#working illegally in another country and not paying taxes
Text
People from the global north who's looking into moving to Latinamerica to work remotely, please
PLEASE
PLEASE
Don't
Seriously
I don't care how expensive your way of life has become in your country, solve that with your people and your governments
Why are you dragging us into it? Why messing with our economy and way of life like that? What's to us anyway?
WHY DO WE HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE TO YOU AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND WHEN YOU'RE THE ONES MOVING INTO OUR HOUSE
YOU LOVE TO SHIT ON FOREIGNERS WHO DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH
WHY THE FUCK DO WE HAVE TO SPEAK YOUR LANGUAGE
IN
OUR
HOUSE
Fuck off, seriously, you're nothing but parasites here, making life harder than it already is
GO HOME
#ofc our governments are to blame seeing the dollars profit#and they have never given a shit abt us to begin with so#how awful is the genteification that sometimes i wish the insecurity became worse so they had shootings and shit in those areas#so they'd get the fuck out#this all came up becos of the English version of the colchones song#i lost it#that's it I'm at my limit with this#srsly get out and never come back fuck off#digital nomad#expat#btw you ain't 'expat' you're nothing but illegal immigrants#working illegally in another country and not paying taxes#gentrification#is a bitch#claudia sheinbaum die challenge
10 notes
·
View notes
Note
Viv also has Dark_Crowl working on HB in boarding. She currently lives in Georgia (the country), but is a Russian who was working *in* Russia while also working on HB, while there are active Sanctions going on against Russia. While Sanctions technically have no legal recourse against corporations hiring freelance individuals (as opposed to hiring through companies, which is extremely illegal), it's still an extremely scummy move for corporations to employ. Not to mention that Georgia's government is extremely cooperative with Russia's in filtering taxes earned by Russians back into Russia, so her living there really doesn't change much on just where her taxes go (this is a common way Russians try to circumvent the Sanctions).
In the wake of this Ukraine/Russia debacle, Dark tweeted "I just wanna thank Viv for hiring ppl on the studio regardless of their nationalities, gender, sexuality and etc. I don't know where I could've been right now without her and SH And I'm so very grateful that at least in this community I'm not hated for just existing." https://twitter.com/Dark_Crowl/status/1704589043885871163
It's very nice that she can afford to hide in another country and avoid trouble while her taxes on those SH earnings went to destroying someone else's apartment, someone's hospital, someone's school. How grateful that she gets a community, while other people hide in terror and burry themselves unground to avoid the horrific trauma the soldiers above ground will enact on them if they come up. That's such a tone-deaf way to look at it, and tone-deaf seems to be the word of the year for SH.
DaniDraws is calling it xenophobia against Russians, https://twitter.com/DaniDraws666/status/1704523131614843294
but completely ignores the fact that Viv's studio is circumventing sanctions, probably because Russian labour is cheaper than American labour and she doesn't care of the taxes earned off that cheaper labour goes into firing missiles at civilian buildings. I don't think that she necessarily even supports Russia, I think she's just ignorant to literally anything outside of her own goals, including how *when you pay Russians living in Russia, they get taxed and it goes into lobbing more missiles at civilians*.
TL;DR: someone doesn't deserve hate just for being ethnically Russian, but if your studio is circumventing Sanctions in order to take advantage of cheaper labour and is paying Russians living in Russia or Georgia, then congrats - you're funding missile strikes on Ukrainian civilians, they have a right to be mad. It's not xenophobia, it's common empathy and awareness for things outside of your own little fantasy red demon zone. Someone else pointed this situation out to me like a year back when they first noticed, and I never bothered bringing it up because I didn't think it needed to be said. But if people like Dani want to get on a high horse about exploiting cheap labour around Sanctions, then more attention should be brought to the fact that they're doing just that.
Too fucking right it should. Thanks for the info, and for helping bring said attention.
27 notes
·
View notes
Note
How is gun control evil? This country has mass shootings like every other day, what else can we do to stop them which will be practical and won’t take several generations to achieve?
i didn't write that post so quibbling on wording is something you should take up with the person who actually did, but i can see you just want to pick fights about gun control so you're in my inbox. so let's get started.
that post didn't start with gun control is evil, it started with 'showing future employers you failed a background check is evil' because there are a lot of reasons someone could fail a background check and limiting a person's ability to find work in an economy where you need money to live is always a fucking bad thing. it then goes on to say that the disproportionate affects gun control has on minorities is evil.
i personally don't think that gun control is evil in a vacuum, but i think it is super complicated and intermingled with a variety of other socioeconomic and political factors, and pretending that it isn't is fucking stupid. pretending gun control is an unalloyed good is politically shortsighted. there are a lot of moving parts at work here, and they all exist within a system that prioritizes white supremacy and state violence.
the first thing you need to look at is the carceral nature of gun control. in the U.S., felons are prohibited from owning guns, even after they've served their sentences, if their crime is classified as violent. this is another strand in a web of factors that makes jailing political opponents of the system a method of complete disenfranchisement. if you are found guilty of a crime that the state deems violent in our racist pay-to-win busted ass legal system, you have been effectively disarmed (as well as made much less likely to find work, barred from voting, and much more likely to be put back into prison in your lifetime)
i want you to stop for a minute, think about america's legal system, and remember who this facet of gun control really disarms. sure, there are plenty of dangerous jerkbags this law prevents from legally acquiring guns, but if you think this doesn't disenfranchise predominantly people of color and people of significantly reduced means and options, you're a fucking idiot.
on the topic of reduced means, the government tends to favor passing gun 'control' that is just additional fees and tax stamps, because they provide additional income for the government. for example, in my state and most others, you can own a suppressor so long as you register and pay an additional $200. this makes the ownership of guns and additional equipment pay-gated, and this further keeps guns in the hands of the wealthy and privileged over that of poorer individuals.
another thing you need to consider is that bans on the acquisition of firearms only affect legal trades, and only once they're passed. no one's going to stop buying back-door guns just because you said it's illegal. additionally, people tend to rush certain armaments before they are banned. if you go on reddit you can find people buying up crateloads of 10+ round AR mags in anticipation of mag bans. hell, every time a democrat is elected president, people rush to buy certain equipment and ammunition in anticipation of gun control legislation. you want to ask questions, i ask you this: how do you feasibly undo that kind of stockpiling? you can't just 'make it illegal' and expect existing guns and munitions to just vanish into thin air.
i'm not interested in talking all that much about mass shootings, because i think it's super fucking ghoulish of you to come into my inbox with that after i say i believe the disarmament of the proletariat is a mistake; you boil down the many factors of political violence to mere gun access. there are a lot of factors that drive political violence and mass shootings; the FBI is routinely found to use informants to goad terrorists (yes that includes 4chan racists, yes this includes white children like rittenhouse) into acting on their beliefs. additionally, controlling who purchases guns doesn't control who has access to them; rittenhouse for example used a gun that was purchased for him by an additional party. how do you, inbox guy, prevent that from happening? how do you, inbox guy, use mere gun control to change a system that encourages white people to commit violence and routinely shows white people that there are reduced consequences for harming minorities? because i guaran-fucking-tee spoiled little shits will find access to guns no matter how many laws you pass.
gun violence is a fucking tragedy but unfortunately reform always takes decades to achieve. the entire system needs to be reformed, and that's never going to happen with a disarmed proletariat. the current system encourages gun violence against minorities and emboldens the perpetrators of mass shootings, how about we focus on dismantling the power structures at play here.
72 notes
·
View notes
Text
Critiquing Joe's State of the Union Address Part One
Ukraine Spending: 100 billion? Why? What does it serve to prolong a war on one of the most corrupt nations in the world? The US and NATO blocked peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. Joe says our debt is too high. He's helping with that. Maybe Joe's helping Ukraine for all that crooked money he and Hunter received.
China Threatening our Sovereignty: Joe says " We will protect our nation." Oh yeah, shooting down that balloon after it flew across the whole country over sensitive military installations? You go Joe, China is shaking in their boots. Tiktok should be banned he says...lol
Buy manufactured items in USA? From now on all construction materials in govt infrastructure jobs need to be manufactured in the USA. In order to do that we would have to open 400 new copper and iron ore mines. A 100 new steel mills and aluminum refineries. Make America great again, Joe. Since 1995, our carbon emissions are down. Of course, all those manufacturing jobs went adios to other countries. Joe also says we need oil and gas to be around another 10 years. Gas stove guys.... sigh of relief.
Free Healthcare and College Education: Provided by the Soviet Constitution, not the US Constitution.
Taxes: Top taxpayers already pay 40% of the taxes. He wants to tax them more. Joe wants nonprofits to pay 15% of their income, not profit...Violating the 14th amendment.
Joe wants the govt to set prices on mdse. Communist Soviet Union did that too.
The Border: Joe made the cartels lots of money. Besides using children for the sex slaves, they do organ harvesting of the children. Nice huh? The cartels say "Thank YOU Joe." In the midst of the Coronavirus pandemic, millions of illegals entered without being tested and let out into the general public. He doesn't mention all the Fentanyl deaths either. That worthless woman who calls herself the VP wouldn't even go to the Texas valley where all the illegals were. Instead she goes to El Paso and Guatemala. Businesses were shut down, people couldn't work, were stressed out, dying of other diseases because they couldn't go to the doctor. Did Joe care?
Joe wants the govt to control everything. Joe took an oath to protect the Constitution, our freedom of speech and our liberties. He doesn't. He sucks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCng7eBvcs4
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
France: A Partner In Terrorism
Lafarge Admits Funding ISIS In Syria
French company admits it gave financial support to ISIS, agrees to pay over $700 million in fines.
Washington — French cement company Lafarge has pleaded guilty to one count of providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, admitting in court papers on Tuesday that it paid individuals designated by the U.S. as terrorists in Syria to secure the continued operation and protection of a cement plant from 2013 to 2014.
The company has agreed to pay $778 million in fines and forfeiture as part of the plea deal.
Beginning in 2010, Lafarge operated the Jalabiyeh Cement Plant in the Jalabiyeh region of Northern Syria. According to the statement of offense, the company admitted that after civil war broke out in the country in 2011, executives and intermediaries devised a scheme to pay members of the the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and al-Nusrah Front (ANF) to secure the safe operation of the plant and generate profit.
The payments took many forms, the Justice Department said, including "a revenue-sharing agreement" between ISIS and the company that Lafarge executives likened to paying "taxes" to ISIS. The more cement the plant sold to its customers, the more money Lafarge would pay ISIS.
The payments enabled Lafarge's Syrian subsidiary to get its employees and suppliers through ISIS and ANF checkpoints on the roads to the plant and block competitors from Turkey.
These funds — which secured both raw materials for production and protection for employees — violated federal law, the Justice Department said, and Lafarge was aware of their illegality. Their actions enabled the company to bring in approximately $70.3 million in revenue.
"In its pursuit of profits, Lafarge and its top executives not only broke the law — they helped finance a violent reign of terror that ISIS and al-Nusrah imposed on the people of Syria," Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said Tuesday when the plea agreement was announced, "We expect far more from companies, particularly those that operate in high-risk environments.
Monaco added that, as public reports indicate, French authorities have already arrested executives implicated in the scheme.
"Lafarge and its leadership had every reason to know exactly with whom they were dealing — and they didn't flinch. Instead, Lafarge forged ahead, working with ISIS to keep operations open, undercut competitors, and maximize revenue. And all the while, through their support and funding, Lafarge enabled the operations of a brutal terrorist organization," Monaco said.
Court documents also detailed numerous communications between Lafarge executives and unnamed intermediaries who acted as middlemen between the French company and the terrorists. The company admitted to paying these individuals $1,113,324 for their cooperation and covert assistance.
On August 20, 2013, a company executives wrote in an email, "It is clear that we have an issue with ISIS and Al Nusra and we have asked our partner [Intermediary 1] to work on it," according to court documents. And in another email described in the plea papers, an intermediary wrote to a Lafarge executive that he "officially" represented ISIS "for investments."
"The defendants negotiated and made unlawful payments at a time when these groups were gaining territory and brutalizing innocent civilians in Syria and elsewhere and were actively plotting against Americans," said Matt Olsen, head of the Justice Department's National Security Division, "There is no justification – none – for a multi-national corporation authorizing payments to a designated terrorist group."
Lafarge's actions at issue were the subject of an independent review within the company that yielded a report and corrective measures.
According to the Holcim Group, the Swiss multinational company that acquired Lafarge in July 2015 , "None of the conduct involved Lafarge operations or employees in the United States and none of the executives who were involved in the conduct are with Lafarge or any affiliated entities today," noting none of the employees targeted in the federal probe were found to have shared any of terrorist organizations' ideologies.
In a written statement following Tuesday's resolution, Lafarge said, "[We] have accepted responsibility for the actions of the individual executives involved, whose behavior was in flagrant violation of Lafarge's Code of Conduct. We deeply regret that this conduct occurred and have worked with the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve this matter."
Source: CBS News
#france#syria news#سوريا syria#syria war#syria crisis#syria conflict#terrorism#terror#terrorist#war on terror#bashar al assad#international affairs#international news#news#global news#cement#hypocrisy#double standards#crimes#crimes against people#crimes de guerra#crimes against humanity#war crimes#war on islam
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Google translation:
Back to the past. Nine evidence that Russia has returned to the USSR
Under Vladimir Putin, Russia becomes an exact copy of the Soviet Union. What worked during the USSR is applicable in modern Russia. The war in Ukraine brought the country into the past even more clearly. Russia is retreating to the USSR. Striking similarities.Shops will be opened in Russia for diplomats where they will be able to pay in foreign currency. The USSR introduced exactly the same solution by establishing Bieriozka stores This is not the first time that the Russian authorities have brought back to life phenomena typical of the Soviet era The tradition of informing can be found in the history of Russia as early as the early Middle Ages, but it was in the USSR that it became commonplace. Contemporary Russians are bolder and bolder in reporting what the Kremlin is making use of In modern Russia, even more relics of the past return. They are returning to favor, among others pioneers, Moskvich cars and punishment for criticizing the authorities.
Bieriozka stores
What was in the USSR:
Free circulation of currency was prohibited in the USSR, therefore, in 1961, a chain of Bieriozka stores was established for foreigners and Soviet foreign workers, where goods could be bought for "check rubles", and these, at various times, cost from one and a half to two Soviet rubles.
What's coming back:
There will be duty-free shops in Moscow and St. Petersburg for diplomats, consuls, employees of international organizations and their families. You will only be able to get there with official documents and buy retail. These stores will offer alcohol, tobacco products, perfumes and cosmetics, sweets, jewelry, smartphones and watches.
The owners of the stores will be a legal entity that will be established by an institution belonging to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a company that will be selected as a result of an "open tender".
Punishing "currency speculators"
What was in the USSR:
The criminal law of the USSR contained penalties for currency transactions: for example, the Criminal Code of the Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) of the 1960 version threatened all currency transactions with penalties up to and including the death penalty (Article 88).
