THE MARKLE FOUNDATION - Jewland Security Task Force - Started by Scam Jew NeoCon Phillip Zelikow

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

American Traitor and Israeli Dual Loyalist, Philip Zelikow,  wants to make the USA an online Palestinian Camp....

He called for 9/11 to happen... and helped carry out the cover up since he sat on the 9/11 commission. Typical Scamming Jew IMHO... CSR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow

 Terrorism

Zelikow has also written about terrorism and national security, including a set of Harvard case studies on "Policing Northern Ireland." In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article Catastrophic Terrorism, with Ashton B. Carter, and John M. Deutch, in which they speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force.  (Words of an IDIOT F'N J' )  More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently." [13]

http://www.markle.org/downloadable_asse ... r_list.pdf

In 2002, Phil Zelikow became the executive director of the Markle Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. The Task Force comprises a diverse and bipartisan group of experienced policymakers, senior executives from the information technology industry, public interest advocates, and experts in privacy, intelligence, and national security. The Markle Task Force seeks to inform the policy judgments and investments of the federal, state and local governments in the collection and use of information as it relates to national security. The Task Force's reports and recommendations have been codified through two laws (IRPTA 2004 and the Implementing 9/11 Commission Report Act 2007) and several presidential directives. The reports are available at http://www.markle.org/markle_programs/p ... curity.php

In Rise of the Vulcans (Viking, 2004), James Mann reports that when Richard Haass, a senior aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell and the director of policy planning at the State Department, drafted for the administration an overview of America's national security strategy following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Dr. Rice, the national security advisor, "ordered that the document be completely rewritten. She thought the Bush administration needed something bolder, something that would represent a more dramatic break with the ideas of the past. Rice turned the writing over to her old colleague, University of Virginia Professor Philip Zelikow." This document, issued on September 17, 2002, is recognized as a significant document in the Bush administration doctrine of preemptive war.[5][6]

At the recommendation of Lee H. Hamilton, the vice-chair, Zelikow was appointed executive director of the 9/11 Commission, whose work included examination of the conduct of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush and their administrations. Zelikow's prior involvement with the administration of George W. Bush led to opposition from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, citing a conflict of interest. In response to the concerns, Zelikow agreed to recuse himself from any investigation matters pertaining to the National Security Council's transition from the Clinton to Bush administrations, which Zelikow had helped manage.[7]

THE MARKLE FOUNDATION
TASK FORCE ON NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE INFORMATION AGE

Zoë Baird, Co-Chair*

Jim Barksdale, Co-Chair

The Markle Foundation Barksdale Management Corporation

MEMBERS:
Robert D. Atkinson
Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation

Eric Benhamou
3Com Corporation, Palm, Inc.,
Benhamou Global Ventures, LLC

Jerry Berman
Center for Democracy &
Technology
Robert M. Bryant
National Insurance Crime Bureau

Ashton B. Carter**
Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University

Wesley Clark
Wesley K. Clark & Associates

William P. Crowell*
Security and Intelligence Consultant

Bryan Cunningham*
Morgan & Cunningham LLC

Jim Dempsey*
Center for Democracy &
Technology

Mary DeRosa**
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Sidney D. Drell
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center,
Stanford University

Esther Dyson
CNET Networks

Amitai Etzioni
The George Washington University

Richard Falkenrath
New York Police Department

David J. Farber
Carnegie Mellon University

John Gage
Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers

John Gordon*
United States Air Force, Retired

Slade Gorton*
K&L Gates

Morton H. Halperin
Open Society Institute

Margaret A. Hamburg**
Nuclear Threat Initiative

John J. Hamre
Center for Strategic and
International Studies

Eric H. Holder, Jr.**
Covington & Burling

Jeff Jonas*
IBM

Arnold Kanter
The Scowcroft Group

Tara Lemmey*
LENS Ventures

Gilman Louie
Alsop Louie Partners

John O. Marsh, Jr.
Marsh Institute for
Government and Public Policy,
Shenandoah University

Judith A. Miller*
Bechtel Group, Inc.

