#2305: Marine Links Clinton Banker Base-One War Room To Serco’s Visas, Black-Hand Ammo And Rwandan Genocide
Plum City – (AbelDanger.net): United States Marine Field McConnell has linked the Clintons’ pay-to-play banker HSBC and Base One Technologies’ war room in the Bronx to Serco’s visa and Black Hand* ammo services to the French soldiers who allegedly fired a missile from the Kanombe military camp, downed the Falcon 50 of Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana on April 6, 1994 and triggered a Security Council vote, request by then-U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, to withdraw most of UNAMIR forces and stage the Rwandan Genocide.
Black Hand* – HSBC’s long-range drug and ammo navigators with a Serco “License to Track, Film and Kill” for the City of London’s Honourable Artillery Company 1537; Master Mariners and Air Pilots (formerly GAPAN) 1929, and Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts 1638 – whose alumni include U.S. Presidents James Monroe, Chester Alan Arthur, Calvin Coolidge and John F. Kennedy and – perhaps – Barack ‘Choom Gang’ Obama.
“Rwandan Genocide, April 1994 In what is recognized as Christopher’s greatest foreign policy mistake, the US and UN failed to react quickly enough to the unrest in Kigali which eventually exploded into the Rwandan Genocide. Over the course of approximately 100 days, from the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana on 6 April up until mid July, between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia.”
“EARLY WARNING SIGNALS Illicit Arms The country is flooded with weapons. Two beers will get you one grenade. – A Western Diplomat in Kigali .. The French newspaper, Le Figaro, has alleged that the serial numbers of the two surface-to-air missiles which struck the plane match those of missiles seized from Iraq by French troops during the Gulf War of 1991. The reporter, Patrick de Saint-Exupery, cited testimony from two anonymous officers of the French military, who claimed that the SAM-16 missiles, after being confiscated from Iraqi stockpiles, were sold to Rwandan government forces between November 1993 and February 1994 as part of a covert French policy labeled “le secret defense.” These missiles, smuggled into Rwanda from abroad, were just a small part of a massive weapons influx that violated the Ceasefire Agreement and created tremendous insecurity. Bernard Debre, the French Minister of Development at the time of the crash, repudiated the substance of the Le Figaro story and, in turn, accused the American State Department of supplying the missiles. Debre claimed that the two missiles were seized by American, not French, forces in the Gulf, and soon after sold to the neighboring country of Uganda. Yet he produced no concrete proof that would shift responsibility for the missiles away from the French government. And further evidence shows that the missile affair fits a broader pattern of acts of French favoritism to the Rwandan government.”
“[Kanombe] This is the area where Rwandan soldiers suddenly refused UNAMIR to enter during the day on 6 April. report prepared for the committee by Mike Warden and Alan McClue of the Department of Applied Science, Security and Resilience, Cranfield University, Defence Academy of the UK [operated by Serco!]. The online documentation of the committee’s work includes the formal contract that the committee signed with the two researchers, so that every part of it is transparent. In turn, the two presented a 109-page paper, often extremely technical, which concludes that the missiles must have been fired from the Kanombe area. Beyond dispute, this area was wholly controlled by Rwandan government forces. So the missiles were not fired from the area where those who blame the RPF say they came from, and they were fired from the area where only government soldiers (and French soldiers) could go. ….. 6. France’s cynical hand is felt throughout the committee’s report, as indeed it must be in any recounting of the genocide. French soldiers were allowed in to the Kanombe military base on 6 April, while Belgian UNAMIR soldiers were not. French soldiers were at the plane wreck within moments, going through the debris and looking for the black box, which they removed. French officials scrupulously followed the original extremist Hutu line of blaming the Belgians, along with the RPF, for the missile attack. When the accusation against the Belgians had lost any credibility, President Mitterrand’s senior Africa advisor, his chief of staff and the French ambassador to Rwanda all accused the RPF of responsibility. During the French parliamentary inquiry into the France’s role in the genocide, French officials were anxious to implicate the Ugandan government in the plane attack. Never did they suggest that their close allies among the Hutu extremists, many of whom have long been hiding in France, may have had the slightest involvement.”
McConnell notes that clients of Serco’s banker HSBC in Geneva financed the pay-to-play Base One war room in the Bronx, launched on February 15, 1994 by then-U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and financed the pay-to-play Clinton Foundation launched in 2001 before the Bin Laden Group’s 9/11 attacks.
McConnell notes that the Clintons outsourced war-room operations of the National Visa Center, the U.S. Defense Ammunition Center and the FAA Contract Towers to Serco operatives in 1994.
McConnell believes that Serco operatives used the Clinton banker’s Base One war room in the Bronx to procure the travel visas and Black Hand ammo needed by French soldiers for the coordinated missile attack on Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana’s plane on April 6, 1994 and by British soldiers (Blue Mountain) for the precision mortar attack on the CIA annex in Benghazi on 9/12/12.