What's coming back:
In early April, it became known that the Federal Tax Service instructed territorial authorities to cooperate with the Ministry of the Interior in order to identify currency speculators. The agency noted that cases of illegal purchase and sale of foreign currencies have recently become widespread. Therefore, the Federal Tax Service believes that hand-to-hand sales of foreign currency should be tracked via social networks, via Telegram channels and online advertisements.
Reports
What was in the USSR:
The tradition of informing can be traced in the history of Russia from the early Middle Ages, but in the USSR this phenomenon became mass-reporting: the state encouraged citizens to report. "Reporting about irregularities" at work was particularly widespread: employees handed over their colleagues to the authorities, also for their own promotion. Another type of denunciation widespread at that time was a home denunciation, when the informer and his victim were linked not by work, but by personal relationships.
What's coming back:
After the war broke out, denunciations on the Russians began to appear because of their attitude towards the actions of the authorities and their anti-war attitude - both “domestic” and “professional” denunciations.A student recorded a teacher saying that "every war is bad". The denunciation went to the police. This is how propaganda works in a Russian school.
At the end of March, Gennady Bondarenko, a 53-year-old chemistry and biology teacher from the village of Malokurilskoye on the island of Shikotan in the Kuril region, received four reprimands for "discrediting" the Russian army on the basis of four denunciations from his colleagues. In mid-July it turned out that his own mother denounced her son in Moscow for avoiding military service "on important days for the country".
Officials are also encouraging denunciations: on August 4, Duma deputy Alexander Chinsztejn boasted that after his denunciation, the police detained a resident of Moscow, Jelizaveta Smirnova, who had torn off the stand by the church in the village of Busharino in Moscow army) and threw it in the trash.
Sentences for criticizing the Soviet regime
What was in the USSR:
"Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda" was considered a crime for almost the entire period of the existence of the USSR. Pursuant to the provision of the Criminal Code The 1960 RSFSR for "slanderous slander slandering the Soviet state and social order" faced the perpetrator from six months to seven years in prison.
What's coming back:
In April, Vladimir Putin signed a punitive law for identifying the role of the USSR and Germany in World War II, and for denying the "decisive role of the Soviet people" in the victory over fascism.
The violation of the law is punishable by a fine from 1 to 2 thousand. rubles or administrative arrest up to 15 days; legal persons - a fine from 10 thousand up to 50 thousand rubles, officials - a fine from 2 to 4 thousand. rubles. If the offense is repeated, the amount of the fine will increase.
At the end of July, a criminal case was launched against a resident of the Stavropol Territory for a negative assessment of the Red Army. The allegations were made on the basis of photos posted on his page on the VKontakte website. The man is threatened with a fine of up to 3 million rubles or imprisonment for up to three years according to the article "Rehabilitation of Nazism".
Art advice
What was in the USSR:
The art councils acted as the censorship body that decided whether a work could reach a mass audience. Apart from representatives of the professional community (including, for example, members of the Composers 'and Writers' Union), such councils included party and Komsomol officials as well as social activists.
What's coming back:
Work on the draft law on public councils on television, theater and cinema is underway in the Duma, said one of the authors of the document, MP Nikolai Burłaev. After the passing of the law introducing such councils, he said, it would be necessary to "designate people who would regulate the process of selecting films for distribution".
Teachers, doctors, law enforcement and clergy - those who "think about what the next generation will be" - are expected to be members of public councils on television, theater and cinema.
Lists of "banned artists"
What was in the USSR:
Rock music was considered a "manifestation of hostile Western culture", the dissemination of which the authorities fought. There is a well-known document "Preliminary list of foreign music bands whose repertoire includes ideologically harmful pieces" from 1985, which indicated undesirable Western bands and the reasons for their inclusion on the list: Sex Pistols (punk, violence), Iron Maiden (violence, religious obscurantism ), Judas Priest (anti-communism, racism) etc.
What's coming back:
After the outbreak of the war, it turned out that unofficial lists of performers appeared who would be banned from performing in Russia due to anti-war statements. They include rappers Noize MC, Oxxymiron, Face, vocalists of Zemfira, Monetoczka, Maniża, DDT groups, Maszina Wremieni, Akwarium and others.
Duma Deputy Jelena Drapieko expressed her support for the idea: - Today, under the conditions of a "special operation", the content of what is happening on the stage should also be assessed. These are probably some administrative measures to ensure that calls against our "special operation", against our soldiers, against our country are not heard from the stage.
Attack on Literature
What was in the USSR:
Books that were not censored could not be published. At the same time, there were cases of withdrawing and destroying original works. An example is Daniil Andreyev's novel "Night Wanderers" about the repression of the 1930s. The author was arrested in the article "Preparation of an Act of Terrorism" and in 1948 he was sent to prison in Vladimir for 25 years (released in 1957, rehabilitated). All the copies of the book and the manuscript found were burned.
What's coming back:
In mid-April, Dmitry Silin was sitting at a small table in the center of Ivanovo. The man arranged several books by George Orwell, "1984," which he distributed for free to the townspeople. Suddenly, a uniform appeared at his "stand". Silin was arrested and put on trial. He is to hear the accusation of "discrediting the Russian army". "Pure Orwell" - comments Makarova in his social media.
At the end of July, copies of the children's book "Wormwood" about the fate of the Volga Germans during World War II were withdrawn from libraries in the Sverdlovsk Oblast. The reason for the withdrawal was the conclusion of Ivan Popp, associate professor of the Ural State Pedagogical University that the text of the book "aims to distort historical facts, create various speculations and myths", has a "liberal European direction" in comparing Hitler and Stalin and lacks stories with a positive view on representatives of the Soviet elite.
Pioneers
What was in the USSR:
The organization was founded in the USSR in 1922. Nadieżda Krupska thought it as a children's organization - "scout in form and communist in content".
The state made extensive use of the Pioneers for propaganda among children: Pavlik Morozov was named the model Pioneer, who is said to have denounced his father. It is known that in the 1930s there were cases where pioneers became involved in the fight against "anti-Soviet elements."
What's coming back:
In mid-July, the president signed the law on the creation of the all-Russian movement of children and youth. Its authors promised that participation would be voluntary, with the potential number estimated at 18 million. The declared goals of "new Pioneers" are shaping "a world view based on traditional values, love of the homeland and diligence"
Children participating in the official initiation ceremony of the youth organization "Young Pioneers", on Red Square in Moscow, May 22, 2022. Photo: NATALIA KOLESNIKOVA / AFP / AFP
Children participating in the official initiation ceremony of the youth organization "Young Pioneers" on Red Square in Moscow on May 22, 2022.
In July, the name of the future organization became known as Bolsha Pieremiena. Vladimir Putin will be the head of the supervisory board of the movement. Detailed decisions on the new Russian movement for children and youth will be made in December 2022.
Moskvich car
What was in the USSR:
The factory that produced one of the most famous Soviet cars, Moskvich, was opened in 1930 to assemble American Ford cars and trucks. In 1933, however, the company became a subsidiary of GAZ - it began to assemble the GAZ-A and GAZ-AA cars.
What's coming back:
Since 1998, a joint venture of the Moscow government and Renault has been operating in part of the plant's territory and in the workshops.
In 2022, the history of transforming the foreign plant into a place for building cars under the native Moskvich brand was repeated - the mayor of the capital, Sergei Sobyanin, announced its reactivation.
#russia#zsrr#usrr#communism#regime#soviet union#vladimir putin#tankies#communists#western leftists#sure go ahead westernians to live in russia#also russians living in the west why don`t you want to come back to matushka rassija if there is so great?
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Is Bitcoin mining legal?
Bitcoin mining can be a profitable business if you know how to approach it wisely. To get started, it’s crucial to select a country where this activity is legal. You won’t have to relocate there – it’s rather possible to manage your ASICs remotely with the help of a reliable provider. In this article, we’ll talk about the specifics of Bitcoin mining regulations worldwide and will help you pick an optimal location.
Legality of BTC Mining
Is Bitcoin mining legal? The answer to this question can be trickier than it seems. Let’s have a look at different possible situations.
The laws of some countries unambiguously state that it’s legal to mine BTC. Kazakhstan can serve as a good example – crypto mining is a licensed business there. Others straightforwardly prohibit mining, such as China. However, until 2021, this country used to be the world’s prime destination for BTC miners.
Based on the example of China, we should note that in some territories, the legislation system tends to be volatile. The laws can change 180° at any moment. Other countries approach the issue of adopting cryptocurrencies strategically. For instance, Salvador in 2021 proclaimed Bitcoin its legal tender – and this should be unlikely to change any time soon.
In many countries, the jury is still out on the legality of Bitcoin mining and usage. For instance, the crypto industry remains unregulated in most parts of Africa. The USA lacks a federal law on the matter and crypto mining remains regulated only on the state level. Thinking logically, you’d better start a mining business in Salvador than in an African country that lacks crypto-related laws.
However, it’s not the end of the story. If a selected country supports free Bitcoin mining, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll be allowed to use the mined coins as you wish. For example, in Iran, crypto mining has been legal since 2019. But you can’t use the mined assets just as freely as the local national currency, rial. Bitcoin can be used for payments only to selected foreign companies that work in Iran. Before you start mining, make sure you’ll be allowed to handle the mined coins as you’re planning to.
As we said above, you can mine crypto remotely, without leaving your homeland. There are two options for doing so:
Renting a Bitcoin mining machine – or several ones. You won’t have to set up and maintain them because they will be placed on the provider’s territory and the provider’s staff will take care of them.
Bitcoin cloud mining. In this case, you rent remotely not the equipment but its hashing power. It’s the most beginner-friendly mining method. Your involvement is minimal and boils down to picking a suitable contract.
No matter which of them you prefer, you’ll be able to control the mining performance through a mobile app and receive your rewards daily or every few days.
Before you get down to remote mining, make sure it’s legal in the territory where you live. Find out how to properly pay taxes for it. In theory, it’s possible that a specific country fails to support conventional mining but doesn’t mind its cloud counterpart. Or, cloud mining can be unregulated yet – and you can try to benefit from it for as long as it’s not proclaimed illegal. When you decide to finish this activity, it will be enough to terminate the contract.
Additional Aspects to Consider
To make a profit from BTC mining, it’s not enough to choose a location where this business is legal. It’s just as vital to find a place with cheap electricity. For instance, Salvador can afford to place bets on Bitcoin because it relies on geothermal energy from its volcanoes.
Another important aspect is the infrastructure. Let’s imagine that you rent an ASIC or hashing power remotely. It’s essential that the rig is placed in a safe location, protected by armed guards. The climate conditions inside the building should be optimal for mining – that is, without the risks of overheating. If hardware breaks down, the provider’s staff should be able to fix it promptly on the spot. Otherwise, it might take too long to send the machine with a warranty to its manufacturer – and you’ll fail to make a profit until it’s repaired and sent back.
Last but not least, the provider whose services you use should have a strong and experienced team and an impeccable reputation.
Armenia’s Appeal for Miners
One of the best countries for miners on the global map is Armenia. Its government entirely supports blockchain technology and the crypto industry. In 2018, a Free Economic Zone called ECOS was launched with ideal conditions for BTC mining.
Its residents are exempt from most taxes for 25 years. They don’t have to pay taxes for importing and exporting goods, adding value, making an income, conducting deals with properties, and so on. The only tax that is valid for them is the monthly one on their employees’ income.
The ECOS zone occupies 2.2 hectares. Such a territory can accommodate 20,000 mining devices. Initially, the data center capacity was 60 MW – and in the future, it can expand to an additional 200 MW.
The infrastructure of the data center perfectly meets the current industry standards. Armed guards prevent emergencies 24/7. Skilled servicemen are ready to repair the equipment as fast as possible. Spare parts for ASICs are supplied regularly and stored in a well-organized warehouse.
The average annual temperature of the surrounding environment doesn’t exceed 4.8°C, which is spot-on to prevent overheating. The Hrazdan power plant ensures an almost 100% up-time supply of cheap electricity. Thanks to the favorable natural conditions in the area, ECOS plans to fully switch to renewable energy in the mid-term.
ECOS ticks all the boxes of a reliable provider. It allows you to buy or rent an ASIC, hosted at ECOS data center, as well as try cloud mining. Its conditions are transparent and its support services are top-notch. The target audience of ECOS includes both beginners and seasoned miners. Currently at ECOS, after registration, you can use a promo code "TryBeforeBuy" to activate a trial miming contract. Feel free to try your hand at this exciting activity!
1 note
·
View note
Text
can vpn avoid google taxes
🔒🌍✨ Get 3 Months FREE VPN - Secure & Private Internet Access Worldwide! Click Here ✨🌍🔒
can vpn avoid google taxes
VPN tax evasion
Individuals and businesses alike may attempt to use Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to evade taxes. This practice raises serious legal and ethical concerns. VPNs allow users to change their IP address and encrypt their online activity, making it difficult for tax authorities to track their digital footprint. While VPNs can offer privacy and security benefits, using them for tax evasion is illegal.
Tax evasion through VPNs involves hiding income, assets, or transactions from tax authorities. By routing online activity through servers located in different countries, individuals can potentially conceal their true location and source of income. This evasion strategy allows them to avoid paying taxes that would otherwise be owed to their home country.
However, tax evasion is a criminal offense in most jurisdictions and can lead to severe penalties, including fines, legal action, and imprisonment. Authorities are increasingly cracking down on tax evasion facilitated by technology, including VPNs. Governments work to detect and prevent tax evasion through various means, such as international cooperation, data analysis, and monitoring of financial transactions.
Using VPNs for tax evasion not only violates the law but also undermines the integrity of the tax system. Businesses and individuals should comply with tax laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions to contribute to the functioning of society and avoid facing legal consequences. It is essential to seek professional advice and adhere to ethical practices when managing tax obligations.
Google tax avoidance
Title: Understanding Google's Tax Avoidance Strategies
In recent years, Google, a tech giant renowned for its innovative products and services, has come under scrutiny for its tax avoidance practices. This has sparked debate and raised questions about the ethical and legal implications of such actions.
Google, like many multinational corporations, utilizes various strategies to minimize its tax burden. One common approach is through profit shifting, where the company allocates profits to subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions. By doing so, Google can take advantage of favorable tax rates and reduce its overall tax liability.
Another tactic employed by Google involves the use of complex corporate structures and loopholes in tax laws. Through intricate financial arrangements and legal maneuvers, the company is able to exploit gaps in the tax code to its advantage. This often involves setting up subsidiaries in tax havens and utilizing techniques such as transfer pricing to artificially reduce taxable income.
Critics argue that such practices undermine the integrity of the tax system and shift the burden onto ordinary taxpayers and small businesses. They argue that multinational corporations like Google should pay their fair share of taxes to support the societies in which they operate.
However, proponents of Google's tax strategies argue that the company is simply acting within the bounds of the law to maximize shareholder value. They contend that it is the responsibility of governments to close loopholes and reform tax policies to prevent abuse by corporations.
In response to mounting pressure and public outcry, Google has made efforts to improve transparency regarding its tax practices. The company has pledged to comply with tax laws and regulations in all jurisdictions where it operates, while also advocating for international tax reform to address the complexities of the digital economy.
