I had this naive hope that DOJ would use the opportunity of an indictment to fill in some of the holes in their case.

Like I said, naive hope.

The indictment appears to be the amended complaint, without the affidavit, with an arrest warrant for Gholam Shakuri.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaRKHVw4rUo[/youtube]

The high level meetings in Islamabad between US and Pakistani officials head into their second day today, after a marathon four hour session late yesterday.  The line-ups of officials present for the two countries is remarkable and reflects the seriousness with which the two countries view the current situation.  Pakistan’s Express Tribune provides a partial list of those present at the meetings:

Clinton was accompanied by US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsy, Director Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) David Petraeus, US Special Envoy Marc Grossman and US Ambassador Cameron Munter, while Premier Gilani was assisted by Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, ISI chief Lt General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and other senior officials.

Despite the pomp surrounding the meetings and the seniority of those present, there seems to be little prospect that positions on the major issue will change.   As I described yesterday, Clinton is delivering the “new” catchphrase for the US of “fight, talk, build”, meaning that the US places the highest priority on fighting the Haqqani network, seen by the US as the biggest current threat and unlikely to participate in meaningful peace talks.  By contrast, Pakistan’s Prime Minister has implored the US to “give peace a chance”.  From the same Express Tribune article:

A statement issued by the Prime Minister’s press office also confirmed that Pakistan has no plans to initiate a military operation in North Waziristan.

“Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani called upon US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to give peace a chance, as envisaged in the All Parties Conference’s resolution,” said the statement.

We learn from today’s Washington Post that Clinton is warning Pakistan that they will pay a price for this refusal to attack the Haqqani network in their safe havens:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stepped up the rhetorical pressure on Pakistan Thursday, warning Pakistani officials that there would be a “very big price” if they do not take action against militant groups staging attacks in Afghanistan.

Dawn provides more details, revealing that Clinton expects action by Pakistan to occur quickly:

“We look to Pakistan to take strong steps to deny Afghan insurgents safe havens and to encourage the Taliban to enter negotiations in good faith,” said Clinton after talks with Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar.

The United States was looking for operational action “over the next days and weeks, not months and years, but days and weeks because we have a lot of work to do to realise our shared goals,” emphasised Clinton.

In remarks today, Clinton responded to the “give peace a chance” challenge from Pakistan:

In a joint press conference held with Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar in Islamabad, Clinton urged the Pakistani government to show greater cooperation with the US to corner militants.

“You can’t keep snakes in your back yard and expect them to only bite your neighbours,” Clinton said, making a clear reference to the Haqqani network that the US has accused Pakistan of maintaining links with.

She added that US and Afghan forces have “successfully” responded to Pakistan’s legitimate concern regarding terrorists working from the Afghan side of the border, and that Pakistan is expected to do the same.

“If we want to give peace a chance, we have some work to do,” said Secretary Clinton, urging Pakistan to do more to crackdown on extremists operating from Pakistani territory.

And there is the stand-off.  Pakistan’s unchanging position is that now is the time for negotiations with the Haqqani network and the US maintains that it is necessary first to beat them into submission before they will negotiate “in good faith”.

A very important additional aspect of the ongoing meetings comes from the first Express Tribune story linked above, where we learn that new CIA chief David Petraeus will be sharing US intelligence linking Pakistan’s ISI spy agency with the Haqqani network:

The addition of Petraeus could be especially significant, political analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi told Reuters.

“America will produce evidence before the army chief, that you are involved (in supporting the violence in Afghanistan). With David Petraeus coming as well, they have definitely brought evidence,” he said. “He will provide evidence that you are involved, ISI is involved,” he added. “But nothing will come out in public.”

It seems especially noteworthy that it is believed that Petraeus will share this intelligence with Ashfaq Kayani, who heads Pakistan’s Army, rather than Ahmed Pasha, who heads the ISI.  The article notes separately that Petraeus will meet with Pasha but separates that meeting from the discussion of Petraeus sharing the ISI-related intelligence with Kayani.