“The United Nations Assistance Mission In Rwanda was a mission instituted by the United Nations to aid the implementation of the Arusha Accords, signed August 4, 1993, which were meant to end the Rwandan Civil War. The mission lasted from October 1993 to March 1996. Its activities were meant to aid the peace process between the Hutu-dominated Rwandese government and the Tutsi-dominated rebel Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).
The UNAMIR has received much attention for its role, or lack there of due to the limitations of its rules of engagement, in the Rwandan Genocide and outbreak of fighting. Its mandate extended past the RPF overthrow of the government and into the Great Lakes refugee crisis. The mission is thus regarded as a major failure.”
“An international cast of clients
The documents obtained by ICIJ are based on data originally smuggled away by a former HSBC employee-turned-whistleblower, Hervé Falciani, and handed to French authorities in 2008. Le Monde obtained material from the French tax authority investigation into the files and then shared the French tax authority’s material with ICIJ with the agreement that ICIJ would pull together a team of journalists from multiple countries that could sift through the data from all angles.
ICIJ enlisted more than 140 journalists from 45 countries, including reporters from Le Monde, the BBC, The Guardian, 60 Minutes, Süddeutsche Zeitung and more than 45 other media organizations.
The reporters found the names of current and former politicians from Britain, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Kenya, Romania, India, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Tunisia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Paraguay, Djibouti, Senegal, the Philippines and Algeria, among others. They found several people on the current U.S. sanctions list, such as Selim Alguadis, a Turkish businessman alleged to have supplied sophisticated electrical goods to Libya’s secret nuclear weapons project, and Gennady Timchenko, a billionaire associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin and one of the main targets of sanctions imposed on Russian individuals and businesses in response to the annexation of Crimea and the crisis in eastern Ukraine.”
The Young Leaders program is the flagship program of the French-American Foundation and continues to be central to the Foundation’s success in deepening understanding between France and the United States.The 2014 Young Leaders meeting took place on October 8-12, 2014 in Paris and Bordeaux.
… Young Leaders alumni include prominent Americans such as President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senators Evan Bayh and Bill Bradley, General Wesley Clark, former White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, former World Bank President Robert Zoellick, Oscar-winning filmmaker Charles Ferguson, and business leaders Frank Herringer (Transamerica Corporation) and John Thain (CIT Group).
Several Young Leaders currently serve in the cabinet of French President François Hollande, himself a Young Leader in 1996. Past French participants also include former Prime Minister Alain Juppé, former Higher Education Minister Valérie Pécresse, and several business leaders, including Henri de Castries (AXA), Alexandre de Juniac (Air France-KLM), Anne Lauvergeon (former Chair & CEO of AREVA), and Michel Bon (former CEO of France Télécom).
For more information about the program, please contact Irene Savvas at email@example.com.”
“Who killed the president of Rwanda?
2010-01-21, Issue 466
Printer friendly version
There is 1 comment on this article.
cc Wikimedia Debate over who was behind the assassination of Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana has raged for nearly 16 years, writes Gerald Caplan. But a new report, prepared by an ‘Independent Committee of Experts’ appointed by the government of Rwanda, makes ‘a major contribution to settling the great question of who was responsible’ for Habyarimana’s death on 6 April 1994, two days before the genocide began.
Has one of the great political murder mysteries of our time finally been solved? I’d say the answer is probably yes, although we can be confident the solution will be rejected by many.
On the evening of 6 April 1994, just as it was approaching Kigali, a plane carrying Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana home from Tanzania was shot down by missiles fired from the ground. Also on the flight was the president of Burundi, Cyprian Ntaryamira, as well as several high-level Rwandan political and military officials. But from the first movement there was no doubt that the target was Habyarimana. What was in doubt was the culprit, and on this the debate has raged furiously for the past almost 16 years.
To most of those who have studied the genocide, common sense always pointed to Hutu extremists in the Rwandan government and military. They passionately opposed the agreement that had been reached at Arusha, Tanzania, in mid-1993, for power to be shared among Habyarimana’s followers, other political parties, and the Tutsi-led rebels of the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF). To prevent this betrayal, the extremists had decided on a final solution – the extermination of the entire Tutsi minority in Rwanda, between 10 and 15 per cent of the population. When Habyarimana was about to capitulate to international pressure and implement these power-sharing arrangements, they murdered him and implemented their carefully-planned genocidal conspiracy.
This analysis seemed logical enough in all respects, but there has never been an official investigation of the crash or evidence beyond the circumstantial. In fact, from the first there was an alternative interpretation. It has always been quite counter-intuitive and based on dubious foundations, and yet has been embraced not only among those who deny the genocide entirely, but also, quite surprisingly, among those who are hostile for whatever reasons to the RPF and particularly its long-time leader and now Rwanda president, Paul Kagame.
