To demonstrate the accuracy of this term, I need only cite the recent meeting between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Russian foreign minister. Mrs. Clinton presented the Russian foreign minister with a gift of an oversized button, which was labeled peregruzka. According to Hillary it meant “reset” – a term to signify what the U.S. and Russia can do to their relations under the new administration.

“You got it wrong,” stated the Russian foreign minister. “Peregruzka means overloaded.”

Of course, this is the kind of mistake one would expect from a first-year Russian language student and not the secretary of state. Still, the mainstream media quickly buried the story, and late night comics – ever known to point out the previous administration’s follies – never uttered a single joke.

Then there is the exchange of gifts between British Prime Minister Brown and President Obama during their first meeting in the White House. Brown presented Obama with a penholder carved out of the oak timbers of the HMS Gannet, a warship best known for enforcing the ban on slave trading.

In return, Obama presented Brown with a DVD collection of classic American movies.

One can only wonder what the six-foot, two-inch invisible rabbit from the gifted “Harvey” would think, much less what America’s closest ally thinks, of a comparison between our movie legacy and the Gannet’s noble acts on the high seas.

Still, the seas have been rough in places far from Washington. For example, several Chinese ships recently challenged an unarmed American vessel working inside international waters. Apparently this was not the first time in recent weeks that U.S. ships have been subjected to abuse around the friendly People’s Republic.

In response, a warship was dispatched and a formal protest lodged with Beijing. The Chinese, however, replied with a demand that U.S. ships stop plying international waters that they consider important. They too responded by sending in a warship. So now there are two warships tensely watching each other.

It would seem that treaties covering free passage in international waters are only for Chinese vessels – especially those passing illegally into the territorial waters of other nations.

Read for yourself how China is steadily pursuing a stealthy, systematic strategy to attain geopolitical and economic dominance in “China: The Gathering Threat” from WND Books!

China is both testing the new administration and pursuing an old policy of intimidation. China sent a submarine inside Japanese waters and laid claim to the entire South China Sea when their fighter jet collided with a U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance aircraft.

The view of China inside Washington is that of a friendly trading partner and not a hostile power, but the reality on the oceans is much different from the world of corporate profits. The fact is that China is not a single voice, and neither is its government.

The Chinese military is known to act on its own without consulting the civilian leaders. It is also a known characteristic of the totalitarian regime that individual warlords and power brokers can take potshots at foreigners in order to enhance their standing at home.

For example, the Chinese shootdown of a satellite caught the civilian government by surprise. The foreign minister, someone who should be in the chain of communications, was completely unaware of the shootdown and embarrassed himself in front of the foreign press.

In fact, the Chinese Foreign Ministry was about to hold an international conference on space debris to demand a ban on anti-satellite weapons inside Beijing when their own military plastered near-earth space with the leftover garbage from the shootdown. The conference was quickly cancelled.

The one-voice view of the Chinese government is the basis for all our current policy decisions. Yet this view varies from day to day. When a foul act can be pinned on a single warlord or princeling and not the main government, the Chinese apologists inside D.C. are quick to point out that the culprit did not have approval in Beijing.

So the view inside the State Department of one China, held by such policy experts as “Reset” Hillary, is a false front, hiding factions and dangerous players. The reality is that China’s government is a totalitarian state that could quickly change from partly hostile to very hostile on the push of a button from some low-level Chinese military officer seeking to score political points.

There were those of us who warned that putting a rookie in charge of our foreign policy was dangerous. Right now two armed warships plying the South China seas hunting each other is a demonstration of that danger. The amateur players at State and the White House have yet to be put to the big test. That test – according to Vice President Biden – will come soon.

One only hopes that talented amateurs and luck will prevail when experience and strategy are needed.

Hillary’s comments on China are intended to reinforce the myth that China will help out with settling that troublesome North Korean problem and bail out Obama’s newly discovered trillion-dollar debt. There is nothing like nukes, long-range missiles and money to get your attention.

The fact is that China is not only calling the shots for North Korea, but they have given Kim and his deadly crowd most of the technology to develop long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. China is covering in the U.N. for both North Korea and Iran – who are jointly working on nuclear and missile technology – by threatening vetoes every time someone brings up this sensitive subject.

The relationship between Beijing and Pyongyang is perfectly clear from the Chinese army headquarters. Chinese Gen. Xiong – then second in command in Beijing – once compared North Korea to the Chinese army, saying that North Korea was to the People’s Liberation Army as “lips are to teeth.”

The intent from Beijing was more than clear: Use North Korea as a proxy to distract, confuse and even sucker good old Uncle Sam into believing that Beijing is our pal.

Hillary is not only familiar with Gen. Xiong; she had a working relationship with his direct employee – a Gen. Ji – then head of Chinese military intelligence. Ji was a fan of the Clintons – so much so that he once told Johnny Chung, a Chinese businessman and Hillary Clinton associate, he liked Bill Clinton so much that he wanted him “re-elected.”

Gen. Ji told Chung of his deep respect for the Clintons in Hong Kong, and at the same time he handed Johnny a $300,000 check. Most of that money was converted into cash, placed into brown bags and handed directly to Hillary’s secretary in the White House. The cash then made its way into Bill’s re-election campaign. Hillary frequently met with Johnny, and he was allowed to parade a host of Chinese businessmen into the White House for photo ops with the first family.

In fact, a short time after the brown bags arrived in Hillary’s office, a Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying also appeared with Bill Clinton. Liu was then an executive of China Aerospace, a PLA military-owned company that produces nuclear-tipped missiles. Lt. Col. Liu was well known in military and intelligence circles. Her father, a retired PLA general, was until 1997 vice chairman of the Central Military Commission.

Liu Chaoying was also a lieutenant colonel in the Chinese army military intelligence department and an employee of Gen. Ji. Liu managed to obtain a visa to attend a private, $25,000-per-couple fundraising dinner in Los Angeles for President Clinton. At her side was Johnny Chung.

Col. Liu also made it into Sen. John Kerry’s office. Chung came to Kerry’s office in July 1996 to seek help in getting Liu in to meet with the Securities and Exchange Commission. During the meeting in Kerry’s office, Chung made clear that Liu was interested in getting China Aerospace listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange.

In response, Kerry ordered his aides to contact the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to Newsweek, “the next day Liu and Chung were ushered into a private briefing with a senior SEC official.”

Within a week of the SEC meeting, Kerry’s staff wrote Chung asking him to host a Sept. 9 fundraiser.

Now with all these links to money, the Chinese army, missile technology and, of course, the DNC, one would think the Obama administration would be reluctant to let Hillary go parading around without some sort of oversight, or at least a muzzle.