There is a very interesting side note relating to the timing of these high level meetings in Islamabad.  Recall that Clinton’s visits to Kabul and then Islamabad were not announced in advance.  However, the arrival of the US delegation caused the leader of another country to reschedule a planned visit to Islamabad.  From Iran’s Mehr News:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reportedly decided to defer his travel to Pakistan as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to arrived in Islamabad on Thursday.

A diplomat confirmed the postponement of the Iranian president’s visit but said it had nothing to do with Clinton’s visit and was only a matter of working out the schedule of the Iranian president, who would now visit Pakistan some other time in the near future, Pakistan Today said in a report on Monday.

It is worth noting that at the height of the US-Pakistan rhetorical battle, Pakistan had meetings with China.  These meetings were viewed by many as a signal to the US that Pakistan would consider seeking a closer relationship with China should US-Pakistan relations deteriorate further.  Did the US suddenly decide to pre-empt Ahmadinejad’s visit because they fear an Iran-Pakistan alliance much more than they fear a China-Pakistan alliance?

For those closely following Marcy’s coverage of the Scary Iran Plot, note also that Mehr News is carrying an article accusing Pakistan of being a new “conduit” for smuggling drugs into the Persian Gulf region.  The issue of illicit drugs seems to dance around the margins of Scary Iran Plot, so this accusation is worth noting while monitoring that evolving situation.

Okay, I don’t know for a fact that the Senior Administration Official Jake Tapper rather irresponsibly gave anonymity to is John Brennan. After all, Ben Rhodes loves to boast anonymously too.

But given the Administration’s past caution about describing Obama’s role in the Awlaki assassination, I find it interesting that John Brennan this SAO is now claiming credit, in Obama’s name, for Awlaki’s killing, too.

The president emphasized the internationality of the NATO effort, and that’s part of what a senior White House official tells ABC News is the way Obama looks at foreign policy.

“What we’re demonstrating is you can move to a more targeted use of US force and be more successful in achieving our objectives,” a Senior White House official tells ABC News. This means a “smaller footprint, a more targeted use of force. It means less of a cost to taxpayers and troops, and also clearly results in our ability to take care of our interests.”

“With al Qaeda, we’re going after them in a very targeted way,” the Senior White House official says. “With Libya, we identified the unique capabilities the US has to go after Gadhafi,” and then NATO took the lead. The US role from that point on was to be the “glue” of the operation “keeping the coalition together,” providing “targeting, intelligence, refueling, and command and control.”

“Bin laden, Awlaki, Gadhafi have all met their demise in some fashion because of decisions the president made” utilizing this foreign policy view, the senior administration official said. [my emphasis]

Not surprisingly, John Brennan this SAO didn’t boast about the internationality of our effort in Somalia, where al-Shabaab made a grisly display of the bodies of 70 Burundian soldiers serving in AMISOM yesterday; al-Shabaab said they had ambushed the soldiers. John Brennan this SAO only boasts about the victories, you see. Nor did John Brennan this SAO claim credit for killing an American teenager the other day. We’re still pretending that was an accident.

But for the record, John Brennan this SAO can no longer control himself. He’s gonna claim credit not just for Osama bin Laden and Qaddafi–even claim credit for providing the command and control in what was purportedly a kinetic action–but also boast that Obama’s orders resulted in the death of an American citizen.

So imagine this scenario.

A DEA informant calls up his handler out of the blue and says,

Omigod! Some crazy Iranian just approached me to arrange some kind of hit on behalf of this Iranian terror organization. He asked about explosives (I bragged about my C4 expertise.) He found me through my aunt in Corpus Christi. She says she knows him from when he used to be a used car salesman.

The DEA calls the FBI. What’s one of the first things the FBI would do?

Maybe look him up in the FBI’s own files (they find he doesn’t have a federal record). And just after that, you’d think they’d start investigating him in Corpus Christi, where Narc knew him to have connections. Maybe call the cops there and see if they knew this crazy Iranian. Which, since Arbabsiar has a pretty consistent record of petty arrests and lawsuits, they do.