In conclusion, Google's tax avoidance strategies highlight the challenges and controversies surrounding multinational corporations and their tax obligations. As governments and policymakers grapple with these issues, greater transparency, accountability, and international cooperation will be essential in ensuring a fair and equitable tax system for all stakeholders.
VPN legality taxes
Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) have become popular tools for ensuring online privacy and security. However, the legality of VPN usage varies from country to country, and this can have implications for taxes as well. In many jurisdictions, VPNs are perfectly legal to use, and individuals can use them without any issues. But how does the legality of VPNs impact taxes?
In some countries, using a VPN is perfectly legal, and individuals are not required to report VPN usage on their taxes. However, in certain jurisdictions, authorities may require individuals to disclose VPN usage, especially if it is used for business purposes or to access restricted content. For instance, some countries may impose taxes on VPN services themselves, which can impact both individual users and VPN providers.
When it comes to taxes, using a VPN can also have implications for businesses. Companies that use VPNs to secure their online transactions and communications may need to account for VPN expenses in their tax filings. Additionally, VPN providers themselves may be subject to specific tax regulations and reporting requirements based on the countries in which they operate.
Overall, the legality of VPN usage and its impact on taxes depend on the specific laws and regulations of each country. It is essential for individuals and businesses to understand the implications of using VPNs in their jurisdiction and ensure compliance with tax laws to avoid any legal issues.
Google tax compliance
Google tax compliance refers to the adherence of Google, one of the tech giants, to the tax laws and regulations of the countries in which it operates. As a multinational company with operations worldwide, Google is subject to various tax laws that govern how it reports and pays taxes on its income and profits.
Tax compliance is a crucial aspect of Google's operations as it not only ensures that the company meets its legal obligations but also plays a significant role in shaping its public image and reputation. Google strives to maintain transparency in its tax practices and works closely with tax authorities to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
One of the key challenges in Google tax compliance is addressing the complexities of international tax laws and regulations. As a global company, Google operates in multiple jurisdictions, each with its own tax rules and requirements. This can make it difficult to navigate the tax landscape and ensure full compliance with all relevant laws.
To address these challenges, Google has a dedicated team of tax professionals who work to ensure that the company's tax practices are in line with the laws of the countries in which it operates. These professionals stay abreast of changes in tax laws and regulations and work to ensure that Google's tax compliance strategies are up to date and effective.
Overall, Google tax compliance is an essential aspect of the company's operations, ensuring that it meets its legal obligations and maintains transparency in its tax practices. By adhering to tax laws and regulations, Google continues to build trust with stakeholders and contribute positively to the communities in which it operates.
VPN impact on taxation
When it comes to the impact of VPNs on taxation, there are several factors to consider. VPNs, or Virtual Private Networks, are commonly used to enhance online privacy and security by creating a secure and encrypted connection to the internet. However, the use of VPNs can also have implications on taxation for individuals and businesses.
One way VPNs can impact taxation is through their ability to mask the true location of the internet user. By using a VPN, individuals and businesses can appear as though they are accessing the internet from a different country or region than their actual physical location. This can potentially be used to evade taxes or engage in tax avoidance practices by hiding income or transactions from tax authorities.
On the other hand, the use of VPNs can also have legitimate tax implications. For example, individuals who work remotely and use a VPN to connect to their company's network from a different location may need to consider how this impacts their tax residency status and potential tax obligations in different jurisdictions.
Additionally, businesses that operate across borders and use VPNs to secure their online communications may need to ensure compliance with tax laws and regulations in the countries where they have a presence.
Overall, while VPNs can offer numerous benefits in terms of privacy and security, it is important for individuals and businesses to understand the potential implications of using VPNs on their tax obligations and to ensure compliance with relevant tax laws.
0 notes
Text
Israel is a country often
Israel is a country often associated with its religious significance, political conflicts and beautiful landscapes. However, there is another side of Israel that often remains hidden from the public eye - the thriving escort industry. This industry has been a controversial topic for many years, but it is a reality that cannot be ignored. In this article, we will explore the world of escort girls in Israel and shed light on this often misunderstood profession.
Firstly, it is important to understand that the escort industry is legal and regulated in Israel. This means that women who choose to work as escorts do so of their own volition and are protected by the law. Escort girls in Israel come from diverse backgrounds, with some choosing it as a full-time profession while others do it part-time to support their studies or other career aspirations.
<a href="https://www.allsex.co.il/%d7%a0%d7%a2%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%9c%d7%99%d7%95%d7%95%d7%99/">www.allsex.co.il/%d7%a0%d7%a2%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%9c%d7%99%d7%95%d7%95%d7%99/</a>
One of the reasons why the escort industry is thriving in Israel is because of the influx of tourists and business travelers to the country. With Tel Aviv being ranked as one of the top travel destinations in the world, there is no shortage of clients for these professional companions. Many escort agencies in Israel cater specifically to the international market and provide services in multiple languages to cater to their diverse clientele.
One of the main misconceptions about escort girls in Israel is that they are forced into the profession or involved in illegal activities. This is simply not true. In fact, many escort agencies have strict recruitment processes and only hire women who are of legal age, have no criminal record and are in good physical and mental health. These agencies also ensure that their employees receive proper training and are equipped to handle any situation that may arise.
The services provided by escort girls in Israel go beyond just physical intimacy. Many clients also seek their companionship for business events, dinners, and parties. These women are not just beautiful and glamorous, but also well-educated, intelligent and well-mannered. They are trained to be the perfect professional companion, providing excellent conversation and creating a pleasant atmosphere in any setting.
Some may question the morality of the escort industry, but it is important to understand that these women are providing a service that is in demand. They are not forcing anyone to use their services, and in fact, many clients have reported feeling less lonely and more confident after spending time with an escort. These women are not just objects of desire, but also provide emotional support to their clients who may be going through a difficult time in their personal lives.
Moreover, the escort industry also contributes to the economy of Israel. It provides job opportunities for women, boosts tourism and drives revenue for the country. Many escort girls also pay taxes, just like any other professional, and contribute to the development of the country.
In conclusion, the world of escort girls in Israel is complex and often misunderstood. However, it is a legitimate profession that provides a range of services beyond physical intimacy. These women are professionals who deserve the same respect and rights as any other worker. As long as it is regulated and both parties involved are consenting adults, there is no reason to judge or stigmatize this industry. It is time to shed the negative connotations and see the escort industry for what it truly is - a legitimate profession that provides a valuable service to its clients.
0 notes
Text
My thoughts on this subject.
1947.. Truman enters a new branch to the military division. The CIA . Alien air ship landed in Roswell the year? 1947. What does Congress do? Beefs-up the military.
1947-48, 37.7 billion dollars of tax payers monies go to the military.
1948 another 38.9 billion dollars go to the military.
This would go on for 6 years until the USA involves themselves in the Vietnam war. Which lasts from 1954 - 1975.
In 1975 the military received 92 billion dollars at the end of that war.
1973 -75, abductions, Buzz Aldrin announces alien sighting.
I could go on and. . on about sighting, funding the military more and more and taxes going up and up matching all of this together. Let me remind you none of this start showing up until Truman added a new branch to our military defence, the CIA.
Just last year our military received
$712.6 billion dollars
Seems to me, that kind of money could buy a Alien hoax for evil to drum up an Alien scar to induce fear onto the people to stay in control of our tax paying monies. For the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, etc., etc, etc, get rich while us pee-ons work our fanny off just so a 1/3 of our wages go to taxes.
I'm gonna guess that wages will be taxed 1/2 a workers pay by the time the next presidential elect is sworn into office, and /or, we are at war with China.
The regime hates white men right now and they are doing everything woke to insure that.
Illegal immigrants that are pouring into this country get $2,200 every month while senior citizens are lucky to receive $1400. Only 1 - $700. payment was given to all the burned out families in Lahaina, Maui after the fire.
Now, the jury of the state of New York has decided that Trump pay E. Jean Carrol $83. million dollars to a woman he has no idea who she is but took a street picture with him back in the 80's or 90's and a story of misconduct that just happens to match an episode on "Law and Order" down to the name of the hotel. How can a mispardononson jury come to this decision in favor for the plaintiff. A person that named her cat vagina. There is something really off here.
I know! I get it now! Their narrative!
Bankrupt Trump! Just like they bankrupt the middle class with the China virus.
0 notes
Link
0 notes
Text
Man...I gotta be honest, it's feeling more and more hopeless and disillusioning to be a working class woman with a not-sterilized(-yet) reproductive system in the U.S.
I'm dreaming about finally getting my first car (that I'd own) this year, and I'll be 31 in the summer. I have more credit card debt than I ever imagined myself having, and there's never enough leftover after bills to make more than the tiniest dent in it. Ever owning property or retiring seems like a pipe dream.
I want to get sterilized because I know I never want children. But that's another major expense (even with costly insurance), and how am I going to take the time off work for it? While at the same time, knowing that I likely have a narrowing window before that too becomes illegal, because the rising Christofascism demands that women be brood mares to make more wage + tax slaves on a dying planet.
And I don't have a long term partner I could combine incomes with, or share a car with, or who could support me while I take care of something not-work-related. And I truly don't believe I'll find such a partner until I move out of the town I live in. (Believe me, I've tried... I'm not the woman these Southwest PA manchildren want as a partner, nor do I want 99% of them.) The very town that I can't afford to leave anytime soon, because moving is expensive, and most other places cost more. Never mind ever getting to a country that actually gives a shit about its non-wealthy citizens. You see my predicament.
I have friends, but I don't really have anyone else I can rely on for anything more substantial than one-off small favors, or true emergencies. It's just me, taking care of me, like it's been for the past 8+ years. Neither of my parents can help financially. I can't even afford the new dresser that I desperately need, because it's either pay at least $200 for a flimsy one from Ikea (whose drawer bottoms will fall out under the weight of my clothes, like what happened to my current one), or try to find a local one for sale cheaper, and then pick it up...in the car that I don't have.
That's not even touching on student loans...these pauses have been a godsend, and I'm still behind.
And despite all this! I'm still pretty damn privileged! And my heart breaks for the trans community, and everyone subject to the onslaught of appalling, violent laws being put forward to state legislatures over the past several months. It just all feels so overwhelming and hopeless sometimes.
I really resent being born in a time where those in charge are, with isolated exceptions, ineffective or parasitic. Being born into such an economically fucked generation. And being born into a country that does not care about you, unless you're a wealthy straight white Christian man.
I have so much to offer, and I don't mind contributing, but in my adult life, it feels like I was never even given a fair chance at anything but subsistence living.
#long post#personal#vent#sorry y'all i didn't intend for this to get as long as it did#but man. took in a lot of bad news today#i hate what the greed of a select few is doing to millions and billions of people...and the planet#i hate feeling powerless about it#but i better put that to rest because i have work in the morning...#late capitalism#2023#politics#u.s. politics#text post
1 note
·
View note
Text
Contragate and Counterterrorism: An Overview
Crime and Social Justice
Vol. 31, No. 2 (2003)
Gregory Shank
https://www.socialjusticejournal.org/SJEdits/27-8Edit.html
Crime and Social Justice is pleased to offer this timely special double issue on state terrorism, political corruption, and crime. The issue was initially conceived well before the Iran-Contragate scandal broke when we undertook to publish papers delivered at an April 1986 symposium on "State Terrorism in the Third World" organized by Heinz Dieterich in Frankfurt, West Germany. The symposium became unexpectedly timely as a consequence of the Reagan administration's decision to bomb Libya "in self-defense" under the pretext of countering state terrorism. The topic has remained of enduring interest to Global Options' Terrorism Watch and to other authors working along similar lines whose works also appear in this issue.
The theme "Contragate and Counterterrorism" was chosen to highlight the wrongdoing and strategic excesses of the Reagan presidency. On the one hand, Contragate appears to signify simultaneous changes underway in the rightwing governing alliance at the federal level, and disarray in Reagan administration counterterrorism policy. On the other hand, abundant evidence of systematic criminality exists in relation to the bribery of foreign officials, and the skimming off of profits from arms trafficking in support of world-spanning covert wars. Narcotics traffickers and arms dealers, supplemented by rightwing philanthropists seeking tax write-offs, have joined foreign governments in supporting a war and a terrorist mercenary force the American public has repeatedly rejected.
As in the 1972-1974 Watergate and the 1976-1978 Koreagate scandals, there are allegations of foreign funds (with the potential for blackmail) introduced to influence U.S. electoral elections and congressional votes. New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis observed that, like Watergate, there is sufficient evidence to charge individuals for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, in this case with respect to money siphoned off from arms sales to the contras, under the United States Criminal Code, Section 371 of Title 18. Besides perjury and obstruction of justice, another relevant statute would be Section 2778 of Title 22, which makes it a crime, punishable by two years in prison and a $100,000 fine, to export arms illegally (March 24, 1987).
Why were Reagan administration counterterrorism officials so prominent in this scandal? Is the policy in disarray because its implementation has been hypocritical, or because it has fostered instability in the Third World and removed large markets from the arena of legal trade relations at a time when major industries are bursting from overcapacity and many Latin American debtors have ceased to pay the interest, much less the principal, on mammoth loans? From a corporate vantage point, no doubt, a fundamental irrationality governs when it is necessary for Cuban soldiers to protect American oilmen at Chevron's Angola operation against terrorist attacks staged by U.S.-supported UNITA forces and South African commandos.
How can this black-and-white policy be sustained in a world where the nemesis of Libyan terrorism, according to Maas (1986), was made a reality by former CIA officers, Special Forces and Green Beret trainers (and assassins), U.S. explosives manufacturers, and weapons producers? In which the chief entrepreneur of that program, convicted felon Edwin Wilson, could plausibly argue from his cell in Marion Federal Penitentiary that nothing he had done in Libya was different from what Washington was doing covertly in dozens of other countries? In which similar offshore enterprises, "private" armies, and logistical support systems have operated for years to sustain the Nicaraguan contra terrorist forces under the guidance of National Security Council (NSC) counterterrorism staff and CIA liaison officers?
In the passages below, I will touch upon themes that are implicit or explicit in many of the contributions to this issue. Most prominent is the reality that lawbreaking has become an endemic feature of the U.S. imperial presidency. Constitutional restraints on the arbitrary and abusive exercise of executive power have been undermined whenever the invocation of national security interests has served as a veil of secrecy drawn over the executive's conduct of foreign policy. The Reagan administration's counterterrorism program lends itself to secrecy, unaccountability, corruption, and, ultimately, to a violation of democracy. Having become central to a national scandal, the choice for the administration lies either in altering its policy of state terrorism or in professionalizing its execution. The current prospect for change is not promising.
The first section of this issue sets out to resolve definitional questions regarding the semantic and political uses of the concepts of terrorism, antiterrorism, and counterterrorism. The relation of counterterrorism policy to the dominant features of Reagan administration foreign-policy initiatives, and to the violations of international law with which this presidency has become associated, is also developed. Subsequent sections address the two primary foci of the current scandal: state terrorism and the conflicts in Central America and he Middle East.