From the moment the plane crashed, Hutu extremist propagandists, directed by hate-radio station RTLM and echoed by officials of the government of France, pointed the finger directly at the RPF. From time to time, Belgium was implicated by France, as was Uganda. Uganda’s only known connection to the crash was that it was an English-speaking country where the RPF had originally formed. But for France, speaking English is evidence enough of culpability when it comes to Africa.
It’s never been entirely clear what motive Kagame could have had for murdering Habyarimana at the very moment when the president intended to implement the Arusha Accords. The RPF had been the huge winner at Arusha, about to receive substantial political and military power. Conversely, Habyarimana’s officials were the great losers, about to surrender the monopoly on power and resources they had cherished for the previous two decades. How could the RPF benefit from the chaos, anarchy and lust for vengeance that was sure to follow Habyarimana’s assassination? The on-and-off again low-intensity civil war since 1990 had bogged down in a stalemate; why assume the hot war that was sure to follow the plane crash would lead to an RPF victory rather than an RPF rout, especially if France came in behind Habyarimana’s forces?
But if attributing the missile attack to the RPF didn’t make much sense, it was extremely functional to the Hutu extremists. If the RPF was guilty, it meant the attack on the plane was not the first step in the genocide plan. The killings of the subsequent 100 days could simply be put down to mass Hutu fury at the murder of their beloved president, and no genocide would have taken place. This spin has been the motive driving many of those who have busily spent the past decade and a half devising a multiplicity of ‘proofs’ to pin the evil deed on Kagame and his forces.
THE NEW REPORT
Now along comes a new document prepared by an ‘Independent Committee of Experts’ appointed by the government of Rwanda, with the explicit title Report of the Investigation into the Causes and Circumstances of and Responsibility for the Attack of 06/04/1994 against the Falcon 50 Rwandan Presidential Aeroplane [sic], Registration Number 9xR-NN. The head of the 7-person committee was Dr Jean Mutsinzi, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Rwanda, now a judge of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The other members are apparently lawyers or authorities on aircraft matters, but an annex offering their resumes is not unfortunately part of the commission’s report (which is easily available online at mutsinzireport.com).
In my view, the Commission’s report is largely persuasive. But you can immediately see how much more credible it would be if the members hadn’t all been Rwandans appointed by the Kagame government. I am confident that an independent commission appointed, say, by the African Union, would have delivered the same conclusions but with far more credibility. An obvious precedent was the OAU-appointed independent International Panel of Eminent Personalities (IPEP) whose report, Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide[ PDF], has achieved a certain authority. But I readily acknowledge that genocide deniers, Hutu extremists and Kagame-haters will reject any and all conclusions that give Kagame the benefit of the doubt, and the evidence be damned.
Perhaps that’s why his government consistently acts on its own, without waiting for external validation. It did the same with the report on the role of France in the genocide, delivered by a panel of Rwandans also appointed by the government and headed by well-known RPF militant. In my view its report was overwhelmingly accurate and appropriately damning for France. But I wished they had asked outside experts like Linda Melvern to undertake that project, to give it real international credibility. But that is not the way the Kagame government does things.
We are left, then, to judge the report on the plane crash on its merits, and in this respect it seems to me to have made a major contribution to settling the great question of who was responsible.
In a word, the ‘Committee of Experts’ documents the logic most of us have accepted since the start. They pin the blame directly and fully on a group of Hutu extremists who were simply not prepared to accept the power-sharing provisions of the Arusha Accords. In this sense, they prove a terrible point: The very agreement that was to bring harmony to Rwanda led directly to the genocide. This is a staggering truth for all those involved in conflict resolution and peace-making to conjure with.
The committee took two years to complete its report, which contains 169 pages plus many appendixes with countless documents, plus a ballistics report from staff at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom based at Cranfield University. Its members heard 557 witnesses, including former officials of the UN military mission to Rwanda at the time (UNAMIR ), former members of the Rwandan army and Presidential Guard under Habyarimana; and they perused post-genocide reports by Belgium, France and the United Nations, plus the work of western authors who have studied the genocide, plus the book written by UNAMIR’s head, General Romeo Dallaire, based on his experiences at the time. While all the authorities they consulted won’t be happy with the way their work has been used, an overwhelming consensus emerges from the Committee’s research and interviews.
Let me try to summarise briefly the main points of what is often lengthy, highly technical, and geography-specific material.
1. For months before Habyarimana’s assassination on 6 April 1994, rumours abounded that senior government and military officials in his own government were determined the Arusha Accords would never be implemented. These stories included specific suggestions that the President would be murdered if he dared to put their power-sharing arrangements into practice. For years we have known that radio station RTLM and Kangura, a small publication that functioned as the voice of Hutu extremism, had publicly stated that something dramatic was going to happen to Habyarimana in late March or early April.
