Putin’s Secret Submarines and Strategy

Russia has been placing, flying and deploying strategic military assets around the globe that appear in some curious locations, like aircraft near Newfoundland, aircraft near Alaska and ships near Nicaragua and Cuba.

Now it seems that a submarine that was detected and vanished has gained the attention of several countries.

Many countries are paying attention however, no one is saying if this is aggression, surveillance or part of a Putin Cold War Part 2 operation.

Few speak to the matter of Ukraine and even less when it comes to the risk of the Baltic States.

LONDONThe U.K. called in assistance to help hunt for a foreign submarine off the west coast of Scotland starting in late November.

Maritime patrol aircraft (MPAs) from France, Canada and the U.S. conducted patrols in conjunction with British surface warships in the search for the submarine in late November and the first week of December, operating out of RAF Lossiemouth in northern Scotland.

The incident began when a periscope was sighted in waters where U.K. and other submarines would normally surface as they head into or out of the Royal Navy’s submarine base at Faslane, home of the U.K.’s ballistic missile submarines.

At the height of the operation, aircraft involved in the hunt included two U.S. Navy P-3 Orions, a single CP-140 Aurora from the Royal Canadian Air Force and a Dassault Atlantique 2 of the French navy. Also involved was one of the U.K.’s Raytheon Sentinel radar-reconnaissance aircraft.

The U.K. defense ministry and the participating air arms have not confirmed they were hunting for a submarine. But a U.K. defense ministry spokesman told Aviation Week that Britain had “requested assistance from allied forces for basing of maritime patrol aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth for a limited period.

The aircraft are conducting Maritime Patrol activity with the Royal Navy; we do not discuss the detail of maritime operations.”

A spokesman for the Royal Canadian Air Force said: “Following a request for assistance from the United Kingdom, the Canadian Armed Forces deployed one CP-140 Aurora Aircraft to RAF Lossiemouth for a limited time.”

Maritime patrol aircraft are occasionally deployed to Scotland, mainly for NATO’s Joint Warrior exercise. Such exercises are usually announced in advance, but November’s deployment was unexpected, with the aircraft and supporting airlifters arriving around Nov. 26. The deployment appeared to end last last week.

The incident comes more than a month after Swedish authorities halted a search for a foreign submarine operating in its territorial waters in the Stockholm archipelago. While the Swedish search was unsuccessful, defense officials said there was no doubt that the country’s waters had been violated by a foreign power.

It is not clear whether the submarine being hunted by the U.K. and other Western nations had entered U.K. territorial waters, or if the maritime patrol aircraft successfully located the sub.

The Sentinel may have been using its radar to try to spot periscope-sized objects on the surface and then cue MPAs onto the target.

On Nov. 28, the U.K. reported it was tracking four Russian warships passing through the Strait of Dover and into the English Channel heading out into the Atlantic. The surface ships included a Ropucha-class landing ship and an Udaloy-class destroyer. These were shadowed by HMS Tyne, a Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel.

The U.K. retired its own fixed-wing maritime patrol capability provided by the Nimrod in 2010, and has been limited to the use of ships and helicopters for the anti-submarine mission.

Further, another look at Putin’s aggression and certain risks are worthy of immediate attention especially as the Russian currency is unstable due in part to the falling price of crude oil.

Russia and the West

The Geopolitical Nihilist

Putin’s Russia may be able to wreck the geopolitical status quo, but it doesn’t have the power to replace it.

Russia’s bold moves into Crimea and Eastern Ukraine give one the impression that a calculating strategist sits in the Kremlin. Putin’s own public pronouncements tell us that his apparent aim is to restore Muscovite power and influence over territories deemed by him to be historically Russian. Putin is thus feared to be a shrewd competitor willing to use all forms of Russian power—from nuclear innuendo to a superiority in conventional forces to relentless information warfare—in order to build methodically a new regional order. In other words, he may be a geopolitical master.