Contributions on Central and Latin America propose the existence of an international terror network that is integral to the political superstructure of client-state economies, where human and political rights are eroded with each improvement of the business climate for U.S.-based multinational and transnational corporations. Case studies of the repressive instruments required to create this climate -- subversion of national economies, coup d'état, torture, and the annihilation of the political opposition through systematic disappearances and death squad activity -- point to systematic cooperation between global frontier managers, such as the Israeli-U.S. connection, and continent-wide coordination between death squad and intelligence forces. The reason behind the Reagan administration's obstinate adherence to its contra terrorist policy against Nicaragua, in contrast to its more pragmatic approach in Mozambique, for example, is explored in terms of the specific obligations issuing from the domestic and international political alliances with ultra-rightist organizations that helped put Reagan into office in 1980.
The third section deals with the Middle East, in particular the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel, and the crisis in Lebanon. The counterterrorism policy of Israel, much admired by policymakers in Washington, also contributed to the adoption of arms sales as an instrument of foreign policy vis-à-vis Iran. Current investigation shows that this covert policy was operationalized using the same private apparatus and foreign funding sources that support the contra infrastructure.
The remaining sections of the issue include contributions on the Reagan administration's use of the McCarran-Walter Act in the immigration case of Margaret Randall, which represents a wider pattern of ideologically motivated exclusion of divergent points of view, and dangerous infringement of the constitutional right to freedom of speech; on the inhuman conditions resulting from the 22-month lockdown ordered by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at Marion Federal Penitentiary in Illinois; and on new questions raised about the Cold War effort of the Reagan administration to disseminate accounts of the papal assassination attempt of 1981, which purposefully and incorrectly lay blame on the Soviet Union and Bulgaria for a crime perpetrated by a well-known right-wing terrorist.
In presenting the complex issues involved in "Contragate and Counterterrorism," we have attempted to strike a balance between structural causes and conspiratorial motives. Social scientists have traditionally frowned upon theories suggesting the operation of a conspiracy as, at best, too heavily weighted toward the subjective factor and, at worst, as the wild delusions of the powerless, while political realists insist that human agents guide the situational logic that conditions change. Recent history provides adequate evidence that the New Right has outthought and outplanned the political center and the Left, and that its leaders who provide strategic guidance, its managers, and its members have, since the mid-1950s, displayed a corporatist vision and a staying power that we discount only at our collective peril. The Contragate scandal has revealed the operation of an undeniable conspiracy to carry out a foreign policy in violation of the will of Congress, of the American people, and perhaps even against the interests of sectors of the executive branch itself. As is customary, when a U.S. government falls from a crisis of confidence, the sacrificial lambs are the operational and membership layers of the governing structure, and only exceptionally the strategists and funders.
The broad outline of this conspiracy is contained in the affidavit for a federal civil lawsuit filed against many of the principals in the Contragate scandal written by the plaintiff's attorney Daniel Sheehan (1986). This affidavit has, to date, proved to be highly accurate and is useful background material for researchers wishing to dig deeper into the scandal. Using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), created in 1970, the attorneys at the Christic Institute have attempted to establish the existence of the illegal, private contra support network involved in gunrunning, drug smuggling, murder, terrorism, and other crimes in order to bring its members to justice.
The Privatization of Special Operations and Counterterrorism
The individuals who face possible prosecution are ardent defenders of the Reagan Doctrine; they are the cadres inside and outside the government who have performed an activist role in promoting a single-minded, global anticommunist counterrevolution. The powers that be certainly do not fault their resolve. They do, however, lodge criticisms of their planning, execution, and professionalism. On the one hand, the policymakers tended far too much to the details of gun running and bribe paying, and far too little to the exploding Third World debt crisis and to the international isolation of the U.S. resulting from their military unilateralism. On the other hand, they got caught cold running these criminal enterprises, embarrassingly so.
The network called Project Democracy by Oliver North involved its own communications system, secret envoys, leased ships and airplanes, offshore bank accounts and corporations, as well as a divergent array of private groups -- former high-ranking military officers and intelligence personnel, anticommunist Cuban exiles, and conservative groups concerned with stemming the tide of communism in Central America. Individuals at the logistical level have been shown to have remarkably similar historical and political profiles. That profile reflects the overlapping long-term friendship circles of participants in the Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force in Vietnam in the 1960s, including Operation Phoenix, the CIA-directed assassination and "counterterror" program of which former CIA Director William Casey's friend, General Singlaub, was the onsite commander (Anderson, 1986: 151; San Francisco Chronicle, February 2, 1987; Snepp, 1977: 12).
This Special Operations Group (SOG) reflected Singlaub's unconventional warfare approach, including the secret assassination activities of a unit recruited and operated under the supervision of the CIA Station Chief in Laos, Theodore Shackley, and his deputy Thomas Clines (both of whom had previously run the CIA's clandestine war against Cuba). Oliver North served along the Demilitarized Zone and may have been one of Singlaub's deputies in the program; the Deputy Air Wing Commander for SOG airborne resupply was Air Force General Richard Secord, a man with special operations expertise in expediting the movement of cargo from one place to another, who, by some accounts, saved North's life there. Secord's superior was General Harry "Heine" Aderholt (Maas, 1986: 31; Sheehan, 1986: 34; Insight, February 12, 1987; New York Times, October 24, 1986). Edwin Wilson had delivered tons of equipment and supplies under the cover of his Maritime Consulting proprietary (Maas, 1986: 31), while Erich von Marbod had become arbiter of all military assistance to Vietnam as the comptroller of the Defense Security Assistance Agency, and at the fall of Saigon personally directed the destruction or removal by sea and air of U.S. military hardware (Ibid.: 36; 53). The brother of another key figure in the contra scandal, Robert Owen, was a member of an Army Special Forces unit in the SOG. Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Armitage, who also figures in the scandal, administered funds for the Phoenix Project during his tour at the Saigon U.S. Office of Naval Operations from 1973 to the fall of Vietnam in April 1975 (U.S. News & World Report, December 15, 1986: 23; Sheehan, 1986: 35; Time, March 9, 1987).
Others central to the private contra resupply operation were anti-Castro Cubans, members of the 2506 Brigade, who had worked under Shackley and Clines in the CIA's covert war against Cuba during the Kennedy administration as members of the special team that infiltrated into Cuba prior to the April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion. According to Sheehan (1986: 32), these individuals were recruited and trained as political assassins by the Havana and Tampa Mafia figure, Santos Trafficante, in a CIA program under the supervision of E. Howard Hunt, of Watergate renown (see also Powers, 1979: 187).
One, Felix Rodriguez ("Max Gómez"), a friend of Shackley and Vice President Bush, who had also been a member of the CIA unit responsible for the death of Che Guevara in Bolivia in 1967, was sent to Vietnam in the early 1970s as a CIA airmobile counterinsurgency expert. A second ex-CIA Cuban was Luis Posada ("Ramon Medina"), who escaped in August 1985 from a Venezuelan prison after awaiting trial (along with the terrorist Orlando Bosch) on charges linked to the Cubana airliner bombing that killed 73 people (San Francisco Chronicle, November 4, 1986; New York Times, October 12, 1986; October 13, 1986; October 16, 1986; October 22, 1986). A third Cuban, a former CIA sabotage and assassination expert named Rafael Quintero, supervised the arrival of weapons in Central America and coordinated weapons drops inside Nicaragua as part of a network including Richard Secord, Albert Hakim, and Thomas Clines (San Francisco Examiner, December 7, 1986). Quintero was replaced by the Secord employee, Robert Dutton, in 1986 (Ibid.), who had worked with Secord in Iran before the fall of the Shah, as had von Marbod, Edwin Wilson, and Albert Hakim, Secord's business partner who sold surveillance systems to the Shah's secret police (the Savak). The privatization of foreign policy was already well developed at that point, as Shackley, Clines, Secord, and Armitage supervised, directed, and participated in a nongovernment covert "antiterrorist" assassination program set up by Edwin Wilson to eliminate potential opponents of the Shah (Sheehan, 1986: 36-37).
This private foreign policy was an analog to the formal contractual relation these individuals entered into with Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza in an operation that was eventually taken over by the CIA in June 1981, when President Reagan authorized the CIA to undertake the financing, training, and military supply of the Honduras-based contras. When Congress was drafting the Boland Amendment in 1983, Oliver North contacted Shackley, Clines, Hakim, and Secord and had them reactivate their military supply operation to the contras (Sheehan, 1986: 40-41). A former White House official stated that the administration already had private backup because the "handwriting was on the wall in 1982" (U.S. New & World Report, December 15, 1986).
WACL, Countersubversion, and Counterterrorism
North was also instructed by William Casey, and perhaps others on the NSC, including George Bush (New York Times, March 25, 1987), to contact Robert Owen of Gray & Company (a Washington, D.C., public relations firm). Owen was to publicly solicit funds and assistance for the contras in coordination with John K. Singlaub's U.S. Council on World Freedom (Sheehan, 1986: 16), set up on November 22, 1981, four days after a secret approval by Reagan of a CIA plan to begin direct assistance to the contras (Anderson, 1986: 150-152; Dickey, 1983: 112). This underscores a second essential element in the Project Democracy profile: affiliation with the Taiwanese and South Korean-supported World Anti-Communist League (WACL), which maintained a low profile until Singlaub's leadership of that organization was widely publicized in relation to his role, along with North and Secord, in the contra resupply network. These two networks are linked in their origins: the CIA with Shackley, Clines, Singlaub, and former deputy director of intelligence, Ray Cline, were central to the creation in 1954 of the Asian People's Anti-Communist League (APACL), the predecessor of WACL (Sheehan, Amended Complaint, 1986: 15; Anderson, 1986: 55).
As Anderson (1986: 155) points out, if the memberships of officers of the United States Council for World Freedom in other New Right organizations are taken together, they give WACL a voice in all the major coalitions of the American New Right movement. WACL affiliates would come to engage in joint operations in Central America, and act as unofficial envoys of the Reagan administration in establishing links with ultra-rightists in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. The action-oriented members of WACL organizations repudiated a reliance on electoral change, having discovered that the state, even under the control of the most right-wing president in history, failed to serve as the ideal motor of their anticommunist revolution. Although they remained deeply embedded in governmental structures, they revitalized WACL to carry out their own foreign policy and to forge their own alliances internationally. WACL moved to support "freedom fighters" in Third World anticommunist insurgencies, especially in Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan, and its U.S. affiliates also moved to maintain dossiers on domestic "subversives" (Ibid., 1986: 258).
The counterterrorist drive launched at the onset of Reagan's first term in office had not ultimately served to radically expand the FBI's covert intelligence functions to 1950s or even pre-Watergate levels, as the Right had hoped, despite the FBI's reinvigorated statutory capabilities. The post-Watergate FBI under William Webster had been compelled, as had the CIA under Admiral Stansfield Turner and President Reagan's current national security adviser, Frank Carlucci, to purge long-term covert operatives accustomed to unlawful J. Edgar Hoover-era methods. The FBI lacked an empirical basis to justify increasing its antiterrorist staff and budget because real incidents were continually diminishing, totaling 52 in 1979, 30 in 1980, and only 17 in 1986 (Motley, 1983: 16). Nonetheless, pressure was applied from the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism and from high-level military analysts, such as Colonel James B. Motley at the National War College, in an effort to exploit terrorism as the primary political means to reconstitute domestic and international intelligence structures.
Webster tended to reject the term "subversion" because of its definitional unclarity: the operational consequences of accepting an expansive concept of terrorism that encompassed criminal and noncriminal activities were covert, secret intelligence operations instead of narrower criminal investigations based on probable cause that a law may be violated. As a result, dossier building and surveillance of the corporate Right's domestic opposition were privatized, institutionalized most notably in the terrorism and subversion-oriented Western Goals (the brainchild of the late chairman of the John Birch Society, Larry P. McDonald),1 in Lyndon LaRouche's informant network, and most recently, in other as yet unnamed rightwing groups and foreign agents under investigation for the 59 nationwide political burglaries by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. What the FBI has been doing with its massive budget increases in recent years, it should be cautioned, remains to be analyzed.
Counterterrorism in Law and Language
The FBI's cautious approach to countersubversion was not replicated by foreign policy officials. Gregory Shank's article in this issue, "Counterterrorism and Foreign Policy," argues that chief policymakers in the NSC adopted the broader definition of terrorism to guide international relations. Secretary of State George Shultz, for instance, articulated a widely held rightwing belief that terrorism is a weapon of global unconventional warfare aimed at U.S. strategic interests. This echoed Rand Corporation and Heritage Foundation terrorism analysts, who forecast that low-intensity conflict would be the primary challenge to the U.S. through the end of the 20th century; it also echoed the unconventional warfare activist orientation of General Singlaub's U.S. WACL chapter, founded in 1981 just as Reagan forces had assumed federal power. Secretary of State Shultz also actively pushed the idea that conventional military attacks against terrorist targets should accompany unconventional warfare. Within the Reagan administration, the notion of rolling back "communist terrorism" was coupled with 19th-century "just war" ideology and grafted onto Brigadier General Ed Lansdale's counterinsurgency warfare premise of a democratic anticommunist revolution. These concepts are the ideological mainstays of the Reagan Doctrine.
Secretary Shultz' public proclamations emphasized that "we do not practice terrorism, and we seek to build a world...in which human rights are respected by all governments, a world based on the rule of law." Edward Herman's article in this issue analyses the semantics of terrorism that make possible the "if I don't like it, call it terrorism" approach to this complex phenomenon. The article outlines the intellectual illusions created in state-supported analyses through the systematic exclusion of governments as the dominant practitioners of state terror, and points to U.S.-supported dictatorships, where death squads have operated as an extension of the state repressive apparatus and there has been the wholesale use of terror as a mode of governance. The use of "counterterrorism" in Western terrorism semantics fills the need created to describe the policies of the United States, South Africa, El Salvador, and Guatemala, all of which "do not engage in terrorism," as Secretary Shultz points out. Their attacks on their enemies require the use of alternate words. The term "retaliation" is handy, but it implies a response to an immediately preceding act. Longer-term, continuous assaults on bases and populations of "terrorists" are therefore termed "counterterrorism" to disguise their function as state terrorism. When the Reagan administration announced that human rights would be replaced by terrorism ("the ultimate abuse of human rights") as a guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy, this indicated its tacit shift toward WACL's "counterterrorism."
During the Carter administration, counterterrorist national command and policy formulation had become located in the Special Coordination Committee (SCC) of the National Security Council (NSC). Members of the SCC are statutory members of the current NSC -- e.g., President Reagan, Vice President Bush, Secretary of State Shultz, Secretary of Defense Weinberger, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. William J. Crowe, and the Director of Central Intelligence at the time of the scandal, William Casey. These officials are served by a staff directed by the national security adviser. Initially, two interagency groups, both chaired by representatives of the State Department, coordinated the program and provided guidance: one, the strategic Executive Committee on Terrorism (with representatives from the CIA, the NSC, and the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Treasury, Transportation, and Energy), and two, the 29-agency Working Group on Terrorism. In theory, the Department of State is mandated to conduct foreign relations and is charged with developing and refining policy with regard to international terrorist threats and incidents involving U.S. citizens and interests abroad, operating through its Office for Counterterrorism and Emergency Planning (Motley, 1983: 34-37).