James H. Morris
Carnegie Mellon University

Craig Mundie
Microsoft Corporation

Jeffrey H. Smith*
Arnold & Porter LLP

Abraham D. Sofaer*
Hoover Institution,
Stanford University

James B. Steinberg**
Lyndon Johnson School
of Public Affairs,
University of Texas at Austin

Kim Taipale
Center for Advanced Studies in
Science and Technology Policy

Rick White*
former Member of Congress
Richard Wilhelm*
Booz Allen Hamilton
* Members of the Steering Committee who prepared the Nation At Risk report.
** These individuals were members of the Task Force and participated in the development of its first three previous reports. Although
the fundamental recommendations in those past reports form the foundation for the Nation At Risk report, these individuals have
taken positions in the government and were not part of the Steering Committee that prepared Nation At Risk.


ASSOCIATES: STAFF:

Fred Cate
Indiana University School
of Law Bloomington

Scott Charney
Microsoft Corporation

Bob Clerman
Noblis

David Gunter
Ernst & Young LLP

Drew Ladner
Pascal Metrics Inc.

Bill Neugent
MITRE

Daniel B. Prieto
IBM

Clay Shirky
Writer and Consultant

Peter Swire **
Moritz College of Law,
The Ohio State University

Mel Taub
Independent Consultant

Taite Bergin
Associate, Quorum Strategies

Karen Byers
Managing Director and
Chief Financial Officer

Markle Foundation
Christopher Kojm ****
Elliott School of
International Affairs
George Washington University;
Associate, Quorum Strategies

Danna Lindsay
Administrative Assistant

Markle Foundation
Philippe Oudinot
Senior Attorney, Arnold & Porter

Mara Rudman***
Principal, Quorum Strategies

Douglas Sosnik
Independent Consultant

Nicholas Townsend
Associate, Arnold & Porter

Colette Walker
Associate, Quorum Strategies

Stefaan Verhulst
Chief of Research,
Markle Foundation

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

And of course Israel Did 9/11... they don't want you to know that.... of course if we just wiretap the Jews and Israelis Globally they couldn't do cross-border Scams and take the loot back to Israel so easily...--  CSR

---------------------------------

Sep. 27 2010 - 11:32 am | 3,145 views

Law Enforcement Wants To Be Able To 'Tap' Skype, Facebook and BlackBerry Emails
By KASHMIR HILL

It appears that law enforcement officers are finding it too difficult to track the Facebook messages going back and forth between drug dealers. Charlie Savage at the New York Times reports today that "federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is 'going dark' as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone."

It may be shocking to many to hear that the po-po are facing more obstacles from Facebook and Skype than from disposable cell phones. But the FBI, NSA, Justice Department and other agencies are feeling stymied and are hoping that a bill will be passed next year to enhance their ability to dip their hands into digital communications in real time...

    Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct "peer to peer" messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

Research in Motion is still resolving threatened bans by the Indian and United Arab Emirates governments over their inability to monitor encrypted email sent by BlackBerrys. We'll see how it stands up against this U.S. request.

Declan McCullagh at CNet wrote about the police desire to conduct online investigations more efficiently a few months back, explaining that law enforcement wants a private Web interface to make interception of electronic messages easier. Maybe we can call it PoliceBook.com?

The police already have a very cozy relationship with the phone companies, thanks to the 1994 Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act. To comply with that act, Sprint Nextel has already created a private interface for law enforcement.  Sometimes the relationship is too cozy, as I've mentioned here before; a Department of Justice investigation determined that law enforcement officers were too easily getting phone records from Verizon and AT&T — sometimes by just handing a phone employee a post-it note.

Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute has previously pointed out that a downside to creating an easy access key for the feds, is that an easy access key then exists and can be stolen by hackers. Check out his piece for The Nation here.

For now, enjoy the fact that your Facebook communications are relatively private when it comes to law enforcement monitoring, so you can poke people as you please without worrying too much about the police watching.

U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet [New York Times]
Police want backdoor to Web users' private data [CNet]
Surveillance Can't Make Us Secure [The Nation]

http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/201 ... gechannels

======

U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: September 27, 2010

WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is "going dark" as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct "peer to peer" messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

James X. Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had "huge implications" and challenged "fundamental elements of the Internet revolution" — including its decentralized design.

"They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet," he said. "They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function."

But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers.

"We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said Valerie E. Caproni, general counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. "We're not talking expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security."

