date:20030319

Lawry,

I just heard it on CNN today.   That is about all I can give you.

REH


- Original Message -
From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court


> This IS interesting. Thanks for the mention of this, Ray.  I wonder how
the
> terms of their roles are framed. Any info on that?  What authority might
the
> legal aides have? What monitoring and reporting duties? What consultative
> roles?  Very interesting...
>
> L
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ray Evans
> > Harrell
> > Sent: Wed, March 19, 2003 8:48 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court
> >
> >
> > Its interesting that the war crimes issue has taken hold.We have
> > assigned legal aids to travel with the troops to make sure they avoid
> > obvious mistakes.
> >
> > REH
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:19 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court
> >
> >
> > > Leaving aside the matter of what they may or may not have done, the
> > problem
> > > with the idea of 'hauling' anyone before a court is that one must have
> > > custody of the perpetrators first. The US and UK are unlikely
> > to lose this
> > > war militarily (though I believe they will suffer a great
> > defeat in other
> > > ways) and so their leaders should remain beyond the reach of any
> > > international court.
> > >
> > > 'Excessive' death of innocents through the choice of military
strategies
> > and
> > > tactics that can forseeably have had that effect would qualify as a
war
> > > crime.  The precedent on this is clear and compelling.  I would
predict
> > that
> > > in the same way some Serbs, Bosnians, Kissinger, and Sharon
> > restrict their
> > > international travel for fear of being placed under the administrative
> > > control of a court and tried for war crimes, that President
> > Bush and some
> > > others (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Elliot Abrams?) may do the
> > same.
> > >
> > > It is a very sad thing that seems about to happen, for everyone. No
one
> > will
> > > 'win, in this, and many innocents will  be harmed.
> > >
> > > There is a general sense of sadness, here in the US capital,
> > among people
> > > who know what is going on.  They are saddened by seeing a US
government
> > > handle itself in this way, and sad for the Iraqi people. And
> > they are not
> > > understanding how it could have gone so wrong.  This includes people
who
> > > until recently, when it still seemed to them like a game, backed Bush
> > > without reservation. Many of these people have now abandoned
> > Bush, if only
> > > by raising worries and concerns that they so steadfastly
> > ignored earlier.
> > > Even the architects of this disastrous policy seem shaken and without
> > > energy.
> > >
> > > Lawry
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith
Hudson
> > > > Sent: Wed, March 19, 2003 3:05 AM
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unless the very greatest care has been taken in the choice of
targets
> > that
> > > > are going to be bombed in Iraq tomorrow morning, I wouldn't be at
all
> > > > surprised if Bush and Blair will not be hauled before an
international
> > > > court of war crimes in due course. This may be ten or twenty
> > > > years down the
> > > > line, but the way that the body of international law is
> > > > developing, I think
> > > > it's more likely than not.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that Bush and Blair will be old men then won't be relevant.
A
> > > > couple of years ago, General Pinochet in his 80s was almost brought
to
> > > > trial for crimes against civilians 20/30 years previously. More
> > > > recently, a
> > > > couple of Argentinian Generals have been indicted for crimes against
> > "the
> > > > disappeared" of 20 years ago. And, of course, Milosevich is
> > being tried
> > at
> > > > this time for his crimes over many years.
> > > >
> > > > International law at present is rather more similar to common law or
> > > > mercantile law in times past than statutory law. It doesn't need
> > > > pre-existing legislative bodies or courts of law or specific
> > authorities.
> > > > It grows and develops according to ethical notions that take shape
and
> > > > clarify among those who are more directly affected and scholars
> > > > who take an
> > > > interest. The various institutional devices that are necessary
> > > > for the more
> > > > precise formulation of the crime, its prosecution and its punishment
> > tend
> > > > to follow rather than precede the law itself.

[Futurework] Keeping an asymmetrical eye on the horizon

Robert Wright,
author of “Nonzero” goes over several Dubious and Valid Fears concerning Operation Iraqi Freedom

The sum of all fears

Dissecting worries, dubious and valid, about the war

By Robert Wright SLATE.COM @ http://www.msnbc.com/news/886922.asp?0dm=C18RO

March
18 — Brace yourself for a round of
I-told-you-so’s from Iraq hawks. And blame it partly on Iraq doves. In trying
to head off war, some doves have warned of nightmarish consequences that are in
fact not all that likely, thus setting the stage for a postwar public relations
triumph by hawks. That’s too bad
because for every dubious nightmare scenario there’s a more valid and equally
harrowing worry about the effects of the coming war.

WAR WORRIES
Dubious fear No. 1:
The war will be long and messy. Once the
inevitability of the war’s outcome becomes clear — within the first week or two
— Saddam Hussein will have trouble preserving loyalty and may have trouble
preserving his life. Sustained and widespread street fighting in Baghdad is
unlikely. Streetside crowds of Iraqis cheering American and British soldiers
are virtually guaranteed.

Valid fear No. 1:
The postwar occupation will be very long and
increasingly messy.

The crowds who cheer us this spring will want us out by next spring.
But we won’t leave because, regardless of whether Iraqis are ready for
democracy, President Bush won’t be. If there’s one thing that will scare this
administration as much as Iraq being run by a ruthless dictator, it’s Iraq
being run by millions of Iraqis. The reason isn’t just that they’re Muslims, a
group not currently known for its ardent pro-Americanism. (Iraqi Muslims are
said to be on balance more secular, less amenable to radical Islam, than some
others.) There is also pent-up anger over the years of U.N. sanctions that
Iraqis blame on America. More generally, there is the inherent unpredictability
of popular sentiment in a nascent, ethnically fragmented democracy recovering
from trauma-and encountering such culturally disruptive influences as the
Internet after decades of seclusion from the outside world. A year from now,
with American troops still in Baghdad, conservatives will find it hard to keep
laughing off charges of American imperialism.

Dubious fear No. 2:
The war will unleash a wave of terrorism in
America. There probably will be some terrorism, but if al-Qaida or
anyone else were capable of unleashing much of it on American soil at this
moment, America would probably have seen something other than unbroken
tranquility since 9/11.

Valid fear No. 2: The war will unleash time-release terrorism. How many
teen-age Muslims will see video of dead Iraqi civilians and decide to commit
their lives to radical Islam? I don’t know, but if they’re smart and ambitious,
it doesn’t take many to have a big future impact. The problem is deepened by
the Bush administration’s inept diplomacy, which has made the war more
unpopular in Europe than was necessary. With European elites opposing the war,
international news outlets such as the BBC will dwell inordinately on images of
“collateral damage.”

Dubious fear No. 3:
The “Arab street” will boil over, overthrowing
friendly regimes. It’s true that Al Jazeera and the spread of such
grass-roots organizing technologies as e-mail and cell phones make Muslim
opinion more volatile and powerful than it was during the Persian Gulf War. And
this war, less clearly justified and less widely supported than both the Gulf
War and the war in Afghanistan, will naturally rile more Muslims than they did.
This is especially scary in the case of Pakistan, given its nuclear arsenal — a
fact that a more judicious president would have pondered long and hard before starting
a war. Still, authoritarian governments are remarkably good at exerting
authority. Chances are we won’t see an out-and-out overthrow during the war,
especially given the war’s likely brevity.

Valid fear No. 3:
The aforementioned length of the Iraqi
occupation will give the “Arab street” an ongoing energy boost. The lingering
presence of an infidel army will help radical agitators throughout the Muslim
world, both in their continued recruiting of anti-American terrorists and in
their recruiting of rebels to overthrow pro-American regimes (goals aided
anyway by the spread of information technologies). The deposing of these
regimes may be ultimately good — a step toward democratization. But that step
can be long and chaotic, as Iran has been illustrating for years. So, however
big the eventual payoff of a revolution, it would be best if in the meanwhile,
anti-Americanism weren’t its driving force. Neocons who hope that war triggers
a chain reaction of Arab democratization may not have reckoned with exactly how
that’s most likely to happen.

Dubious fear No. 4: Saddam Hussein, with his back against the wall, will pull out his
weapons of mass destruction, possibly prompting the use of nukes by Israel or
the United States. Saddam doesn’t hav

[Futurework] FW: CNN Breaking News

2003-03-19 Thread Cordell . Arthur



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CNN Breaking News


-- White House says, "The opening stages of the disarmament of the Iraqi
regime have begun." President Bush to address nation at 10:15 p.m.
Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com /AOL Keyword: CNN for the latest news.

***
IRAQ TRACKER: THE ALL-IRAQ NEWSCAST, A QUICKCAST SPECIAL EDITION
GET IT NOW > GET IT FAST > http://www.cnn.com/quickcast/iraq/
***


To unsubscribe from CNN.com's Breaking News E-Mail Alert, log on to:
http://cnn.com/EMAIL/breakingnews.html, go to http://cnn.com/email to
sign up for additional e-mail products

(c)2003. Cable News Network, LP, LLLP.
An AOL Time Warner Company.
All Rights Reserved.




CNN Interactive email id:402421530321310
___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

RE: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court

This IS interesting. Thanks for the mention of this, Ray.  I wonder how the
terms of their roles are framed. Any info on that?  What authority might the
legal aides have? What monitoring and reporting duties? What consultative
roles?  Very interesting...

