country which is essentially committing aggression against you, and which is run by internationally-indicted war criminals with a history of committing similar aggressions elsewhere? I think Juba did their sums, and came a conclusion: the loss of revenue for the South, which, as we have seen, is 98% of their income, is painful, but had already occurred. The South merely interdicted the theft and subsequent misuse of Juba's own resources to prosecute war against Juba.

Not only is this both a cause and a result of the ongoing hostilities, but this also ties back in to China. China buys 67% of Sudan's exported oil. From A Q&A on oil in Sudan, March 16, 2012:

Q.Who are currently the largest buyers of Sudanese/South Sudanese oil?

EIU: The major customers of Sudanese and South Sudanese oil is/will be China. In 2010, China acquired 67% of Sudan's oil exports, followed by Malaysia, Japan and India.

In 2010, Sudan produced 470,000 b/d, of which 100,000 b/d was used for domestic consumption, leaving about 370,000 b/d left for export. Of this latter total, about 67% was exported to China.

With Sudan now broken up, South Sudan now produces about 345,000 b/d and Sudan about 150,000 b/d. These ar estimates.

As we saw above, this accounts for 5% of China's oil needs - a volume that could be covered by increases in production by other suppliers. But, the economic impact for Khartoum and Juba is more significant. Skipping down:

Q.Does South Sudan have any other industry aside from oil, or are they wholly dependent on energy exports for their income?

EIU: South Sudan is virtually entirely dependent on oil exports for its national revenue, 98% in fact. Half of Sudan's government revenue and 90% of Sudan's export revenue is dependent on oil sales.

With most oil produced in the South, and with all Southern oil having to transit the North for export, and with both governments heavily reliant on oil revenues, it is not surprising that oil revenues top the list of disputed issues.

(Source for last two images.)

As I have explained in previous posts, International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has stated that (North) Sudan's Bashir invents conflict to create a better negotiating position.

Sudan's President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir

Given that the North is only heavily reliant on revenues from oil exports, but that the South is almost totally reliant on such revenues, Bashir may have figured he could provoke a fight over this matter, knowing that time is likely on his side - especially if international opinion is divided regarding the war, rather than being firmly against Khartoum.

And, that is exactly what has happened.

South Sudan's armed forces moved into disputed territory - Heglig - generally recognized by the world as belonging to the North, until such time as a settlement is negotiated. But, it is worth recalling South Sudan's Minister of Information Dr. Marial Benjamin's words in an interview, the audio of which was presented in Part 4: that the South's forces moved into Heglig in "hot pursuit" of forces from the North. Under pressure from the international community, President Kiir withdrew these troops, and this move has met with some dissatisfaction among leaders from the South.

I can't help but wonder if Bashir didn't provoke this deliberately, knowing he was in a better position to weather the economic storm that would result from shutting off the flow of the South's oil and heating up the war, and knowing that his opposite number, President Kiir, was perhaps a little more sensitive to the political fallout from any result or response than Bashir himself was?

Stay tuned for more.

The Inter-Sudan War, Part 4

In Part 1, we considered the initial spark that ignited open hostilities between Sudan and South Sudan, recalling that:

International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has stated that Bashir invents conflict to create a better negotiating position, according to March, 2009 Wikileaked cable. Consequently, we could expect Bashir to generate some kind of crisis, through a false-flag operation if necessary; however, given the tensions, he really only needs to wait for an inevitable incident, then blow it out of proportion.

[snip]

If the goal is not a thorough military defeat of the south, but rather a conflict to improve his negotiating position, and in particular a conflict under somewhat ambiguous circumstances so as to not galvanize any kind of international response, Bashir could pull this off quite easily. Such a scenario would be consistent with what we have seen in Sudan, it would be consistent with what we know of Bashir, and it would be consistent with Lt. Gen. Moi's observations. This might be leveraged by Bashir into more control over Sudan's oil exports which, coupled with a growing gold-mining industry in the north, would seem to secure Khartoum's position for the foreseeable future.

And, I think this is what is happening. As Governor Taban Deng said back in May, South Sudan is already at war.