But there is another possibility. It’s plausible that he has no such well thought out vision of geopolitical reconstruction, and little or no planning for how to establish and maintain whatever new rules Moscow might impose. Even if Putin did have a new regional order in mind, he may be incapable of translating it into reality. By choice and by necessity, Putin may simply be eager to wreck the status quo with nary a thought given to what comes after. In other words, he may be a geopolitical nihilist.

Consider, for instance, that it is unclear what Putin’s desired “international order” would look like. His own statements on this subject are increasingly more detached from reality, rants fueled by his own propaganda. (He suggests, for instance, that Ukraine is oppressing Russians, or that the U.S. and the West more broadly have been aggressors against Russia for the better part of two decades.) Whether he believes this nonsense or not will never be known, but there is little in such harangues to suggest that he has a positive vision of an alternative political order. We know—and he knows—what he viscerally hates, but the destruction of what he hates does not imply a replacement.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, even if Putin has a long-term vision of the order he wants to establish, he may be unable to implement it. Weak and declining revisionist powers, such as today’s Russia, do not have the capacity to establish a stable regional order. They lack the strength necessary to maintain it, even though they may have a deep desire to demolish the existing one. The best they can do is to increase uncertainty about their behavior, flailing here and there, expanding their influence and control in weakly defended adjacent regions, and more broadly, increasing the perception of risk in the mind of their opponents. The result is a volatile and unpredictable situation—costly to all, but seen by the declining revisionist as perhaps more costly to its rivals (and thus in the selfish logic of relative gains, beneficial!). A declining revisionist power is a wrecker of order.

The inability to formulate and implement a cogent and viable alternative does not mean, however, that Putin’s Russia is not a serious menace to the security of Europe and the interests of the United States. Geopolitical nihilism is not the same as geopolitical passivity. Russia presents perhaps a greater problem than a strong revisionist state with clear and implementable plans for how to reorganize the international or regional order.

Russia has neither the power nor the authority to maintain an order, but it has plenty of force and abundant desire to destroy the existing one.

Russia is in fact still a formidable military power. It has a massive nuclear arsenal that is presented to the world as superior to the American one and as a symbol, if not a symptom, of great resilience and strength. As many analysts have observed, Russian conventional forces have undergone a dramatic, though still limited, improvement since the 2008 war in Georgia (and in any case, they are superior in size, firepower, and sophistication to those of Russia’s European and Central Asian neighbors). Yet the economy is in shambles, producing little of value and drawing wealth mostly from the extraction of natural resources. Moreover, Russia’s authoritarian political system is fragile, based on the so far unchallenged rule of Putin and his clan, a large propaganda apparatus fanning nationalist hysteria and resentment toward the West, and a good dose of violence targeted at political opponents and potential claimants to power. Russia is a ramshackle gas station run by a small group of well-armed, delusional gangsters.

This political, social, and economic fragility means that Russia cannot replace the existing order on Europe’s eastern frontier—an order that is based on exactly those pillars fraying or outright missing in Russia. But she can destroy it because of her military might. Russia cannot compete as an economic potentate or as a politically attractive entity, but can and does employ its military force to destabilize the region. It is not surprising therefore that Ukraine can be Western and European by the Ukrainians’ free choice but may still fall under Russian vassalage by the sheer brutality of Muscovite firepower. This is 21st century competition meeting 19th century extortion.

Extortion—brute force—creates an order that lasts as long as the fear it generates lasts. Were Russia a rising power, that fear and the resulting order might have some staying power. But today’s Russia is not China; neither is she the post-World War II superpower that could roll over a large swath of the Eurasian landmass and impose a bloody Soviet order. Whatever Moscow may establish in its immediate region through its armor, artillery, and nuclear threats will be backed by a flimsy state, seeking its own justification through invented myths of Western frauds, perversions, and belligerence.