In its cover story of December 1993, for example, Kangura declared that Habyarimana would be assassinated the following March. General Dallaire and others have cited the threat uttered at a social occasion on 4 April by Colonel Theoneste Bagosora, a leader of the extremists widely considered the mastermind of the genocide. ‘The only plausible solution for Rwanda,’ Bagosora said to a small group that included Dallaire’s senior Belgian aide, ‘appears to be the extermination of the Tutsi.’
What the new report adds to our knowledge is how widespread these stories were. Dozens of witnesses had heard them beginning late in 1993 and escalating through the early months of 1994. There was even a specific rumour that Habyarimana’s plane would be shot down. The President himself had heard such stories, it appears, as had the French crew that came with the Falcon 50 that President Mitterrand had gifted to Habyarimana (apparently that’s how a socialist president of France rewarded his favourite African presidents).
On 6 April Habyarimana flew to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, for a summit with fellow regional presidents. (The Burundian president, who had no luxury jet, made the fatal mistake of later hitching a ride home with Habyarimana via Kigali.) That summit is usually described as focusing on Rwanda. In fact, the new report informs us, it was about the unstable situations in both Rwanda and Burundi. Habyarimana began the meeting by telling his peers that he was implementing Arusha two days later, and the rest of the day was spent discussing Burundi’s extremely turbulent political crisis.
But if Habyarimana was aware of threats against his plane, why did Habyarimana agree to fly to Dar es Salaam that day? He could simply have told them by phone or through an emissary of his intentions to introduce the Arusha arrangements. Why did his pilots agree to fly him there? Why did some of the leading plotters against him, like his brother-in-law Colonel Elie Sagatwa, an extremist Hutu ironically in charge of the president’s personal security, agree to accompany him? All went down to their fiery deaths on 6 April, yet all apparently were aware of the risk. It is a glaring omission in the report that it never asks this obvious question, let alone attempts in any way to answer it.
Still, the fact remains that Hutu extremists were known to be furious at Habyarimana and were determined to stop the implementation of the Arusha Accords. Since the President announced explicitly on 2 April that he intended to swear in a new broadly-based coalition government on 8 April, it has always been logical to assume that attacking the plane on 6 April was the execution of their plan.
2. The RPF couldn’t have infiltrated anti-aircraft missiles and missile launchers into Kigali. It could not have smuggled them into Parliament, where an RPF contingent was temporarily billeted, as agreed by the Arusha Accords. It could not have then snuck them to the area where those who blame the RPF claim the missiles were fired. The committee establishes persuasively that both UNAMIR (United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda) and above all the Rwandan army maintained very close surveillance of the RPF troops holed up in the parliament building, and these monitors could not possibly have missed the activity required to bring the missiles in, set them up and fire them. The committee also shows that the alleged firing area was constantly patrolled by Rwandan troops and no RPF soldiers carrying missiles and launchers could have infiltrated the area without being spotted.
3. The missiles could only have been fired from an area near the Kanombe military camp, the President’s home, and the main Kigali airport, and this entire area was completely controlled by the Rwandan army. This is the area where Rwandan soldiers suddenly refused UNAMIR to enter during the day on 6 April. This key conclusion by the committee is based on a large number of eyewitnesses and what it calls ear witnesses, including pre-genocide Rwandan soldiers, employees of the adjacent airport where the plane was to land, and soldiers from UNAMIR and the Belgian Military Technical Cooperation.
Perhaps most significantly, it’s also the conclusion of the report prepared for the committee by Mike Warden and Alan McClue of the Department of Applied Science, Security and Resilience, Cranfield University, Defence Academy of the UK.
The online documentation of the committee’s work includes the formal contract that the committee signed with the two researchers, so that every part of it is transparent. In turn, the two presented a 109-page paper, often extremely technical, which concludes that the missiles must have been fired from the Kanombe area. Beyond dispute, this area was wholly controlled by Rwandan government forces. So the missiles were not fired from the area where those who blame the RPF say they came from, and they were fired from the area where only government soldiers (and French soldiers) could go.
It is hard to imagine staff at the Defence Academy of the UK exaggerating or falsifying their conclusions. It therefore seems to me that this independent ballistics report adds great credibility to the findings of the Committee of Experts, with which it of course concurs.
4. The committee shows that the Rwandan army possessed the kind of surface-to-air missiles that might have shot down the Focus 50, even though earlier reports, especially from France, claimed they did not. Conversely, it shows that the repeated assertion by those who blame the RPF – that Kagame’s rebels received the missiles from Uganda (who got them from Russia) – is wrong and based on a deliberate deception at the time by Rwandan government soldiers, which enemies of the RPF have been only too happy to swallow.