Investigators have been concerned for years that changing communications technology could damage their ability to conduct surveillance. In recent months, officials from the F.B.I., the Justice Department, the National Security Agency, the White House and other agencies have been meeting to develop a proposed solution.

There is not yet agreement on important elements, like how to word statutory language defining who counts as a communications service provider, according to several officials familiar with the deliberations.

But they want it to apply broadly, including to companies that operate from servers abroad, like Research in Motion, the Canadian maker of BlackBerry devices. In recent months, that company has come into conflict with the governments of Dubai and India over their inability to conduct surveillance of messages sent via its encrypted service.

In the United States, phone and broadband networks are already required to have interception capabilities, under a 1994 law called the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act. It aimed to ensure that government surveillance abilities would remain intact during the evolution from a copper-wire phone system to digital networks and cellphones.

Often, investigators can intercept communications at a switch operated by the network company. But sometimes — like when the target uses a service that encrypts messages between his computer and its servers — they must instead serve the order on a service provider to get unscrambled versions.

Like phone companies, communication service providers are subject to wiretap orders. But the 1994 law does not apply to them. While some maintain interception capacities, others wait until they are served with orders to try to develop them.

The F.B.I.'s operational technologies division spent $9.75 million last year helping communication companies — including some subject to the 1994 law that had difficulties — do so. And its 2010 budget included $9 million for a "Going Dark Program" to bolster its electronic surveillance capabilities.

Beyond such costs, Ms. Caproni said, F.B.I. efforts to help retrofit services have a major shortcoming: the process can delay their ability to wiretap a suspect for months.

Moreover, some services encrypt messages between users, so that even the provider cannot unscramble them.

There is no public data about how often court-approved surveillance is frustrated because of a service's technical design.

But as an example, one official said, an investigation into a drug cartel earlier this year was stymied because smugglers used peer-to-peer software, which is difficult to intercept because it is not routed through a central hub. Agents eventually installed surveillance equipment in a suspect's office, but that tactic was "risky," the official said, and the delay "prevented the interception of pertinent communications."

Moreover, according to several other officials, after the failed Times Square bombing in May, investigators discovered that the suspect, Faisal Shahzad, had been communicating with a service that lacked prebuilt interception capacity. If he had aroused suspicion beforehand, there would have been a delay before he could have been wiretapped.

To counter such problems, officials are coalescing around several of the proposal's likely requirements:

¶ Communications services that encrypt messages must have a way to unscramble them.

¶ Foreign-based providers that do business inside the United States must install a domestic office capable of performing intercepts.

¶ Developers of software that enables peer-to-peer communication must redesign their service to allow interception.

Providers that failed to comply would face fines or some other penalty. But the proposal is likely to direct companies to come up with their own way to meet the mandates. Writing any statute in "technologically neutral" terms would also help prevent it from becoming obsolete, officials said.

Even with such a law, some gaps could remain. It is not clear how it could compel compliance by overseas services that do no domestic business, or from a "freeware" application developed by volunteers.

In their battle with Research in Motion, countries like Dubai have sought leverage by threatening to block BlackBerry data from their networks. But Ms. Caproni said the F.B.I. did not support filtering the Internet in the United States.

Still, even a proposal that consists only of a legal mandate is likely to be controversial, said Michael A. Sussmann, a former Justice Department lawyer who advises communications providers.

"It would be an enormous change for newly covered companies," he said. "Implementation would be a huge technology and security headache, and the investigative burden and costs will shift to providers."

Several privacy and technology advocates argued that requiring interception capabilities would create holes that would inevitably be exploited by hackers.

Steven M. Bellovin, a Columbia University computer science professor, pointed to an episode in Greece: In 2005, it was discovered that hackers had taken advantage of a legally mandated wiretap function to spy on top officials' phones, including the prime minister's.

"I think it's a disaster waiting to happen," he said. "If they start building in all these back doors, they will be exploited."

Susan Landau, a Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study fellow and former Sun Microsystems engineer, argued that the proposal would raise costly impediments to innovation by small startups.

"Every engineer who is developing the wiretap system is an engineer who is not building in greater security, more features, or getting the product out faster," she said.

Moreover, providers of services featuring user-to-user encryption are likely to object to watering it down. Similarly, in the late 1990s, encryption makers fought off a proposal to require them to include a back door enabling wiretapping, arguing it would cripple their products in the global market.