The fact that Russia is unable to replace the existing order with her own stable and durable one does not mean therefore that the threat is nonexistent. On the contrary, the threat is more pronounced because the risks presented by Russia are higher. If Moscow had a clear idea of what it wanted to achieve—how far it wants to extend its influence, and what new rules of international behavior and domestic comportment it will enforce—the uncertainty would be smaller. We may, as we should, still deeply dislike and oppose the proposed order, but at a minimum the boundaries of the conflict would be well defined.

In this case, however, the vision seems to be nihilistic in the long term. Hence the on-and-off Russian interventions in Ukraine, the constant provocations in the Baltic regions, the boasts about nuclear capabilities and the willingness to use them, the Russian aerial forays from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico, and so on. These are all attempts to shake the existing order. These actions have varied intensity and outcomes: While Ukraine is being broken apart by Russian artillery and armor, Alaska and Diego Garcia are safe from the occasional Tu-95s sputtering near their airspace. But the principle unifying all these actions is a negative one: to destabilize by introducing elements of greater risk.

Putin as the geopolitical nihilist is therefore different than the various tsars that he wants to emulate. In mostly unpleasant and violent ways, the past tsars built and rebuilt the Russian empire by expanding into adjacent lands while seeking some diplomatic arrangement with the more distant great powers. Putin expands into Russia’s southern and western neighborhood but with the aspiration to destroy the stability of the post-Cold War era. He seeks no grand diplomatic bargain that could underpin a new settlement.

What such a view of Russia entails is worrisome. Geopolitical nihilism indicates that a whole spectrum of actions, deemed unlikely because of the dangers they carry, is on the table. We now know, for instance, that Putin is willing to invade —not once, but twice (Georgia in 2008 preceded Ukraine). He is likely to continue that pattern and push farther westward irrespective of the costs. He has also engaged in nuclear saber-rattling for several years (for example, the Zapad 2009 military exercises ended with a simulated use of a nuclear weapon), and he is lowering the nuclear threshold. Nihilism is not order-building; it revels in destroying it. The spectrum of actions that establish an order is limited by their effectiveness at implementing the rules, whatever they may be, of behavior: their purposefulness is constraining. The spectrum of actions that destroy order, on the other hand, is much more open-ended.

The Western strategy of waiting Russia out through a 21st-century version of containment—a mix of economic sanctions, ostracism in global fora, and very modest, mostly rhetorical, shoring up of deterrence—will not suffice. Russia cannot be let to dwell on its internal decline and realize sooner or later its international ineptitude. Verbal rebukes and restatements of NATO’s Article 5 will not turn a geopolitical nihilist into a constructive partner or even into a rival with whom we can reach a negotiated settlement. Nothing in Putin’s statements and behavior suggests that Russia can be persuaded to accept the existing international rules and norms of behavior and to cease the belligerent posture it has adopted. On the contrary, this is a threat that is impossible to mitigate without a resolute and forceful policy that will physically stop and reverse the advance of Russian forces in Ukraine and be ready to do so in the future elsewhere. This can only be achieved now by arming Ukraine. The geopolitical nihilism of today’s Russia will not be persuaded or negotiated away or simply waited out. It has to be defeated.

Kerry/WH Rely on Lawyers to Manage Islamic State

To date, the strategy in Iraq and Syria, defeating Islamic State has been in the lap of Susan Rice working exclusively with Centcom. Meanwhile, John Kerry participated in a Senate hearing over war in Iraq and the core of the dispute is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Presently, the United States is operating on the original AUMF which includes al Qaeda and all associated terror networks.

Yet, there are additional disputes over the temporary authorization of the White House which does not require Congress. This temporary authorization limits the number of ground troops and John Kerry is demanding open options for additional forces when fighters from foreign countries are not reliable for defensive measures, more robust rules of engagement or rescue of personnel.

Presently, managing Daesh (Islamic State) is just that, managing, not even containing much less defeating and any strategy has not been forthcoming. In fact it can be said that no strategy was one of the conditions of the employment demise of Secretary Chuck Hagel at Defense as he demanded an operational strategy for Bashir al Assad and Syria from the White House. None has been revealed except to vet, hire and train opposition forces in various locations outside of Syria.