In Part 2, we reviewed information from previous posts and various articles, coming to the conclusion that Sudan's President Bashir had been planning and preparing for contingencies to leverage incidents with South Sudan into more control of Sudanese oil (pumped in the South, but piped for export through the North), and into a more ethnically-cleansed Sudan. We also considered that such incidents could be fabricated, though this was not necessary, as, given the tension along the border with the south, a suitable incident would inevitably arise. We finished by asking some questions:

This is shaping up as a fight between 1) bad guys like Bashir and jihadists and 2) infidels and takfir like Gaddafi.

So, why is Obama supporting the rebels against Gaddafi who, by extension, may very well find themselves allied to Bashir?

And, why is Obama doing essentially nothing about Bashir's ethnic cleansing in Abyei and Southern Kordofan?

Of course, Gaddafi is dead and jihadist power in Libya (and Egypt) grows daily - and Syria is in turmoil... the jihadists are winning.

Sudan's President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir

In Part 3 we reviewed what is going in Kordofan, and saw how it is clearly an effort to eliminate a main opposition group from Sudan. One source cited took pains to claim this was not a Muslim/infidel sort of thing, but of course, I disagree: Bashir is very much into Islamic imperialism which, typical of such imperialistic ideologies, will be a springboard for Bashir himself to consolidate his own power. Bashir's jihad is being conducted via his tested formula of aerial attacks on civilians, followed by brutal assaults by jihadists on the ground. The aerial attacks are so bad, there is a website devoted to documenting them: Sudan Bombing. That some of the victims are Muslims is irrelevant; they can conveniently be labeled as takfir.

The current situation is summarized in CSIS's The Two Sudans on the Brink, from April 19, by Richard Downie:

There are fears that Sudan and South Sudan are edging closer to all-out war. The latest crisis has been precipitated by a dispute over oil, which propels the economies of both countries. South Sudan broke away from Sudan to become an independent nation in July 2011 but has been unable to agree on terms for using the North's oil pipeline, its only route to selling its oil. The dispute escalated in January, when South Sudan shut off production entirely rather than pay what it said were exorbitant fees to transport its oil through Sudan. A military confrontation quickly ensued, which culminated in the seizure by South Sudan's army of the main oil field controlled by the North, Heglig, on April 10. In a speech to party supporters, President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan said that efforts to retake Heglig would "not be the end, but the beginning." He pledged to "liberate" South Sudan from its government.

We can listen to the situation explained by South Sudan's Minister of Information Dr. Marial Benjamin in a nearly hour-long interview on Sudanese talk radio. From South Sudan condemns 'wanton' attacks on its territory, March 29, 2012:

At the Sahel Blog, Alex Thurston, a blogger whose commentary is often featured in the Christian Science Monitor, gives some background to the politics in the north in a post entitled Glimpses of (North) Sudanese Politics in a Time of Conflict from April 23. Three days before, he wrote a post entitled Sudan and South Sudan Flirting with Full-Blown War. Thurston consistently points to factors that may result in de-escalation and an avoidance of all-out-war. However, even if war between the two Sudans is technically avoided, do we not still have an ongoing war among Sudanese, considering Bashir's activities within the Republic of Sudan (the north)?

Some de-escalation between North and South has indeed occurred. From Governor Bakasoro 'unhappy' with South Sudan pullout from Panthou, hits out at 'biased' International Community, April 23, we have another audio clip:

For now, the African Union is reaffirming that border disputes should not be settled by force (see AU pushing roadmap for resolution of conflict between Khartoum and Juba), even as President Kiir faces domestic pressure in South Sudan for withdrawing troops from Heglig (known as Panthou in the South - see Governor Bakasoro 'unhappy' with South Sudan pullout from Panthou, hits out at 'biased' International Community).

Meanwhile, what has been happening in South Kordofan (see Peter Moszynski on the Nuba Mountains and South Sudan, April 6) will likely continue to happen, since the international community seems determined to let Sudan's indicted war criminals be war criminals.

How is this not already a war?

And, as I pointed out in a previos post, American media is letting this happen on Obama's watch, without so much as a whimper to call attention to it.