Which is why it’s sort of odd that the FBI never contacted the Corpus Christi cops–they first talked to them the day after Arbabsiar was charged.

Arbabsiar had previous arrests in Nueces County during nearly 20 years living in the area.

That meant arrest records and personal details were on file in the county’s warehouse. But no one from any federal agency ever asked for the folder, Kaelin said.

“From an intelligence-gathering standpoint, even the tiniest bits of information could have a connection to something bigger,” he said. “They never asked to see it.”

In fact, FBI agents never contacted the sheriff’s office or the police department about their investigation into Arbabsiar.

That’s all the more weird given that some of the criminal files on Arbabsiar were on dead tree files in a warehouse from back in the day when the FBI itself didn’t really use computers (you know, like last year).

Now, my scenario sounds weird, almost impossible, particularly in the age of information sharing between local cops and national counterterrorism investigators.  Even if they were worried about keeping Narc’s identity secret–which I’m sure is particularly critical so close to the border in South Texas–you’d think they’d at least go and make discreet investigations about Arbabsiar (particularly given the claims that, by the end of the investigation, FBI officers seemed to be going out of their way to make their presence known.

Neighbors, however, said it had been years since Arbabsiar lived in the stucco house he once shared with his wife on a suburban cul-de-sac. They said it appeared that as many as 10 people were living in the house, and lately there had been some signs of suspicious activity: When residents looked for available Wi-Fi networks, networks with names like “FBI Van 1” would pop up.l

Unless …

Unless they didn’t need to do that background research on Arbabsiar when Narc purportedly came to them out of the blue to tell them about this crazy Iranian seeking an assassin purportedly out of the blue.

The FBI’s seeming disinterest in learning about Arbabsiar from the law enforcement officials who ostensibly knew him best suggests they already knew about him when he approached Narc.

(As a number of media outlets have reported, the Grand Jury has indicted the plotters, a mere nine days after the Administration started making an international incident about this. I’ll update or do a post once the indictment is in the docket.)

 
Duqu isn’t Christopher Lee in Attack of the Clones, but it is the newest computer malware to hit mainstream consciousness. It’s attracting attention mainly because it is based on the same software source code base as the Windows portion of Stuxnet. If you haven’t heard about Duqu, check out the Wired article that first alerted me to its existence. If you are interested in the technical details, you need to read the excellent write-up by Symantec (pdf link).
Unfortunately, the twitterverse, blogosphere, and the computer security profession all seem to be caught up in a hype/debunking/speculation cycle that is spreading more heat than light. The primary significance of Duqu is what it tells us about the operation behind Stuxnet and Duqu, i.e. that it is an on-going enterprise conducting computer espionage and sabotage around the world. The fact that it is rather obviously (though not publicly) run by the U.S. intelligence community should concern everyone.
I’ll put up a more extensive post later (including a timeline!) detailing what the Duqu phase of the Stuxnet operation tells us about the cyberwarfare strategy of the U.S. and how it is endangering the safety and security of the U.S. and the whole industrialized world. But first, I want to remind everyone how Stuxnet was originally discovered:

… the VirusBlokAda security firm in Minsk, received what seemed to be a relatively mundane email on June 17, 2010. An Iranian firm was complaining that its computers were behaving strangely, shutting themselves down and then rebooting. Ulasen and a colleague spent a week examining the machines. Then they found Stuxnet. VirusBlokAda notified other companies in the industry, including Symantec.
 
 

This incident became curiouser and curiouser as Symantec, Langner, and others took apart Stuxnet. There wasn’t any obvious reason that Stuxnet would have caused that sort of behavior on an infected computer. I even wondered at the time whether or not Stuxnet’s cover was blown intentionally since the perpetrators moved quickly to call further attention to themselves. But, thanks to the good work of the Symantec team, we can surmise something quite revealing about the initial discovery of Stuxnet.
 