In the hearing/briefing, John Kerry delivered his reasons for having all options for Iraq and Syria including additional uniformed troops that do get proactively involved in hostilities without planning, rules or timelines. The exchange between Senator Menendez and Kerry has been heated for a long while. As days click by, still no resolutions are on the horizon.

Going back to September, the heated exchanges began between Senator(s) Menendez and Kerry.

Instead of asking Congress for new authority to go after terrorists in Syria and Iraq, the Obama administration is turning to “good lawyers within the White House, within the State Department,” Secretary of State John Kerry said on Wednesday.

How is it that the Obama administration thinks it can rely on a 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) to go into Syria and Iraq 13 years later, Sen. Robert Mendendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asked Kerry at a hearing on Wednesday.

Kerry responded that “good lawyers” at the White House and State Department have concluded that the 2001 AUMF is sufficient because it “includes…al-Qaeda and associated forces.”

For the most recent hearing, the heated exchanges continued.

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State John Kerry clashed Tuesday with senators over using US ground combat forces in the fight against the Islamic State.

In several tense exchanges, mostly with Republican members, Kerry urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to strip from a draft authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) language limiting the deployment of American ground forces.

A force authorization measure drafted by panel Chairman Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., “does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces for the purpose of ground combat operations except as necessary.”

The measure would allow the use of American ground troops to rescue other US forces or citizens, as well as to conduct missions like intelligence collection, enabling “kinetic strikes” and providing “other forms of advice and assistance to forces fighting [Islamic State] in Iraq or Syria.”

CongressWatch obtained a copy of the draft AUMF on Tuesday. The panel is slated to mark it up on Thursday. Menendez urged his panel members to offer amendments at that time, should they have ideas not included or want to change what he has crafted.

Kerry told the senators the Obama administration has no intention of using American ground forces for combat operations in Iraq or Syria. That fighting, he says, will be done by “local forces.”

But he also pleaded several times with members to opt against crafting a force-authorization measure that would tie the president’s hands by taking ground troops off the table.

The draft AUMF would last three years, a timetable Kerry said the White House supports.

It also includes no language limiting the countries inside which President Barack Obama or future commanders in chief could launch operations targeting the violent Sunni group. Kerry gave the White House’s endorsement for that, as well.

Kerry and Menendez butted heads over the scope of any measure Congress might approve, almost certainly next year under two GOP-controlled chambers.

At one point, the chairman sharply told Kerry — who once chaired the panel — “if the White House wants an open-ended” AUMF, “they should just say it.” Menendez spoke passionately about his measure being tailored to keep America from getting involved in other “protracted” ground operations in the Middle East.

Kerry several times referred to the draft as a “good starting point,” saying White House officials intend to work with Congress in the coming weeks on the final shape of a force-authorization measure.

He traded barbs with GOP members who questioned why Obama, despite saying on Nov. 5 he wants an AUMF, has yet to write one and send it to the Hill.

And Menendez criticized the administration, saying despite having three conversations with the White House counsel, the panel has gotten little feedback. The proposed draft of the AUMF is found here.

Turkey, the Gray Country

Nothing says politics like the Obama administration not only tolerating terrorists but dancing with them. The same goes for rogue nations like Qatar and Pakistan. We have proven failed countries like Libya, Somalia, Iran and Mexico. But then far beyond our own State Department, it goes to the White House and then to the Democrats likely nominee for president, Hillary Clinton, after all it was she just a few days ago that told us we must empathize with our enemies. This is something that John Kerry is doing presently, they refer to it as smart power. This is common on this administration when it comes to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

But it is time to take a longer look at Erdogan and Turkey.

Erdogan is playing a double game. (Reuters)Turkey has told three unnamed banks to “cooperate” in its fight against financing terrorism and in identifying dirty money, Turkey’s state news agency said on Sunday.

“There are three banks that do not cooperate with the Financial Crime Investigation Board (MASAK) efficiently in the detection of dirty money and in the fight against terrorism. We have warned them,” Finance Minister Ahmet Simsek was quoted as telling the Anadolu news agency, adding that he was unable to name the banks because of privacy concerns.