License to Intrude, Part 3

In Part 1, we saw how federal agents were taking shortcuts around the Bill of Rights to collect and retain information on innocent, lawful (and legally-protected) activities of American citizens, and share that with other government agencies. The FBI was the subject of much of the discussion - but don't think it ends (or begins) with them. We also examined the connections between Facebook's senior leadership and national Democrats, and asked the question about what would happen if government agents, following orders from unscrupulous superiors, sought information from a social networking corporation whose executives helped put those unscrupulous superiors into power.

In Part 2 we saw how Facebook inadvertently collected large amounts of information from the computers of its users, even after those users had logged out of Facebook. This was significant, because the information deliberately collected was quite extensive:

Thus, in addition to being populated by traditional Facebook activities — "likes," comments, wall posts, picture posts, and so on—Ticker will soon be filled with detailed information about users' media consumption and lifestyle habits—the TV shows they watch, the books they read, the websites they visit, and the routes they jog, most likely without users affirmatively setting their preferences to share such information.

We also saw an example of how the government of Iran was using Facebook information to persecute activists in the United States! And, we heard about Facebook's policy regarding government requests: "32. Facebook currently grants government access to user information on merely a "good faith belief" that the disclosure is required by law[.]"

Well, it is getting better.

An excerpt from Four Unanswered Questions About the Cybersecurity Bills by Eva Galperin, March 27, 2012, gives a little more insight into the questions being considered in legislating current technology:

What does "information sharing" mean?

All of the proposed cybersecurity bills mandate some kind of "information sharing" or "government assistance" between the U.S. government and the private companies that have access to so much of our personal data, including email, web searches, GPS data, and our social graphs. Companies are encouraged to share information about "cyber threats" or incidents with the government, and to that end it provides them with immunity when sharing information about threats.

Some of the proposals balance this information-sharing with privacy oversight, to make sure that shared information does not impinge on individual privacy or civil liberties, but proposals such as the Rogers bill contain no such protective language. The Rogers bill gives companies a free pass to monitor and collect communications and share that data with the government and other companies, so long as they do so for "cybersecurity purposes." Just invoking "cybersecurity threats" is enough to grant companies immunity from nearly all civil and criminal liability, effectively creating an exemption from all existing law. Additionally, the Rogers bill places almost no restrictions on what kinds of information can be collected and how it can be used, so long as the companies can claim it was motivated by "cybersecurity purposes." S. 2105 (Lieberman) and S. 2151 (McCain) contain similarly dangerous provisions.

As if that wasn't bad enough, "information sharing" is often just a euphemism for surveillance and countermeasures, including monitoring email, filtering content, or blocking access to websites.

The link in the above excerpt goes into more detail on the Rogers bill. From Rogers' "Cybersecurity" Bill Is Broad Enough to Use Against WikiLeaks and The Pirate Bay, March 8, 2012, by Rainey Reitman and Lee Tien:

Under the proposed legislation, a company that protects itself or other companies against "cybersecurity threats" can "use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property" of the company under threat. But because "us[ing] cybersecurity systems" is incredibly vague, it could be interpreted to mean monitoring email, filtering content, or even blocking access to sites. A company acting on a "cybersecurity threat" would be able to bypass all existing laws, including laws prohibiting telcos from routinely monitoring communications, so long as it acted in "good faith."

The broad language around what constitutes a cybersecurity threat leaves the door wide open for abuse. For example, the bill defines "cyber threat intelligence" and "cybersecurity purpose" to include "theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information."

Yes, intellectual property. It's a little piece of SOPA wrapped up in a bill that's supposedly designed to facilitate detection of and defense against cybersecurity threats. The language is so vague that an ISP could use it to monitor communications of subscribers for potential infringement of intellectual property. An ISP could even interpret this bill as allowing them to block accounts believed to be infringing, block access to websites like The Pirate Bay believed to carry infringing content, or take other measures provided they claimed it was motivated by cybersecurity concerns.