In December 1985, the Reagan administration released an abridged version of Vice President Bush's National Security Council Task Force on Terrorism. The Task Force members, it should be noted, included many who have recently gained Contragate notoriety: William Casey, Adm. John Poindexter, Donald Gregg, Oliver North, Lt. Gen. John Moellering, Lt. Col. Douglas Menarchik, Charles Allen, Craig Fuller, Craig Coy, and Lt. Col. Robert Earl. The report recommended creation of a full-time NSC position with support staff to coordinate two counterterrorism units (Village Voice, March 24, 1987). Within the NSC's delegation of tasks, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North -- the deputy director of the political-military affairs division (the covert operations arm under President Reagan) -- was the foremost candidate. He served for five years under a variety of national security advisers and ultimately held two crucial and related portfolios: the contra war effort and the antiterrorist and counterterrorism policy (San Francisco Chronicle, November 25, 1986; January 21, 1987). Perhaps North exaggerated when he told the rightwing Concerned Women for America that he briefed President Reagan twice weekly on these two areas; there is no doubt, however, that Reagan liked North, the born-again Christian possessing academic and hands-on experience with low-intensity warfare. He called him Ollie and a hero (San Francisco Chronicle, December 7, 1986; March 2, 1987; New York Times, December 4, 1986).
North guided the interagency counterterrorism group at the White House, meeting with, among others, Oliver B. Revell, an assistant executive director of the FBI and NSC consultant who was compelled to remove himself from the FBI's Iran arms sales criminal investigation once North became a suspect (New York Times, December 4, 1986). Charles Allen, the national intelligence officer for terrorism at the CIA, also worked with North, and eventually was to transmit to Iran intelligence about Iraq's war effort using the former Savak agent and arms middle-man, Manucher Ghorbanifar, as part of the arms-for-hostages deal (New York Times, February 27, 1987).
Like the contra war, counterterrorism policy became lodged in a unit parallel to the established structure. It was here that some principals in the scandal operated beyond the pale of institutional accountability. Major General Secord (who ran Project Democracy along with North and Singlaub) helped run a secret counterterrorism unit authorized by President Reagan in April 1984 with the signing of National Security Decision Directive 138. This document reportedly was drafted by Oliver North and promoted pre-emptive military strikes against terrorist targets. The counterterrorism unit was first proposed in 1982 and 1983, and reported directly to the NSC at the White House. It was intended to "take tough approaches to terrorism" by circumventing the State Department, Defense Department, and the CIA because of their reluctant, slow, and supposedly leak-prone bureaucracies (San Francisco Examiner, March 8, 1987). Colonel Robert L. Earl, North's assistant at the NSC who helped former national security adviser Robert C. McFarlane prepare a misleading chronology of the Iran initiative, was a member of the special counterterrorism unit (New York Times, March 18, 1987; San Francisco Chronicle, March 19, 1987).
After the U.S. bombing of Libya in April 1986, North blamed the CIA for the death of an American hostage who was killed by his Lebanese captors in retaliation. He referred to circumventing the interdepartmental group on terrorism and recruiting a 40-man, U.S.-controlled Druse force that reported to Secord and Amiram Nir, the Israeli counterterrorism adviser to Prime Minister Peres (who may owe his selection for the job to his consultative role on Vice President Bush's National Security Council Task Force on Terrorism) (New York Times, March 2, 1987; San Francisco Chronicle, December 4, 1986). As a result of the Contragate scandal, Congress may investigate whether the NSC covert unit operated in conjunction with the Pentagon's Intelligence Support Activity unit in carrying out the 1985 car bombing in Beirut that killed 80 people (an action attributed to the CIA). It is also this unit that would have carried out proposed kidnappings of terrorist suspects authorized by President Reagan in 1986 (New York Times, February 24, 1987; Bamford, 1986).
In 1986, the Defense Department's National Security Agency provided North with 15 encryption devices (which have "disappeared") for "counterterrorist activities" which he, Secord, and a Costa Rica-based CIA agent ("Thomas Castillo") used to create a private communications network outside the purview of other government agencies with which they communicated with members of the private contra supply network (Tower Commission, in New York Times, February 27, 1987; March 25, 1987; San Francisco Examiner, March 22, 1987). The counterterrorism of Project Democracy had as its wider goal purposefully directed terror aimed at restoring the status quo ante in Nicaragua. Because this goal was not explicit public policy and clearly violated international law, its true nature was disguised.
Donald Pfost's article in this issue, "Reagan's Nicaraguan Policy: A Case Study of Deviance and Crime," analyzes these Reagan administration violations of international and domestic law, as well as the policy's ideological underpinnings. The article argues that U.S. policy toward Nicaragua must be considered a species of political crime, differing from the more conventional criminological approach, which has legitimated such interventions by characterizing them as "political policing." The catalogue of crimes in the Irangate-Contragate scandal minimally includes conspiracy to obstruct justice, conspiracy to commit perjury before Congress, and conspiracy to defraud the federal government. Other laws or acts of Congress possibly violated by the secret financing of the contras are the Boland Amendment, which prohibited military aid to the contras by federal agencies, and the Arms Export Control Act, which bars military aid to any country supporting terrorism. Also violated was the Neutrality Act, which makes it a criminal offense to aid or participate in military expeditions against countries with which the U.S. is at peace. Internationally, the World Court decided that U.S. actions against Nicaragua were contrary to international law, and as Shank and Pfost argue, a counterterrorism policy that resorts to pre-emptive military strikes against sovereign states under the U.N.'s collective self-defense doctrine also violates international law.
Contragate and the Reagan Doctrine
Despite early recognition of many of these violations, the Reagan administration, in its effort to reverse public antipathy to intervening in foreign revolutions, successfully exploited public fear of "random" nonstate terrorist violence as the primary ideological vehicle to replace moribund anticommunism. Funding the contra terrorist war against Nicaragua was presented by the administration as part of a seemingly coherent antiterrorist global strategy and moral imperative that encompassed:
1. Classical counterinsurgency warfare (against "terrorist subversion" that had evolved into guerrilla war) in Central America, utilizing Special Operations Forces (SOF) supplemented by police and intelligence service training programs in "counterterrorism";
2. Long-term "contra"-type rollback operations in Asia, Africa, the Near East, and Central America against U.S.-defined "state terrorist" regimes (i.e., socialist or radical nationalist states outside the U.S. sphere of interest), also employing SOF units in conjunction with mercenary armies. The Reagan Doctrine here tapped WACL, with its expertise in unconventional warfare, including terrorism, as a "third option" (in Theodore Shackley's term) against the "Soviet Empire";
3. Short-term "active self-defense against terrorism"-type operations featuring pre-emptive military actions, such as the combined SOF and quick-strike conventional forces launched against Grenada and Libya, were viewed as a low-risk, high-payoff variant of the Reagan Doctrine.
The seeming coherence in this triad belied fissures in the Reagan Doctrine. According to conservative analysts, resistance to the doctrine emanated from a faction in the executive branch that preferred a strategy of negotiations with Afghanistan, Angola, and Nicaragua. Negotiations were geared to a "political transition model," that is, forcing a change in the current government by requiring the incorporation of U.S.-sponsored anticommunist insurgents into these governments (through "free elections" and "democratic reforms"), and the elimination of their reliance on Soviet-bloc assistance. This group included most of the State Department, the military officers in the Department of Defense, and some key CIA officials such as former Deputy Director John N. McMahon, who opposed the Afghan program and resisted arms sales to Iran not authorized by the president.
The second faction, which pursued a strategy of violently overthrowing these governments and replacing them with more pliable anticommunist regimes composed of the prerevolutionary ruling strata, included key members of the National Security Council staff, ranking Defense Department civilians (Secretary Weinberger, Nestor Sanchez, and Richard Armitage), the CIA (Director Casey, his task force chief on Nicaragua, and Clair George, the deputy director for clandestine operations), and the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Elliott Abrams (Insight, March 16, 1987: 11; San Francisco Chronicle, February 2, 1987). In Congress, it was a Democrat, Congressman Stephen J. Solarz (N.Y.), who provided the primary impetus for funding the mercenary terrorists.
In 1981, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 17, which was a secret declaration of covert war against Nicaragua (Bamford, 1987). Project Democracy, the parallel foreign policy apparatus born of the Reagan administration's antidemocratic thrust, was first mentioned by Reagan in a 1982 speech. But the worldwide network, funded initially by foreign governments as early as 1981, became the covert manifestation of the Reagan Doctrine beginning in 1983 (San Francisco Chronicle, February 16, 1987). At that time, the White House was displeased with State Department reluctance, and believed that Reagan Doctrine initiatives had to be run covertly to circumvent opposition. Responsibility for coordinating the program fell to the National Security Council staff, which was empowered to implement it by a January 1983 presidential national security decision directive that permitted the council to coordinate interagency "political action strategies" against the Soviet Union and its "surrogates" (Insight, March 16, 1987). This, it is said, was the genesis of the series of events documented in the Tower Commission report.
State Terrorism in the Americas
The contra terrorist war against Nicaragua is modeled after the CIA's covert war against the Cuban Revolution, which had represented the first rift in U.S. hemispheric hegemony. As James Petras points out in "Political Economy of State Terror: Chile, El Salvador, and Brazil" in this issue, the contra war is part of a wider process that has witnessed the growth and proliferation of state terror networks in Latin America that are part of, and in most cases subordinated to, an ongoing global terror network. Washington has become the organizational center for a variety of institutions, agencies, and training programs that provide the expertise, financing, and technology to service client-state terrorist institutions. Since the 1970s, this expertise has been supplemented by private services run by former intelligence and military officers.
All recent administrations, Democratic and Republican, have supported this network, and it has served as a significant foreign policy instrument. Martha Huggins' article, "U.S.-Supported State Terror: A History of Police Training in Latin America," is a case study of the official export of technologies of repression by the U.S. to client regimes to improve their capacity to destroy oppositional political and social movements through death squad activity and disappearances. In 1974, Congress prohibited funding for CIA and USAID-directed police training because of widely publicized human rights abuses; that function was then assumed by Taiwan's WACL-related Political Warfare Cadres Academy, which trained, among others, the El Salvadoran death-squad organizer Roberto D'Aubuisson (Anderson, 1986). Subsequently, a pliant Congress allowed the Reagan administration to re-institute U.S.-supported Programs in Central America as "counterterror" assistance against fabricated Nicaraguan and Cuban "terrorism."
Peter Dale Scott's article, "Contragate: Reagan, Foreign Money, and the Contra Deal," focuses on the network of former CIA officials and agents of influence as well as other international backers of the contras, who comprise what a Senate Committee report has described as the CIA's "world-wide infrastructure." Scott argues on the one hand that there are signs that Contragate represents both the illegal intervention of these backers in U.S. elections through the recycling of foreign-based funds, and the factional struggle for power hinging on relations with the intelligence community. On the other hand, Scott says, Contragate is the collusion and conspiracy to install and maintain a U.S. covert operation (despite the expressed will of Congress) that can be traced, first to the decisions of successive CIA directors to scale down and virtually eliminate clandestine services, and, second, to the existence of "offshore" intelligence operations (elements of Project Democracy), which grew as the CIA's covert assets were dispersed.2
These reforms of the CIA had the effect of building a powerful coalition of both Americans (ousted CIA clandestine operators, the Taiwan-Somoza Lobby, and the American Security Council) and foreigners (the World Anti-Communist League, and the secret Masonic Lodge guiding rightwing government actions across Italy, P-2) who were determined to restore the clandestine services. The rightward shift of political power as a result of the 1980 presidential election sharpened the prospects for a revival of domestic intelligence structures and operations and suggested a return to the weapon of secrecy afforded by intelligence, which permits unaccountability and freedom from the control of constitutional constraints and norms restricting official state action, and freedom from prohibitions on interfering with political expression.
The strong domestic lobby for U.S. covert operations included long-established spokesmen and funders of a "forward strategy," "political warfare," and "low-intensity conflict," grouped primarily in the most powerful of the manifestations of the military-industrial complex, the American Security Council (ASC).3 The ASC had aided Taiwan's foreign policy creation, the World Anti-Communist League, by setting up the American Council for World Freedom. Before Reagan, however, WACL had been marginal to U.S. foreign policy, partly because of the recurring involvement of its personnel in the international drug traffic, but also because the U.S. chapter had come under the control of extreme racists who were decidedly too profascist for domestic consumption.
In 1980, the ASC received the support of those CIA veterans of the clandestine services who had been eased or kicked out of the CIA. The ASC's affiliate, the Coalition for Peace Through Strength (CPTS), drew together some of the most influential elected officials and former military officers, and was headed by General Singlaub and General Daniel 0. Graham, as well as by retired Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer of Western Goals (Anderson, 1986: 157).
Covert Funding Mechanisms and Political Corruption
After passage of the Boland Amendment the administration conspired to continue the contra program ostensibly outside the State Department and the CIA. This had two operational consequences: the first was to turn to extra-governmental expertise in the military and logistical aspects of covert war (Singlaub, Secord, and his business partners); the second was to secure covert funding outside congressional channels.
In the 1950s, the CIA had directly disbursed millions of dollars to pro-U.S. officials, politicians, political parties, unions, and news media in Europe and throughout the Third World. In the 1960s, after these payments had been exposed and became a domestic scandal, payments to the CIA's foreign networks were continued through a global system of "commissions" or political payoffs (including laundered U.S. Air Force funds) made by Lockheed Corporation to its foreign representatives such as Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi businessman who is close to the Saudi royal family (Scott, 1986; Hougan, 1979). Partly as a result of the reforms of the CIA, U.S. and foreign CIA agents of the 1950s became the affluent arms salesmen of the 1970s, and individuals such as Khashoggi, wishing to leave a mark on history beyond accumulated wealth, engaged in diplomatic efforts. Khashoggi was an architect of improved Iran-Israel-U.S. relations, as well as of the current Saudi Arabia-South Korea entente, which underlies the contra-supporting World Anti-Communist League (Scott, 1986).
Since the Carter presidency, a third system of payments for covert U.S. operations abroad had evolved: the hidden "costs" in the shipment of U.S. arms sales. As with the "commissions," these costs are borne by the foreign purchaser. Under this system, middlemen would purchase government aircraft and weapons at a low "manufacturer's cost," and sell them to nations at the much higher "replacement cost." The U.S. government would be reimbursed at the lower cost, and the difference was transferred to finance privately run covert operations. These government deals would therefore take place under the control of private companies directed most recently by retired U.S. military personnel and foreign middlemen (Ibid.). This is the contour of much of the Project Democracy funding scheme.
The "privatization" of the contra war began with the decision of high Reagan administration officials to circumvent planned congressional restraints on the CIA after it was caught violating international law in 1983 with the mining of civilian harbors in Nicaragua and the passing out of manuals advocating the physical assassination of civilian government authorities inside Nicaragua to bring about the overthrow of that government. To date, it is known that former CIA Director William Casey moved the operation to the NSC, where Oliver North was located, in order to claim executive privilege were Congress to investigate its activities. Sheehan (1986: 16) makes the claim -- as yet not verified by other sources -- that Edwin Meese, George Bush, and Robert McFarlane conceived of this plan.