The rootkit component of Duqu is quite similar to, but not exactly the same as, the one in Stuxnet. In both cases, if the infected computer gets rebooted while it is infected, the rootkit wants to make sure that it is running before the operating system is fully loaded. That’s why this rootkit (both flavors, Stuxnet and Duqu) is packaged as a hardware device driver. Here’s a feature of Duqu’s driver that wasn’t present in Stuxnet (as described by Symantec on page 4 of the pdf linked above):

The driver then registers a DriverReinitializationRoutine and calls itself (up to 200 times) until it is able to detect the presence of the HAL.DLL file. This ensures the system has been initialized to a point where it can begin injecting the main DLL.

The bolded portion is the new functionality that wasn’t present in Stuxnet. As a software developer, this detail tells me a lot. The driver is checking to make sure that the hardware abstraction layer (HAL.DLL) of Windows is loaded before it proceeds with the re-infection routine. The HAL is a portion of the Windows OS that really needs to be loaded before device drivers can function properly. Between the time that Stuxnet was deployed and this later version was compiled, the Stuxnet team identified a problem (a race condition) with their software being loaded before the HAL, probably only under the rarest of circumstances. So they modified their program to take this possible condition into account.
As I thought about this, I realized that the likely impact of the Stuxnet device driver being loaded before the HAL was properly initialized would almost certainly be that the machine would continuously crash and reboot. Look again at how Stuxnet was first discovered (remember it was in the wild for at least a full year before it was noticed by any anti-virus vendor):

… the VirusBlokAda security firm in Minsk, received what seemed to be a relatively mundane email on June 17, 2010. An Iranian firm was complaining that its computers were behaving strangely, shutting themselves down and then rebooting. Ulasen and a colleague spent a week examining the machines. Then they found Stuxnet. VirusBlokAda notified other companies in the industry, including Symantec.

By November 3, 2010 (the compile date of the Duqu component), the Stuxnet team had fixed the bug that led to the discovery of Stuxnet last year. And then went almost another full year without being discovered by the anti-virus vendors. It is likely to be a lot harder to reconstruct what the Stuxnet team has been up to this time around, but it is clear that the operation is on-going and we can assume (unless specific information turns up pointing in a different direction) that the primary target is still the Iranian nuclear program.

Bush is in British Columbia today, giving a $100,000 speech.

Three men first captured when they were teenagers–Hassan bin Attash (Walid’s brother, who was captured when was 16 and remains in Gitmo), Muhammed Khan Tumani (who was captured when he was 17), and German-born Murat Kurnaz (who was 19 when he was captured)–and the Al Jazeera journalist, Sami al-Hajj, are using the opportunity to try to get Bush prosecuted for torture.

There are several interesting details from the filing. For example, they show that Americans used techniques at the Dark Prison (the Salt Pit)–spraying Attash with water–that were not permitted under the Bybee Memo and that were reportedly implicated in Gul Rahman’s death not long after. Attash was also physically beaten in Jordan during the period we were drumming up intelligence for the Iraq War because he did not provide the answers on WMD his interrogators wanted.

Nonsensically, the interrogators asked the youth question after question about weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, biological, and chemical. They also asked him about his brother, Walid bin Attash. When Hassan did not give the answers the interrogators wanted, they would beat him. Americans were present during these interrogation and beating sessions.

And, anticipating Abu Ghraib’s tortures, Attash was threatened with electrocution.

The account of Sami al-Hajj’s treatment fleshes out two accusations he has made elsewhere. First, that we kept him long after it became clear he was not a threat in an attempt to recruit him to spy on Al Jazeera for us.

Almost all of the interrogation sessions were aimed at co-opting EL-HAJJ to work as an informant for the CIA within Al-Jazeera – indeed, he and his family were offered US citizenship and money for his son’s education if he would agree to become an informant.

It also repeats accounts of Quran desecration published elsewhere.

And the filing also describes Tunami’s isolation that–he says–continued up until the time he was release in August 2009.