Instead, Hillary managed to start a hornet’s nest of problems for Obama while being seen as begging for Beijing to bail out a broke U.S. government. Basically, the message is if the Chinese buy up more U.S. debt, we will keep our mouth shut when they shoot more dissidents and Tibetan nuns.

Still, de-linking human rights from trade was a hallmark of the Clinton years during the 1990s. So much so that in 1994 Sanford Robertson – a big DNC donor – once wrote a letter to President Clinton thanking him for not placing a priority on such minor issues as killing innocent people when dealing with Beijing.

“One of the highlights was observing Ron Brown in the way he represented the United States. His diplomatic skills were superb, particularly in the meeting with Li Peng. He deftly navigated the human rights issues by obtaining an agreement on further talks, and then moved directly into the economic issues at hand, i.e. helping Chrysler, Sprint and others with their joint ventures,” noted Robertson in his letter to Clinton.

“P.S.,” continued Robertson. “Bob Rubin came to our home on Thursday for a Dianne Feinstein dinner, which raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Bob, of course, turned out the financial community and Silicon Valley.”

And what of today? After Hillary’s great adventure in Beijing, there are reports the Obama administration is considering a closer military relationship with China. That relationship could include such nice things as training and helping out with construction of aircraft carriers.

After all – we know that the Chinese Communists are nice guys. Hillary said so.

The 200-pound satellite was detected entering space along with the remains of the second stage of the Safir-2 rocket that placed it into the 250-mile high orbit. While the Safir-2 is considered a modest launch vehicle for spacecraft, it can serve as the basis for more advanced missiles such as the proposed Shahab-4, which could carry a nuclear payload deep into Europe or even reach the eastern shores of the U.S.

The launch did not come as a surprise to veteran Iran watchers who have been predicting such an event since 2007. In fact, it appears that the successful orbit of Omid may have been the third such attempt by Iran to place a satellite into space.

“The Iranian satellite is a technological achievement for the Iranians and a first step that proves military and intelligence ability and potential,” said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. “This is yet another reason for the international community to tighten and increase sanctions against Iran.”

Defense officials are predicting that Iran would develop a missile capable of striking Europe or the U.S. by 2015. In an article published inside Aviation Week and Space Technology, Tom Ehrhard, a former Air Force strategist who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, stated that the Omid launch indicates a “significant capability.” Ehrhard also stated that during the Cold War, intelligence analysts estimated it would take about five years after launching a satellite for a nation to develop a nuclear-delivery missile.

“I think they are probably on a more aggressive timeline now,” stated Ehrhard. The former USAF analyst noted the satellite launch could be seen as a “wake-up call” to the need for a more cohesive approach to countering the threat, which could include missile defenses in Europe and America.

Meanwhile, the Iranians have made clear their intentions.

“There are now four other satellites being manufactured by Iranian experts,” Telecommunications Minister Mohammad Soleimani was quoted by Mehr News Agency as saying.

“Details about these four satellites will be announced subsequent to their final preparation,” said Soleimani. The Iranian minister also stated that Iran “will try to raise the weight and altitude of the satellites to be launched.”

The Omid test may also come with a potential test of an Iranian bomb in 2009. Such a test would greatly bolster Tehran’s standing in the Muslim world and set off alarm bells inside U.S. allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait.

Even as tensions rise over the Iranian Sputnik – another missile is being readied for launch halfway around the world. In North Korea, preparations are under way for the second launch of a Tae Po Dong II missile – this time from a new launch facility located on the western coast of the DPRK.

The first attempt by North Korea to fire a Tae Po Dong II missile failed when the rocket exploded only a minute into its flight. The Tae Po Dong II is reportedly capable of launching a warhead deep into Alaska or as far as the West Coast of the U.S.

The link between Iran and North Korea is more than just a tenuous one. Both countries share the same primary weapon of their missile arsenals. The North Korean No Dong and Iranians Shahab missiles are in fact nearly identical. The original copies of the Iranian Shahab-3 were exported by North Korea to Iran after being developed by Pyongyang with extensive assistance from Beijing.

Iran purchased the Shahab missile using North Korean technology and No Dong parts to construct its force of missiles. North Korean engineers are currently working inside Iran on both its missile force as well as assisting in the Iranian effort to acquire nuclear weapons.

An upgraded Shahab-3 was flight tested four times by the Iranian missile forces between July and October 2004. The U.S. Air Force Defense Support Program (DSP) missile warning satellite and the USAF Cobra Ball surveillance aircraft monitored the flight tests. In addition, Israeli surveillance aircraft also closely monitored the Iranian launches.

The improved Shahab-3 missile flew at ranges of 930 to 1,240 miles and demonstrated accuracy never seen before by the No-Dong class of missile. The improved Shahab-3 is nearly 60 feet long and reportedly carries 15 percent more propellant than the standard North Korean design.

The Iranian missile has also been improved with what appears to be advanced Chinese nose cone and re-entry vehicle designs. The Shahab-3 now sports a bulbous nose cone system and the flight tests indicated that the simulated warhead carried advanced navigation avionics and re-entry control systems for improved accuracy.

The Bush administration had imposed sanctions against several Chinese companies that were reportedly involved in the upgrade of the Iranian Shahab-3 missile. The Chinese firms were accused of providing the avionics and re-entry control packages now in place on the improved Iranian missile. However, new regulations placed in the final days of the Bush administration have removed those sanctions against China.

According to the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, two of the five companies on the list were directly linked to illegal Chinese technology exports.

The Iranian Sputnik and its deep-rooted connections to China and North Korea show that the missile threat to America and her allies has not faded. The Iranian success is predicted to accelerate other space shots, more missile development and even nuclear weapons pointed at America. While many elect to remain silent, the Iranian satellite continues to send its radio signal pulses – a warning that we must prepare for the missile warfare of the 21st century or pay the consequences.

The federal government is collecting cookies from your computer, in
violation of its own policy, according to a newly released General
Accounting Office report.

Titled “Internet Privacy: Federal Agency Use of Cookies,” the report
shows that the government is collecting “persistent” cookies to track
Internet users.

Cookies are files stored on a computer by Internet browser software
when a website is visited. According to the GAO report, persistent
cookies “can be used to track users’ browsing behavior by identifying
their Internet addresses.”

The federal agencies that collect cookies include the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Postal Service,
Small Business Administration, U.S. Forest Service and Office of
Personnel Management. Agencies not checked in the random survey include
the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Department
of Defense.