Arms Sales as Foreign Policy
When the U.S. intervenes abroad using weapons sales in excess of $14 million as a tool of diplomacy, the permission of Congress is required. An administration proposal to sell $354 million worth of missiles to Saudi Arabia immediately after the U.S. bombing of Libya in April 1986 was therefore debated in Congress. Supporters of the sale claimed that to combat the terrorist threat posed by Libya, U.S. arms sales were needed to cement relations with "moderate Arab states," such as Saudi Arabia. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy said the sales were needed to send "a political signal" to the Iranians, whose military successes against Iraq had placed Saudi oil fields in jeopardy (New York Times, April 18, 1986).
To fund the contras through arms sales was surely to employ such sales as a tool of foreign policy without congressional approval. This situation benefited central figures in Contragate such as Clines, Secord, and von Marbod, who had become involved in the covert arms flow to the contras. Although he was to become a member of the Pentagon's Special Operations Policy Advisory Group following his official retirement in 1983, Secord became a private arms supplier to the contras, operating much as Edwin Wilson had. His connections with the contras, with the rulers of Iran, and with the royal house of Saudi Arabia especially suited him for the role, and his affiliations were considered unmatched by anyone in the military. As it turned out, the funneling of Saudi millions to the contras in 1984 and 1985 was through Secord and Hakim. In 1985, Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., asked a California businessman to initiate unrelated business dealings with Secord and Hakim, both to mask the proposed contra funding deal and to help General Secord's business. Secord had participated in the controversial $8.5 billion sale of AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia in 1981, a deal which generated millions for the contras in 1981, and as much as $250 million for the WACL-supported antigovernment guerrillas in Afghanistan. This diversion of funds flowed from an agreement made by Saudi Arabia's King Fahd and Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Contra leaders admit receiving $32 million from Saudi Arabia as a result of the AWACS deal (San Francisco Examiner, July 27, 1986; Newsweek, December 15, 1986; U.S. News and World Report, December 15, 1986; New York Times, February 4, 1987; San Francisco Examiner, March 15, 1987).
A complex of interests was at stake in the covert Saudi role other than financing the U.S.-Iran arms pipeline. Indeed, the move toward improved relations with Iran favored by King Fahd resulted in a power struggle in the royal family. Prince Sultan, the Saudi Defense Minister, had argued for a rapprochement with Iran after assessing that its close ally, Iraq, was unlikely to win its war with Iran. Part of that bridging effort would require supporting Iran's $18-a-barrel price for oil (New York Times, November 27, 1986). Vice President Bush and his Republican allies from Texas publicly supported the $18 price. Khashoggi was a key intermediary in securing the necessary degree of mutual understanding between Iran and Saudi Arabia. According to Scott (1986), the Iran-Israel-U.S. arms deals have been interpreted as only one aspect in this process of strengthening Saudi-Iranian understanding.
State Terrorism in the Middle East
Irangate demonstrates that the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership shares a common global perspective, but the respective goals within that strategy conceal divergent material and political interests. Similar to the U.S., Israeli counterterrorism officials and private arms merchants figure prominently in this scandal, where covert operations -- such as the bribery of Iranian officials to gain influence and the diversion of millions of dollars to Project Democracy -- were funded through cash transfers resulting from overpayments (hidden costs) by Iran in its purchases of U.S. weapons. Although the Reagan administration had adamantly denounced state-supported terrorism in the Middle East and the "outrageous weapons deals made by Western European nations with the terrorist states in pursuit of appeasement," in August 1985 President Reagan approved the first shipment of U.S. arms by Israel to Iran (Anderson, San Francisco Chronicle, December 1, 1986). A schism between publicly stated counterterrorism policy and practice had developed under the mantle of intelligence gathering, the rationale for which was freeing hostages (and thereby picking up votes in the 1986 congressional elections), and combating terrorism.
U.S. government hypocrisy also extended to excusing the state terrorism of its allies in the Middle East. Noam Chomsky's article, "International Terrorism: Image and Reality," analyzes the Israeli model of countersubversive "antiterrorism" that the U.S. foreign policy elite (most notably Secretary of State Shultz and former CIA Director Casey) came to uncritically embrace. That policy reduced itself to the subjection of entire populations, such as southern Lebanon, to unremitting terrorism and foreign domination in the name of eliminating the "evil scourge of terrorism."
The policy of selling arms to Iranian "moderates" was not debated either in the U.S. or in Israel. While the U.S. ostensibly desired a war without victors, an important elite consensus in Israel sought a war without end. Politicians such as Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres, and intelligence people like Yitzhak Shamir and Foreign Minister David Kimche shared this view (Aronson, 1987: 20). David Kimche, a 30-year veteran and one-time deputy director of Israel's Mossad intelligence service who has long been a central figure in developing Israel's counterterrorism policy, met twice with Oliver North in 1985 (San Francisco Chronicle, November 24, 1986; New York Times, December 30, 1986). Jacob Nimrodi, a founder of, and former colonel in, Israeli military intelligence and a military attaché in Teheran for a decade, was an important part of that consensus. Nimrodi, believed to be one of the richest men in Israel because of his arms deals with the Shah of Iran, was instrumental in opening up the U.S.-Israel pipeline to Iran and had agreed to sell U.S. weapons to Iran as early as 1981 (New York Times, December 1, 1986; San Francisco Examiner, November 30, 1986).
Both Nimrodi and Al Schwimmer, the American-born founder of Israel Aircraft Industries, benefited from opening up the weapons pipeline and are close friends of Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Peres participated in the original arrangements worked out between Iran and Washington, exchanging arms for hostages (New York Times, December 1, 1986; San Francisco Chronicle, November 27, 1986).
Jan Nederveen Pieterse's "The Washington-Tel Aviv Connection: Global Frontier Management" analyzes the history of the long-term U.S.-Israeli strategic relationship, including Israel's engagement in the military conflict against Nicaragua since 1981, and Israel's possible geopolitical interests in arming Iran. The article extensively details the history of U.S. arms sales to Israel, and Israel's economic dependence on the U.S., which totals a flow of $3 billion this year (Insight, February 23, 1987). It also supports part of the Tower Commission report, which concluded that Israeli motives in arming Iran included the promotion of its arms export industry, the weakening of its old adversary, Iraq, and the desire to draw the U.S. into arms sales to Iran in order to distance the U.S. from the Arab world, and ultimately to establish Israel as the only real strategic partner of the U.S. in the region (New York Times, February 27, 1987).
Other authors have proposed that the U.S. was drawn into an Israeli scheme favoring arms sales to develop intelligence contacts within Iran because NSC aides were uncritically attracted by Israeli intelligence capabilities and political analysis (Aronson, 1987; New York Times, November 27, 1986). These included Robert McFarlane; Dennis Ross, the NSC's Middle East specialist; Howard Teicher, the NSC's senior director of political-military affairs; the late Donald R. Fortier, who was a deputy Assistant to the President; and Michael Ledeen, an NSC counterterrorism consultant hired by McFarlane, and a founder of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs in Washington, which supports a close alliance with Israel (New York Times, November 27, 1986).
As the State Department terrorism expert in Reagan's first term, Ledeen sought public support for covert actions aimed at the assassination of terrorists; he also hawked the idea, repeated by the American Security Council, that Nicaragua's Sandinista government had organized "a vast drugs and arms smuggling network to finance their terrorists and guerrillas, flooding our country with narcotics" (New York Times, February 2, 1987).
A friend of Theodore Shackley and recipient of Shackley's 1984 summary of Ghorbanifar's proposal, Ledeen played a decisive role in the initial stages of the Iran weapons-and-bribes initiative, coordinating directly with Israel's Foreign Minister David Kimche and Prime Minister Peres (Ibid.). Amiram Nir, the counterterrorism adviser to the Israeli prime minister, alleged to Oliver North in a memo printed by the Tower Commission report that Ledeen profited by as much as $50 for each missile the Iranians got (New York Times, March 25, 1987). Ledeen denies it and has repeatedly denied being an agent of Israel's intelligence service, Mossad, but the Israeli government refused to go on record retracting Nir's statement (Ibid.; New York Times, February 2, 1987).
Many of the principals in the current scandal were participants in the failed April 1980 U.S. hostage rescue attempt in Teheran. The operation included Secord, North, Hakim, and Cyrus Hashemi, a cousin of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the "moderate" speaker of the Iranian parliament, who first revealed Washington's secret arms shipments (New York Times, January 16, 1987; Insight, January 12, 1987; San Francisco Chronicle, January 6, 1987; November 29, 1986). This constellation of individuals was central to carrying out -- and perhaps played a role in shaping -- the new U.S. covert policy vis-à-vis Iran. Since the early 1980s, Hakim had tried to continue doing business with Iran and to persuade the Reagan administration to improve relations with Iran. In April 1984, Cyrus Hashemi stated after meeting with Manucher Ghorbanifar (the first go-between for the U.S.-Israel-Iran deals) that the two men planned to "go and buy weapons through Albert Hakim in the U.S. and sell them to Iran" (New York Times, January 16, 1987; San Francisco Chronicle, December 5, 1986).
Privatization of the Iran arms sales policy had as its entree a January 17, 1986, secret intelligence finding signed by President Reagan that authorized the CIA to "interfere in the affairs of a foreign country," and to assist "third parties," as well as foreign countries, in shipping weapons. The operation was an extension of an Israeli initiative designed to gather intelligence and to shape the behavior of the regime of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his successor. When turning the project over in July 1985, Israel's Foreign Minister David Kimche handed Robert McFarlane an intelligence source -- a senior ayatollah in Teheran -- developed by Mossad through channels opened with secret Israeli arms sales to Iran (San Francisco Chronicle, November 24, 1986). The State Department and Defense Secretary Weinberger reportedly opposed the plan largely because the covert operation gave the CIA and NSC in the White House leading roles in developing and managing new foreign policies toward Iran (Ibid.).
To their dismay, in January 1986, Nimrodi, Schwimmer, and Kimche were replaced by the prime minister's counterterrorism expert, Amiram Nir. According to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth, Prime Minister Peres was uncomfortable with the idea of an Israeli, especially one of his friends, making commissions on the transactions. Perhaps more pointedly, Haaretz reported that some Israeli mediators had "meddled" with the bank account in Switzerland that was used to channel money from the Iranians to the Americans and eventually to the contras (New York Times, December 1, 1987).
This meddling, combined with the Israeli arms merchants' substitution of obsolete antiaircraft missile parts to Iran in November 1985, led North to bring Secord into the operation. Ledeen was cut out, and although Ghorbanifar flunked a polygraph test ordered by CIA Director Casey, he was allowed to continue on. The Tower Commission report states that in December 1986, North proposed that Secord "control Mr. Ghorbanifar and the delivery operation." Thus it came to pass that in January 1986, direct U.S. arms shipments ensued within the operational framework of the Project Democracy financial empire under Hakim, the NSC counterterrorism unit, and a CIA official, George Cave. The shift stripped the White House of deniability, however, and crossing over personnel and financial conduits jeopardized the security of both operations (New York Times, February 27, 1987; San Francisco Chronicle, December 1, 1986). For his part, Ghorbanifar states that the CIA was far more deeply involved than has become known in setting up arms sales via the Hashemi "channel," and it demanded complete control over all participants. "If you don't follow their route, they cut you out" (Insight, April 13, 1987: 20). Pieterse alludes in this issue to a series of arrests surrounding illegal arms sales to Iran that took place precisely in this period. Cyrus Hashemi had been an informant who cooperated in setting up a U.S. Customs Service sting. Among those arrested were employees of Adnan Khashoggi, an Israeli general, and other Israeli agents (San Francisco Chronicle, January 6, 1987; In These Times, February 11-17, 1987; New York Times, December 1, 1986).
Bribery of Foreign Officials
Corruption of the U.S. and Israeli political systems through a blurring of the distinction between private interests and public policy had as a counterpart the reported bribing of officials in Iran. The Iranian leadership, beginning with Ayatollah Khomeini, had a keen interest in keeping open the pipeline to coveted U.S. weaponry and spare parts. Oliver North, it appears, did not create, but rather inherited the Israeli system of seeking intelligence by overcharging Iran and funneling the surplus back to Iranian "moderates" in the form of bribes. Beginning in January 1986, North attempted to use this surplus to bankroll the contras as well (San Francisco Chronicle, February 2, 1987). Millions of dollars in payments from the arms sales had been made by Ghorbanifar to Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri, a protégé of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Money for the bribes was loaned to Ghorbanifar by Adnan Khashoggi (New York Times, March 18,1987).
The leader of the Global Islamic Movement, Mehdi Hashemi, was arrested in October 1986 on charges of treason, at which time he confessed to working for Montazeri. Before the arrest, the organization received a commission of three to five percent on any weapons procurements for Iran's Revolutionary Guards. The Global Islamic Movement allegedly has helped fund and organize terrorist groups in Lebanon, including the Party of God, which has taken responsibility for much of the hostage taking (Ibid.). As much as $6 million in "political contributions" were subsequently made to the Iranian Speaker of Parliament, Hojatolislam Hasherni Rafsanjani, the "second channel" mentioned in the Tower Commission report. That channel, it so happens, is the Hakim-Secord-Shackley-Clines connection. As the report also indicates, it was Shackley, "a former United States intelligence officer," who was told by Ghorbanifar that there might have to be "payment of a cash ransom for the hostages in Beirut" (Ibid.). In July 1986, Cyrus Hashemi suddenly died in London. In November, his cousin would reveal the covert arms arrangement with the U.S. that Cyrus had worked years to arrange.
Domestic Political Fallout
Contragate is at once the story of an ideological anticommunist crusade laced by petty corruption and bureaucratic competition, and an elite-level battle over control of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus. Post-World War II U.S. history is marked by struggles between traditional global reactionaries advocating the military rollback of socialist states on the one hand, and the internationalist elite sponsors of containment of the Soviet Union on the other. Rightwing rollback forces embedded in the government, Congress, the media, and the "military-industrial complex" have mounted several historic counterattacks on prevailing containment doctrine in response to real or perceived disequilibrium in the balance of nuclear terror between the U.S., the Soviet Union, and China. The first was in the 1949 to 1950 period, when the Soviet Union exploded its first nuclear device. The McCarthy purges of the labor unions, the State Department, and the attempted assault on the Army followed. The second was in 1964, when China acquired the capacity to explode an atomic bomb. In that year the Vietnam War escalated from covert to overt with the "Tonkin Gulf incident," while in the U.S., the far Right captured the Republican Party machinery and attempted to acquire federal power through the Goldwater campaign. The latest instance, which arguably rests on the rightwing insistence that the Soviet Union gained nuclear superiority over the U.S. during the Carter administration, is the ascent to the presidency of the Reagan Right.