In late December 2007, Muhammed sent several letters to his attorneys that had been smeared with human feces. In March 2008, his attorneys received reports from other detainees that Muhammed had been banging his head against his cell walls for hours on end and smearing his cell with excrement. In written correspondence to the U.S. Departments of Defense and Justice, his attorneys expressed grave concerns about Muhammed’s mental condition and requested that the government improve his conditions and provide him with appropriate medical care. The government did not respond.

Having laid out the case that Bush knowingly authorized torture, the filing makes the case for why Canada must take action against Bush. A particularly nice touch comes when it recalls the US role in insisting on universal jurisdiction for the Convention Against Torture.

Article 5(2) provides for universal jurisdiction in all cases where an alleged torturer is present ―in order to avoid safe havens for perpetrators of torture.‖136 This provision makes CAT―the first human rights treaty incorporating the principal of universal jurisdiction as an international obligation of all State parties without any precondition other than the presence of the alleged torturer.‖137 (emphasis in original) The need for universal jurisdiction for torture was explained as such: ―Torture … is according to its definition in Article 1 primarily committed by State officials, and the respective governments usually have no interest in bringing their own officials to justice.‖138

101. It is appropriate in this case to recall the drafting history of this provision. As discussed in the Nowak and McArthur Commentary on CAT, this provision met with ―fierce objection‖from many States, with the strongest supporter of the draft provision for universal jurisdiction (presented by Sweden) being the United States: ―the US Government expressed the opinion that torture is an offence of special international concern which means that it should have a broad jurisdictional basis in the same way as the international community had agreed upon in earlier conventions against hijacking, sabotage and the protection of diplomats.‖139 The Commentary continues: ―It was, above all, the delegation from the United States which had convincingly argued that universal jurisdiction was intended primarily to deal with situations where torture is a State policy and where the respective government, therefore, was not interested in extradition and prosecution of its own officials accused of torture.‖140

102. In Article 6(1), CAT states unambiguously that contracting States are obligated to take legal measures against suspected torturers within their jurisdiction:

Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present shall take him into custody or take other legal measure to ensure his presence. (emphasis added)

The filing ends:

171. To conclude, Canada has jurisdiction under domestic and international law when BUSH is ―present in Canada.‖
172. The foregoing demonstrates that a case for torture exists, as a matter of law and fact, against George W. BUSH.
173. Accordingly, once BUSH is present, if no extradition is sought, the Canadian authorities are under a positive legal obligation to investigate BUSH and submit the case for prosecution.

Of course it won’t work. But I suspect this will be repeated whereever Bush goes to collect his $100,000 speaking fees.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and CIA Director David Petraeus will be in Islamabad today for talks amid somewhat calmer US-Pakistan relations and to set the stage for a possible negotiated end to hostilities in Afghanistan.  At the same time, NATO has been conducting raids for about a week on the Afghanistan side of the border with Pakistan, attempting to rid the area of members of the Haqqani network.

The previously escalated rhetorical battle between the US and Pakistan has been on a calming trajectory since reaching its highpoint when Joint Chiefs Chair Mullen claimed that the Haqqani network was a virtual arm of Pakistan’s ISI.  Amid these calming relations, Clinton arrives in Islamabad today after a visit to Kabul.

The visit to Afghanistan was aimed in part at boosting Afghanistan’s efforts to negotiate a settlement with the Taliban ahead of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Those negotiations were dealt a severe setback when Burhanuddin Rabbani, the chief negotiator for Afghanistan, was killed last month by a suicide bomber.  As the Washington Post points out, the US and Afghanistan have not always agreed on how to proceed in the negotiations:

Clinton, who traveled to Kabul after visits to Libya and Oman, was scheduled to meet Thursday with President Hamid Karzai and other government and parliamentary leaders. Her trip comes at a time of increased tensions between U.S. and Afghan officials over how to pursue peace with the radical Islamist Taliban movement after a decade-long insurgency.