The White House responded to the report by noting that the
administration had banned the collection of Internet cookies in June.

“Cookies should not be used unless there is clear and conspicuous
notice, a compelling need to gather the data on the site; appropriate
and publicly disclosed privacy safeguards for handling of information
derived from cookies; and personal approval by the head of the agency,”
wrote Sally Katzen, the deputy director of the Executive Office of the
President in an Oct. 19 letter to the General Accounting Office.

The letter from the White House drew a sharp response from privacy
advocates, one of which said the federal cookies policy failure is a
small example of a much larger problem.

“Cookies are something very public and easy to monitor,” noted David
Kopel, research director for the Colorado-based Independence Institute.
“Just what is going on when nobody is watching is a better question.

“Despite the White House mandate, you have to wonder whether there
are other things going on behind the scenes — projects withheld from
the public view such as the recent FBI ‘Carnivore’ program, secret ATF
databases on firearms owners and numerous secret wiretaps. Who knows
what is going on?” said Kopel.

“The report is very disturbing and shows how far behind federal
agencies are at understanding the technological and civil-liberties
issues underlying Internet privacy,” stated Barry Fagin, a privacy and
telecommunications adviser working for RMI.NET.

“If a commercial website does something with a cookie that you don’t
like, or if they don’t disclose their privacy policy to your
satisfaction, you don’t have to use it. Government sites, however, are
often the sole source of information and have legal force behind them.
So the standards for privacy protection should be much more rigorous
than the private sector. In practice, at least right now, things are
exactly backwards,” he said.

“The present administration’s commitment to civil liberties and
privacy issues has been, in a word, terrible,” asserted Fagin.

There is evidence supporting Fagin’s assessment of the Clinton-Gore
administration. For example, Vice President Al Gore has previously
endorsed federal government monitoring of computer communications. In
1994, Gore endorsed a government-designed computer “Clipper” chip
intended to monitor all secure computer communications, according to a
letter written by the vice president.

“We also want to assure users of key escrow encryption products that
they will not be subject to unauthorized electronic surveillance,” noted
the vice president in his July 20, 1994, letter to Cantwell.

“As we have done with the Clipper chip, future key escrow schemes
must contain safeguards to provide for key disclosures only under legal
authorization and should have audit procedures to ensure the integrity
of the system. Escrow holders should be strictly liable for releasing
keys without legal authorization,” wrote Gore.

Yet, in 1994, government officials were keenly aware that the Clipper
chip design that Gore endorsed did not have safeguards against
unauthorized surveillance.

According to a top secret 1992 memo, FBI official J. R. Davis, wrote,
“The most serious concern is that the scenario regarding the use of the
‘exploitable’ chip could surface publicly.”

In 1993, Benita A. Cooper, NSA associate administrator for management
systems and facilities, wrote “There is no way to prevent the NSA from
routinely monitoring all (CLIPPER) encrypted traffic. Moreover,
compromise of the NSA keys, such as in the Walker case, could compromise
the entire (CLIPPER) system.”

The GAO cookie report drew no reaction from the various political
camps. Maria Cantwell, a well-known dot-com millionaire is currently
the Democratic candidate running in a close bid against Sen. Glade
Gordon, R-Wash. Neither Cantwell’s Senate campaign office in Washington
nor Gordon’s campaign office both responded to requests for a comment.

The Republican National Committee headquarters and the Democratic
National Committee headquarters also declined to comment on the cookies
report. The lack of response from both major political parties comes as
no surprise to privacy experts like Fagin.

“Neither major party really seems to ‘get it.’ That’s why we need to
take more responsibility for our own Web surfing and online privacy
protection,” noted Fagin.

“If a website doesn’t display their privacy policy, e-mail them to
ask why, and tell them you won’t give them your business until they do.
If they have a privacy policy link (most reputable sites display one
proudly), click on it, read it and understand it. Finally, learn how to
control the privacy settings in your browser. If you don’t want any
websites to track any information about your site visits, it’s easy to
do.”

“Like it or not, when it comes to online privacy, we’re on our own,”
concluded Fagin. “I think in the long run, we’re better off that way.”

A generous supporter of Vice President Al Gore’s presidential
campaign has proudly linked past donations to the Clinton-Gore campaign
to China trade trips that benefited his business.

According to Federal Election Commission records, during the last 24
months, California investment banker Sanford Robertson has contributed
over $250,000 to Democrats, including Al Gore’s campaign and Hillary
Clinton’s bid for a Senate seat in New York. Robertson has contributed,
in total, well over $1,000,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

In November 1994, Robertson personally wrote President Clinton a

thank-you letter in which he discussed donated money and a trade trip to China.

“Thank you for autographing the pictures taken in the cabinet room before Ron Brown’s delegation to China. The trip seemed to be an economic and diplomatic triumph,” noted Robertson in his letter to Clinton.

“One of the highlights was observing Ron Brown in the way he represented the United States,” wrote Robertson. “His diplomatic skills were superb, particularly in the meeting with Li Peng. He deftly navigated the human rights issues by obtaining an agreement on further talks and then moved directly into the economic issues at hand, i.e. helping Chrysler, Sprint and others with their joint ventures.”

“P.S. Bob Rubin came to our home on Thursday for a Dianne Feinstein dinner, which raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Bob, of course, turned out the financial community and Silicon Valley,” Robertson concluded.

Robertson’s letter to Clinton and more recent donation records have aroused the human-right’s community. According to Eric Reeves, an activist who closely follows the Chinese involvement in Sudan, Robertson’s support for China also helps the communist training and support of brutal regimes abroad.

“One of the primary reasons that Sudan has received so little attention is because of Clinton’s determination to do business with the Chinese at any price,” noted Reeves. “Sudan’s agony has been repeatedly traded out of geopolitical calculations by the Clinton administration over the course of almost eight years. During that time, perhaps as many as 1 million Sudanese civilians have perished.

“It has mattered little to President Clinton that China has been Sudan’s economic bulwark and diplomatic protector at the U.N. It matters little to him that China National Petroleum Corp. is the largest foreign national operating in Sudan’s genocidally destructive civil war. What matters to him are the sentiments reflected in letters from big donors like Sanford R. Robertson,” stated Reeves.

“People wonder why the catastrophe in Sudan has not been a greater priority for the Clinton administration. They need to do no more than look closely at the significance Clinton attaches to his ‘legacy-notching’ efforts to get Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China and all those generous supporters who urged just this sense of priority upon him,” Reeves concluded.

Sanford Robertson also once bragged that his support bought Commerce Department trade trips to China under Clinton. One document backing this assertion was found in former Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown’s personal files and was obtained using the Freedom of Information Act.