Sounds great huh? Hold on….

TURKEY’S HAND IN THE RISE OF THE ISLAMIC STATE CROSSES TO TERRORISM

Southeastern Turkey has now become a jurisdiction for terrorism finance, weapons smuggling, illegal oil sales, and the flow of fighters to Syria. This pipeline serves the interest of several terrorist organizations, including Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) and the Islamic State (IS).

 

It is unclear whether Ankara is explicitly assisting these groups, or whether JN and IS are merely exploiting Turkey’s lax border policies. Either way, it is clear that Turkey seeks to bring down the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria with the aid of irregular fighters.

 

Islamic State ISIS

 

Ankara opened its border to Syrian rebel forces, namely the Free Syrian Army, in the early stages of the uprising in 2011. But when Assad did not fall, the makeup of the Syrian opposition began to change. Radical groups such as the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra and the Salafist Ahrar al-Sham emerged in 2012. Within a year, jihadist groups dominated the Syrian opposition. Border towns in southeastern Turkey were effectively a rear guard for some of the rebel units, while foreign fighters streamed into Syria from Turkey. All of this served as a crucible for the rise of the Islamic State.

 

The meteoric ascendance of IS has led to a full-blown crisis in Iraq and Syria. After conquering large swaths of territory in both states, IS declared a caliphate. The group’s brutality, highlighted by the beheadings of journalists, has prompted the United States and a broad coalition of Arab States to intervene with military force.

“We have warned them and now we expect them to build much more effective cooperation with us. They considered our earlier warnings, and I am sure they will cooperate more now,” he added.

Last year Turkey’s parliament approved a long-awaited anti-terrorism financing law, which allows alleged “terrorist” accounts to be frozen without a court order and provides for a variety of penalties including imprisonment for those found to be abetting terrorism.

Before Oct. 15 Turkey was on a “grey list” of countries drawn up by the 36-member Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a money-laundering watchdog, for failing to implement the legislation required by its members, despite being pressed to do so for years.

The IS crisis has put Turkey and the U.S. on a collision course. Turkey refuses to allow the coalition to launch military strikes from its soil. Its military also merely looked on while IS besieged the Kurdish town of Kobani, just across its border. Turkey negotiated directly with IS in the summer of 2013 to release 49 Turks held by the terrorist group. In return, Ankara secured the release of 150 IS fighters, many of whom returned to the battlefield. Meanwhile, the border continues to serve as a transit point for the illegal sale of oil, the transfer of weapons, and the flow of foreign fighters. Inside Turkey, IS has also established cells for recruiting militants and other logistical operations. All of this has raised questions about Turkey’s value as an American ally, and its place in the NATO alliance.

Turkey’s Syria policy also has negative repercussions domestically. The presence of extremists threatens Turkey’s internal security, as well as its economic stability, given Ankara’s dependence on foreign investment and tourism. Additionally, the turmoil in Syria has greatly complicated Turkey’s relationships with the Kurds and exacerbated the government’s battles with domestic opponents.

 

video-footage-released-by-local-news-channels-show-isis-militants-can-easily-cross-over-turkey

 

Washington now needs to work with Ankara to address the extremism problem on its southeastern front. This will require high-level diplomatic engagement that must address head-on the security challenges that Turkey has helped spawn. However, Washington must also address Turkey’s valid concerns, including long-term strategies for ending the Assad regime and how to increase support for the moderate opposition in Syria. The United States also has an opportunity to work with its NATO allies to help Ankara erect an integrated border protection system along the Syrian border to contain the current security and illicit finance threats. If Ankara is unwilling to tackle these challenges, Washington may need to consider other measures, including sanctions or curbing the security cooperation that has long been a cornerstone of this important bilateral relationship.

Tug of War Over Qaddafi’s Wealth

Did it really take all this time to discover the location of the wealth of Libya, hidden by Qaddafi? Well no, it has taken this long to understand who is part of the wrangling for control.