/snip/

U.S. officials are pushing for a negotiated settlement with the Taliban as a crucial step toward ending the conflict and have engaged in secret parallel talks with Taliban leaders, so far without success.

Karzai, who has criticized the secret U.S. talks, has urged a greater role for Pakistan in the reconciliation process, noting that many of the key Taliban commanders use Pakistan’s lawless tribal region as a base. The State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters, said Clinton “agrees with President Karzai that Pakistani cooperation is critical.”

Note that while differing on their approaches to negotiating with the Taliban, both Afghanistan and the US agree that Pakistan must do more to control militants, especially the Haqqani network.  However, the accusations of providing safe havens for the Haqqanis now seem to flow both directions:

High in the mountains, a nation’s troops are regularly attacked by insurgents who easily come and go from sanctuaries across a porous international border. Armed forces in the neighboring country, nominally an ally, do little to stop the rebels. Resentment in the capital is growing.

For several years, that is how frustrated U.S. official have described the challenge for the NATO coalition in Afghanistan, which, they say, is battling Taliban enemies who operate freely from hilly hideouts in next-door Pakistan, an American ally and aid recipient.

But in the past several months, Pakistan has turned the tables, adopting a mirror-image argument in its own defense.

According to this increasingly assertive account, Pakistani Taliban fighters flushed out by Pakistani military offensives have now settled into a security vacuum created by NATO forces in eastern Afghanistan whose attention is focused elsewhere. That territory, Pakistan contends, is the new regional hub for Islamist militants of all stripes, one that the U.S.-led coalition must better control to prevent attacks on American forces as well as strikes inside Pakistan.

It undoubtedly is no coincidence that NATO is in the midst of a campaign against these militants near the Pakistan border at the same time that Clinton and Petraeus will visit Pakistan.  In fact, the massing of NATO troops in the region is so large that many Pakistani newspapers have blared headlines warning of a massive ground invasion into Pakistan.  NATO is claiming that this campaign has killed 115 insurgents since its start on October 15.

This NATO action sets the stage for Clinton’s remarks in Kabul as she prepared to head to Islamabad today.  As reported by AFP and carried by Dawn:

“We are taking action against the Haqqanis. There was a major military operation inside Afghanistan in recent days,” she told a joint news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

/snip/

Clinton is later Thursday due in Pakistan, where she is to be joined by CIA chief David Petraeus and top US military officer Martin Dempsey.

“We intend to push the Pakistanis very hard as to what they are willing and able to do with us…to remove the safe havens and the continuing threats across the border to Afghans,” said Clinton.

And what good is a “new” effort at talks without a new catchphrase to go with it?  Reuters reports [this quote is from the 5:51 am version of the story which was changed at 7:42 am to no longer have the first two quoted paragraphs] that the new phrase is “fight, talk, build”:

Clinton will fly on to Islamabad, a U.S. official said, where she will also urge officials to work more closely with counterparts across the border. She presented a new summary of the mission in both countries: “fight, talk, build.”

The message is that all three countries should aim to fight against irreconcilable militants, talk with those willing to negotiate, and meanwhile keep building on the economic side.

“We’re going to be fighting, we’re going to be talking and we’re going to be building. And they can either be helping or hindering, but we are not going to stop our efforts,” Clinton said at a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

It seems puzzling to me that the Secretary of State should be sent out to gather support for “fight, talk, build” when the proper function of a State Department should be to make the case that with sufficient talking and building first, fighting might not be necessary.  After over ten years of fighting in Afghanistan, the US appears to be confirming with the choice of this phrase that it will fight first and ask questions later.  What could possibly go wrong with that approach?

Yesterday, I described how the Obama Administration was going to charge the banks just $8 billion for immunity from a whole new swath of crimes. Shahien Nasiripour has more details which make the deal look even shittier. First, the proposed deal does appear to provide states immunity not just from robo-signing and the lies banksters made at origination, but also for their securitization errors.