The document, a 1995 article written by the New York Post, was hand-clipped and kept by Brown with the Robertson China-trip letter to Clinton. According to the article, Robertson openly admitted to the Post that the only reason he was selected for the August 1994 China trade mission was because he “organized a group of CEOs” to support Clinton early in the 1992 election.

There is an even more direct connection between Robertson and Gore suggesting a quid pro quo. In November 1995, Gore agreed to make phone calls from the White House, seeking donations for his re-election in 1996. One of the phone calls he made was to Sanford Robertson.

The vice president solicited and eventually received $100,000 from Robertson that day. Some $80,000 of that donation went into the DNC “soft money” accounts and $20,000 went directly into Gore’s campaign. Robertson delivered the $100,000 on January 23, 1996.

Three months later, Robertson’s investment banking firm, Robertson Stephens & Co., raked in a financial-adviser fee of $2 million for its role in aiding the merger of two large computer security firms, RSA Data Security Inc. — the largest U.S. encryption software company — and Security Dynamics Technologies Inc.

The merger occurred shortly after RSA had obtained an exclusive deal to pursue encryption research with the People’s Republic of China and four months after an agreement was signed between James Bidzos, CEO of RSA, and the Chinese government for the purpose of performing joint research on encryption. The signing took place during a Ron Brown trade trip to China.

The RSA deal included advanced technology transfers to the Chinese Academy of Sciences Laboratory of Information Security, which is, according to defense intelligence sources, a Chinese army unit that specializes in computer security and encryption technology.

Gore was charged with oversight of the RSA deal with China. According to a 1993 document obtained from the U.S. Commerce Department, Gore was responsible for making policy on all encryption exports. The document, labeled “secret,” is a presidential decision directive written by then-White House National Security Adviser Anthony Lake. The directive appointed Gore as chairman of the “Interagency Working Group” that determined export policy.

During a now-infamous press conference, reporters pointed out to Gore that the donation phone calls from the White House might be a violation of federal campaign laws. He responded that there was “no controlling legal authority” that made his actions illegal.

“The role of Sanford Robertson inside the White House is one reason why the Clinton-Gore legacy must be purged from national politics,” stated Al Santoli, defense adviser for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Ca. “This is another attempt to recreate the 1996 money politics that undermined fairness and American national security.”

Related story:

Gore’s deep China ties

Shocking the international military community like Saddam Hussein did
with his 512-foot-long super-gun in 1990, the Chinese army has tested
its “Taiwan rocket gun,” a new weapon with a range of over 200 miles.

According to a recent report translated from the China Wen Hui Bao
daily, “China has tested a newly developed rocket gun, named the WS-1B,
which claims to have a range of 360 kilometers, the longest range in the
world of a weapon of its kind.”

Beijing’s rocket gun has already raised concern inside the island
nation of Taiwan. “The Chinese rocket gun could hit any area of Taiwan
within minutes, if fired from the coast,” stated a report filed this
month by the Taipei Times.

Frank Gaffney

“Various people have been working on this type of technology for some
time,” noted Frank Gaffney, noted defense analyst, president of the
Center for Security Policy and a former assistant secretary of defense
under President Reagan.

“It stands to reason that the Chinese communists would be interested
in having the capability to attack Taiwan without having to use
missiles. Although I think that when they go, they are not going to be
terribly hung up about breaching the missile ‘threshold.’ Witness their
1996 missile shots into Taiwan’s territorial waters,” said Gaffney.

Reports have surfaced before in the Chinese press suggesting that
Beijing was developing a super-gun. According to a Sept. 1999 article
published by Janes Defense, “reports from Hong Kong say that China North
Industries Corporation has developed a new long-range artillery system,
described as a ‘super range rocket gun,’ with a range of 360
kilometers.”

The Iraqi Babylon super-gun lies in ruins after the Gulf War.

“The new reports note that the WS-1B is an artillery rocket,” stated
defense analyst Richard Fisher, a senior fellow at the Jamestown
Foundation. According to Fisher, the Chinese super-gun may be more a
rocket than a gun.

“If the PLA were to have such a missile, that would mean that they
have the ability to produce a precision strike SRBM that likely would
cost much less than their DF-15 and DF-11 missiles, and that would allow
a much higher salvo launch rate,” Fisher said. “This kind of missile
deserves close monitoring as it has the potential to rapidly increase
the PLA’s missile inventory aimed at Taiwan.”

According to another defense expert, Beijing may not have to fire its
new rocket gun at Taiwan. Instead, Red China may use its new
super-weapon to win a war of diplomacy with the tiny island democracy.

“Back in the 1980s, people like Norman Podhoretz suggested that the
Soviet arms buildup was not intended to conquer Europe, but to
‘Finlandize’ it, reducing it to neutrality and trading with the Soviet
Union on Soviet terms,” stated defense analyst Philip Gold, a senior
fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.

“We now know that the Soviet arms buildup was driven far more by
internal dynamics than by coherent grand strategy, but I wonder if China
might not intend to ‘Finlandize’ Taiwan,” suggested Gold.

In March,

WorldNetDaily reported that the Taiwan rocket gun is known to be directly related to Hussein’s Babylon super-gun. According to the intelligence source who told WorldNetDaily about the new Chinese weapon, Dr. Gerald Vincent Bull, the designer of the Iraqi Babylon gun, assisted the Chinese artillery maker Norinco in its development of a super-gun.

Bull, considered a rogue scientist, worked with Iraq during the 1980s to develop the Babylon weapon capable of striking Israel. Bull also helped Iraq improve its SCUD missiles. The Iraqi super-gun project was discovered by British intelligence and shut down prior to the Gulf War. That gun was never used, but a smaller gun — “Baby Babylon” — was fired successfully. In 1990, Bull was found murdered outside his Belgian apartment, allegedly killed by Israeli agents.

The German Paris gun from World War I.

The 19th century science fiction novelist H.G. Wells popularized giant guns. Nazi Germany, hoping to bombard Britain during World War II, unsuccessfully developed a super-gun codenamed V-3, which was similar to the Iraqi Babylon cannon. Other large German siege guns were often given nicknames such as “Big Bertha” or “Anzio Annie” by the Allied troops that suffered under their shelling. The largest German-designed gun, the World War I Paris gun, fired shells over 70 miles into the French capital.

Super-guns became less attractive after World War II with the introduction of small nuclear warheads and long-range missiles. The Chinese weapon developed by Bull is considered large enough to hurl large chemical or nuclear bombs on Taiwan.