L

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ray Evans
> Harrell
> Sent: Wed, March 19, 2003 8:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court
>
>
> Its interesting that the war crimes issue has taken hold.We have
> assigned legal aids to travel with the troops to make sure they avoid
> obvious mistakes.
>
> REH
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:19 PM
> Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court
>
>
> > Leaving aside the matter of what they may or may not have done, the
> problem
> > with the idea of 'hauling' anyone before a court is that one must have
> > custody of the perpetrators first. The US and UK are unlikely
> to lose this
> > war militarily (though I believe they will suffer a great
> defeat in other
> > ways) and so their leaders should remain beyond the reach of any
> > international court.
> >
> > 'Excessive' death of innocents through the choice of military strategies
> and
> > tactics that can forseeably have had that effect would qualify as a war
> > crime.  The precedent on this is clear and compelling.  I would predict
> that
> > in the same way some Serbs, Bosnians, Kissinger, and Sharon
> restrict their
> > international travel for fear of being placed under the administrative
> > control of a court and tried for war crimes, that President
> Bush and some
> > others (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Elliot Abrams?) may do the
> same.
> >
> > It is a very sad thing that seems about to happen, for everyone. No one
> will
> > 'win, in this, and many innocents will  be harmed.
> >
> > There is a general sense of sadness, here in the US capital,
> among people
> > who know what is going on.  They are saddened by seeing a US government
> > handle itself in this way, and sad for the Iraqi people. And
> they are not
> > understanding how it could have gone so wrong.  This includes people who
> > until recently, when it still seemed to them like a game, backed Bush
> > without reservation. Many of these people have now abandoned
> Bush, if only
> > by raising worries and concerns that they so steadfastly
> ignored earlier.
> > Even the architects of this disastrous policy seem shaken and without
> > energy.
> >
> > Lawry
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Hudson
> > > Sent: Wed, March 19, 2003 3:05 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court
> > >
> > >
> > > Unless the very greatest care has been taken in the choice of targets
> that
> > > are going to be bombed in Iraq tomorrow morning, I wouldn't be at all
> > > surprised if Bush and Blair will not be hauled before an international
> > > court of war crimes in due course. This may be ten or twenty
> > > years down the
> > > line, but the way that the body of international law is
> > > developing, I think
> > > it's more likely than not.
> > >
> > > The fact that Bush and Blair will be old men then won't be relevant. A
> > > couple of years ago, General Pinochet in his 80s was almost brought to
> > > trial for crimes against civilians 20/30 years previously. More
> > > recently, a
> > > couple of Argentinian Generals have been indicted for crimes against
> "the
> > > disappeared" of 20 years ago. And, of course, Milosevich is
> being tried
> at
> > > this time for his crimes over many years.
> > >
> > > International law at present is rather more similar to common law or
> > > mercantile law in times past than statutory law. It doesn't need
> > > pre-existing legislative bodies or courts of law or specific
> authorities.
> > > It grows and develops according to ethical notions that take shape and
> > > clarify among those who are more directly affected and scholars
> > > who take an
> > > interest. The various institutional devices that are necessary
> > > for the more
> > > precise formulation of the crime, its prosecution and its punishment
> tend
> > > to follow rather than precede the law itself.
> > >
> > > At the present time, international lawyers derive their
> "authority" from
> a
> > > variety of halfway developed international institutions and scholarly
> > > opinions. International law at present is accumulating rather
> > > like case law
> > > or, to quote an example from the Jewish faith, the development of the
> > > Palestinian or Babylonian Talmuds. Some of such judgements and
> expositions
> > > may, superficially, seem antithetical but, nevertheless,
> common threads
> > > gradually emerge.
> > >
> > > There can be little doubt that

RE: [Futurework] Lemonade out of season

This is what Stratfor.com wrote this afternoon:

War Plan: Consequences
Introduction
All wars have consequences. Some are intended, some are unintended. Some
wars, such as the Kosovo war, give rise only to local consequences. Some
wars have global consequences, but only for a short time, like the 1956
British-French-Israeli attack on Egypt. Other wars reshape the world so
profoundly that everything that comes after is in some way a consequence of
that war; World War II is an obvious example. Some wars are really only
battles -- part of a much broader and longer conflict -- and cannot be
defined in any other way. The Korean War appeared to be a freestanding
event, but it was really simply an episode in a much longer, very complex
Cold War.

In our view, Iraq has more in common with Korea than with other wars. It is
a campaign, not a war. It will be remembered as an episode in the global war
between the United States and radical Islam. That does not mean that the war
cannot be consequential, but it does mean that the war is embedded in a
sequence of events and cannot be understood outside of this context.
Karen


___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

[Futurework] FW: News coverage (sources)

2003-03-19 Thread Cordell . Arthur

Title: News coverage (sources)



 
Am 
forwarding this for those interested.
 
Subject: News coverage (sources)A good source for war news and Canadian as well as 
international sources is a specialized news collector “Spotlight on Military 
News” maintained by the Canadian Forces College in 
Kingston:In 
case you want to follow anything in more detail, U.S. official source is the 
U.S. Department of Defense “Defense 
Link”:Two British sources — 
Conrad Black’s The Daily Telegraph newspaper seems to have good lines into 
official sources, particularly the intelligence and military 
communities:For 
news from a generally opposed perspective, The Guardian newspaper maintains an 
“Iraq news” 
page:The 
official Iraqi source, if it isn’t blocked on onset of war, is 
“Uruklink”:Israeli 
sources, are:The Israeli Defense Forces webpages on the Iraq 
conflict:Three 
Israeli sources monitor intelligence and provide translation from Arabic 
sources:(a) Debka — a well-connected Israeli review, often providing 
stories in advance of general media coverage (but sometimes providing either 
rumor or disinformation, which  is one of the risks of the game of 
following these kind of stories):the website is www.debka.com(b) 
Memri — summaries and translations from Arabic 
sources:Memri’s most recent posting 
is “On the Eve of War: Editorials from the Arab Press”(c ) IMRA — 
another summary and translation news source; more raw material, on a daily 
basis, than Memri; somewhat more emphasis on Israeli-related news, but also 
covers more general Middle East events as seen in Arab publications or 
statements by Arab leaders.Two 
special sources:For coverage of Iraq events together with economic and 
financial 
impacts:A 
discussion list (with book reviews and other material) for academics, which 
sometimes has useful material and tends to be less full of useless rants than 
many discussions (because it is an edited forum) is H-Net Mideast 
Politics:The most 
recent few postings deal with different views on whether, and how, democratic 
change could take place in the Middle 
East.

RE: [Futurework] An interesting scenario for US/Iraq

2003-03-19 Thread Cordell . Arthur

Harry,

Are you suggesting the need for affirmative action?  

-Original Message-
From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:07 PM
To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Futurework] An interesting scenario for US/Iraq

Arthur,

I don't really care, so my attention wasn't great - but I got the 
impression from Keith that several top people in the Bush Administration 
was Jewish.

Now Sullivan says:

"First off, let's look at the major power-brokers in Bush's administration. 
Cheney. Rice. Rumsfeld. Powell. Not a Jew among them. Or look at uber-WASP 
George Walker Bush, from Texas, Connecticut and Kennebunkport, son of 
Arabophile, George Herbert Walker Bush, grandson of Prescott Bush. In fact, 
Bush's administration has far fewer Jews in it than Clinton's did, as one 
might expect from a cursory look at the Jewish presence in the Republican 
party (not exactly overwhelming)."

I'm now curious. Are there so few Jews involved?

Mind you, I'm so naive that I once asked an adult student: "Are you a Jew?" 
- to be stomped on with the reply: " Harry, you ask if someone named Katz 
is a Jew?"

There again, as a Classical, the two assumptions that precede my philosophy 
apply to every person in the world, uncaring of race, color, gender, age, 
sexual preference, and of whether they are vertically challenged. We are 
much less concerned with real or imaginary differences than with their 
similarities.

We also regard cooperation as being synonymous with civilization (not 
government cooperation, but people cooperation) and again note that traders 
don't care about people differences. They only care about peaceful exchange.

However, I am curious. Incidently, I know nothing about Perle. His 
activities have somehow escaped me - until Keith mentioned his apparently 
good performance on the BBC.

And you thought I knew absolutely everything.

Harry

---

Arthur wrote:

>Some much needed balance from Andrew Sullivan.
>
>http://andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030317

--

>From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Arthur,
>
>Totally Anti-Semitic Article   Although the impulse is toxic and impotent
on
>the part of the writer, the information shows how accomplished the Jews are
>in society.   (As if that wasn't obvious)   But it was not so long ago that
>those Ashkenazim that Keith, Selma and Devorah were arguing about could not
>get in the door at Ivy League Schools and when they could it was on a
quota.
>It is also not so long ago that Wall Street was a bastion of New England
>Christians of every ilk.You may talk about the Baptists as if they were
>hicks but if so you have never been the Baptist Riverside Cathedral in New
>York City which is now non-denominational but was the Rockefeller Church.
>
>There will always be jealousy just as the Jew's  jealousy bad mouthed the
>New England Wasps.   The point for me is always whether people are
>intelligent enough to take credit where credit is due and strong enough to
>participate in a Democratic Society from a place of strength or will they
>wither away under the next group rising.   Will they be like the Wasps
whose
>churches play to small Sunday crowds and only exist because they have old
>endowments. I could make a list of those churches in New York City of
>the formerly powerful.Today the African Americans are climbing quickly
>and it will not be long before the anal retentive side of the SATs will
fall
>under the withering attack of black comedians like Chris Rock and the like.
>Who will be after that?   I don't know.   This country more resembles a
ball
>of rattle snakes that constantly move to the outside to show their warmth
>while the colder members move underneath to gather warmth before they too
>return to the spotlight.
>
>REH

**
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga  CA  91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
***

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] Lemonade out of season

I thought French was banned!

REH


- Original Message -
From: "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:23 PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Lemonade out of season


> Harry wrote: Karen, I like the article, but then I liked your comments,
too.
> But, then, I'm easily swayed.  You say that war is not a problem-solver.
> Harry, mon cher pumpkin, the point is to learn lessons of the past and not
> repeat them.
> Sometimes nations make decisions based on a set of assumptions and
analysis.
> Sometimes they make decisions out of very human characteristics.  Either
way
> what happens next is not always or even likely predictable.  The risks of
> war can't be put to pen and paper and only history can tell us if the
> decision to go to war brought about more of the desired results and fewer
of
> the unintended ones that make the future better, not worse.
> There is a limited function to comparing all current wars to the last
ones.
> Unless, of course, you never intend to learn from them.  If you go to Las
> Vegas one year and do well and have a great time with friends it doesn't
> mean that the next time you go it be just as successful or even have half
> the fun.
> One of the things I have the most difficulty with in this repeated use of
a
> victorious global WW2 and it's lengthy and costly rebuilding project fifty
> years ago is that it is being prostituted to justify another Means
Justifies
> the End campaign.
> Votre petite cabbage.  Karen
>
>
> ___
> Futurework mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] Genghis Khan is riding again!

It doesn't matter whether they can do it or not.   The point is did the mean
it and are they representing you and me in the world.

REH


- Original Message -
From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tor Førde"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Genghis Khan is riding again!