The language of "theft or misappropriation of private or government information" is equally concerning. Regardless of the intent of this language, the end result is that the government and Internet companies could use this language to block sites like WikiLeaks and NewYorkTimes.com, both of which have published classified information. Online publishers like WikiLeaks are currently afforded protection under the First Amendment; receiving and publishing classified documents from a whistleblower is a common journalistic practice. While there's uncertainty about whether the Espionage Act could be brought to bear against WikiLeaks, it is difficult to imagine a situation where the Espionage Act would apply to WikiLeaks without equally applying to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and in fact everyone who reads about the cablegate releases. But under Rogers' cybersecurity proposal, the government would have new, powerful tools to go after WikiLeaks. By claiming that WikiLeaks constituted "cyber threat intelligence" (aka "theft or misappropriation of private or government information"), the government may be empowering itself and other companies to monitor and block the site. This means that the previous tactics used to silence WikiLeaks—including a financial blockade and shutting down their accounts with online service providers—could be supplemented by very direct means. The government could proclaim that WikiLeaks constitutes a cybersecurity threat and have new, broad powers to filter and block communication with the journalistic website.

I am wondering if it doesn't go far beyond that. What about if someone had serious concerns that a social networking company were spying on its customers and passing that information to someone else in deliberate violation of the law? If that someone tried to collect evidence to determine if this was indeed happening, could that attempt be construed as a cybersecurity threat? Of course criminals will cover their tracks by breaking more laws, but this could make it perfectly legal for criminals to cover up criminal activities.

Read some of the rest of the posts at my blog, and tell me if that is not a serious concern.

Facebook's "Timeline" feature has been alleged to go out of bounds. From a December 27, 2011, EPIC letter to the FTC we learn about the threats posed by "Timeline":

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:

Recently, the Federal Trade Commission announced a landmark settlement with the social network company, Facebook. According to the Commission, "The social networking service Facebook has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public."¹ We write now to urge the Commission to determine whether Facebook's deployment of "Timeline" complies with the Commission's recent order In the Matter of Facebook, Inc. (Nov 29, 2011).

Having just reached a settlement with the Commission in which the company is required "to take several steps to make sure it lives up to its promises in the future, including giving consumers clear and prominent notice and obtaining consumers' express consent before their information is shared beyond the privacy settings they have established,"² Facebook is changing the privacy settings of its users in a way that gives the company far greater ability to disclose their personal information than in the past. With Timeline, Facebook has once again taken control over the user's data from the user and has now made information that was essentially archived and inaccessible widely available without the consent of the user.

[snip]

Timeline acts as a user's profile page and automatically summarizes the user's life, from birth to the present day.⁸ Facebook selectively takes user information to display the Timeline summaries from every piece of information that has ever been shared with Facebook.

[snip]

This level of exposure is vastly different from the old Facebook Profile.

[snip]

Nor is Timeline limited to the types of information shared in the past. As users connect to social apps, Timeline will contain new categories of information regarding media consumption and lifestyle habits. Timeline's new "Health and Wellness" item, for example, encourages users to disclose medical data, turning Facebook into "an actuarial goldmine."¹¹

In fact, Facebook is already used by the leading pharmaceutical companies to market drugs and medical treatments.¹² The use of Facebook by health advertising companies led the Center for Digital Democracy to file a complaint with the Commission last year.¹³ The complain discussed Facebook applications such as Healthseeker, which was designed to help people with diabetes make informed lifestyle choices, but which neglected to mention "how users are tracked and monitored or what kinds of data are collected."¹⁴

[snip]

One government has already warned consumers about the dangers presented by Timeline. Australia's Privacy Commission warned consumers to be careful what information they share with Facebook, stating that the company is "trying to change how people think and encourage them to normalize over-sharing and abandon any restraing on storage and use and exposure of private information."²⁰

Wow!

What kind of data is at stake, though? You might be surprised. From COMMENTS OF THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER To THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION / Face Facts: A Forum on Facial Recognition / Project Number P115406, January 31, 2012:

At a minimum, EPIC recommends that the Commission enforce Fair Information Practices ("FIP") against commercial actors when collecting, using, or storing facial recognition data. We further believe that businesses should never use facial recognitions techniques to obtain the actual identity of consumers without the consumer's actual knowledge and informed consent. Consumers today enjoy enormous freedom and personal safety because they are able to interact with so many merchants, who are essentially strangers, without concern that they will be secretly tracked and profiled. It is critical that the Federal Trade Commission take affirmative steps to ensure the protection of the consumers' right to safeguard their identity. In the absence of guidelines and legal standards, EPIC recommends a moratorium on the commercial deployment of facial recognition techniques.