6. Colonel Theoneste Bagosora is named as the instigator both of the attack on Habyarimana’s plane and the genocide that it triggered, as planned. This corroborates the widespread view of Bagosora’s role by everyone from General Dallaire to many of the historians of the genocide to the justices at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, who found Bagosora guilty of genocide and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
5. In the process of their report, the committee does a useful job of discrediting the hatchet job performed on the RPF by French Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere in his own 2006 report on the plane crash. Bruguiere, following completely the script long favoured by the French establishment, baldy accused Kagame and the RPF of shooting down the plane in order, somehow, to take power in Rwanda.
Bruguiere’s research was always problematic, to say the least. He relied on alleged eyewitness who were dissident Tutsi RPF members, with plenty of motive to malign the RPF. Some of these have since recanted their accusations against Kagame and the RPF or claim they never said what Bruguiere claims they said. And while the judge, remarkably, never went to Rwanda to investigate the crash site or to interview anyone in the RPF government or army whom he indicted, he did go to Arusha to interview men being held by the ICTR for their alleged role in the genocide. This included Colonel Bagosora himself, who even before his formal conviction was almost universally believed to have been a leader of the genocide. At one stage Bruguiere writes of a particular matter: ‘The real nature of the message…was also confirmed by the evidence in Arusha from former FAR soldiers [Habyarimana’s army].’ He names four of these soldiers, including Colonel Theoneste Bagosora. This would be akin to asking P. W. Botha about apartheid and not asking Nelson Mandela.
6. France’s cynical hand is felt throughout the committee’s report, as indeed it must be in any recounting of the genocide. French soldiers were allowed in to the Kanombe military base on 6 April, while Belgian UNAMIR soldiers were not. French soldiers were at the plane wreck within moments, going through the debris and looking for the black box, which they removed. French officials scrupulously followed the original extremist Hutu line of blaming the Belgians, along with the RPF, for the missile attack. When the accusation against the Belgians had lost any credibility, President Mitterrand’s senior Africa advisor, his chief of staff and the French ambassador to Rwanda all accused the RPF of responsibility. During the French parliamentary inquiry into the France’s role in the genocide, French officials were anxious to implicate the Ugandan government in the plane attack. Never did they suggest that their close allies among the Hutu extremists, many of whom have long been hiding in France, may have had the slightest involvement.
As one former western diploma has put it, ‘In an ideal world, France would apologise to Rwanda, put 20 former senior French officials in the dock, and extradite 15 or 20 genocidaires living in France.’ We will see whether the recent France-Rwanda rapprochement will usher in a more ideal world.
The report of the Committee of Experts could have been better (although I dare say this is true of every report ever written). The organisation and the writing are sometimes confusing. Loose ends are left hanging, not least obscure references to three ‘whites’ who somehow might have been involved in the attack on Habyarimana’s plane. At times it seems the plot to assassinate the president was hatched in late 1993, elsewhere that it all happened in the first few days of April 1994. It fails to analyse why Habyarimana agreed to fly to Dar es Salaam on 6 April even in the face of explicit death threats.
Despite an obvious attempt to be objective, its biases occasionally slip out. The committee asserts that ‘the practice of genocide against the Tutsi’ was initiated by the first Hutu-dominated government in the early 1960s, and that 1994 was ‘the final stage of genocide’. This is bad, partisan history that is accepted by no reputable historians of whom I’m aware. The fact is the massacres launched against the Tutsi after 1959 stopped after Habyarimana’s coup in 1973 and didn’t begin again until 17 years later, with the RPF invasion of Rwanda. Those early killings were terrible, but they were just that – massacres, pogroms, not the first stage in a 45-year plan exterminate all Tutsi. The final genocidal plot only began some time after the 1990 RPF invasion.
These flaws reduce the authoritativeness of this report. They will be jumped all over by those who will never accept any conclusion that fails to blame Kagame and the RPF for Habyarimana’s murder. So there’s no point whatever in trying to prove anything else to these deniers and extremists. They have no interest in the truth.
But for those genuinely searching for the most convincing answer to this great political murder mystery, the strengths of the committee’s report overwhelmingly outweigh its few unfortunate flaws. Of course it would still be best to have the definitive report by a truly independent group of international experts. But until we do, the conclusions of this report should stand. And if there ever were an independent external study, I’m confident its conclusions would echo those of this Rwandan committee of experts:
‘We know who shot Habyarimana’s plane down. We know why they did it. We know how they did it. And we know that they came within an inch of success in their diabolical plan. Before they were defeated, the Hutu extremists who assassinated President Habyarimana wiped out thousands of decent Hutu who wouldn’t go along with their fiendish plot and three-quarters of their country’s Tutsi. The attack on the president’s plane was the opening shot in one of the purest genocides of the past 100 years, launched for no better reason than the greed of a few power-hungry Hutu fanatics. It was one of the greatest man-made tragedies of our time.’
BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Gerald Caplan has a PhD in African history. He recently published The Betrayal of Africa.
* Please send comments to firstname.lastname@example.org or comment online at Pambazuka News.”
“Information Security Services
Information Security Planning is the process whereby an organization seeks to protect its operations and assets from data theft or computer hackers that seek to obtain unauthorized information or sabotage business operations. Without a properly planned and managed Information Security Plan, an organization runs the risk of law suits, loss of data, compromised operations and loss of reputation. Our experts have secured some of the world largest and most complex commercial and carrier networks, as well as conducted extensive analysis and implementation work on some of the Federal Government’s most sensitive and critical environments, such as the FAA.
Base One Technologies takes your information security needs seriously! We conduct business analysis, install solutions and protect your network from unauthorized entry and data loss. We are there in the beginning to provide guidance and support to your data security program, through to implementation and eventually during the support life cycle providing process and procedures for incident reporting, analysis and counter measures.
Key Clients Benefiting From Our Information Security Expertise:
Base One Technologies
Expertly researches, designs, and develops information security policies that protect your data and manage your firm’s information technology risk at levels acceptable to your business.
Performs architectural assessments and conducts both internal and external penetration testing. The results of these efforts culminate in an extensive risk analysis and vulnerabilities report.
Develops and implements multi-layer Information Security Solutions, practices and procedures. We deploy Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) and IP Security with VPN solutions using Cisco routers, Frame Relay, firewalls, address and port translation, obscurity standards and authentication technologies (AAA, 3DES, TACACS, etcŠ), to enhance and meet the level of Data Security required for global organizations.
Conducts IT Security and Risk Assessment in Federal government as well as security testing, implementing security for multiple platforms and operating systems around the world.
Ability to conduct business process analysis to provide technical security countermeasures, risk management and data communications security planning for large organizations.
Provides computer security integration for web server and traditional client-server based applications. We secure environments up to as many layers as required by our clients’ policies, industry practices, and regulating bodies – including the desktop and user experience as required.
Develops, implements and supports Information Security Counter measures such as honey-pots and evidence logging and incident documentation processes and solutions.”
111 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
Base One Technologies, Ltd. is a DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION, located in New York, NY and was formed on Feb 15, 1994. This file was obtained from the Secretary of State and has a file number of 1795583.
This business was created 7,695 days ago in the New York SOS Office and the registered agent is C T Corporation System that does business at 111 Eighth Avenue , New York in New York.
After conducting a search for principals and owners of Base One Technologies, Ltd., we were able to find 2 owners and/or executives. Their information is listed below.
This file was last updated on May 14, 2013.
Liza R Zaneri
Chief Executive Officer
15 Irving Place
New Rochelle, NY 10801
Liza R Zaneri
Principal Executive Office
15 Irving Place
New Rochelle, NY 10801
xxxC T Corporation System
111 EIGHTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10011
“SOURCE: Base One Technologies
September 02, 2008 09:00 ET
Base One Technologies, Inc. Continues Operations in Government Space
NEW ROCHELLE, NY–(Marketwire – September 2, 2008) – Base One Technologies, Inc. is pleased to announce that it has sold its affiliate, Base One Technologies Ltd., to Apptis Inc. Base One Technologies, Inc. will continue to compete in the government space as an 8(a), HubZone and Woman Owned Small Disadvantage Company. Base One Technologies, Inc. is an IT Engineering and Technical Services company founded in 1994. Base One has a Top Secret Facilities Clearance and specializes in: Enterprise Architecture, Network Infrastructure Support, Data Security, Software & Database Services, Disaster Recovery & Contingency Planning, and Independent Validation & Verification. Base One is a privately-held organization with headquarters in New Rochelle, NY. For more information visit: www.base-one.com.
About Base One Technologies
Base One Technologies, Inc. is an IT Engineering and Technical Services company certified as an 8(a), Woman Owned, SDB, HUBZone Business. Founded in 1994, Base One has a Top Secret Facilities Clearance and specializes in: Enterprise Architecture, Network Infrastructure Support, Data Security, Software & Database Services, Disaster Recovery & Contingency Planning, and Independent Validation & Verification. Please visit www.base-one.com for more information.