> Ray,
>
> It's also nonsense.
>
> Harry
> -
>
> Ray wrote:
>
> >That is disgusting but not surprising.
> >
> >REH
> >
> >From: Tor Førde
> >To: Futurework
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:39 AM
> >Subject: [Futurework] Genghis Khan is riding again!
> >
> >Saddam has said the coming attack might be as destructive as the attack
of
> >Genghis Khans mongols.
> >And the American ambassador in Norway is in public threatening Norway. He
> >says it will have long lasting consequences to Norway that Norway not
will
> >join America in the assault on Iraq. Well, people are so used to threats
> >from America that nothing else was expected.
> >
> >I remember about 1973-1975. There were some NATO exercises going on, and
> >one Norwegian private soldier sent copies of some of the NATO
> >communications to newspapers, and NATO was in these exercises dropping
> >atombombs, nuclear weapond, weapons of mass destruction, on Norwegian
> >town, because there were workers on strike in thoses towns. This was
> >frontpage news in lots of newspapers. The name of the soldier who
revealed
> >this was Narve Tredal or Narve Trædal. He was sentenced to prison because
> >he had revealed military secrets! It is almost incredible - Norway is a
> >member of NATO, but in exercises  NATO are using weapons of mass
> >destruction against Norway because workers are on strike in Norway! Well,
> >it was thirty years ago, but I guess plans are still ready - so who is
> >next - after Iraq?
> >Will the criminal gang in Washington attack Europe - when?
> >
> >Tor
>
>
> **
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of LA
> Box 655
> Tujunga  CA  91042
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel: (818) 352-4141
> Fax: (818) 353-2242
> ***
>
>






>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003
>

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] scanning the horizon




GWBush is the end of the evolutionary chain for 
Prescott.
 
REH 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lawrence 
  DeBivort 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:53 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] scanning the 
  horizon
  
  Dear 
  Ed
   
  It 
  may be tempting to many countries to develop their nuclear weapon 
  capabilities, when they see how, with them, 1) dominant the US feels 
  itself to be 2) impervious Israel is to international criticism, and 3) 
  independently North Korea is able to act.  And if nukes are too difficult 
  to carry out, then to look for things that may have the same political 
  usefulness and nukes now seem to have.  The non-proliferation people are 
  having the rug pulled out from under them, and in 5-10 years the world is, in 
  terms of the availability of nasty weapons, going to be a much more dangerous 
  place.
   
  But 
  there is much we can do to make the world a better place for our kids, and 
  their's, and it will keep us busy!  Bush will just be a nasty chapter in 
  world history, and his blundering a watershed event in US history, but the 
  flow of human progress will go on. There have been far worse events in human 
  history, and human evolution is still afoot.
   
  Cheers,
  L
  
-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Ed 
WeickSent: Wed, March 19, 2003 3:16 PMTo: Karen 
Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
[Futurework] scanning the horizon
The Russian reaction, as in the following, is rather sad.  What it 
signals is a breakdown of at least some of the trust that has been built up 
since the Cold War.  What it suggests is a move further toward the 
multi-polarization of the world.  But it also suggests more than 
that.  In all probability, Russia is the dirtiest place in the world 
when in comes to dirty, aging and deteriorating weapons.  Russia may 
now want to keep its weapons, bad as they are, in case, in case(of 
what?  Regime change?  Democratization?)   But it really 
can't afford to keep them in good repair.  Nor can it afford to dispose 
of its rotting nuclear powered subs in the Barents Sea.  It really 
makes me wonder where we are going.  God help our grandkids!
Ed Weick

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Karen 
  Watters Cole 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:25 
  PM
  Subject: [Futurework] scanning the 
  horizon
  
  
  Russian 
  Deputies Shelve Treaty 
  Arms Control Postponed to Protest 
  U.S. War Plans 
  
  By 
  Sharon LaFraniere, Washington Post Foreign ServiceWednesday, March 19, 
  2003 @ 
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49332-2003Mar18.html
  MOSCOW, 
  March 18 -- The lower house of the Russian parliament today put off a vote 
  on ratification of an arms control treaty with the United States after 
  angry legislators accused the Bush administration of setting the stage for 
  a world war.
  Leaders 
  of the lower house, the State Duma, said the dramatic cuts in nuclear 
  warheads envisioned under the treaty should not be considered at a time 
  when the United States has flouted international law and tried to 
  strong-arm countries, such as Russia, that objected to its policy on Iraq. 
  The vote had been scheduled for Friday.
  The 
  Duma speaker, Gennady Seleznev, who until recently was a Communist Party 
  member, suggested the accord might be shelved indefinitely if the United 
  States invaded Iraq, because an attack would usher in "the law of the 
  jungle" in international relations.
  "The 
  strong will trample the weak. And we don't want to be weak. Therefore, we 
  will still need the missiles," he said.
  Other 
  lawmakers predicted that the treaty would be approved, perhaps as soon as 
  the Duma resumes work on April 1 after a break. "The deputies are angry," 
  said Sergei Shishkaryov, deputy head of the foreign affairs committee. 
  "But they still understand how important this treaty is for 
  Russia."

[Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court









REH wrote: Its interesting that the war crimes issue has
taken hold.  We have assigned legal aids to travel with the troops to
make sure they avoid obvious mistakes. 


Also embedded with the troops are former
weapons inspectors.   

U.S. Mobile Labs Are
Poised to Hunt Iraqi Arms
By Judith Miller, NYT
International March 19, 2003 @ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/international/middleeast/19WEAP.html?th

KUWAIT, March 18 - The
Bush administration has deployed mobile labs and new specialized teams of
intelligence officials and disarmament experts to Kuwait to help the military
search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as soon as war begins, according
to senior administration officials. 


Defense officials are
also reaching out to former international weapons inspectors, as part of an
ambitious top-secret effort to rapidly find, secure and ultimately destroy the
caches of chemical, biological and other unconventional weapons the
administration asserts President Saddam Hussein is hiding.

In recent interviews, officials described the plans as one of the most delicate
and crucial missions of the war against Iraq. Never before, they said, had the
United States proposed to disarm a nation of unconventional weapons by force.

The Pentagon has deployed several new tactical units called mobile exploitation teams, or MET's, with state-of-the-art equipment and novel tactics to locate
and survey at least 130 and as many as 1,400 possible weapons sites.

In addition, officials said the military was planning to find and interview
hundreds of Iraqi scientists who worked on germ, chemical or nuclear-related
projects, and to seek their cooperation in disarming Iraq of the weapons that
the United Nations required Mr. Hussein to destroy after the Persian Gulf war
in 1991.

The administration has assigned top priority to the hunt for weapons of mass
destruction, officials said.
After months of
relatively fruitless international inspections, the discovery of such arms,
officials said, would vindicate the administration's decision to go to war to
disarm Iraq.
Conversely, failure to find them would leave the administration vulnerable to
charges that it had started a war needlessly. (end of excerpt)

Outgoing mail scanned
by NAV 2002

Re: [Futurework] An interesting scenario for US/Iraq

Two things on this Harry,

It sounds like typical talk of a Sergeant to recruits, which he was.   Its
about style.

Secondly I wouldn't be so interested in the Iraqi military if I were in the
Army.Last year I was talking with a War Photographer who knew this area
very well.   He said that everyone and their cat was armed.He said it
was the most armed sector of the planet as he knew it. I can imagine
these folks ending up like the Aztecs.Defending their homes until there
was nothing that the enemy wanted that was left. I also suspect that the
attitude towards life and death is quite different amongst many of these
folks from the green recruit who is into team.

It scares me to death for my country.

REH


- Original Message -
From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sally Lerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] An interesting scenario for US/Iraq


> Sally,
>
> The piece that starts:
>
> "Rolling Start -- The Idiot Prince Will Have His War"
>
> In other words, it's a political article aimed at Bush.
>
> It can immediately be downgraded to propaganda.
>
> The things which are true or which are plausible possibilities, we know.
>
> Then, he launches in to the same old stuff - things he cannot possibly
know
> and which are a tired old recitation of anti-Bush guesses.
>
> If we must fear the consequences of the harm we will inevitably do - he
> puts it as (say) 5 new enemies for every Iraqi killed - we must wonder
what
> happened to all these relatives after the Iraq-Iran conflict.
>
> No fewer than 1.5 million casualties - of which perhaps a million died -
> would mean as many as 7.5 million relatives and friends are continuing the
> fight - trying to destroy Iranians or Iraqis.
>
> Haven't noticed it.
>
> If you survive a war, you are glad. You don't grab a machine gun and head
> for the enemy city. You go home and everyone is happy.
>
> Much more dangerous is a problem often referred to by Keith.
>
> Unemployed young men with no future, not even one supplied by us.
>
> They are the danger - as is indicated in American urban areas, where young
> black people kill other black people. Some 50% of  them will have no job -
> those who do get work will be getting minimum wage (or less after
kickbacks).
>
> But, that's all I'll say about the article to which I had a poorer
reaction
> than you.
>
> Harry
> ---
>
> Sally wrote:
>
> >The attached piece from the site www.rense.com has an eerie ring of
> >reality about it. Sally
>
>
> **
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of LA
> Box 655
> Tujunga  CA  91042
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel: (818) 352-4141
> Fax: (818) 353-2242
> ***
>
>






>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003
>

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court

Its interesting that the war crimes issue has taken hold.We have
assigned legal aids to travel with the troops to make sure they avoid
obvious mistakes.