[snip]

EPIC's 2010 complaint concerning Google Buzz provided the basis for the Commission's investigation and subsequent settlement concerning the social networking service.² In that case, the Commission found that Google "used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers when it launched [Buzz]."³ The Commission's recent settlement with Facebook was based on complaints filed by EPIC and other privacy and civil liberties organizations.⁴ The Commission found that Facebook had "deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public."⁵ EPIC has also worked to bring the Commission's attention to the issues raised by facial recognition technology. In 2011, EPIC Senior Counsel John Verdi spoke at the Face Facts Workshop,⁶ and EPIC filed a complaint with the Commission regarding Facebook's use of facial recognition technology.⁷

But, wait! There's more!

Did you notice how Facebook now tells everyone where you are when you post a status update? Facebook is not just tracking your location; it is making your location public knowledge. To be sure, this is only an approximate location, but do you really want the world to know when you are hundreds of miles from home, away on a vacation or a business trip?

And, it does not stop with location. The potential is for far, far more.

From Are you ready for a 'quantified life'?, by Mike Elgan, April 14, 2012:

Computerworld - That smartphone you carry around is a box full of sensors.

Those sensors are just sitting there doing nothing, or performing mundane tasks like giving you turn-by-turn directions or turning off your screen when you're yakking on the phone.

But what if you could use phone sensors to their full potential?

[snip]

Smart software with access to all the data gathered by these sensors, combined with an Internet full of information, could figure out all kinds of things about you.

Everybody knows that big companies like Google, Apple and Facebook want to harvest cellphone-generated data and use it to serve up virtual personal assistants with a side order of contextual advertising.

This vision of the future puts your phone's sensor data in the hands of megacorporations.

[snip]

Alohar's Mobile Behavior Analytics Engine squeezes meaning out of user sensor data and offers libraries of data analysis to developers.

For example, based on the speed at which you're moving and the pattern of your phone's motion sensor, Alohar's software can tell if you're walking, skateboarding, biking, driving or flying. The GPS can tell where this is taking place. The clock tells when.

It can also auto-categorize locations as "home," "work," "restaurant," "gym" and other groupings, and provide you with statistics about, for example, how many hours you spend at work each month.

By combining GPS, light sensor and temperature data, the software can tell if you're inside or outside.

Some people with brains are rightly concerned about having chips implanted in them, without their knowledge or consent.

But, how many of us have already bought such an item, and carry it with us everywhere we go?

1984 is here, and we're paying top dollar to have the latest upgrades to the surveillance system.

And, at least one social networking company whose executives supported Obama's and Clinton's candidacies in 2008 is collecting that information, giving it away to the government and selling it to the highest bidders.

From Are you ready for a 'quantified life'?:

There's another "ambient awareness" app called Highlight that tells you when someone you know -- or someone who knows someone you know -- is nearby.

A combination of a system like Alohar's and an app like Highlight could tell you how you're connected to the strangers around you (those who also use the same app). Here's a guy who goes to the same gym you do. There's a woman whose kids go to the same school as your kids. One of your neighbors works in a building next to your workplace -- maybe you should carpool.

It's impossible to predict what creative developers could do with this service.

I wonder just how seamlessly that might connect with Facebook? :)

Among the Sons of Togarmah, Part 5

In Part 1 we considered how the boundaries of Soviet Republics were drawn so that, should the USSR dissolve, these would be international borders, the demarcation of which would cause unrest; and, we saw how this was especially true in the Caucasus. We also examined how oil increasingly moves through pipelines in the Caucasus, skirting Russian borders, and we keyed in on Dagestan and Chechnya as examples of militant Islamic activity, what it may bring, and how difficult it is to effectively fight it.

In Part 2 we saw how Islamic terrorists sought to destabilize Kabardino-Balkaria, countering a Russian strategy of investment to improve the tourist industry in the region, which, in turn, was hoped to remove potential recruits from the jihadists by giving them jobs.

In Part 3, we saw how Moscow's strategy of "Chechenization" of the conflict in Chechnya might actually be more appropriately named "Kadyrovization" since Moscow seems to pin its hopes on a Chechen leader named Kadyrov. I summarized this situation thusly:

It should be noted that Chechens have developed a reputation for involvement in organized crime, throughout the Russian Federation and even on a global scale. Consequently, what Putin did was put one organized crime faction in charge of running Chechnya; other groups could either be friends or enemies of the most powerful organized crime group, which was powerful due to its ties to Moscow, and which was held in check by Moscow through the availability of other clans that could be placed in charge, should Kadyrov betray the Kremlin.