Liza R. Zaneri
Base One Technologies
914 633-0200 x205
“Serco’s Office of Partner Relations (OPR) helps facilitate our aggressive small business utilization and growth strategies. Through the OPR, Serco mentors four local small businesses under formal Mentor Protégé Agreements: Three sponsored by DHS (Base One Technologies, TSymmetry, Inc., and HeiTech Services, Inc.,) and the fourth sponsored by GSA (DKW Communications, Inc.). Serco and HeiTech Services were awarded the 2007 DHS Mentor Protégé Team Award for exceeding our mentoring goals.“
“Opened in 1994 as the successor to the Transitional Immigrant Visa Processing Center in Rosslyn, Va., the NVC centralizes all immigrant visa preprocessing and appointment scheduling for overseas posts. The NVC collects paperwork and fees before forwarding a case, ready for adjudication, to the responsible post.
The center also handles immigrant and fiancé visa petitions, and while it does not adjudicate visa applications, it provides technical assistance and support to visa-adjudicating consular officials overseas.
Only two Foreign Service officers, the director and deputy director, work at the center, along with just five Civil Service employees. They work with almost 500 contract employees doing preprocessing of visas, making the center one of the largest employers in the Portsmouth area.
The contractor, Serco, Inc., has worked with the NVC since its inception and with the Department for almost 18 years.
The NVC houses more than 2.6 million immigrant visa files, receives almost two million pieces of mail per year and received more than half a million petitions from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in 2011. Its file rooms‘ high-density shelves are stacked floor-to-ceiling with files, each a collection of someone’s hopes and dreams and each requiring proper handling.
The NVC also preprocesses the chief of mission (COM) application required for the filing of a petition for a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV). Such visas, for foreign nationals who have performed services for the U.S. government in Iraq and Afghanistan, require COM concurrence before the applicant can file a petition with USCIS. The NVC collects the requisite documents from such applicants and, when complete, forwards the package to the U.S. embassies in Baghdad or Kabul for COM approval”
“Update on Serco’s Strategy Review including the Contract & Balance Sheet Reviews; capital structure and funding; latest trading and outlook
Date : 10 November 2014
THIS ANNOUNCEMENT AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS RESTRICTED AND IS NOT FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN, INTO OR FROM THE UNITED STATES, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, SOUTH AFRICA OR ANY OTHER JURISDICTION IN WHICH THE SAME WOULD BE UNLAWFUL. PLEASE SEE THE IMPORTANT NOTICE AT THE END OF THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.
… Strategy Review: Serco’s future to be as an international B2G business. A successful, innovative and market-leading provider of services to Governments. Core sectors: Justice & Immigration, Defence, Transport, Citizen Services and Healthcare.
In the Americas Division, our work for the US Affordable [Obama] Care Act (ACA) has begun an expanded first option year. Other awards in the period included: career transition services for US soldiers; health outreach services for the US Naval Reserve; deployable medical systems solutions also for the Navy; and two contracts for fleet maintenance services for commercial clients. In total, the ACA and all other awards in the period are valued at over $550m. Meanwhile, our contract supporting the Department of State’s National Visa Center and Kentucky Consular Center (NVC/KCC) came to an end during the period, as did some Acquisition and Program Management support work for US intelligence agency customers. C4I2TSR services for the US Air Force and Naval installation task order work under the Sea Enterprise frameworks are also reducing. …
For further information please contact Serco:
Stuart Ford, Head of Investor Relations T +44 (0) 1256 386 227
Marcus De Ville, Head of Media Relations T +44 (0) 1256 386 226
Jonathan Glass, Brunswick T +44 (0) 207 404 5959
Analyst and institutional investor meeting…….
Download PDF [PDF, 387 KB] (Please note: this link will open the page in a new browser window)”
“The Crimes of Citibank… More CIA Connections CITIBANK’S SENIOR MANAGER FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NORA SLATKIN PLAYED KEY ROLE IN JOHN DEUTCH INVESTIGATION – FORMER NUMBER 3 AT CIA
By Michael C. Ruppert – www.copvcia.com
[From the May 31, 2001 issue of “From The Wilderness”]
Special to NarcoNews – As the remaining unbiased press of the Western Hemisphere, and especially of Latin America, rises in outrage at the announced May 17 purchase of Mexico’s giant Banacci Group (Banamex) by Citigroup, more skeletons come stampeding out of the Citigroup closet. Both banks have been firmly connected to drug money laundering and Banamex owner Roberto Hernandez owns land near Cancun, Mexico that is commonly referred to as “the cocaine peninsula.” President Bill Clinton vacationed on the Hernandez property in the summer of 2000.
Taken collectively these skeletons reveal a well-defined financial and intelligence infrastructure that appears tailor-made for the global management of the drug trade’s billions of dollars in illegal revenue along with the additional billions of dollars generated annually by the illegal looting of national economies by government officials.
One of these skeletons is Nora Slatkin. Having risen to a post as Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition in 1995 she resigned and was immediately appointed as the Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Executive Director is the number three position at Langley and is responsible for all Agency operations. Her boss was then Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and current Citigroup Board Member John Deutch. The timeline – as compiled from stories in The New York Times, The Washington Post and AP and the CIA’s web site – around her tenure at CIA and of her transition to Citigroup is most revealing.