The Chinese army rocket gun may also have an American guidance system. Beijing military sources openly noted that the rocket gun is capable of striking Taiwan from the Chinese mainland with various types of warheads, including guided smart bombs. The report from the China Wen Hui Bao daily noted that “guidance options include the use of GPS,” the American-built Global Positioning Satellite navigation system.

Administration documents show that GPS technology was transferred to China with the approval both President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. According to a 1997 Rand report, in 1996, the Clinton-Gore administration approved the sale of GPS navigation systems directly to a company owned by the Chinese army.

The GPS technology transfer was labeled “disturbing” and “raised serious concerns” in the 1997 Rand Corporation report on the Chinese military industry. The Rand report was made public in a 1998 federal lawsuit filed against the U.S. Commerce Department.

“The most troubling potential transfer to China is Rockwell’s proposed joint venture deal with the Shanghai Broadcast Equipment Factory and the Shanghai Avionics Corporation, the latter of which is a key enterprise of the Aviation Industries of China,” states the 1997 Rand report.

“More accurate GPS systems would enhance the PLA’s ability to carry out attacks against Taiwan’s military and industrial facilities, potentially reducing the ability of the Taiwanese military to defend itself against PRC coercive diplomacy,” the report notes.

“The use of GPS to enhance the accuracy of long-range Chinese cruise missiles, coupled with long-range sensors, would raise serious concerns for the U.S. 7th Fleet in the Pacific and possibly circumscribe their ability to provide an effective deterrent in a crisis over Taiwan,” concluded the Rand Corporation report.

Related stories:

Arab weapon sale raises security questions

U.S. shares defense data with China

China to launch missiles near Taiwan

Recent reports in the New York Times and the Washington Times show
that in 1995 Vice President Al Gore signed a secret arms deal with
Moscow. The deal reportedly allowed Russia to sell weapons to Iran and
included illegal kickbacks, intended to
bribe individual politicians inside Moscow.

However, documents forced from the Clinton administration by the
Freedom of Information Act show that part of the secret 1995 Gore
agreement with Moscow included more than weapons for Iran. One hidden
point inside the vice president’s pact with Moscow sought U.S. access to
advanced Russian weapons technology.

In September 1995 U.S. Vice Admiral W. C. Bowes wrote a letter to
Russian Navy Commander Adm. Felix Gromov, informing Gromov of the U.S.
Navy’s intention to purchase the SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missile. The
letter was written after U.S. defense contractor Vector Microwave toured
the Sunburn missile plant and inspected the deadly weapon at close hand,
all at the invitation of the Russian defense contractor Arsenjev
Aviation.

U.S. Navy admirals do not write Russian admirals with intentions of
buying nuclear-tipped missiles unless someone at the top on both sides
has given the OK. Admirals in both services are not known to take such
risks without orders. The decision to allow Vice Adm. Bowes and Adm.
Gromov to work together on “Missile-Gate” originated with Al Gore and
his 1995 secret pact.

The Clinton-Gore administration changed the joint Russia/U.S.
military program to fill its politically correct needs. In 1995, the
Clinton administration balked at the Sunburn price tag of over a million
dollars a copy. Instead, the administration
selected favored defense contractor McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing, to
purchase a smaller, lower-cost missile from Russia called the Zvezda
MA-31 “Krypton.”

McDonnell Douglas, according to the official U.S. Navy documentation,
proceeded under orders to help Russia improve the Krypton missile. U.S.
Navy and McDonnell Douglas engineers suggested a series of “P3I” or
“pre-planned product improvements” to extend the range of the Krypton,
improve its flight performance, and enable jet fighters to safely fire
the weapon.

“The MA-31 (Krypton) target will need (pre-planned product
improvements) P3I in order to meet the range and ground/surface launch
requirements for the Supersonic Sea Skimming Target program (SSST). The
range of the MA-31 target in its FCT
configuration is approximately 15 nm (nautical miles) at low altitude,”
states the 1995 review document.

According to the 1995 McDonnell Douglas review, one “extended range
option” given to the Russian contractor “adds an auxiliary fuel tank, a
reduced drag nose cone, changes the fuel to JP-10 (which has a higher
specific energy content than the Russian
fuel), and modifies the ramjet nozzle. The extended range modification
is intended to increase range to approximately 42 nm at 10m (meter)
altitude.”

Another more crucial design improvement given to Russia, involved
“Ground Jettison Testing” done by the U.S. defense contractor against
the Russian missile. According to the 1995 program review document, the
Russian built AKY-58M missile launcher for the Krypton was fatally
flawed and could destroy the firing plane.

“Two jettisons were planned; four completed,” states the 1995 review
document. “An anomaly was encountered during testing of the emergency
jettison sequence. The lanyard which, during normal launch, remains
with the launch rail and pulls the
Booster Safe/Arm Plug which arms the booster for ignition, is supposed
to remain with the target during Emergency Jettison. In three emergency
jettison tests, the lanyard stayed with the launch rail instead of with
the target. In all cases the
booster would have been armed, and ignition could have occurred for any
of several reasons.”

“(McDonnell Douglas) MDAC has determined that use of a longer lanyard
and slower separation velocity would allow proper operation of the
emergency jettison sequence. The problem has been turned over to the
Russians for resolution,” states the 1995 review document.

The problem that plagued Krypton project has also been dogged by
allegations of improper financial activity. In 1999 Janes Defense
reported that each MA-31 missile purchase also includes a 28 percent
“fee” given directly to Russian generals.

Navy documents show that each Krypton missile costs $910,000. The 28
percent fee paid directly to the Russian generals amounts to over a
quarter million dollar fee per missile. In addition, the extremely high
price for the Krypton is almost twice the
price of similar U.S. weapons and nearly equal to the original Sunburn
missile offer.

Russia has already benefited from the Krypton deal. In 1999, Russia
negotiated billion dollar arms sales to both India and China for the
newly improved Krypton. In fact, according to the new Russian weapons
pact with Beijing, China will manufacture
and export the improved Krypton under license to the Middle East and
Asia.

There is a more direct link to Russian weapons and Al Gore. That link
centers on a now defunct company named IBP Aerospace run by Judith De
Paul. Ms. De Paul, a known Gore supporter and native of Connecticut,
set up the international arms firm,
basing her operations in London and Washington. Ms. De Paul has refused
to be interviewed.

In 1995 Gore supporter Judith De Paul, and her company IBP
International started doing deals with Moscow at the highest levels.
Despite being a newcomer in aerospace, IBP quickly signed several deals
with Moscow and Washington. In March 1996, IBP successfully lobbied
NASA to lease the “Concordsky” Tu-144 super sonic airliner from Russian
bomber maker Tupolev. NASA, according to the contract, was to use the
Tu-144 for high-speed test flights.