In return for getting the banks to agree to the refinancing scheme and give up higher interest income, the states would release the banks from civil claims related to loan originations, the stage at which many homeowners say they were duped by unscrupulous lenders.

Last month, state prosecutors proposed to effectively release the five big lenders from legal liability for allegedly wrongful securitisation practices related to the banks’ treatment of loan documents. Taken together, the release from liability over poor origination, securitisation, servicing and foreclosure practices could amount to an effective grant of immunity for the banks from civil claims, people familiar with the matter said.

And in exchange, the banks would pay 80% of their $25 billion penalty into a fund that the same people who botched HAMP would use to help just 1.36% of homeowners who are underwater on their homes.

About 150,000 borrowers could benefit from the refinancings, as the vast majority of US home loans are owned by investors and government-controlled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By comparison, nearly 11m US borrowers are underwater, according to CoreLogic, a data provider. The average underwater homeowner owes $258,000 on his mortgage.

In other words, all the settlement would do is help those who crashed our economy stay in business. The vast majority of their victims–and the US economy–would continue to pay the price for their crimes.

Here in the Midwest, we’ve got lions and tigers and bears running around today, and even other animals, like monkeys, that aren’t members of the NFC North.

In the Middle East, it seems everyone’s rolling out the usual suspects to impugn in the Scary Iran Plot. The most humorous is Bahrain’s use of David Ignatius to send Obama a message. Not only did Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid Al-Khalifa warn that, “This is really serious. It’s coming to your shores now” and repeat Saudi allegations that Gholam Shakuri had a role in opposition to the Bahraini King (though, in calling Shakuri only an “important ‘Iranian interlocutor’,” the Foreign Minister actually sounded more measured than the Saudis).

But then the Foreign Minister throws in a jab at Ahmad Chalabi.

Khalifa mentioned one more name of interest to American observers of the Middle East — the Iraqi Shiite politician Ahmed Chalabi. Lobbying by Chalabi played an important role in mobilizing the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003; since then he’s been jockeying for power in Baghdad and, increasingly, tilting toward Iran on regional issues.

The peripatetic Chalabi has now taken up the cause of Bahrain’s Shiite community, pressuring the government in Manama and even, at one point last spring when the political confrontation was intense there, proposing to organize a rescue “flotilla” to deliver aid, on the model of the Turkish flotilla that tried to enter Gaza last year.

“We would regard him as an Iranian agent, no doubt,” said Khalifa.

To be fair, this sounded like a throwaway, not a direct response to Scary Iran Plot. Except to the extent that Scary Iran Plot is about the Sunni-Shiite fight for hegemony in the Middle East, the one we first disturbed by going to war on Chalabi’s say-so.

Still, I was waiting for someone like Chalabi or Manucher Ghorbanifar or Michael Ledeen to show up in this tale, so I’m please to find Chalabi here, like an old friend.

The far more interesting development–as MadDog and lysias pointed out here–is the Iranian propaganda announcement that Gholam Shakuri is actually an MEK member.

Interpol has found new evidence showing that the number two suspect in connection with the alleged Iranian government’s involvement in a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington is a key member of the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), the Mehr News Agency has learnt.

Gholam Shakuri was last seen in Washington and Camp Ashraf in Iraq where MKO members are based.

The person in question has been travelling to different countries under the names of Ali Shakuri/Gholam Shakuri/Gholam-Hossein Shakuri by using fake passports including forged Iranian passports. One passport used by the person was issued on 30/11/2006 in Washington. The passport number was K10295631.

The accusation got picked up by the NYT, which in turn got a denial from the MEK.

The opposition group itself dismissed the Mehr report as nonsense. Shahin Gobadi, a spokesman, said in an e-mailed response that “this is a well-known tactic that has been used by the mullahs in the past 30 years where they blame their crimes on their opposition for double gains.”

So after we had the United States lecturing other countries about illegal assassinations and rule of law, we’ve got one terrorist organization (albeit one whose material supporters in the US rather remarkably aren’t treated like the material supporters of other terrorist organizations) accusing another terrorist organization of crimes.