May 10, 1995 – John Deutch sworn in as DCI.
May 19, 1995 – The Senate announces that Nora Slatkin is leaving the Department of Defense (Assistant Secretary of the Navy) to join the CIA as Executive Director.
December 15, 1996 – Deutch resigns as DCI.
December 17, 1996 – A CIA computer security official visits Deutch’s home and discovers thousands of pages of classified documents on unsecured (CIA) Macintosh computers. Almost immediately the CIA General Counsel, Tom O’Neil and Nora Slatkin are advised of the breach. Slatkin advises DCI Tenet.
December, 1996 – Deutch joins the Board at Citigroup.
Dec 20, 1996 – Deutch begins deleting files from his computers.
January, 1997 – CIA security officials complain to Slatkin that O’Neil is dragging his feet. Slatkin takes no action in response, except to “hold discussions.” Deutch refuses to be interviewed by security staff.
Summer, 1997 – The CIA security staff completes a report on Deutch which languishes in the security office awaiting action.
Fall, 1997 – Claiming ignorance of the security office’s investigation, DCI Tenet grants Deutch new security clearances.
October, 1997 – On Deutch’s recommendation Slatkin also joins the Board at Citigroup. Her current title – Senior Manger of Government Relations.
December, 1997 – Because the Justice Department has not been notified, a one-year statute of limitations for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Deutch lapses
March, 1998 – After seven years of service, CIA Inspector General Frederick P. Hitz retires to assume the Goldman Sachs Chair on International Intelligence at Princeton University. He later tells The New York Times that he assumed that his successor, Britt Snider, would advise the Department of Justice as to Deutch’s possible criminal mishandling of CIA records. Oops!
April, 1999 – Janet Reno’s Justice Department declines to prosecute Deutch while nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee languishes in jail for similar violations.
February, 2000 – After a CIA Inspector General’s report on Deutch’s conduct leaks to the press Janet Reno reopens the investigation. Prosecutor Paul Coffey recommends criminal charges.
March, 2000 – Slatkin and Hitz contradict Tenet and state that he was much more involved than previously admitted.
Summer/Fall 2000 – The criminal investigation of Deutch inches ahead in secret. Fears mount that John Ashcroft, as Bush Attorney general, will aggressively pursue criminal charges.
January 20, 2001 – On his last day in office President Clinton pardons Citibank Director John Deutch.
Given the enormity of documentation on Citibank’s direct involvement with drug and criminal money laundering and the extraordinarily detailed investigations by journalist Al Giordano at www.narconews.com, several questions become obvious. Giordano’s translation of Spanish language reports on the on again, off again relationship between Citibank and Peruvian CIA backed strongman Vladimiro Montesinos, suggest that CIA tells Citibank which criminal clients are acceptable for Private Banking money laundering activities. Clearly, the timeline implies that Slatkin’s hiring at Citibank was a quid pro quo for her services in stalling the Deutch investigation. But more so it raises the question as to whether Slatkin is the CIA liaison at Citigroup to open approved channels for money laundering.
Also, it must be asked whether or not there is a partisan flavor to Citigroup’s activities. All of the players here were Democratic Party apparatchiks. Is the Democratic Party the sole beneficiary of Citigroup criminal money laundering? Much will be revealed when the Bush Administration weighs in on the Banamex acquisition.
JOHN DEUTCH AND WALL STREET
John M. Deutch is listed as a current director of the following corporations that are registered with the SEC:
Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc.
CMS Energy Corp
Cummins Engine Co Inc
He is also involved with the following ventures (some offshoots of above corporations) as an investor and/or officer:
Allied Digital Technologies Corp
Analog Acquisition Corp
Buenos Aires Bottling Co Inc
Citicorp Mortgage Securities Inc
CMS Energy Trust II
CMS Energy X Tras Pass Through Trust I
Consumers Energy Co
Cort Business Services Corp
Davco Restaurants Inc
Delco Remy International Inc
Galey & Lord Inc.
GNI Group Inc
Green I Acquisition Corp
Hudson Hotels Corp
Landmark Fixed Income Funds/MA/
Landmark Funds I
Landmark Funds II
Landmark Tax Free Income Funds
Palomar Medical Technologies Inc.
Sybron Chemicals Inc.
Tower Automotive Inc
Travelers Group Inc”
Field McConnell, United States Naval Academy, 1971; Forensic Economist; 30 year airline and 22 year military pilot; 23,000 hours of safety; Tel: 715 307 8222
David Hawkins Tel: 604 542-0891 Forensic Economist; former leader of oil-well blow-out teams; now sponsors Grand Juries in CSI Crime and Safety Investigation