Muammar Gaddafi was able to build his massive personal wealth thanks to a violent and domineering control over Libya’s natural resources. Specifically their rich supply of oil. Libya has the largest supply of oil in Africa and the tenth largest in the world. Gaddafi used Libya’s oil to print money for 40 years! During that time he spread his money around the globe through family members, Swiss bank accounts, real estate and investments. Estimated at $200 billion, he had enough to give $30,000 to each of Libya’s 6.6 million citizens.

At the beginning of the Lybian conflict, authorities discovered and seized roughly $67 billion of Gaddafi’s wealth hidden in bank accounts around the globe. England, France, Italy and Germany seized another $30 billion and the Obama administration found a staggering $37 billion in the United States. Investigators suspect that Gaddafi hid an additional $30 billion around the world.

Muammar Gaddafi had made over $200 billion from Libya's rich oil supply

As more investigations take place, it looks like Gaddafi had money stashed or invested in almost every major country in the world including the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. In addition to bank accounts, Muammar owned a stake in the Italian soccer club Juventus and the car company Fiat. He also was a minority of London’s Financial Times. Gaddafi had luxury homes around the world including the huge estate pictured below. Surprisingly this house is located in the United States. In Englewood, New Jersey of all places! His house includes a huge swimming pool, tennis court and even a shooting range…

Muammar Gaddafi had a home in Englewood, New Jersey, USA

Investigators from U. N. Security are still waiting on many countries to resolve what Gaddafi might have within their borders. Several neighboring African nations refused to freeze Gaddafi’s accounts because of their fear and loyalty to the ruthless leader. Now that he’s dead, we should see even more money come to light. On top of all this, it’s believed that Gaddafi had billions of dollars worth of gold hidden in Libya, which has yet to be discovered.

Did Mummar Gaddafi’s $200 billion make him the richest person of all time? To find out how he stacks up, click this article:

The 25 Richest People Who Ever Lived – Inflation Adjusted

Gaddafi had a secret fortune of over $200 billion hidden around the world

So, where is the wealth of the failed and rogue leader and country? Ah, SA. But it will likely be embargoed for a long while after all the forensic accounting and criminal activity is matched to a comprehensive investigation. Oh yes, one more thing, our own U.S. Treasury and Secretary of State John Kerry is actively engaged in the process. It is a sure bet many other global leaders and the United Nations will complicate resolutions as their names are also likely attached.

Johannesburg – The South African government and President Jacob Zuma have been caught in the middle of an international wrangle over as much as R2 trillion in US dollars as well as hundreds of tons of gold and at least six million carats of diamonds in assets belonging to the people of Libya.

What could be the world’s largest cash pile is stored in palettes at seven heavily guarded warehouses and bunkers in secret locations between Joburg and Pretoria.

The Libyan billions have led to a Hawks investigation into possible violation of exchange controls as well as international interests from the UN and the US.

It has also led to heightened interest in the local and international intelligence community as well as the criminal underworld.

Those interested in the Libyan loot include several high-ranking ANC politicians, several business leaders, a former high court judge and a number of private companies.

The R2-trillion held in warehouses is separate from several other billions, believed to be in excess of R260 billion, held legally in four banks in South Africa.

Other legal assets include hotels in Joburg and Cape Town.

The Sunday Independent has seen official South African government documents which confirm that at least $179bn in US dollars is kept, illegally, in storage facilities across Gauteng.

Soon after Muammar Gaddafi’s death in October 2011, the new Libyan government embarked on a large-scale mission to recover legal assets in South Africa, the rest of Africa, the US and Europe.

In South Africa, the focus of the Libyans has been on assets brought into the country legally as well as illegally.

Last year, the Libyan government put in place a separate process to identify and repatriate the illegal assets in South Africa.