NASA actually published an official photograph of the TU-144 deal.
The photograph of U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Thomas J. Pickering,
addressing a crowd of Tupolev employees and international media, was
taken at the roll out of the newly modified super sonic transport. IBP
Aerospace owner Judith De Paul can be seen on the left next to the
Russian Army officer.

The NASA contract also involved other familiar names in the
Missile-Gate scandal. The nose of the TU-144 can be seen in the
background of the NASA photograph of the 1996 event. The Russian plane
is painted with the U.S. subcontractor logos
selected by the Clinton-Gore administration including IBP Aerospace,
Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.

Another contract Moscow signed with Ms. De Paul involved a critical
part of virtually every Russian jet fighter. IBP Aerospace also became
the prime American representative for the Russian K-36 jet fighter
ejection seat. The K-36 seat equips
virtually all Russian and Chinese fighters such as the SU-27 and MiG-29
Fulcrum.

In 1996, IBP obtained a U.S. Air Force study contract to keep the
former Soviet manufacturer from going out of business, sending millions
of dollars to the Russian seat maker. However, efforts to sell the seat
to the western market were less than
successful.

In 1996, IBP was unable to convince NASA that the huge Russian K-36
ejection seat could fit into the tiny NASA T-38 Astronaut trainer jets.
After failing to sell the K-36 seat to NASA, the IBP lobby effort
continued in 1999 with the members of the
Clinton administration suggesting that the K-36 Russian ejector seat
could be installed in the U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor or the new Joint
Strike Fighter.

According to a 1999 report published in Aviation Week, IBP
International reportedly leased facilities in anticipation of obtaining
the contract to install the Russian K-36 ejection seat in the U.S. Air
Force F-22. Western seat makers, such as U.K. based Martin-Baker,
openly complained the “political” process shut them out even before the
selection has been made.

IBP, according to its website, also offered other interesting items
from Russia with love. IBP jointly offered an interactive CD on the
Soviet Union in World War II in partnership with Turner Entertainment.
Turner also included a two-CD set of the
Russian army men’s choir singing famous songs from the “Great Patriotic
War.”

In December 1999, BF Goodrich acquired exclusive U.S. manufacturing
rights to the Russian K-36 ejection seat and bought IBP. According to
the official BF Goodrich press release, the giant U.S.-based aerospace
company purchased the outstanding stock of The IBP Aerospace Group Inc.,
the prime contractor sponsoring the K-36, closing the company.

The BF Goodrich purchase occurred amid allegations that IBP was then
under investigation by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
The investigations were abruptly ended when IBP closed operations.

The K-36 seat will not enter service inside U.S.A.F. F-22 Raptor but
the Russian seat maker took in just enough American aid money to survive
until foreign sales picked up. Without the K-36 seat, Russian built
fighters all over the world would have
quickly become useless, including most of the Russian and Chinese air
force. Thus, because of Al Gore’s secret Moscow deal, the U.S. Air
Force may now need to buy more F-22s.

Al Gore’s secret deal helped Moscow improve its missiles using U.S.
funding and technical engineering. Al Gore’s secret deal helped the
Russians keep Sukhoi Su-25 strike fighters in the air over Chechnya and
Chinese Su-27 interceptors over the Taiwan Straits. Al Gore’s secret
deal kept the former Soviet war machine alive by allowing Russia to make
and sell arms around the world without penalty.

Al Gore sent U.S. taxpayer money to subsidize Russian arms makers,
helping to improve and develop new weapons that are now being sold to
world powers unfriendly with the United States. As more and more of Al
Gore’s secret pact with Russia becomes public, it appears that Moscow
has a good reason to love the vice president.

Sunburn missile documents

Krypton missile documents

WASHINGTON — In a move certain to shock Democrats, a group of
influential American Muslims has endorsed Republican George W. Bush for
president.

The endorsement from the American Muslim Political Action Committee,
presented yesterday at the National Press Club, also drew sharp protests
from another Islamic group during an open news conference.

“Gov. Bush took the initiative to meet with local and national
representatives of the Muslim community. He also promised to address
Muslim concerns on domestic and foreign policy issues,” said American
Muslim Political Coordinating Council Political Action Committee head
Agha Saeed.

Muslim leadership announced its nod for Texas Gov. George Bush at the National Press Club yesterday. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council of American-Islamic Relations is in the center flanked by Muslim leaders from around the U.S. Photo by Charles Smith.

There are an estimated six million Muslims in the United States, and
political analysts concede that the Muslim vote could tip key contested
states such as California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan and
Ohio. The American Muslim Political Coordinating Council stated that
several surveys of the American Islamic community confirmed that a
majority would vote for Bush.

However, several groups opposed to the endorsement of Bush rose in a
vocal protest during the press conference. Ali Kahn, president of the
Muslim Organization for Good Government openly disagreed with Saeed and
the other American Muslim leaders. According to Kahn, his large group
of African-American Muslims do not support Bush.

“We took a vote at our convention and we have to respectfully
disagree with this group in their support for George Bush,” said Kahn.
“Our poll indicated that Vice President Gore received 84 percent of the
Islamic support.”

According to both groups, the one key issue that concerns the entire
U.S. Muslim community is law enforcement racial profiling. Muslims
frequently complain that they are the targets of federal law enforcement
racial profiles at airports and terminals. Frequent searches and stops
have led to a rash of lawsuits against the federal government for the
use of “terrorist” or “criminal” profiles along racial grounds.

Another key issue for the U.S. Islamic community is the use of
“secret evidence” during immigration hearings. Muslim detainees have
been held for up to four years based on “secret evidence” presented by
the Department of Justice that was not revealed to them or their
attorneys. Secret evidence rules are currently prohibited in almost all
judicial cases. According to the group of U.S. Muslim leaders, secret
evidence rules employed by the Department of Justice are often abused in
order to hide the truth.

The Muslim leaders also noted that Bush challenged the use of secret
evidence at the second presidential debate with Gore. In a taped
message to the American Islamic leadership, Bush said he “opposed” the
secret evidence rule, saying the rule imposed by the Clinton
administration is “unconstitutional” and “violated the rights of all
Americans.”

According to Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council
on American-Islamic Relations, federal law enforcement agencies often
use racial profiling and secret evidence to illegally target
Muslim-Americans. He claimed that the Department of Justice currently
operates an organized campaign to intimidate Muslim-American leaders in
what he referred as “knock and talk” raids.