Basically, Moscow pays off, via support and federal money, one organized crime family to run Chechnya. This delegimitizes both federal and local authorities, creating a niche for the expansion of Islamic militant authority, and thus creating an atmosphere conducive to further Islamic insurgent activities. One immediate effect was that as violence initially died down in Chechnya, it increased in neighboring parts of the Caucasus.

In Part 4 we considered how the same dynamic that was at work creating problems in Dagestan was also at work in the northwest Caucasus, in Kabardino-Balkaria. We also saw how Dagestan was becoming the center of jihadism in the Caucasus. A recurring theme through this series has been how jihad is funded through criminal activities, including trafficking of Afghan heroin to Russia and Europe (and America).

Now, we have reports that Russian troops are moving from Chechnya to Dagestan.

In Russia Deploying Troops for Temporary Dagestan Reinforcement, dated March 19, we hear about troops being moved in to fight the separatist insurgency, and in Dagestan's President Promises a Decisive Crackdown on the Insurgency, from April 9, we hear about increased fighting between government forces and insurgents, and an increased resentment of Moscow-backed forces by the local Dagestanis.

Confusion Surrounds Reported Troop Deployment To Daghestan, from April 11, points out discrepancies between some observers, who claim a movement of about 1000 troops, and claims by Kavkaz Center of tens of thousands of troops; for example, 25.000 troops and more than 300 armored vehicles deployed in Dagestan from Chechnya from March 17 places the troop movement at the equivalent of two divisions.

Interesting analysis can be found in Chechen Troops in Dagestan: A Step Toward "Kadyrovization" of the North Caucasus?, which gives excellent background about ethnic disputes between Chechens and Dagestanis. The article goes on to question the ethnic composition of the troop movement, and point out the potential for trouble should too many Chechens be allowed too free a hand in Dagestan. So far, this has been a jihadist/infidel thing, but it could easily have an added Dagestani/Chechen dimension, from which the Islamic jihadists, whose ideology claims to transcend ethnicity, could be positioned to benefit.

But then there is the question of Kadyrovization, beyond battling insurgents. As I pointed out, this can be viewed in the light of organized crime, as corrupt officials in Moscow allow their local affiliates a free hand to organize crime in the Caucasus under the control of "their" guy, Kadyrov.

Kavkaz Center certainly views the world through its own prism; occasionally, this skews the view, but sometimes they come up with some very good information. In its entirety, with any edits from me, Russian-occupied Georgian provinces are transit corridors for Putin's KGB drug trafficking:

Publication time: 9 March 2012, 15:06

Two Russian occupied Georgian provinces are a transit corridor for Putin's KGB drug shipment from Asia to Europe, reports say.

As is known, drug trafficking is the main source of income for Putin's KGB generals and officers.

"Many observers believe that Georgia's separatist regions are main corridor for drug smuggling. Georgia's legislation is not again executed in the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are concerns that the drugs pass through this territory. It is impossible to re-verify this information, as the Russian occupation forces or de facto government of the regions do not exchange information on movement of drugs with the Georgian side," a report says.

The document's authors also note that the trucks moving on long-distance routes, sometimes carry drugs, and these goods must be checked at the points of departure and prior to shipment must be sealed.

The report's items on Georgia say that the country does not produce drugs, except a small volume of amphetamine-type stimulants.

The so called "crocodile", which is an alternative to morphine and is becoming popular, is often mentioned as a drug shipped by the KGB. It also says that heroin, subutex, methadone and marijuana are available on the Russian and international markets.

In turn, the CIA and US Army generals and officers actively control the drug production by their puppets in the American-occupied Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

Other information I have implicates certain US officials, both military and civilian, in trafficking Afghan heroin, including on board US military aircraft, thus confirming some of these jihadist allegations.

Could this jihadist report be accurate?

If so, could one reason for the troop movement be to secure marketshare in the trafficking of narcotics through the Caucasus?