But law enforcement officials rejected such arguments. They said including an interception capability from the start was less likely to inadvertently create security holes than retrofitting it after receiving a wiretap order.

They also noted that critics predicted that the 1994 law would impede cellphone innovation, but that technology continued to improve. And their envisioned decryption mandate is modest, they contended, because service providers — not the government — would hold the key.

"No one should be promising their customers that they will thumb their nose at a U.S. court order," Ms. Caproni said. "They can promise strong encryption. They just need to figure out how they can provide us plain text."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27 ... &th&emc=th

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser   (Philip "Idiot-Jew" Zelikow)
By Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.

Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.

Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.

Known in intelligence circles as "Piffy-ab", the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make.

The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as "code word" that is higher than top secret.

The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.

Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story.

Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration.

Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001.

In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganising and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritising its work.

Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.

Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.

Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official - Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the "Muslim Middle East".

Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Centre of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.

In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of "scarce hard currency" to harness "communications against electromagnetic pulse", a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.

That was "a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange - they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis", according to Zelikow.

He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.

"Play out those scenarios," he told his audience, "and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it".

"Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant."

To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration.

Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.

"Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component," said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. "But this is a very good piece of evidence of that."

Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq.

"They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it," said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.

But he downplayed the Israel link. "In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat," he said.

Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight.

"Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made," Brown said. (END/2004)



Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

(END/2004)

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Zelikow -- Dual Loyalist Jew Terrorist in Office
========================================

Ashton B. Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow (November/December 1998). "Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger". Foreign Affairs.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19981101f ... anger.html.

IMAGINING THE TRANSFORMING EVENT

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. But today's terrorists, be they international cults like Aum Shinrikyo or individual nihilists like the Unabomber, act on a greater variety of motives than ever before. More ominously, terrorists may gain access to weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices, germ dispensers, poison gas weapons, and even computer viruses. Also new is the world's dependence on a nearly invisible and fragile network for distributing energy and information. Long part of the Hollywood and Tom Clancy repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously, as demonstrated by the response to the attacks on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August, it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism.

References

   1. ^ Zelikow, Philip D.; Condoleezza Rice (1995). "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft". Harvard University Press. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/ZELG ... ow=reviews.
   2. ^ Joffe, Josef (Jan/Feb 1996). "Putting Germany Back Together: The Fabulous Bush and Baker Boys". Foreign Affairs.
   3. ^ White House Tapes
   4. ^ UNT Biography
   5. ^ Shenon, Philip (2008). The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation. New York, New York: Hachette Book Group USA. p. 128. ISBN 0-446-58075-9. http://www.amazon.com/reader/0446580759 ... eader-link. Retrieved 2010-07-24. "It was a remarkable document, a reversal of generations of American military doctrine, which had previously held that the United States would launch a military strike against an enemy only after it had been struck or if American lives were in immediate jeopardy."
   6. ^ "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America". The Washington Post. September 17, 2002. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/on ... rategy.htm. Retrieved 2010-07-24. "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
   7. ^ Eggen, Dan (2003-10-14). "Sept. 11 Panel Defends Director's Impartiality". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2003. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonp ... +Dismissed. Retrieved 2010-07-11.
   8. ^ Cooper, Helene and David E. Sanger. Rice's Counselor Gives Advice Others May Not Want to Hear. The New York Times. 2006-10-28.
   9. ^ Emad Mekay IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel Inter Press Service News Agency. 2006-12-28.
  10. ^ "The Israel Lobby", letter by Philip Zelikow, London Review of Books, May 25, 2006
  11. ^ Eviatar, Daphne (2009-05-13). "Philip Zelikow: OLC Interpretation Would Allow Waterboarding of U.S. Citizens". The Washington Independent. http://washingtonindependent.com/42763/ ... s-citizens. Retrieved 2009-06-09.
  12. ^ a b Philip Zelikow. Thinking About Political History. Miller Center Report, Winter 1999.
  13. ^ Ashton B. Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow (November/December 1998). "Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger". Foreign Affairs. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19981101f ... anger.html.

[maz]

Saw this posted on the Prison Planet forum, but the connection to Zelikow was not stated or totally downplayed.