REH


- Original Message -
From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:19 PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court


> Leaving aside the matter of what they may or may not have done, the
problem
> with the idea of 'hauling' anyone before a court is that one must have
> custody of the perpetrators first. The US and UK are unlikely to lose this
> war militarily (though I believe they will suffer a great defeat in other
> ways) and so their leaders should remain beyond the reach of any
> international court.
>
> 'Excessive' death of innocents through the choice of military strategies
and
> tactics that can forseeably have had that effect would qualify as a war
> crime.  The precedent on this is clear and compelling.  I would predict
that
> in the same way some Serbs, Bosnians, Kissinger, and Sharon restrict their
> international travel for fear of being placed under the administrative
> control of a court and tried for war crimes, that President Bush and some
> others (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Elliot Abrams?) may do the
same.
>
> It is a very sad thing that seems about to happen, for everyone. No one
will
> 'win, in this, and many innocents will  be harmed.
>
> There is a general sense of sadness, here in the US capital, among people
> who know what is going on.  They are saddened by seeing a US government
> handle itself in this way, and sad for the Iraqi people. And they are not
> understanding how it could have gone so wrong.  This includes people who
> until recently, when it still seemed to them like a game, backed Bush
> without reservation. Many of these people have now abandoned Bush, if only
> by raising worries and concerns that they so steadfastly ignored earlier.
> Even the architects of this disastrous policy seem shaken and without
> energy.
>
> Lawry
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Hudson
> > Sent: Wed, March 19, 2003 3:05 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court
> >
> >
> > Unless the very greatest care has been taken in the choice of targets
that
> > are going to be bombed in Iraq tomorrow morning, I wouldn't be at all
> > surprised if Bush and Blair will not be hauled before an international
> > court of war crimes in due course. This may be ten or twenty
> > years down the
> > line, but the way that the body of international law is
> > developing, I think
> > it's more likely than not.
> >
> > The fact that Bush and Blair will be old men then won't be relevant. A
> > couple of years ago, General Pinochet in his 80s was almost brought to
> > trial for crimes against civilians 20/30 years previously. More
> > recently, a
> > couple of Argentinian Generals have been indicted for crimes against
"the
> > disappeared" of 20 years ago. And, of course, Milosevich is being tried
at
> > this time for his crimes over many years.
> >
> > International law at present is rather more similar to common law or
> > mercantile law in times past than statutory law. It doesn't need
> > pre-existing legislative bodies or courts of law or specific
authorities.
> > It grows and develops according to ethical notions that take shape and
> > clarify among those who are more directly affected and scholars
> > who take an
> > interest. The various institutional devices that are necessary
> > for the more
> > precise formulation of the crime, its prosecution and its punishment
tend
> > to follow rather than precede the law itself.
> >
> > At the present time, international lawyers derive their "authority" from
a
> > variety of halfway developed international institutions and scholarly
> > opinions. International law at present is accumulating rather
> > like case law
> > or, to quote an example from the Jewish faith, the development of the
> > Palestinian or Babylonian Talmuds. Some of such judgements and
expositions
> > may, superficially, seem antithetical but, nevertheless, common threads
> > gradually emerge.
> >
> > There can be little doubt that, untidy though the situation may seem to
be
> > at present, international law is evolving at a rapid rate at the present
> > time. Unless the most careful intelligence appraisal is made
> > before targets
> > are selected for bombing in Iraq tomorrow morning -- and, importantly,
> > documentation is able to be produced in an international court of law in
> > future years -- then it seems to me to be quite possible that President
> > Bush, Prime Minister Blair and General Franks, as the most responsible
> > people involved, will be in the dock and might be found guilty of crimes
> > against humanity.
> >
> > Keith Hudson
> >
> > --
> > --
> > -

Re: [Futurework] Preview Sights and Sounds

Karen,

Thanks!

I had to use MS Internet Explorer to get it. Netscape can get it but with a 
little jiggling.

Harry

--

Karen wrote:

Check our RAW VIDEO @ www.reuters.com in the 
upper right hand corner.



I dont know how useful this will be for those of you at work but if you 
can access Reuters they have a Raw Video option with different stories but 
its the audio sounds that make this immediate, believable and real.



Karen


**
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga  CA  91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
***

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003

Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!

I agree with your points.   They were the same I was making especially since
the Green Light could have triggered mass murder of the embassy employees
being held by the Iranians. As for human waves, that was what happened
with the Chinese in Korea that created the rout South.   I'm sure you know
this since you are older than I. (Ha!)

REH


- Original Message -
From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!


> Ray,
>
> You rest a lot of faith in the "green light". Apparently Carter (a
> warmonger if we've ever had one) did nothing about Saddam's intention to
> invade Iran. The truth is we couldn't do anything anyway - except supply
> parts for Iran's F4 Phantoms.
>
> When Saddam went into Iran, he went with 190,000 men, 2,200 tanks, and 450
> planes.
>
> The Russians gave him tanks and planes. We gave him a green light. Later
> on, when the 'tanker war' began, Saddam bought 30 Mirages, complete with
> Exojets, from the French. That allowed him to kill a lot of merchant
seamen.
>
> I wonder if we gave an amber light for the 'tanker war"? I'm sure he would
> have preferred a few more jets.
>
> Naaah!
>
> Of course the Iranians made a fool out of Carter. I suppose the "green
> light" was Carter's a reaction to that. Meanwhile, the other surrounding
> countries were happy to have Saddam attack - they were scared of Iranian
power.
>
> Apparently everyone knew about the imminent invasion except the Iranians.
> That's kind of funny.
>
> The Iranians stopped Saddam's modern Russian weapons with mass attacks in
> which slaughter didn't matter. Should it ever come to that, what would
> American soldiers do if 200,000 Iranians came at them, including 9 year
old
> "soldiers". The Iraqi's Russian tanks, guns, and helicopter gun-ships
> slaughtered by the tens of thousands - but were still overwhelmed.
>
> What would we do - if we found ourselves in such a position.?
>
> Harry
> -
>
> Ray wrote:
>
> >Well, you can protest all you want but the statement reads:
> >
> >5. BOTH SADAT AND FAHD PROVIDED OTHER BITS OF USEFUL INTELLIGENCE. (E.G.
> >IRAN IS RECEIVING MILITARY SPARES FRO U.S. EQUIPMENT FROM ISRAEL).   IT
> >WAS ALSO INTERESTING TO CONFIRM THAT PRESIDENT CARTER GAVE THE IRAQIS A
> >GREEN LIGHT TO LAUNCH THE WAR AGAINST IRAN THROUGH FAHD.
> >9 talking points prepared and used by Secretary of State Alexander Haig
in
> >1981.
> >
> >
> >Was classified and now dug up and published for the first time by Frank
> >Parry of Iran/Contra fame.
> >
>
>http://www.consortiumnew
s.com/2003/haig-docs.html
> >
> >Say whatever you want Harry.   Why don't call up Haig, he made the
> >statement.  But what do I know.  I'm not a pundit just an opera director
> >trying to connect the dots.
> >
> >REH
> >
> >P.S. note that Haig admits to illegally selling arms to Iran through
> >Israel in defiance of the US law.If that was a Democrat doing such
> >things Anne Coulter would have listed him in her book on Traitors.
>
>
> **
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of LA
> Box 655
> Tujunga  CA  91042
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel: (818) 352-4141
> Fax: (818) 353-2242
> ***
>
>






>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003
>

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

RE: [Futurework] Lemonade out of season

Harry wrote: Karen, I like the article, but then I liked your comments, too.
But, then, I'm easily swayed.  You say that war is not a problem-solver.
Harry, mon cher pumpkin, the point is to learn lessons of the past and not
repeat them.
Sometimes nations make decisions based on a set of assumptions and analysis.
Sometimes they make decisions out of very human characteristics.  Either way
what happens next is not always or even likely predictable.  The risks of
war can't be put to pen and paper and only history can tell us if the
decision to go to war brought about more of the desired results and fewer of
the unintended ones that make the future better, not worse.
There is a limited function to comparing all current wars to the last ones.
Unless, of course, you never intend to learn from them.  If you go to Las
Vegas one year and do well and have a great time with friends it doesn't
mean that the next time you go it be just as successful or even have half
the fun.
One of the things I have the most difficulty with in this repeated use of a
victorious global WW2 and it's lengthy and costly rebuilding project fifty
years ago is that it is being prostituted to justify another Means Justifies
the End campaign.
Votre petite cabbage.  Karen


___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] Lemonade out of season

Karen,

I like the article, but then I liked your comments, too.

But, then, I'm easily swayed.

You say that war is not a problem-solver.

I wonder if war against Germany when they entered the Rhineland might have 
stopped Hitler in his tracks. Hitler sent 30,000 troops - but France 
probably had ten times as many. Would the effort then have prevented the 
later horrors. We'll never know.

It's always easier not to do something than to do what may be necessary, 
but uncomfortable.

The same applies to Mussolini. Had the League of Nations  imposed oil 
sanctions, he would have had to stop mustard gassing the Abyssinian tribes 
and return his armies to Italy. (He told us so.)

Japan was different. We imposed sanctions on Japan. We stopped imports of 
Japanese T-shirts, which not only imposed additional costs on our 
depression poor, but it prevented Japan from making a living.

In due course, they began to use their limited exchange to buy scrap-iron.

The Japanese should have relied on our preference not to do, rather than 
do. Had they not attacked Pearl Harbor, it is likely they could have 
traipsed their way across Malaysia and Indo-China, picking up oil, rubber, 
tin, and suchlike with the US doing no more than viewing with alarm.

Americans at that time wanted no part of war. Without Pearl Harbor, perhaps 
Hitler would eventually have taken the Brits and Russia, Musso would have 
taken North Africa, and Tojo would have grabbed a large chunk of Asia and 
be looking at Australia.

They could all rely on the Americans avoiding entanglements and doing nothing.

But the Japanese spoiled everything and attacked Pearl Harbor - an example 
of doing something when they should have done nothing!

Oh, well!

Harry
-
Karen wrote:

Friedman attempts to make lemonade out of the lemons we have harvested.

At the moment, public opinion is swayed by human tendencies to enforce 
unity for survival, even with great dissent.

There will be time ahead when those who opposed this course will need to 
redirect their energy to making peace with allies and making the best of a 
bad situation.  History tells us, unfortunately, that those who believe 
war is a problem-solver rarely change their minds later, and so the 
battles between those who believe in problem-solving without war will 
continue.  - Karen



D-Day





By Thomas L. Friedman, NYT, March 19, 2003 @ 
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/opinion/19FRIE.html

President Bush is fond of cowboy imagery, so here's an image that comes to 
mind about our pending war with Iraq. In most cowboy movies the good guys 
round up a posse before they ride into town and take on the black 
hats.  We're doing just the opposite.  We're riding into Baghdad pretty 
much alone and hoping to round up a posse after we get there. I hope we 
do, because it may be the only way we can get out with ourselves, and the 
town, in one piece.



This column has argued throughout this debate that removing Saddam Hussein 
and helping Iraq replace his regime with a decent, accountable government 
that can serve as a model in the Middle East is worth doing not because 
Iraq threatens us with its weapons, but because we are threatened by a 
collection of failing Arab-Muslim states, which churn out way too many 
young people who feel humiliated, voiceless and left behind. We have a 
real interest in partnering with them for change.



This column has also argued, though, that such a preventive war is so 
unprecedented and mammoth a task taking over an entire country from a 
standing start and rebuilding it that it had to be done with maximum U.N 
legitimacy and with as many allies as possible.