Contragate shares characteristics with previous rightwing initiatives, and there have been signs of changes underway in the rightwing "establishment" that could presage further oligarchic consolidation upward. The governing alliance during the Reagan years has been characterized by the incorporation of the rightwing professional and small-business sector into a corporate ruling stratum that had shifted radically rightward during the 1970s. Tensions in that alliance over the post-Reagan leadership succession have combined with the downward economic and social movement of its base to produce a disintegrative effect on the movement as a whole. An internecine struggle erupted publicly in the conservative movement before the 1986 congressional elections in the form of strategy feuding that reflected a deeper doctrinal dispute initiated by conservative ideologues pushing a more activist social agenda to forestall defection of voters to the Democratic Party. A more profound malaise lies in the old-line Goldwater conservatives' recognition of having learned "how little is accomplished by winning elections." They have also criticized administration neoconservatives for serving as pragmatic technicians of welfare state compromises and misrepresenting the label of conservatism. Military policy -- primarily making Star Wars, or SDI, operational -- alone united all factions (New York Times, October 25, 1987). SDI is defended as part of the rightwing rollback agenda because by forcing the USSR into costly weapons expenditures, economic modernization efforts could be crippled. At Reykjavik, President Reagan was willing to accept large reductions in offensive strategic nuclear weapons because SDI's effectiveness is enhanced the fewer the missiles there are to defend against. As Gould and Bodenheimer (1987) point out, at Reykjavik President Reagan's incompetent understanding of nuclear strategy led him to agree to the elimination of all nuclear weapons over 10 years, including bombers and cruise missiles that, in combination with SDI, would have been most advantageous for U.S. nuclear superiority. This massive blunder seems to have been a prelude to Contragate, for it angered the rightwing and that faction of the U.S. ruling elite supporting a more moderate foreign policy position, whose uneasy alliance has marked the entire Reagan presidency.
After the Irangate scandal broke in November 1986, members of Reagan's "kitchen cabinet" reportedly pressed for a cabinet shakeup that called for the replacement of Secretary of State Shultz, White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan, and national security adviser Adm. John Poindexter, and sought to replace them with Reagan Doctrine hardliners Caspar Weinberger, Drew Lewis, and Jeane Kirkpatrick (San Francisco Examiner, November 23, 1986).4 Secretary Shultz came under fire from conservative presidential hopeful Jack Kemp, who called on Shultz to resign for "violating the Reagan Doctrine" because he held discussions with Oliver Tambo of the African National Congress. The day after the rumored shakeup was publicized, President Reagan and Attorney General Meese made the historic and damaging disclosure of the diversion of Iran arms sales funds to the contras.
As events unfold, the political forces that achieved dominance over the foreign policy apparatus on the eve of November 24, 1986, will become clearer. It could be said that this struggle is the real story behind the Contragate scandal. The kitchen cabinet's "right-wing coup" did not succeed in its goal, for Secretary Shultz did not resign, although Donald Regan and John Poindexter were compelled to tender their resignations. Key Reagan Doctrine supporters subsequently formed a "forget about Iran-a-smear" lobbying coalition in December 1986, calling it America at Risk. It was actively supported from within the administration by Education Secretary William Bennett, former political affairs director Patrick J. Buchanan, and budget director James T. Miller. Among the coalition's 20-odd members were the core of President Reagan's "grass-roots" support: the American Security Council (of which Oliver North has been an active adviser), the Citizens for Reagan (which in the 1986 elections had tried to engineer the defeat of congressional candidates who opposed funding the contras), the American Conservative Union, the Concerned Women for America, and Citizens for America, among a range of other groups that had supported Reagan's anticommunist foreign policy agenda (New York Times, January 17, 1987).
The long-range implications of the executive-level personnel changes for foreign policy are still a matter of conjecture. The newly appointed national security adviser, Frank Carlucci, has traditionally been disliked by reactionaries because of his role with Stansfield Turner in firing the CIA's covert directorate, but he appears to be attempting to forge a conservative consensus similar to that of his predecessors. It is known that Carlucci once ordered the reinstatement of General Secord when Secord was faced with legal problems stemming from his connections with Edwin Wilson, and he also hired Erich von Marbod into the private arms sales business. Carlucci and von Marbod worked for a subsidiary of Sears Roebuck, historically a major corporate backer of the American Security Council (Maas, 1986: 288). The chair of President Reagan's Iran investigative commission, John Tower -- whose sister is married to an arms merchant who supplied arms for the CIA-backed coup in Guatemala in 1954, Samuel Cummings -- has appeared in ASC propaganda films on the communist threat in Central America (New York Times, December 4, 1986; ASC, "Crisis in the Americas"). The question is who, indeed, Carlucci and other new advisers represent in the highest councils of elite policy-making.
Some of the new Reagan administration staff choices have led to dissatisfaction by sectors of the Right because they had considered Reagan the last great hope of carrying out their global anticommunist agenda. Richard Viguerie howled that President Reagan had abandoned every pretense of standing up against the Washington establishment (Time, March 23, 1987: 26), and even went so far as to suggest over the nationally televised "Nightline" that Reagan himself should resign over Contragate.
In part, Reagan's Republican Party successes in 1980 and 1984 produced hard times for New Right fundraisers such as Mr. Viguerie, who was forced to sell his national magazine, Conservative Digest, and to put his company's headquarters up for sale to fend off creditors. Further, the flagship of rightwing think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute, was forced to cut its staff and program to recover it financial solvency (New York Times, January 14, 1986; January 19, 1987). This apparent paradox is based in the flow of contributions to the Republican Party proper instead of New Right organizations.
In greater measure, however, these symptoms of the Right's relative misfortunes result directly from the fall in world oil prices. It has been widely reported that Texas oil multimillionaires such as the late Clint Murchison, Jr., John Connally, and Nelson Bunker Hunt, face bankruptcy as a result of the low world market price of oil. The fiscal crisis Texas is experiencing itself stems from the fall in oil revenue (Insight, March 30, 1987). The domestic consequence politically has been a diminishing role for the once disproportionately influential rightwing domestic oil interests, which earlier had funneled a major share of all funds received by the New Right's political action committees (the financial base of Viguerie's crumbled empire), but their total contribution has fallen significantly in recent years (Washington Post, November 7, 1986). Internationally, the negotiations for increased oil prices with Saudi Arabia and Iran, championed by Vice President Bush, were central to his goal of developing and securing a reactionary base in the Republican Party as the 1988 presidential candidate. Promoting high world-market prices for oil as a tried-and-true mechanism for financing world arms sales through petro-dollars would also sit well with the interests of the military-industrial complex, which had supported the Reagan presidency (just as the super-rich executives at EXXON, Mobil, Standard Oil, and other large oil-related transnationals also had done).
The current scandal may mean hard times for the Reagan Doctrine as well: in March 1986, conservatives in Congress and at the Heritage Foundation pressed the administration to officially scrap the accord made with the Mozambican government, and instead to support the South Africa-based terrorist Mozambique National Resistance Movement. That effort failed. Although the Reagan Doctrine may be down, it is not out. Frank Carlucci announced increased aid to anticommunist insurgents in Afghanistan; CIA support to the contras in supplying intelligence to facilitate terrorist bombings has accelerated; and a new CIA counterinsurgency program in the Philippines was announced after revelations that Singlaub had been plotting in a Marcos stronghold along with Asians and others who had served in the Special Forces in Vietnam (New York Times, February 20, 1987; San Francisco Chronicle, February 18, 1987; February 16, 1987).
Some key players in the Doctrine's game plan have now been dislodged or have resigned from government -- William Casey, Oliver North, Nestor Sanchez, John Poindexter, Richard Perle, Patrick Buchanan, and Lewis Tambs -- but with the exception of Casey, the composition of the council setting the policies has not changed. The World Anti-Communist League, which gave teeth to the Reagan Doctrine and strongly reinforced the antidemocratic tendencies already prominent in ruling circles, will undoubted continue its active private foreign policy. The disenchanted Right seems intent on making the Reagan Doctrine its primary issue in the 1988 presidential election. The trained, activist cadre of prior CIA special operations would certainly play a role in keeping the Reagan Doctrine on the agenda.
Conclusion
Some of the covert structures underlying the counterterrorism policy have been revealed again to be instruments central to a president's ability to conduct what amounts to a secret foreign policy. This is not unique to the Reagan administration. For 30 years, despite the Constitution, successive presidents have conducted secret wars without the advice and consent of Congress.
Watergate, which narrowly construed the vast wrongdoing of the Nixon administration, did succeed in setting precedents on the abuse of power. The force of public opinion made it necessary for an antidemocratic administration to transgress the law in its arrogant effort to rule the globe. Perhaps the law can again force a retreat from hypocrisy, and counterterrorism will no longer surreptitiously dominate foreign policy. Admiral William J. Crowe of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that "in 1981 our counterterrorism capability was extremely limited. Now we probably have the best in the world" (San Francisco Chronicle, November 4, 1986). It would be difficult to argue that the upgrading was objectively beneficial for the American people, much less the peoples of the Third World. Future improvement appears risky at best. When Frank Carlucci became the NSC head, he consolidated counterterrorism and narcotics control with intelligence and created a single unit, replacing E. de Graffenreid with Barry Kelly, who served in the CIA's clandestine service during Carlucci's tour as deputy director (San Francisco Chronicle, January 1, 1987: A-1). The Tower Commission lodged the criticism that the operation was run unprofessionally. What will happen now that experts are in charge?
NOTES
1. The Los Angeles Police Department's Public Disorder Intelligence Division, which kept records on "enemies of the state," including the National Lawyers Guild, had officers who removed files, computerized them, and sent them to Western Goals -- which turned them over to a California grand jury after negotiating immunity from prosecution. Western Goals also obtained information from Exxon and Security Pacific Bank. Among its sponsors is a major John Birch Society supporter, Nelson Bunker Hunt (Anderson, 1986: 155; 160; 304fn.).
2. This reform had meant financial and political disaster for these CIA-subsidized parallel operations, and led former covert agents into illegal operations. They faced possible prosecution unless the election of Reagan and the restoration of CIA covert operations would result in the restoration of a de facto "CIA immunity" to prevent investigation of their past activities. Covertly supported individuals and organizations in client regimes were no less interested in a restoration of their funding.
3. That matrix included the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby, veterans of the covert war in Indochina, the Somoza Lobby, and other militant exponents of what came to be called the Reagan Doctrine. The network of lobbies and foundations also included the Heritage Foundation; Georgetown's Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); the Hoover Institution; the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, which David Phillips (head of the CIA's Latin America covert action department at the time of the U.S. coup in Chile) formed on his retirement from the CIA; the Center for Peace Through Strength, at that time headed by General Daniel P. Graham, the former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and current head of High Frontiers -- which is heavily connected with the Unification Church through CAUSA -- who led the intelligence revival forces along with James Angleton and Ray Cline (an ex-CIA Deputy Director who is also a senior associate of CSIS and an official of the AFIO).
4. A driving force behind the Reagan presidency by 1980 was Reagan's "kitchen cabinet" of L.A. millionaires, which included American Security Council backers such as Earle M. Jorgenson, Jack Wrather, and Lockheed investor William Wilson. Two other prominent backers of the ASC (oilmen A.C. Rubel and Henry Salvatori) were also part of the trio (with Holmes Tuttle) of Los Angeles millionaires who had launched Reagan into politics after the Goldwater debacle of 1964. As Scott points out in this issue, the China-Taiwan Lobby was a crucial component of the ASC program.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Scott and Jon Lee Anderson
1986 Inside the League: The Shocking Exposé of How Terrorists, Nazis, and Latin American Death Squads Have Infiltrated the World Anti-Communist League. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.
Aronson, Geoffrey
1987 "Israel's Intelligence Blunders." This World (March 1).
Bamford, James
1986 "Covert War Is Becoming Institutionalized." San Francisco Chronicle (October 8): A4.
Donner, Frank
1981 The Age of Surveillance: The Methods of America's Political Intelligence System. New York: Random House.
Gould, Robert and Tom Bodenheimer
1997 "Did 'Contragate' Begin at Reykjavik?" Dataline 1 (Spring).
Insight
1987 "Reagan Doctrine's Darkest Days" (March 16).
Kruger, Henrik
1980 The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence, and International Fascism. Boston: South End Press.
Maas, Peter
1986 Manhunt: The Incredible Pursuit of a CIA Agent Turned Terrorist. New York: Random House.
Motley, James B.
1983 U.S. Strategy to Counter Domestic Political Terrorism. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
New York Times
1986 "Cubans Guard U.S. Oilmen in Angola" (November 24).
Powers, Thomas
1979 The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Schurmann, Franz
1974 The Logic of World Power: An Inquiry into the Origins, Currents, and Contradictions of World Politics. New York: Random House.
Scott, Peter Dale
1986 "Iran-Contra Connection Involves Former CIA Network of Influence." Press Release.
Sheehan, Daniel P.
1986 Avirgan and Honey v. Hull et al. Affidavit and Amended Complaint of Daniel P. Sheehan, General Counsel of the Christic Institute, filed on December 12, 1986. The Christic Institute, 1324 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C., 20002. (202) 797-8106.
Snepp, Frank
1977 Decent Interval. New York: Vintage Books.
Gregory Shank is an editor of Crime and Social Justice, P.O. Box 40601, San Francisco, CA 94140. The author wishes to thank Robert Gould and Mark Rabine of Global Options for their useful criticisms and suggestions on earlier drafts.
Citation: Gregory Shank. (1987). "Contragate and Counterterrorism: An Overview." Crime and Social Justice Issues 27-28 (1987): i-xxvii. Copyright © 1987 by Social Justice, ISSN 1043-1578. Social Justice, P.O. Box 40601, San Francisco, CA 94140. [email protected].
#china lobby#taiwan#contras#iran-contra#iran-contra scandal#iran-contra affair#causa#unification church#moonies#wacl#world anti-communist league#oliver north#Project Democracy#unification church in latin america#nicaragua#central america#anti-communism#imperialism#middle east#fbi#reagan#ronald reagan#politics#drug trade#drug trafficking#iran
0 notes
Text
TEARS OF A HOSPITAL CLOWN
The method of science, the aim of religion…this written on the Solstice but not feeling too pagan in this one, too exhausted for magick.
62 days of hospital stories while visiting a very ill and close member of my family. Screams, pleas, insanity and a death beside her. Enraging and utterly heart breaking. ‘Medically fit for discharge’. According to a government (which has spent 12 years decimating the service, and spunking billions of pounds on non arriving ppe equipment and backhanders to mates) the NHS nurses are making ‘unreasonable’ demands. A government backed survey found that 13,000 full time nurses could be hired for the cost of a one percent rise. Yes, perhaps, but they would also be earning the same rubbish money for the same endless hard work. Every day I have watched what the nurses do, the burden of caring between several wards, eight patients in each with extreme needs of pain, hallucination, fear, toilet, bleeding, dementia, strokes, cancer, rotting feet, the endless checks of medication, blood tests and blood pressure…
Unreasonable? All those politicians and the good citizens with enough money for private health care should spend a week in an NHS ward seeing the work done before they rush to lofty judgement. Many nurses are now working the equivalent of one day for free. And still have to pay for the honour of parking their car if they can afford one.