Investigations by The Sunday Independent on the illegal assets have led to allegations that:

* The US dollar loot was ferried to South Africa in at least 62 flights between Tripoli and South Africa. The crew of the planes were mainly ex-special forces from the apartheid era. The crew are understood to have deposed affidavits clarifying their role in an effort to avoid criminal charges.

* The money, gold and diamonds were moved to South Africa. Most of it was kept here and some was moved to neighbouring southern African countries. Most of the assets were taken out of Libya after Zuma got involved in an AU process to persuade then Libyan President Gaddafi to step down after an Arab-spring-like uprising to force him out of office.

Gaddafi was killed as he tried to flee Tripoli.

The Libyan government has formed a special board, the National Board for the Following Up and Recovery of Libyan Looted and Disguised Funds, to recover the assets. Now two companies have presented themselves to the South African government, claiming they were mandated by the national board to recover the funds.

The two companies are the Texas-based Washington African Consulting Group (WACG), led by its chief executive Erik Goalied, and Maltese-based Sam Serj, led by its chief executive, Tahah Buishi. Both companies claim to be the only legitimate representatives of the Libyan government.

Goalied has dismissed Sam Serj as impostors who want to stage the “biggest heist in the world”.

He said they were using fake documents and had used a number of South Africans, with the lure of lucrative commissions, to get the South African government to comply. Goalied has formalised his allegations about Sam Serj in an affidavit that he has submitted to the National Prosecuting Authority, who have passed it on to the Hawks.

He told The Sunday Independent that on September 26 he met with the Libyan Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thani in New York, where both parties reconfirmed that the WACG should work with the South African government. “The assets are important but the bigger goal is to resolve this smoothly so that relations between South Africa and Libya can improve,” he said.

Goalied said the Libyans did not necessarily want the loot to be sent back to Tripoli. They wanted full and legal control of the assets which, he added, could be used for investments and other job-creation projects that would benefit both countries.

Last month, Goalied wrote to Zuma asking for co-operation and assistance in resolving the assets saga. The Presidency wrote to him this week, acknowledging his letter.

The Presidency has referred The Sunday Independent’s queries to the Treasury. The Treasury, in turn, referred The Sunday Independent to a statement issued last June in which the government called on those with knowledge of Libyan assets in South Africa to come forward. Hawks spokesman Paul Ramaloko declined to confirm the probe.

The Sunday Independent has also established that Goalied has also written to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and US Foreign Secretary John Kerry asking for assistance. The UN adopted Resolution 438 which forces countries that have Libyan assets to return them.

The second company – Sam Serj – has already been in South Africa to discuss the return of the assets.

Sam Serj chief executive Buishi claimed his company was the only legitimate entity with a mandate to find and recover assets that belong to the people of Libya.

Buishi said his company has been contracted by the Libyan government to trace and recover assets looted by Gaddafi and those close to him.

He said the assets had been traced to South Africa, Libya’s neighbour, Tunisia, and several countries in Europe.

“We have been contracted by the Libyan government and are working with the South African government to recover the looted assets.

“We had a good meeting during our last visit with the then-minister of finance, Pravin Gordhan.

“We are working with the South African government. Hopefully, there will be a delegation to South Africa to repatriate the assets or come to some sort of arrangement.

“We want to work with the South African government to not only recover the assets but to find ways of re-investing them in South Africa.

“We want the assets to be identified as belonging to the Libyan people.

“Politically, we are trying to help the new Libya integrate with the rest of the African continent. Libya is a very big and rich country and together with South Africa can play a strategic role in Africa,” Buishi said.

Several sources told The Sunday Independent that the Libyans have complained to the UN and have placed South Africa and Zuma on terms, threatening to lay charges of theft with the International Criminal Court if the assets were not returned promptly.

The Sunday Independent understands that the money was brought in by a company, which has hired former SADF special forces and is keeping the warehouses where the money, gold and diamonds are being kept under 24-hour surveillance.

Other cash assets, running into hundreds of millions of rand, are being kept in accounts in South Africa’s major banks.

Several sources have confirmed that the ex-apartheid era special forces pilots and soldiers have deposed affidavits that are designed to protect them from, among others, money-laundering charges.