President Bush has failed to build that framework before going to war. 
Though the Bush team came to office with this Iraq project in mind, it has 
pursued a narrow, ideological and bullying foreign policy that has 
alienated so many people that by the time it wanted to rustle up a posse 
for an Iraq war, too many nations were suspicious of its motives.



The president says he went the extra mile to find a diplomatic solution. 
That is not true. On the eve of the first gulf war, Secretary of State 
James Baker met face to face in Geneva with the Iraqi foreign minister a 
last-ditch peace effort that left most of the world feeling it was Iraq 
that refused to avoid war. This time the whole world saw President Bush 
make one trip, which didn't quite make it across the Atlantic, to sell the 
war to the only two allies we had. This is not to excuse France, let alone 
Saddam. France's role in blocking a credible U.N. disarmament program was 
shameful.



But here we are, going to war, basically alone, in the face of opposition, 
not so much from "the Arab Street," but from "the World Street." Everyone 
wishes it were different, but it's too late which is why this column will 
hencefort

Re: [Futurework] Genghis Khan is riding again!

Ray,

It's also nonsense.

Harry
-
Ray wrote:

That is disgusting but not surprising.

REH

From: Tor Førde
To: Futurework
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:39 AM
Subject: [Futurework] Genghis Khan is riding again!
Saddam has said the coming attack might be as destructive as the attack of 
Genghis Khans mongols.
And the American ambassador in Norway is in public threatening Norway. He 
says it will have long lasting consequences to Norway that Norway not will 
join America in the assault on Iraq. Well, people are so used to threats 
from America that nothing else was expected.

I remember about 1973-1975. There were some NATO exercises going on, and 
one Norwegian private soldier sent copies of some of the NATO 
communications to newspapers, and NATO was in these exercises dropping 
atombombs, nuclear weapond, weapons of mass destruction, on Norwegian 
town, because there were workers on strike in thoses towns. This was 
frontpage news in lots of newspapers. The name of the soldier who revealed 
this was Narve Tredal or Narve Trædal. He was sentenced to prison because 
he had revealed military secrets! It is almost incredible - Norway is a 
member of NATO, but in exercises  NATO are using weapons of mass 
destruction against Norway because workers are on strike in Norway! Well, 
it was thirty years ago, but I guess plans are still ready - so who is 
next - after Iraq?
Will the criminal gang in Washington attack Europe - when?

Tor


**
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga  CA  91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
***

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003

Re: [Futurework] Eyes wide open

2003-03-19 Thread William B Ward




Lawry,
 
The US uses something like half of the World's resources with 7% of the 
population. This may help put things back in balance.
 
Bill Ward
 
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:07:29 -0500 "Lawrence DeBivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  There is no concept of a Rogue State in international law. 
  
   
  Odd 
  that the country that has most bandied the term about is, with Israel, 
  considered to qualify.  I fear for the standing of the US and Israel over 
  the next 2-3 decades. 
   
  L
  
-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Ray Evans 
HarrellSent: Tue, March 18, 2003 9:05 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; William B WardSubject: Re: 
[Futurework] Eyes wide open
Second question:  
 
Are any of these activities now considered 
actions by a Rogue State in International Law? 
 
REH 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  William B Ward 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:27 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] Eyes wide 
  open
  
  Ray,
   
  Good point. It was a ruse that we were drawn into Vietnam. We have 
  invaded various Caribbean islands over the last 7 or 8 decades to protect 
  the interests of friends of the US president at that time. We helped 
  Panama break away rom Colombia.
   
  Bill Ward
   
  On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:15:32 -0500 "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
Gail and Lawry, 
 
Have either of you researched the basis for 
the models that GWB and the Neo-Cons have in American 
History?    America has a history of intervention 
including several in the past two administrations.

[Futurework] Nice while it lasted!

2003-03-19 Thread Keith Hudson

Harry,

Well, I agree with your analysis (18:33 18/03/03 -0800 "The collapse of
America") -- if only because it agreed with my previous posting! I presume
we're agreed, aren't we -- that America will follow Japan and Europe into
deflation from which Greenspan will only be able to rescue America by
prescribing a dose of inflation (and probably repeated doses, too)?

But while inflation will relieve matters temporarily (that is, for a run of
maybe up to 10-15 years before we have hyperinflation and an even more
spectacular collapse) it doesn't really solve the main issues. It would be
tedious for me to discuss -- yet again -- what I think one of the main
issues is (the lack of value of currencies) so I won't here and now. But
there might be another important one that we're overlooking.

It's a basic assumption of economic theory -- at least for the last century
-- that growth is always possible. This belief has no doubt been engendered
by the fact that there has been: (a) an unceasing cascade of innovations
which has tempted the consumer to earn more and more in order to buy more
and more; (b) an unceasing (and increasingly cheaper) supply of energy to
fuel the actual physical mechanisms of the economic system. That's the
inflationary aspect of the economic system.

But there are also deflationary aspects. One is the fact of the increasing
efficiency of production (of goods, if not of services), which is also
known as productivity and which, in a perfect economic world, simply goes
on forever, the supply of currency (if it had real value) growing pari
passu quite automatically. But the big deflationary factor is a much more
basic one. This is something that Prof Fred Hirsch (of my favourite
university, Warwick) pointed out 40 years ago in his book "The Social
Limits to Growth".

His case was that there are limits to many things that we desire. There is
only so much attractive countryside, or beautiful beaches, or opportunities
to meet interesting people, or time enough in the day to enjoy many of the
possible pleasures that are theoretically available. It is not just the
supplies of energy or material resources that may limit us, but
intangibilities of quite a different sort. Fred Hirsch died in his early
30s and I'm sure he would have expanded on this theme had he lived.

I was much reminded of Fred Hirsch when I read an article by Richard
Tomkins some three months ago in the FT. In "Economic progress was quite
nice while it lasted", he maintains that in the west the average consumer
is becoming largely satiated with the material goods that are available.
Furthermore, no new "blockbuster" consumer goods are appearing on the scene
-- as they did pretty well all through the last century until about the
1980/90s. At the same time, we are far from being satisfied with daily
life, and are increasingly losing a great number of social satisfactions --
time to gossip over the fence, letting our children wander all day by
themselves in safety in town or countryside (as we used to in the
1940/50s), community singing and dancing, and so on and so on.

The three highly developed economies -- namely Europe, America and Japan --
all seem to be spiralling downwards into a deflationary quagmire at the
present time. The curious thing is that they are all doing so for
apparently different reasons. The Japan is static because its banks are
stuffed full of vastly overvalued assets and they won't lend a bean to new
entrepreneurs, Europe is becoming ossified with regulations (in France and
Germany it is becoming impossible for new young entrepreneurs to get
started ), and America is suffering from high debts in every department of
its economy and, to cap it all, the consumer is now losing his nerve
because he's frightened of growing unemployment and a great deal else
that's happening around him including hatred from the rest of th world.

Economic growth and consumerism isn't as satisfying as it used to be. We
have neither the time nor the inclination to keep of trying all the new
baubles that are dangled in front of us. We really need to go back to
old-fashioned fun and larking about, and getting to know one another again.
And also, I might add, when education can once again be a happy and
exciting experience. 

So there's a real yawning gap in our economic system that won't be remedied
by tinkering about with interest rates or devising wonderful new products.
There we are. That's all from me this evening.

Keith
  

  





--
Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

RE: [Futurework] scanning the horizon




Dear 
Ed
 
It may 
be tempting to many countries to develop their nuclear weapon capabilities, when 
they see how, with them, 1) dominant the US feels itself to be 2) 
impervious Israel is to international criticism, and 3) independently North 
Korea is able to act.  And if nukes are too difficult to carry out, then to 
look for things that may have the same political usefulness and nukes now seem 
to have.  The non-proliferation people are having the rug pulled out from 
under them, and in 5-10 years the world is, in terms of the availability of 
nasty weapons, going to be a much more dangerous place.
 
But 
there is much we can do to make the world a better place for our kids, and 
their's, and it will keep us busy!  Bush will just be a nasty chapter in 
world history, and his blundering a watershed event in US history, but the flow 
of human progress will go on. There have been far worse events in human history, 
and human evolution is still afoot.
 
Cheers,
L

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Ed 
  WeickSent: Wed, March 19, 2003 3:16 PMTo: Karen Watters 
  Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] 
  scanning the horizon
  The Russian reaction, as in the following, is rather sad.  What it 
  signals is a breakdown of at least some of the trust that has been built up 
  since the Cold War.  What it suggests is a move further toward the 
  multi-polarization of the world.  But it also suggests more than 
  that.  In all probability, Russia is the dirtiest place in the world when 
  in comes to dirty, aging and deteriorating weapons.  Russia may now want 
  to keep its weapons, bad as they are, in case, in case(of what?  
  Regime change?  Democratization?)   But it really can't afford to 
  keep them in good repair.  Nor can it afford to dispose of its rotting 
  nuclear powered subs in the Barents Sea.  It really makes me wonder where 
  we are going.  God help our grandkids!
  Ed Weick
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Karen 
Watters Cole 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:25 
PM
Subject: [Futurework] scanning the 
horizon


Russian 
Deputies Shelve Treaty 
Arms Control Postponed to Protest 
U.S. War Plans 

By 
Sharon LaFraniere, Washington Post Foreign ServiceWednesday, March 19, 
2003 @ 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49332-2003Mar18.html
MOSCOW, 
March 18 -- The lower house of the Russian parliament today put off a vote 
on ratification of an arms control treaty with the United States after angry 
legislators accused the Bush administration of setting the stage for a world 
war.
Leaders 
of the lower house, the State Duma, said the dramatic cuts in nuclear 
warheads envisioned under the treaty should not be considered at a time when 
the United States has flouted international law and tried to strong-arm 
countries, such as Russia, that objected to its policy on Iraq. The vote had 
been scheduled for Friday.
The 
Duma speaker, Gennady Seleznev, who until recently was a Communist Party 
member, suggested the accord might be shelved indefinitely if the United 
States invaded Iraq, because an attack would usher in "the law of the 
jungle" in international relations.
"The 
strong will trample the weak. And we don't want to be weak. Therefore, we 
will still need the missiles," he said.
Other 
lawmakers predicted that the treaty would be approved, perhaps as soon as 
the Duma resumes work on April 1 after a break. "The deputies are angry," 
said Sergei Shishkaryov, deputy head of the foreign affairs committee. "But 
they still understand how important this treaty is for 
Russia."