“It was Vice President Al Gore’s Anti-Terrorism commission that
recommended the Department of Justice use racial profiling and allow the
introduction of secret evidence to detain individuals,” said Hooper.

“There was a tremendous backlash against Muslims during the
millennium celebrations. We had law enforcement basically rounding up
any Muslim that breathed for questioning,” he said.

The U.S. Islamic leaders also expressed disappointment in the
Clinton-Gore administration’s handling of diplomatic efforts in the
Middle East.

“In foreign policy issues, Muslims have problems with both
Republicans and Democrats,” said Khaled Saffuri, executive director of
the Islamic Institute.

“We make very few friends in the Islamic world when American-made
helicopters are seen firing American-made missiles into West Bank city
streets filled with innocent people. Sometimes Israel is not as much
our ally as it is a liability,” he said.

“Clinton only talks to Arafat, but Yasser Arafat is not the only
Palestinian,” added Saffuri. “We should be talking to the other
prominent Palestinians and Israelis. Someone who can lead the world
away from crisis and toward peace.”

“The U.S. presidential race is so tight that Muslim votes can make a
difference,” stated Omar Ahmad, chairman of the Counsel for
American-Islamic relations.

“With millions of voters distributed in keys states this election, we
believe that we can make a difference. In the last election Muslims
voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Clinton. Today, Muslims are mobilized
across the country and this time we are voting for Bush.”

As the Dow Jones bottomed out below the 10,000 mark, Chinese oil
giant Sinopec slipped on its initial public stock offer during trading
on the New York Stock Exchange, just as news broke that the second
largest Chinese state oil company had also signed an exclusive deal to
drill oil in Iraq.

According to a Dow Jones report yesterday, Shengli Petroleum Corp, a
unit of Sinopec, has been granted a contract from Iraq to drill 24 oil
wells. Sinopec officials stated the contract wouldn’t become effective
until it is approved by the United Nations, which has imposed sanctions
on Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait 10 years ago.

The news that Sinopec was in business with Iraq broke just after
Sinopec subsidiary, Zhongyuan Petroleum Corp., had previously come under
fire for business ties in war-torn Sudan. According to Sinopec
officials, Zhongyuan invested $30 million in the Sudan 6 oilfield,
conducting surveys and drilling four wells. In July, Sinopec elected to
sell all Zhongyuan’s investments in Sudan to the largest Chinese oil
company PetroChina in order to clear the way for its stock offering in
the United States.

Sudan’s support for terrorism and a 12-year-old war that has consumed
nearly 2 million lives, led the U.S. government to impose sanctions on
the Khartoum regime. However, the sale of Zhongyuan by Sinopec did not
deflect protests from American-based human rights groups petitioning the
Security and Exchange Commission to delay the Sinopec offering.

“Given the significance of Sudan to many Americans, including
American investors, this connection is of considerable material
importance in understanding the risks associated with purchase of
Sinopec shares,” wrote Dr. Charles Jacobs, president of the American
Anti-Slavery Organization, in a protest letter to the Security and
Exchange Commission.

“In such a context it is imperative that the SEC delay trading of
Sinopec, and provide investors a disclosure addendum, outlining
precisely the nature of Sinopec’s Sudan connections,” said Jacobs.
“Investors have a right to know the sort of risk posed by a company with
connections to Sudan. The SEC has a responsibility to insure that this
knowledge is fully available.”

The Sinopec offering, underwritten by Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,
occurred just as U.S. stocks were bloodied in early trade losses, with
the blue-chip Dow industrials index plummeting more than 420 points in
the morning, putting it below 10,000.

Morgan Stanley officials were contacted and a spokesman asserted that
Sinopec had completely divested itself of its Sudanese holdings. The
spokesman also expressed confidence in the Chinese oil stock, but
refused to issue any comment for the record.

“Scandalously, the SEC has allowed this trading to start without
insisting that Morgan Stanley, underwriters for the Sinopec IPO, reveal
fully the nature of these Sudan connections,” said human rights activist
Eric Reeves.

“The effect is to expose American investors to the potent risks
attending any investment, in any oil company, with connections to
Sudan. In this case, the SEC has simply ignored or abandoned one of its
central functions: to insure that there is full disclosure of all
material risks inherent in a pending capital market listing.”

Although the Sinopec stock offering fell below expectations, the
three largest publicly traded oil companies, Exxon Mobil Corp, BP Amoco
Plc and Royal Dutch/Shell Group plan to invest a combined $1.83 billion
in the Chinese state-owned oil company. With the backing of Exxon, BP
Amoco and other U.S. oil firms, Sinopec remains optimistic about meeting
its goal of raising $35 billion inside the American financial market.

“Sinopec shouldn’t do too badly,” said Frederick Tsang, research
director at China Everbright Securities in a Reuters business report.

“A lot of institutional investors are committed to the stock and even
if it doesn’t do well in the first few days that wouldn’t be
catastrophic,” said Tsang.

Yet, the oil industry does not spend all of its recent profits buying
Chinese state-owned oil company stock. According to Citizens for
Responsive Politics, a non-profit Washington watchdog group, the U.S.
oil industry made over $100 million in political contributions during
the last decade.

More recently, Texas-based Exxon, backer of yesterday’s Sinopec
offering, has made several large donations to George W. Bush. According
to records compiled by the Federal Election Commission, Exxon Mobil
Corp. donated over $1.5 million dollars directly to the Republican
presidential candidate. At the same time, Exxon donated $99,000 to
Democrat candidate Vice President Al Gore.

The Exxon connection to Sinopec appears to be a perfect opportunity
for Gore to press allegations that big oil companies control
Republicans. For example, Federal Election Commission records also show
that Exxon spent over $5.6 million dollars lobbying Congress in 1998
alone.

However, the Clinton-Gore administration also has troubling ties to
Sinopec and Exxon through its Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm
Cassidy Associates. While Cassidy Associates controls the millions of
dollars spent each year by Exxon to lobby Capitol Hill, the small firm
has also made hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations to
both parties. According to Federal Election Commission records, Cassidy
Associates made a total of over 2,500 political contributions between
1991 and 1998, nearly one donation every two days.

Moreover, Cassidy Associates worked closely with former Commerce
Secretary Ron Brown and convicted Chinagate fundraiser John Huang.
Cassidy Associates sent Democrat donor Maeley Tom to Indonesia on an
August 1994 Ron Brown trade mission to Jakarta, Indonesia. The same
mission included convicted Democrat fundraisers Charlie Trie, Pauline
Kanchanalak and Nora Lum. Cassidy Associates’ Maeley Tom, according to
the Cox report, helped Huang stay in touch with his boss, Indonesian
billionaire Moctar Riady.