 

UPDATE: No Access to 2,500 Documents IRS to WH

Update:  12/3/14 It seems that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has intervened with the court’s decision forcing release of these documents. The White House is also working over-time to ensure the Judge’s ruling is impeded. This is more law-FARE.

Here is the link for more on this developing matter. Collusion and obstruction are being realized.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feds-balk-at-releasing-docs-showing-irs-sharing-tax-returns-with-white-house/article/2556890#.VH9yMn7mYv0.twitter

 

It begins with a FOIA lawsuit, then comes a ruling, then comes the Inspector General. It should be noted that those guilty is actually per document, per count. Congressional hearings are scheduled.

September 30, 2014                                                Mary Beth Hutchins, 202-400-2721

Cause of Action Defeats Treasury IG Tax Office in FOIA Lawsuit

Court Rules that TIGTA Must Process FOIA Request Regarding Investigations Into

Tax Records Improperly Shared with the President

WASHINGTON –The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Monday that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) must process an October 9, 2012 Cause of Action Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents about investigations into unauthorized disclosures of taxpayer information to the Executive Office of the President.

Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein said:

The court has ruled that the federal government cannot hide behind confidentiality laws to prevent Americans from knowing if our President has gained unauthorized access to their tax information. This is a decisive win for all Americans and for government transparency and accountability. The public already knows the President uses FOIA to shield his targeting of the press and this ruling prevents the President from using FOIA to shield his targeting of taxpayers.

Revealed: 2,500 new documents in IRS / W.H. harassment cases

In a shocking revelation, the Treasury Inspector General has identified some 2,500 documents that “potentially” show taxpayer information held by the Internal Revenue Service being shared with President Obama’s White House.

The discovery was revealed to the group Cause of Action, which has sued for access to any of the documents. It charges that the IRS and White House have harassed taxpayers.

In an email from the Justice Department’s tax office, an official revealed the high number of documents, suggesting that the White House was hip deep in probes of taxpayers, likely including conservatives and Tea Party groups associated with the IRS scandal.

In requesting a delay in the delivery date of the documents, Justice told Cause of Action, “The agency [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] has located 2,500 potentially responsive documents and anticipates being able to finish processing 2,000 of these pages by the December 1 date. It needs the additional two weeks to deal with the last 500 pages to determine if they are responsive and make any necessary withholdings.”

Cause of Action, which calls itself “Advocates for Government Accountability,” wasn’t surprised by the number of documents. It had filed suit to win access to them and a federal judge shot down Treasury’s earlier bid to hide the documents.

“This disclosure, coming only after Cause of Action sued TIGTA over its refusal to acknowledge whether such investigations took place, and after the court ordered TIGTA to reveal whether or not documents existed, signals that the White House may have made significant efforts to obtain taxpayers’ personal information,” it said in a statement to Secrets.

The disclosure follows the agency’s recovery of 30,000 “lost” emails from former IRS executive Lois Lerner, the central figure in the IRS-Tea Party scandal.

Cause of Action said the latest finding renews their “concerns about the decaying professionalism of, and apparent slip into partisanship by, IRS’s senior leadership.”

Below is the full email from Treasury:

My client wants to know if you would consent to a motion pushing back (in part) TIGTA’s response date by two weeks to December 15, 2014. The agency has located 2,500 potentially responsive documents and anticipates being able to finish processing 2,000 of these pages by the December 1 date. It needs the additional two weeks to deal with the last 500 pages to determine if they are responsive and make any necessary withholdings. We would therefore like to ask the court to permit the agency to issue a response (including production) on December 1 as to any documents it has completed processing by that date, and do the same as to the remaining documents by December 15. I note that the court’s remand was for a “determin[ation],” which the D.C. Circuit has recently explained can precede actual production by “days or a few weeks,” but we would prefer to simply agree on a date for turning over any of the remaining 500 documents that may be responsive.

18 page lawsuit is here in full text.