The Tory party (or is it a ‘work event’) appear to be on the verge of splitting into a new group, spearheaded by the abysmal shyster Farage. Lucifer save us. Boris said he would run for PM and then realised the mess he had helped create would be better dealt with by the next couple of schmucks in order for him to return triumphant. The ridiculous Home Secretary resigned under the laughably useless Liz Truss, saying she took ‘full responsibility’ for her leaking of official information via her private email address and then returned to her job under the thin gurning Sunak. So, not quite taking FULL responsibility then.
What a surprise. A look of terminal shock in your eyes, etc. Shame about Penny Mordaunt ‘In the past 12 years we’ve made this country infinitely better’. Really? REALLY? Any plans to recoup those billions paid out for non-functioning and/or non appearing PPE etc? No. Sunak wrote that off as a tax loss. Another great British leader, who in spite of 1 trillion pounds recently being wiped off the value of crypto, wants to turn the UK into a digital currency superpower. The con in Conservative.
The Holy Land (copyright) of Israel voted for the clearly corrupt Netanyahu so he can get himself and wife off the hook from criminal charges. He, like many dubious politicians did a deal with the far right for power and is now legalising illegal outposts to appease them. But to criticise their government is to be antisemitic. Is it? So, if one says bin Salman al Saud is a very dodgy guy who clearly knows much more about murder than he should, therefore one condemns all Arabs? If I show rude disapproval at the Communist government, I despise all Chinese? No, not in the slightest. On the other hand, if I ridicule Trump, I AM most certainly laughing at all his gullible dumber than ectoplasm supporters. And De Santis is an utter scuzzball too, anybody who uses the phrase ‘family values’ as a vote catcher needs watching.
The one finger up to the Mullahs, non head scarf wearing protests bravely continue in Iran and damn right too. The ‘Morality’ Police beating and vanishing young demonstrators daily as they knock the turbans off clerics’ heads. Almost 100 unarmed protestors shot dead by religious cops. Public executions on the rise. Don’t blame outsiders too much for the rage in country rising against your heartless theocracy you bearded, backward misogynists. Try being decent instead of holy.
And of course, the new improved modern Taliban have just barred all females from receiving education from primary to further. And banned them from working at anything other than cooks, cleaners and baby machines, as Allah the allmerciful (blessings be upon him) demands. God I hate what neophobes do with religion. Over fifty percent of the population discarded to slave status.
President Winnie the Poo aka Xi the Ruler for Life had his predecessor Huge in Towel very publicly removed at China’s national Congress to shame and disgrace the former moderate tyrant. Emperor Jinping, what goes around, comes around. The spirit of 8964 will never be snuffed out. The one man protest on a Beijing bridge was a heroism the pointless Just Stop Oil cretins could never match. ‘No to cultural revolution, yes to reform, no to great leader, yes to vote, Don’t be a slave, be a citizen, remove the dictator….’
Peng Lifa is either dead or being threatened with his entire families’ deaths unless he goes live and says how wrong he was to speak truth to power. Love how the very restrained diplomat and underlings (now sent home) at the Chinese consulate in Manchester dragged a protestor into their grounds to beat him with impunity. Chinese protestors in Beijing rebelling against the too stringent lockdown measures, chanting ‘Down with the Communist Party!’ Many holding blank sheets of paper in a sarcastic comment on the utter dearth of freedom of speech. Genuine bravery. How many of them are on the way to the death penalty or ‘re-education’ camps?
China bought the old site of the Royal Mail opposite the Tower of London in 2018 for255 million and planned to turn it into their largest European embassy. Good or bad for Britain? Hmm. As of December 2nd, the local council had turned them down. Stick your Dongfen up yer jacksie Xi. An East wind is coming indeed, no manure Sherlock.
Meanwhile in Tibet, ‘Chinese police have been collecting biometric data on all Tibetan males over the age of five – DNA, iris scans and fingerprints in the ‘Great One by One Inspection’. Harvesting the information for a Minority Report style future. What a charming bunch the communists are. Scum.
Trump runs for President again, a man who couldn’t run a bath is running because ‘I believe the world has not yet seen the true glory of what this nation can be’. ARF. Fat petulant playground no friends bully stamping his little feet at very weak recent election results. At least Cartman was funny. Speaking of horrible fat stupid lying manipulating swine, overjoyed to see Alex Jones being dealt a hefty total of a billion dollars (count them) fine for his evil Sandy Hook inventions. And millions still believe in these guys, doubling and trebling down on ignorance. Which is why ‘true patriots’ and the religious are so easy to fool by any bull manure magic beans merchant…and so very lucrative too. You love your country and worship an invisible sky wizard? Step right this way sir…
‘Perhaps you have contracted one of those diseases…the kind which could only be transmitted by word of mouth…’
And as for the orange filth head meeting with the deeply mentally ill Kayne West and Nick ‘Jews have too much power in our society. Christians should have all the power, everyone else very little’. Fuente, uf, if ‘God’ has any decency, a stinking circle of Hell waits for that unholy trio…
Anton Krasovsky of the Russian state’s RT channel was finally suspended after saying Ukrainian children should be drowned or burned alive and their grandmothers were using their funeral funds to pay Russian soldiers to rape them. This is what it takes for a pro government man to be suspended. Sure, Trump could use the guy as a straight-talking press officer. Dimitry Kiselov is of course still allowed to call for the complete annihilation of Britain with his master’s penis substitute Satan 2 in a radioactive tsunami. Bring it on prick.
Transgender issues…puberty blockers... Most, if not all of us will remember confused thinking about their identity or experimenting when younger and it indeed WAS just a phase as hormones shifted about. Little boys in girls’ clothes, girls being tomboys, both sexes having same sex crushes for a while. Yes, including me. Left brain/right brain…Parents claiming their child was transgender because they wanted them to be a different sex. ‘Aww, we wanted a boy and we got a girl, please make him right doc, we’re not just transhausen by proxy’. Ok, I self-identify as an alien from Sirius and demand respect for the deluded minded. Aliens are people too.
Cosmetic surgeons making big bucks by encouraging girls with body shame issues to have mastectomies when it is likely what they need more is help and support with self-image. It just seems as if males who think they are female want to transition without the actual hassle of periods and giving birth etc. Easier these days to claim one identifies as female, rather than as a bloke who enjoys wearing female clothing express his feelings.
Devon Partnership NHS trust gave a two-hour session about ‘gender unicorns’. Non binary, agender, neutrois, demigender, polygender, androgyne, femme butch, fondue set, cuddly toy… Mental health has taken a real beating in the West in the last two decades and desperately needs to be addressed, not dressed up. And if the righteous middle class woke want to ban blackface as being offensive, then they should ban all the ugly transvestites in drag for being deeply offensive caricatures of women.
Super sweet to see Kim wrong un taking his daughter to see his masterful phallic intercontinental ballistic missile, it is important to spend quality time with your children. One day darling you could inherit a nuclear wasteland…
Elon Musk getting ever more deranged with his plans for Ukraine and Twitter etc. I am genuinely disappointed (as if he cares) as I had actually held some hope for him being a useful human instead of yet another rich dingbat fruitcake idiot. And as for bloody Zuckerberg and his Meta self…ARF. The virtual avatar of himself looks far more human than he does.
Being the full-time carer for my mother for the last seven months is annihilating me, atom by atom. She very rarely knows who I am or that she is in her home of 33 years and is hearing and seeing dead relatives. Hallucinations of memory. Daily and nightly falls, dangerous walkabouts, a mini stroke, endometrial cancer for three years, blood, excrement, refusing to drink or eat. I never would have returned to England if not for her but only regret that she won’t let me help enough. More tests for an operation I know will not happen. Sometimes I am too tired to even be a friend. Guilt. I do not ‘believe’ in death as THE end but I am watching her vanish in front of me day by day. Me taking refuge in rational order and she by withdrawing into deepening lunacy, step by faltering step. ‘When can I go home?’ I heard this in the hospital from others, now I hear it at home. When a peaceful death is the only possible happy end. I am running on fumes trying to do all the right things, knowing I am failing.
‘Madness may only be the expression of ordinary emotional confusion. Fear of madness can cause, I believe, a retreat into the very madness one fears. This is only superficially a paradox. Madness may be said to be a tendency to simplify, into easily grasped metaphors, the nature of the world. …you have plainly been confounded by unexpected complexities; therefore, you are inclined to retreat into simplification…to create a world whose values are unambivalent, unequivocal.’
And back to Israel this festival season for Yanuka and the ‘abomination of desolation’ which would be the permanently coming end times . Darling YouTube is ablaze with apocalyptic anti-Christ ravings. Again. Because the guy has a good memory and is apparently charismatic. And for those who profess themselves to be (don’t laugh) ‘Christians’, it is a SIGN of the coming Armageddon. Again. And the little darlings welcome it…
‘Such is the character of one prone to morbid anxiety, that he would rather experience the worst of things than hope for the best. Why have such conclusions been drawn? Because that type of mentality would prefer to bring on catastrophe rather than live forever in fear of its possibility. Suicide rather than uncertainty’.
All quotes in this blog (apart from the last one below) have been taken from Moorcock’s trilogy, The Dancers at the End of Time.
‘When a critical mass is achieved within a species, the behaviour is instantly transferred to, and exhibited by all members of the species. A phase transition…’ Let’s hope so. Hurry up species, it doesn’t need all of us, we just need enough. Let’s go...
Happy imaginary Christmas and New Year to you, stay well…Love.
0 notes
Text
Countries Where You Can Find Licensed Brothels- Complete Overview
The job that's been around the longest has always been considered beneath respect, even from the dawn of time. Even though it is against the law and has a poor reputation, prostitution nevertheless takes place for a variety of reasons, such as financial issues or things that do not go as planned. This is even though prostitution is illegal.
Even though there are laws against it and it has a poor reputation, prostitution is nevertheless practiced. Others have advocated for the complete eradication of prostitution, while others have advocated for the regulation of the practice by providing prostitutes with access to social and medical benefits.
These nations have passed legislation that makes it lawful for women to engage in prostitution:
New Zealand
Since 2003, when the country decided to legalize prostitution and create licensed brothels, New Zealand has been regarded as a society that is free and open to new ideas. People who work in brothels have the same access to social assistance as people who work in other legal enterprises.
This is because licensed brothels are required to follow the same standards for hiring and public health as other legal businesses. Without a doubt, this constitutes a move in the right direction for the company.
Australia
In the country of Australia, each state is responsible for enforcing its laws on prostitutes. In certain areas, brothels are permitted by law while in others they are not. This is the case in every single region in the country. Those who are granted permission to operate licensed brothels are subject to the same regulations.
Austria
In Austria, engaging in prostitution is not a criminal offence. It is required of prostitutes that they should be at least 19 years old, that they pay taxes, that they register with a licensed brothel, and that they undergo routine medical examinations. Despite this, human trafficking and forced prostitution are problems that affect a significant number of people.
Bangladesh
On the other hand, engaging in prostitution with another male is against the law. Everything else is within our reach. The issue of human trafficking is a significant one in Bangladesh, and the fact that there is widespread corruption throughout the nation makes the situation much more precarious. Despite this, pimping and unlicensed prostitution, as well as prostitution in licensed brothels, are both lawful in most jurisdictions.
Belgium
They have been working toward their aim of removing the violence, fear, and humiliation that are connected with the industry by making prostitution legal and installing keycard and fingerprint technologies in licensed brothels. This will bring them one step closer to achieving their goal.
Brazil
Even though it is permissible to engage in sexual activity in brothels that have been granted a license in Brazil, you will spend time behind bars if you try to profit from it in the same way that sex traffickers do.
Canada
Although it is currently not illegal to engage in self-prostitution or visit a brothel in Canada, this will change in 2014 when it will become illegal to sell sex. Sexual service providers are put in jeopardy because of problems that exist in the organizations in which they are employed.
Colombia
Although it is permitted to operate in the adult entertainment sector in Colombia, it is unlawful to engage in the business of prostitution. Cities such as Cartagena and Barranquilla, Colombia, have a significant prostitution problem.
Denmark
Denmark, which is ranked ninth best in the world, is one of the few countries in which licensed brothels allow for the practice of prostitution.
Ecuador
There are no laws or regulations governing any aspect of sexual labor in Ecuador. Things like prostitution, owning a brothel, and selling the bodies of prostitutes are not illegal activities in and of themselves. On the other hand, situations involving forced prostitution raise several ethical concerns.
France
In France, prostitution can be practiced lawfully, however it is against the law to solicit money from strangers in public. In 1946, not long after the conclusion of World War II, France passed a law making it illegal for anybody to work in the profession of pimp or prostitute which helped them get a better position in the society.
Germany
Even though prostitution has been legal throughout the United States since 1927, the government continues to operate licensed brothels in the country. Every employee has access to health insurance, is required to make contributions to the payroll system, and is qualified for social benefits like pensions and other retirement programs.
Greece
Greece just passed a law that legalizes prostitution. Something quite similar to this was done by Germany in the past. Everyone who is employed in the adult entertainment industry and licensed brothels should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny and regular checks.
Netherland
It is permitted to engage in prostitution in one of the cities that is best known for its red-window prostitutes. This is true, along with a very big number of other activities. They have always been more willing to discuss topics that are considered inappropriate in other settings.
Conclusion
Even if prostitution is not prohibited in this country, it is against the law to engage in the practice in public or to encourage others to do so. Additionally, it is against the law to operate a licensed brothel; nevertheless, this regulation is rarely enforced, as is seen in locations such as GB Road, Clark County, and Kamathipura.
0 notes
Text
Benefits of employer of record in india
Benefits of an employer of record
[1] It can help with workload
An employer of record designation allows you to carry out operations without the hassle of administrative costs. It allows you to hire additional employees and pay just a small percentage of their salary in taxes rather than all of it. This is a huge advantage, especially if you are working on heavy volumes and need more manpower. With more workers comes more work and no dedicated HR professionals to manage that extra workload .
But if you have an EoR, all these responsibilities shift to that company that is your EOR provider in India.
[2] It can help with HR
Hiring contractors can sometimes be a bad experience – in the long run. First of all, you have to spend a fortune on HR and training because your team and staff need to get better every day.
[3] It can help with severance packages
EOR services benefit Indian companies in another way – when you have to pay severance packages to your employees. Hiring employees on time and getting them trained is important.
But it doesn’t exempt you from the consequences when you have to let them go and provide them with a severance package. An EOR can help with all the formalities within the legal and HR stipulations in place.
[4] It can help with visa issues
It is not uncommon to hire employees who are not from the same country as you. And it’s even less uncommon for an employee to quit or be terminated because of visa issues. An EOR provider in India will make sure the employee has all the documents and visas in place. It also helps with illegal immigration cases or any other legal mess you might land yourself in because of an H1B issue.
[5] It can help with outsourcing
An employer of record in India can be used to outsource and hire employees who have no ties to the company.
This is a common practice among companies and helps them immensely with their outsourced operations. An EOR company will hire workers on your behalf and act as an employer of record for those employees.
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