According to the Cox report, “Huang maintained contact with
representatives of the Lippo Group while he was at the Department of
Commerce during the 18 months that he was at Commerce. Huang called
Lippo Bank 232 times, in addition to 29 calls or faxes to Lippo
Headquarters in Indonesia. Huang also contacted Lippo consultant Maeley
Tom on 61 occasions during the same period.”

In addition, John Huang was given information that the Clinton/Gore
administration ignored corruption inside an Indonesian energy deal
struck with Exxon. According to a Commerce Department briefing document
found inside the files of John Huang, the CIA told Huang about
corruption involving Indonesian dictator Suharto inside an Exxon Corp.
$3.5 billion Natuna Sea Gas project.

According to the document, the CIA told Huang that Suharto “first
family involvement” in the Exxon project was “probably pervasive — they
are involved in almost all major sectors.”

The document was obtained from the Clinton-Gore administration using
the Freedom of Information Act. Immediately after meeting with the CIA,
Huang reportedly called the Lippo group.

Huang pleaded guilty in 1999 to federal charges of making illegal
political contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign. Huang took the
Fifth Amendment more than 2,000 times when asked under oath if he had
ties to Chinese intelligence.

Related stories:

China’s ‘shell game’ in Sudan

U.S. firms invest in African oil war

Hazel O’Leary was FBI target

On the night of April 26, 1994, China Air Lines flight 140 made its
final approach to Nagoya, Japan. The weather over Nagoya was perfect,
clear with light winds. The Airbus A300-600R was in top mechanical
condition and had just been certified. The European built airliner was
still very new in all aspects, having been added to the Taiwanese based
air carrier only a few months before.

As the airliner approached within feet of the runway it began to
lurch back into the air, nosing up quickly as if it did not want to
land. The pilot, an experienced flier, cursed as he fought with the
jet, trying to force it back onto the runway. However, each time he
pushed down to land, the jet bucked back into the air.

Three times the pilot fought with the controls. Each time the modern
airliner seemed to respond with a mind of its own, pulling up hard at
the last second. On the third nose up maneuver the airliner lost almost
all its speed. The Airbus hesitated for a moment, hanging motionless a
thousand feet in the air over the runway, and then with a shuddering
blast, crashed backwards onto the Nagoya airfield, killing all 231
aboard.

What happened to CAL flight 140? According to information gathered
by the flight data recorder, the pilot had placed the airliner into a
computerized “touch and go” mode that forced the aircraft to pull up and
away during landings. This maneuver is practiced by pilots, allowing
the airliner to gently skip off the runway and back into the air.

Unknowingly, the pilot overrode the computer by pushing the nose back
down to land but never turned the computer off. In response to each
landing attempt, the computer dutifully followed its preset program and
pulled the jet back up. The pilot, determined to land the aircraft,
engaged in a battle for control of the plane. The result was a classic
computer “loop.” Each time the pilot pushed the airliner down to land,
the computer obediently pulled the jet back up to go around. On the
third try the entire system, including the airliner, crashed.

Nor is the dramatic example of CAL flight 140 the only instance of
death by software. On Jan. 20, 1992, an Airbus A320 flown by Air Inter,
a regional French carrier, crashed while on approach to
Strasbourg-Entzheim airport. The crew, with over 12,000 hours of
combined flying experience, decided to set the airliner to descend by
computer control. They set the airliner to glide downward to the
airport at what they thought was a gentle “3.3″ degree slope.

However, the pilots actually set the airliner to descend at a rate of
“3,300″ feet per minute, a rate four times what they expected. The jet
with 96 persons on board slammed into the Alps at 2,620 feet, killing
87, including both pilots.

The investigation into the Air Inter crash led to some very
disturbing evidence uncovered by the French Transport Ministry. The
parent airline, Air Inter, did not give their pilots official
information on software technical problems reported on the A320. The
French carrier was under a financial strain at the time of the crash,
and was also locked in a labor struggle with the pilots union. The Air
Inter management decided not to release any data given to them by
aircraft manufacturers that could be used as bad press during the labor
dispute.

The Air Inter accident is not an isolated case. The events
surrounding the crash of a Comair Embraer EMB-120, caused by the
computer autopilot over compensating for icing conditions, have never
been fully addressed inside the United States airline system.

Comair flight 3272 crashed on Jan. 9, 1997, as it approached Detroit
Metro airport. Three crew members and 26 passengers died. The crash
brought to light the fact that the FAA was aware of the software problem
with the Embraer autopilot but chose not to inform pilots.

Moreover, death by software can strike any airline no matter how well
run. On Sept. 14, 1993, a Lufthansa Airbus A320-200 was landing in bad
weather at Warsaw airport, Poland. The pilots had been warned of
gusting cross winds, rain and possible wind shear conditions. In order
to compensate for the bad weather problems the crew added 20 knots of
speed to their landing approach and used a standard cross wind landing
technique, keeping the right wing low and landing first on the right
gear.

However, because of the gusting winds and heavy rains, the wheels
aquaplaned during the first nine seconds on the ground. The extra wind
and water combined to fool the Airbus computer, indicating the big jet
had not landed. The computer responded by disabling the aircraft
braking systems. With no brakes, the Lufthansa jet skidded off the end
of the Warsaw runway and struck a hill, killing the first officer, one
passenger, and injuring 45 others. The A320 was totally destroyed in
the crash.

The crash report that followed indicated the flight crew followed the
Airbus book on how to land the big jet in bad weather. Lufthansa, in
response to the crash, changed the procedures against the advice of
Airbus. No Lufthansa A320s have crashed since that change. Airbus, of
course, insists there is no problem in their control software.

The ability to program a computer to fly an aircraft is commonplace.
However, nations also make and defend artificial borders that are often
ignored by computers. For example, the shoot down of Korean airlines
KAL-007 by the former Soviet Union was due to a simple data entry error.

The pilot of the 747 jumbo jet accidentally set the airliner to fly
the most efficient course to its destination, a course that took it over
restricted Soviet airspace. The pilot that set the navigation computer
entered only two numbers out of sequence, guiding the doomed airliner
off course and into history.

It’s a digital world and computers control everything with clockwork
perfection. Pilots complain that they no longer fly airplanes because
of computer controls. One pilot recently quipped that customers should
“thank the programmer” for a smooth landing. Yet, faulty commercial
airline software and poor training can lead to an abrupt end of your
flight.