There are times I’m really comforted that my neighborhood has nothing but Lions and Tigers and Bears running around.

My mom’s pretty stubborn (I come by it naturally). So in spite of the fact that I have been warning her to move her primary banking out of Bank of America into a solvent bank for over a year, she has yet to do so.

Which is why I’m so troubled that Bank of America is about to use my mom’s savings to back its derivatives counterparties.

Bank of America Corp. (BAC), hit by a credit downgrade last month, has moved derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a subsidiary flush with insured deposits, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. disagree over the transfers, which are being requested by counterparties, said the people, who asked to remain anonymous because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly. The Fed has signaled that it favors moving the derivatives to give relief to the bank holding company, while the FDIC, which would have to pay off depositors in the event of a bank failure, is objecting, said the people. The bank doesn’t believe regulatory approval is needed, said people with knowledge of its position.

Money’s fungible, right? That’s what the anti-choice people say, anyway. So what’s the big deal that BoA has taken Merrill Lynch’s exposure to the European mess and put that risk where mom keeps her retirement? Yves Smith explains. First, this will make it all-but-impossible to unwind Bank of America when it goes under without disrupting the personal accounts of people like my mom. Significantly, if those derivatives pay off (for example, if Greece defaults) or require more collateral (because BoA gets downgraded again), then counterparties would get their money before mom does.

The reason that commentators like Chris Whalen were relatively sanguine about Bank of America likely becoming insolvent as a result of eventual mortgage and other litigation losses is that it would be a holding company bankruptcy. The operating units, most importantly, the banks, would not be affected and could be spun out to a new entity or sold. Shareholders would be wiped out and holding company creditors (most important, bondholders) would take a hit by having their debt haircut and partly converted to equity.

This changes the picture completely. This move reflects either criminal incompetence or abject corruption by the Fed. Even though I’ve expressed my doubts as to whether Dodd Frank resolutions will work, dumping derivatives into depositaries pretty much guarantees a Dodd Frank resolution will fail. Remember the effect of the 2005 bankruptcy law revisions: derivatives counterparties are first in line, they get to grab assets first and leave everyone else to scramble for crumbs. So this move amounts to a direct transfer from derivatives counterparties of Merrill to the taxpayer, via the FDIC, which would have to make depositors whole after derivatives counterparties grabbed collateral. It’s well nigh impossible to have an orderly wind down in this scenario. You have a derivatives counterparty land grab and an abrupt insolvency. Lehman failed over a weekend after JP Morgan grabbed collateral. [Yves’ emphasis]

As Yves points out, this will quickly result in the depletion of FDIC’s deposit insurance to pay my mom back for the money the banksters snatched. She suggests that Congress will quickly vote to fund the Treasury so it can pay my mom–and millions of other Americans–to replace their insured funds.

But it’s even worse than that. During the savings & loan crisis, the FDIC did not have enough in deposit insurance receipts to pay for the Resolution Trust Corporation wind-down vehicle. It had to get more funding from Congress. This move paves the way for another TARP-style shakedown of taxpayers, this time to save depositors. No Congressman would dare vote against that. This move is Machiavellian, and just plain evil.

She’s probably right that even the most Do-Nothing Congress in American history will eventually fund Treasury. I’m just not convinced it’ll happen quickly, or without some really big hostages demanded, first.

Now, mom’s in pretty decent shape for a retiree–between some pensions and other retirement funds, she could wait out the Do-Nothing Congress. And heck, I’m even willing to lend mom a few bob, even if she is so stubborn.

But most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, and millions of them depend on what they’ve got deposited in Bank of America. It seems to me that Ben Bernanke has just unilaterally decided to make those BoA depositers lend banksters their life savings until such time as the Do-Nothing Congress gets around to fixing what are, as we speak, foreseeable and unacceptable consequences of this move.

Update: Jeebus I had a lot of typos in this. I hope I’ve gotten them all.