[Futurework] Preview Sights and Sounds









Check our RAW
VIDEO @ www.reuters.com in
the upper right hand corner.  

 

I don’t know
how useful this will be for those of you at work but if you can access Reuter’s
they have a Raw Video option with different stories but it’s the audio sounds
that make this immediate, believable and real.  

 

Karen

Re: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court

2003-03-19 Thread Ed Weick

It is a very sad thing.  I've found myself unusually glued to the TV and
reaching for that second Scotch.  Though a Baptist, I'm an agnostic and
never pray, though lately I've wondered if I should try doing that.  Would
it help?  Probably not.  God is with George Bush.

One thing I'm doing, and semi-hating myself for it, is admiring Jean
Chretien, our Prime Minister.  As though dragged out of a deep hole and
forced into the sun, he's taken a stand.  And, God help me, this time I
agree with him!  Oh Lord!!

Ed Weick


> It is a very sad thing that seems about to happen, for everyone. No one
will
> 'win, in this, and many innocents will  be harmed.
>
> There is a general sense of sadness, here in the US capital, among people
> who know what is going on.  They are saddened by seeing a US government
> handle itself in this way, and sad for the Iraqi people. And they are not
> understanding how it could have gone so wrong.  This includes people who
> until recently, when it still seemed to them like a game, backed Bush
> without reservation. Many of these people have now abandoned Bush, if only
> by raising worries and concerns that they so steadfastly ignored earlier.
> Even the architects of this disastrous policy seem shaken and without
> energy.
>
> Lawry


___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] scanning the horizon

2003-03-19 Thread Ed Weick




The Russian reaction, as in the following, is rather sad.  What it 
signals is a breakdown of at least some of the trust that has been built up 
since the Cold War.  What it suggests is a move further toward the 
multi-polarization of the world.  But it also suggests more than 
that.  In all probability, Russia is the dirtiest place in the world when 
in comes to dirty, aging and deteriorating weapons.  Russia may now want to 
keep its weapons, bad as they are, in case, in case(of what?  Regime 
change?  Democratization?)   But it really can't afford to keep them 
in good repair.  Nor can it afford to dispose of its rotting nuclear 
powered subs in the Barents Sea.  It really makes me wonder where we are 
going.  God help our grandkids!
Ed Weick

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Karen 
  Watters Cole 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:25 
  PM
  Subject: [Futurework] scanning the 
  horizon
  
  
  Russian 
  Deputies Shelve Treaty 
  Arms Control Postponed to Protest U.S. 
  War Plans 
  
  By 
  Sharon LaFraniere, Washington Post Foreign ServiceWednesday, March 19, 
  2003 @ 
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49332-2003Mar18.html
  MOSCOW, 
  March 18 -- The lower house of the Russian parliament today put off a vote on 
  ratification of an arms control treaty with the United States after angry 
  legislators accused the Bush administration of setting the stage for a world 
  war.
  Leaders 
  of the lower house, the State Duma, said the dramatic cuts in nuclear warheads 
  envisioned under the treaty should not be considered at a time when the United 
  States has flouted international law and tried to strong-arm countries, such 
  as Russia, that objected to its policy on Iraq. The vote had been scheduled 
  for Friday.
  The 
  Duma speaker, Gennady Seleznev, who until recently was a Communist Party 
  member, suggested the accord might be shelved indefinitely if the United 
  States invaded Iraq, because an attack would usher in "the law of the jungle" 
  in international relations.
  "The 
  strong will trample the weak. And we don't want to be weak. Therefore, we will 
  still need the missiles," he said.
  Other 
  lawmakers predicted that the treaty would be approved, perhaps as soon as the 
  Duma resumes work on April 1 after a break. "The deputies are angry," said 
  Sergei Shishkaryov, deputy head of the foreign affairs committee. "But they 
  still understand how important this treaty is for 
  Russia."

Re: [Futurework] Eyes wide open

Gail,

Excellent and thought-provoking!

As you may know, I've been poking around the idea of positive UN policies 
against "rogue regimes". Perhaps, the time has come when the UN actually 
intervenes into Rwanda type problems - though after the Tutsi revenge 
against the Hutus began, I doubt that much could be done.

Had the UN jumped in as soon as the slaughter became evident - maybe the 
loss of life might not have been so high. The 800,000 who died is too 
horrible to bear - quite apart from the fearful millions who fled into 
neighboring countries to escape death.

Yet, what could have been done? What UN countries would have placed their 
young men in harms way to stop a tribal fight somewhere on a foreign continent?

The Iraq war can be viewed as a police action, designed to return the 
neighborhood back to the people who live there. Will it be a prelude to 
similar actions?

Harry

--

Gail wrote:

I'm impressed by Lawry's knowledge of international law and, as one who is 
not so knowledgeable, find it very helpful.   In reponse to my asking him 
to address the concept of "human security" he wrote, quite properly, 
"Recommendations" do not equal law.

Lawry, I'm aware recommendations do not equal law but they often point the 
way it is evolving and "human security" is, I believe, a very helpful concept.

Your summary dealt with two categories of international law: relations 
between states, and the relations of individuals to states. It more or 
less took the existence and legitimacy of states themselves, and their 
behaviour towards those to whom they are responsible, for granted. The 
concept of human security, a state's responsibility to protect its own 
citizens and serve them well, and the capacity to bring it to account if 
it does not, begins to fill in an important lacuna, does it not?  As 
McLuhan noted, we often aren't aware of our current environment, only our 
previous environment. (We only began to paint pastoral pictures as the 
Agricultural Age ended, and to install massive steel beams as sculpture 
when we began to emerge from the Industrial Age?) Today we live so 
immersed in a world of nation states that we tend to take them for granted 
as part of the landscape and, as I understand it, they themselves have not 
really been adequately "judicialized" by their own populations or other 
populations seeking to reach out and help populations whose nation state 
is not serving them well in terms of human security (thus, in the latter 
case, "intervention" in state sovereignty).

This looks to a world "beyond the nation state" where we can begin to see 
more than the "inter-nations" law that has been the subject of your 
concern and begin to think in terms of evaluating the performance of 
nation states in human terms:  successful and failed and various degrees 
between. There are many discourses proceeding at this more integrated 
level and courts of world opinion growing that subsume "international" 
law. The Geneva Convention was in its origins a "law" of this kind was it 
not, even though now to some considerable extent judicialized into 
international law? And is this not to some extent what many are reaching 
for now with respect to the Iraqi regime, some way to say that there need 
to be grounds for intervention that don't rely on waiting for him to 
engage in an act of external aggression, nor even have proven WDM, but 
that he must leave or begin to put in place mechanisms whereby his people 
can hold him accountable and he doesn't make us complicit in his crime as 
we were complicit with the crimes in Rwanda (or less complicit in Kosovo 
where we acted)? And is the Arafat situation too not of this kind?  Are we 
not in a situation where there is growing global consensus that leaders 
should not be allowed to oppress their own people (whether engaging in 
ethnic cleansing or delaying their development toward taking 
responsibility for their situation) and that it is time for international 
law to run to catch up rather than leave us in the legal limbo that we 
seem to be in in the present situation, able neither to bring the Saddam 
regime to account for breaching the human security of its people nor to 
insist, as those to whom it is accountable, that the Security Council do 
its duty and take up its responsibilities for maintaining international peace?

I guess where this is going is that I am questioning the assumption that I 
think I hear you making, that existing international law is the bottom 
line. Law is surely never the bottom line: it is only what we have managed 
to date and we need always to be getting on with it. It would be nice not 
ever to have to have the law catch up retroactively, but for that we need 
to be more proactive or creative in its development.. I'm not saying this 
very well: perhaps others will help: I'm trying to depict an evolving 
situation, where our collective ethical judgments are in

[Futurework] The other great battle









The other great battle ahead is Who will dominate the message?  How good will the superpower do against
the independents?  

Opposing the underdog global newsletters and independent news there
will be the coordinated and organized efforts of the Big Box Team to control
the message.  This is the Super
Bowl of Media wars, but others will see the unprecedented level of coordination
in Orwellian terms or sci-fi come true. 
Either way, we really are seeing a New Tone in Washington, just maybe
not the one originally advertised. 
Here are some of the players and some of the game plan ahead of the big
kickoff.  -  KWC

 

Bush
Message Machine Is Set To Roll With Its Own War Plan

By
Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49399-2003Mar18.html

When American troops move
into Iraq, the Bush administration's message machine, in its own way as massive
and disciplined as the U.S. military, will be equally ready to roll. Staffed
with veterans of countless political campaigns, and honed on the communications
lessons of Afghanistan, its war plan is in place.

Senior spokesmen and
coordinators from the White House, the National Security Council and the State
and Defense departments held their latest formal planning session last week in
the White House's Roosevelt Room, administration officials said. President Bush
dropped by to bless their efforts and to remind them of the need to get out the
news "in a coordinated way that reflects the truth about our
efforts."

More than any other conflict in history,
the Iraq war will be conducted under the staring eyes and within constant
earshot of most of the world.
In a new Pentagon strategy both to disseminate and control the news, U.S. and
foreign journalists are integrated into virtually every U.S. and British unit,
with satellite technology enabling them to broadcast reports on the war on the
ground as it happens. A number of journalists remain in Baghdad, watching, for
the moment at least, from the other side. 

While many in this
country will welcome
the opportunity to cheer on the U.S. forces and watch over their safety on a
real-time basis,
a large portion of the worldwide audience is opposed to an invasion of Iraq and
could be quick to criticize the administration in the event of civilian
casualties or other bleak news. 
Just as in a political campaign, the Bush administration wants its version of each day's events to be first and foremost, as
it seeks to press preferred story lines.

"It's a given
that we want to draw attention to the truth about Iraq," including
humanitarian abuses, "as soon as the dictator's grip has been
loosened," one administration official said. "The truth about Iraq
has been at the heart of our arguments for six months," the official said,
"and it's going to be front and center for the skeptics in the weeks ahead."

The close attention to
its war message mirrors the discipline the Bush team brought to his election
campaign and to the passage of his domestic political agenda, especially the
securing of a $1.35 trillion tax cut from Congress. Such a comprehensive communications strategy for a war,
however, is unprecedented in the modern White House.

Once the war starts,
the administration plans to fill
every information void in the 24-hour worldwide news cycle, leaving little to chance or interpretation. 

At dawn, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer will brief
the television networks and the wire services in a conference call before the
morning news programs. A conference call will follow among Fleischer, Bush
communications director Dan
Bartlett
and White House Office of Global Communications Director Tucker Eskew, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, Defense Department spokeswoman Victoria Clarke and British Prime Minister Tony Blair's senior
spokesman, Alastair
Campbell.
During the call, they will set out thematic story lines for the day and deal with pending problems.

An afternoon briefing at Central Command headquarters in Qatar
will be held most days, timed to hit the news at noon in the United States.
Supper-time television news in the United States and late broadcasts in Europe
will be fed by the Pentagon's afternoon briefing in Washington, where military
officials will utilize the video images from targeted bombs that all agree
worked well in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and in the Afghan campaign.

Broadcasts on the
government's Radio
Sawa and on other Voice of America regional outlets will carry the U.S.
message to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region. A daily grid of senior officials available to be interviewed
by Arab and other media will be prepared and coordinated. National security
adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, will be available for regular background briefings with
selected small groups of print reporters, officials said.

Every night, the Office of Global Communications will
distribute its
"Global
Messenger"

RE: [Futurework] An interesting scenario for US/Iraq

Arthur,

I don't really care, so my attention wasn't great - but I got the 
impression from Keith that several top people in the Bush Administration 
was Jewish.

Now Sullivan says:

"First off, let's look at the major power-brokers in Bush's administration. 
Cheney. Rice. Rumsfeld. Powell. Not a Jew among them. Or look at uber-WASP 
George Walker Bush, from Texas, Connecticut and Kennebunkport, son of 
Arabophile, George Herbert Walker Bush, grandson of Prescott Bush. In fact, 
Bush's administration has far fewer Jews in it than Clinton's did, as one 
might expect from a cursory look at the Jewish presence in the Republican 
party (not exactly overwhelming)."

I'm now curious. Are there so few Jews involved?

Mind you, I'm so naive that I once asked an adult student: "Are you a Jew?" 
- to be stomped on with the reply: " Harry, you ask if someone named Katz 
is a Jew?"

There again, as a Classical, the two assumptions that precede my philosophy 
apply to every person in the world, uncaring of race, color, gender, age, 
sexual preference, and of whether they are vertically challenged. We are 
much less concerned with real or imaginary differences than with their 
similarities.

We also regard cooperation as being synonymous with civilization (not 
government cooperation, but people cooperation) and again note that traders 
don't care about people differences. They only care about peaceful exchange.

However, I am curious. Incidently, I know nothing about Perle. His 
activities have somehow escaped me - until Keith mentioned his apparently 
good performance on the BBC.

And you thought I knew absolutely everything.

Harry

---

Arthur wrote:

Some much needed balance from Andrew Sullivan.

http://andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030317
--

From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Arthur,

Totally Anti-Semitic Article   Although the impulse is toxic and impotent on
the part of the writer, the information shows how accomplished the Jews are
in society.   (As if that wasn't obvious)   But it was not so long ago that
those Ashkenazim that Keith, Selma and Devorah were arguing about could not
get in the door at Ivy League Schools and when they could it was on a quota.
It is also not so long ago that Wall Street was a bastion of New England
Christians of every ilk.You may talk about the Baptists as if they were
hicks but if so you have never been the Baptist Riverside Cathedral in New
York City which is now non-denominational but was the Rockefeller Church.
There will always be jealousy just as the Jew's  jealousy bad mouthed the
New England Wasps.   The point for me is always whether people are
intelligent enough to take credit where credit is due and strong enough to
participate in a Democratic Society from a place of strength or will they
wither away under the next group rising.   Will they be like the Wasps whose
churches play to small Sunday crowds and only exist because they have old
endowments. I could make a list of those churches in New York City of
the formerly powerful.Today the African Americans are climbing quickly
and it will not be long before the anal retentive side of the SATs will fall
under the withering attack of black comedians like Chris Rock and the like.
Who will be after that?   I don't know.   This country more resembles a ball
of rattle snakes that constantly move to the outside to show their warmth
while the colder members move underneath to gather warmth before they too
return to the spotlight.
REH


**
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga  CA  91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
***

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003

Re: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court

Keith,

The problem is not trying the criminals - but getting them into the dock.

So, after the 800,000 died in Rwanda, one clergyman has been brought to 
trial (and perhaps a couple of lesser people). The clergyman apparently 
gave succor to Tutsi fugutives in his church - then turned them over to the 
Hutus to be killed.

What a nasty individual.

But what of the others who carried out the slaughter - on both sides. And 
could the Tutsis be blameless because they were acting in "self-defence"?

I've heard some idiots say that Saddam should be tried at the International 
Court. If the US captures him, that could be possible. But, police work 
precedes the court appearance. In any event, I suppose were capture to 
occur, the Iraqis would want to try him (quickly before hanging him).

We live in interesting times.

Harry

-

Keith wrote:

Unless the very greatest care has been taken in the choice of targets that
are going to be bombed in Iraq tomorrow morning, I wouldn't be at all
surprised if Bush and Blair will not be hauled before an international
court of war crimes in due course. This may be ten or twenty years down the
line, but the way that the body of international law is developing, I think
it's more likely than not.
The fact that Bush and Blair will be old men then won't be relevant. A
couple of years ago, General Pinochet in his 80s was almost brought to
trial for crimes against civilians 20/30 years previously. More recently, a
couple of Argentinian Generals have been indicted for crimes against "the
disappeared" of 20 years ago. And, of course, Milosevich is being tried at
this time for his crimes over many years.
International law at present is rather more similar to common law or
mercantile law in times past than statutory law. It doesn't need
pre-existing legislative bodies or courts of law or specific authorities.
It grows and develops according to ethical notions that take shape and
clarify among those who are more directly affected and scholars who take an
interest. The various institutional devices that are necessary for the more
precise formulation of the crime, its prosecution and its punishment tend
to follow rather than precede the law itself.
At the present time, international lawyers derive their "authority" from a
variety of halfway developed international institutions and scholarly
opinions. International law at present is accumulating rather like case law
or, to quote an example from the Jewish faith, the development of the
Palestinian or Babylonian Talmuds. Some of such judgements and expositions
may, superficially, seem antithetical but, nevertheless, common threads
gradually emerge.
There can be little doubt that, untidy though the situation may seem to be
at present, international law is evolving at a rapid rate at the present
time. Unless the most careful intelligence appraisal is made before targets
are selected for bombing in Iraq tomorrow morning -- and, importantly,
documentation is able to be produced in an international court of law in
future years -- then it seems to me to be quite possible that President
Bush, Prime Minister Blair and General Franks, as the most responsible
people involved, will be in the dock and might be found guilty of crimes
against humanity.
Keith Hudson



Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622;  Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003
**
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga  CA  91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
***

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003

RE: [Futurework] Eyes wide open

Lawry,

Very interesting - I enjoyed your arguments.

Harry
---
Lawrence wrote:

Greetings, Ray and everyone,

The laws that pertain to the violation of civil rights and to war are 
voluminous and a discussion of them is even more so. It is, literally, 
impossible to examine these laws and their applications in a list 
discussion, even if the participants were deeply committed to doing 
so.  So with that fundamental caveat in mind, I will will try and give a 
brief overview.

International law as it pertains to national entities and their behavior 
has evolved in the west since the first codifications aimed at piracy on 
the high seas. Gradually these rules were expanded and applied to conflict 
between states on land, and then to the acceptable conditions under which 
states could make war on others, and finally to our present legal state, 
which prohibits a state from attacking another altogether. The only 
legitimate uses of war, now, are for self-defense.  Efforts are being made 
by some to limit this further, by requiring a resort to the UNSC before 
resort to war in any form, but this remains contentious.  What generally 
is accepted now is the idea that the very _threat_ of offensive war is 
itself illegal. The US has advanced many silly justifications for its 
attack on Iraq: Saddam is a dictator, he attacks his enemies, he has used 
illegal weapons on his own people, he won't disarm, he lies, etc. 
Regardless of the substantive merit of these assertions, none of them 
provide a _casus belli_, a legitimate reason for war.  The only legal 
justification for a US attack on Iraq is self-defense, as per the UN 
Charter, to which the US is a member.  This is why the US has attempted to 
make the case that Saddam and Iraq are a present, immediate and 
significant offensive threat to the US.  If the US can make that case 
convincingly, then it has the right to attack Iraq _if_ recourse the UNSC 
proves insufficient for purposes of self-defense.

I leave it to you to make the judgement whether the US has proved that 1) 
the US is in imminent danger of being attacked by Iraq, and, if so, 2) 
whether UNSC actions have been sufficient to avert the attack.

Clearly world opinion, in the form of the views of the members of the UNSC 
itself, finds the US case for self-defense inadequate.

To counter this weakness in its argument, the US has sought (in the 'Bush 
Doctrine') to extend the notion of self-defense into 'preemptive' actions, 
but there is no legal precedent for this and I doubt that international 
law will ever embrace such a dangerous doctrine, for it essentially allows 
anyone to attack anyone who could _potentially_ be a threat. And of 
course, in a heavily armed and suspicious world, virtually any state can 
be asserted to present a potential threat to any other. The US, as the 
most powerful and most armed of all states, with weapons that can reach 
every part of the globe, would be one of the first to be singled out as a 
potential threat to essentially all other countries in the world.

International law that pertains to individuals is another quite separate 
matter.  The notion here is that people who do bad things should not be 
allowed to hide behind the national sovereignty of the states they reside 
in or or of which they are citizens.  Several instruments have been 
created and accepted by some portions of the international community of 
nations (it is nations who make these laws, not individuals). The 
Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Declaration 
on the Rights of Children, the international tribunal on war crimes, are 
examples of such efforts. The most far-reaching is that of the Belgians, 
who have asserted their jurisdiction over 'war criminals' wherever they 
reside and regardless of what country they are citizens of. This assertion 
is disputed by many states, including, most prominently, they US.   In 
short, these laws assert that if individuals violate certain norms of 
personal behavior, they may subject to international prosecution.  The war 
crimes trials of the Serbs and more recently Bosnians you mentioned come 
under this principle.

A distinction, in this body of law, is made between crimes that rise to 
the level of international sanction, and those that remain within the 
competence of the domestic police and courts of the countries in which the 
perpetrators reside.  The norm for pursuing these legal remedies are 
fairly high: some sort of pattern of violation must be demonstrated, with 
some level of harm caused, and with no sign that the domestic police and 
courts are acting to stop the violation.  It is a 'big deal' to go into 
another country and demand someone for violation of human rights. Horrible 
as Kent State was, I don't think that it would rise to this standard. 
Certainly, US police and courts should have responded fully to that sad 
event. Again, I leave it to others, f

[Futurework] scanning the horizon

Russian Deputies
Shelve Treaty

Arms Control Postponed to Protest U.S. War Plans

By Sharon LaFraniere,
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 @
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49332-2003Mar18.html

MOSCOW, March 18 --
The lower house of the Russian parliament today put off a vote on ratification
of an arms control treaty with the United States after angry legislators
accused the Bush administration of setting the stage for a world war.

Leaders of the lower
house, the State Duma, said the dramatic cuts in nuclear warheads envisioned
under the treaty should not be considered at a time when the United States has
flouted international law and tried to strong-arm countries, such as Russia,
that objected to its policy on Iraq. The vote had been scheduled for Friday.

The Duma speaker,
Gennady Seleznev, who until recently was a Communist Party member, suggested
the accord might be shelved indefinitely if the United States invaded Iraq,
because an attack would usher in "the law of the jungle" in
international relations.

"The strong will
trample the weak. And we don't want to be weak. Therefore, we will still need
the missiles," he said.

Other lawmakers
predicted that the treaty would be approved, perhaps as soon as the Duma
resumes work on April 1 after a break. "The deputies are angry," said
Sergei Shishkaryov, deputy head of the foreign affairs committee. "But
they still understand how important this treaty is for Russia."

Republicans Say They'll
Push for Tax Cuts Regardless of War

By David E. Rosenbaum, NYT, March 19, 2003 @ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/politics/19BUDG.html

WASHINGTON, March
18 — In the face of Democratic arguments that Congress is making a mockery of
sound budget procedures, Republican Congressional leaders said today that they
were determined to approve deep tax cuts regardless of the cost of a war
against Iraq and its aftermath.

Asked if he favored the 10-year, $726 billion tax package
proposed by President Bush before attention became focused on the costs of
fighting a war and rebuilding Iraq, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the
majority leader, said, "The answer is yes." "I'm in favor of growing the economy, which is
absolutely necessary if we are to reduce our deficit over time," Dr. Frist
said.

The first test of Congressional sentiment on taxes is likely
to come this week, when the Senate and House are to vote on budgets for the
year. In the Senate, a majority
seems to oppose the full package of tax reductions the president says are
necessary to spur the economy. But it was not clear today whether a majority
supported any alternative either.

One
alternative, being offered by a group of moderates from both parties, would allow a tax cut of up to $350
billion in the budget. Senator John B. Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana, a
sponsor, said he did not have the votes to pass it, at least not today, because
of opposition from senators who opposed any tax reduction.

Democratic leaders are drafting proposals to permit two
years of tax reductions focused on middle-income taxpayers. These plans have
little, if any, Republican support.
The first votes on the budget were taken tonight. On one of them, the
Senate voted 56
to 43 to reject an amendment that would have allowed no tax cuts or spending
increases until the president gave Congress a detailed report on what a war
would cost.

Outgoing mail scanned by NAV 2002

Re: [Futurework] Eyes wide open

Ray,

Perhaps the most poignant loss in the terrible American judicial system is 
mercy. I hope things change for the lady on appeal.

The most serious loss is common sense. Though some (many?) judges refused 
to apply the three strikes law in California. Our legislature had three 
"Three Strikes" laws to consider some years ago. Of course they passed the 
worst, that made felonies the base for the law. So a felonious carrying of 
a little cocaine could send you away practically for life. Madness!

Throwing away the key on someone who has carries out three violent crimes 
makes more sense. Yet, that rotten "felony" law was passed by the Democrat 
majorities in the legislature. Does political affiliation have anything to 
so with it? Not a thing!

Culpability is apolitical.

I get tired of the jabs at the "neo-cons" and suchlike - mentions usually 
quite unnecessary to the subject of discussion. I'm not really sure who the 
"neo-cons" are. I suppose it includes Bush and his Cabinet - or maybe it's 
shorthand for anyone who isn't a Democrat.

Anyway, it seems unnecessary. Let's stay with what they do rather than what 
they are.

Pretty nearly everyone is against war and against violence. Yet, a 
million  anti-war protesters in Britain means that 49 million didn't march.

Yet, the protests were much larger than those of the scores of thousands 
who filled the streets in a protest against stopping fox-hunting.

One of us suggested this was the apogee for the US. It might just be the 
beginning of a whole new attitude for the UN. If the organization stops 
twittering and take heavy action (not necessarily war) against the rogue 
nations around the world, maybe the lives of umpteen millions will be 
bettered, and more millions will live instead of dying.

Karen has offered the alternative - talk, talk, talk. But, to deal with 
these bastards may need force - may require war.

Do we deal with North Korea now - or after  the country has stockpiled 
nuclear missiles? I'll be posting some more things out of Zimbabwe. To save 
tens of thousands of lives, will the blue helmets need forcibly to depose 
Mugabe and hold proper elections in the country.

Of course, if we discuss this long enough at the UN Mugabe will die (does 
he have a son to take over?). The many who will have died will disappear 
into oblivion and will  be forgotten - even as the well paid fat-cat 
diplomats at the UN are finishing a nice lunch on Fifth Avenue.

It is always so much better to do nothing rather than do something. If you 
do something, things might go wrong and you'll be in trouble. If you do 
nothing, you have much time to snipe at those who are doing.

Bush is attacked for trying to deal with a perceived problem. It may be the 
worst thing that has ever happened - or the best.

None of us know.

But, we will soon.

Harry

-

Ray wrote:

Gail and Lawry,

Have either of you researched the basis for the models that GWB and the 
Neo-Cons have in American History?America has a history of 
intervention including several in the past two administrations.What is 
that history and how is it legal or illegal given the current state of 
International law? Where did those models initially come 
from? What has happened to change the validity/legality in the 21st 
century? How is the current model of pro-active preventative action 
different from say Haiti, Granada or Kosovo?

I'm just concerned with our soldiers not being caught in the kind of trap 
that "little guys" get caught in here in the US.   On the way to jail they 
are told that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." I have a friend who 
went to jail because she was told that she wasn't selling securities by 
her employer and that she was within the law.She was working two 
jobs.   They sent a sixty year old first offender away for nine years in 
the jails of Texas (for selling securities without a license)  while the 
more affluent Minister employers she worked for got off with a fine.   I 
fear for her survival given the state of American prisons.

What about American soldiers ending up doing something that the world 
agrees is illegal while the US claims its not and has a big enough gun at 
present to make it irrelevant. e.g. invading a country that is under UN 
sanction and that the UN agrees is in the process of disarming, if not as 
fast as the UN or US would like.I think it is imperative that American 
Citizens become more sophisticated about such stuff since even our own 
laws say that ignorance and an inaccurate supervisor is no excuse for 
breaking the law.Is there a case or precedent for our soldiers being 
hauled up before an International (or National court in Belgium where War 
Crimes are illegal),   several years down the road when the war is over 
and the soldier, now a civilian is on vacation in Europe? The NYTimes 
had an article sometime ago about this very thing and listed it as a 
reason

Re: [Futurework] An interesting scenario for US/Iraq

Sally,

The piece that starts:

"Rolling Start -- The Idiot Prince Will Have His War"

In other words, it's a political article aimed at Bush.

It can immediately be downgraded to propaganda.

The things which are true or which are plausible possibilities, we know.

Then, he launches in to the same old stuff - things he cannot possibly know 
and which are a tired old recitation of anti-Bush guesses.

If we must fear the consequences of the harm we will inevitably do - he 
puts it as (say) 5 new enemies for every Iraqi killed - we must wonder what 
happened to all these relatives after the Iraq-Iran conflict.

No fewer than 1.5 million casualties - of which perhaps a million died - 
would mean as many as 7.5 million relatives and friends are continuing the 
fight - trying to destroy Iranians or Iraqis.

Haven't noticed it.

If you survive a war, you are glad. You don't grab a machine gun and head 
for the enemy city. You go home and everyone is happy.

Much more dangerous is a problem often referred to by Keith.

Unemployed young men with no future, not even one supplied by us.

They are the danger - as is indicated in American urban areas, where young 
black people kill other black people. Some 50% of  them will have no job - 
those who do get work will be getting minimum wage (or less after kickbacks).

But, that's all I'll say about the article to which I had a poorer reaction 
than you.

Harry
---
Sally wrote:

The attached piece from the site www.rense.com has an eerie ring of 
reality about it. Sally


**
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga  CA  91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
***

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003

Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!

Ray,

You rest a lot of faith in the "green light". Apparently Carter (a 
warmonger if we've ever had one) did nothing about Saddam's intention to 
invade Iran. The truth is we couldn't do anything anyway - except supply 
parts for Iran's F4 Phantoms.

When Saddam went into Iran, he went with 190,000 men, 2,200 tanks, and 450 
planes.

The Russians gave him tanks and planes. We gave him a green light. Later 
on, when the 'tanker war' began, Saddam bought 30 Mirages, complete with 
Exojets, from the French. That allowed him to kill a lot of merchant seamen.

I wonder if we gave an amber light for the 'tanker war"? I'm sure he would 
have preferred a few more jets.

Naaah!

Of course the Iranians made a fool out of Carter. I suppose the "green 
light" was Carter's a reaction to that. Meanwhile, the other surrounding 
countries were happy to have Saddam attack - they were scared of Iranian power.

Apparently everyone knew about the imminent invasion except the Iranians. 
That's kind of funny.

The Iranians stopped Saddam's modern Russian weapons with mass attacks in 
which slaughter didn't matter. Should it ever come to that, what would 
American soldiers do if 200,000 Iranians came at them, including 9 year old 
"soldiers". The Iraqi's Russian tanks, guns, and helicopter gun-ships 
slaughtered by the tens of thousands - but were still overwhelmed.

What would we do - if we found ourselves in such a position.?

Harry
-
Ray wrote:

Well, you can protest all you want but the statement reads:

5. BOTH SADAT AND FAHD PROVIDED OTHER BITS OF USEFUL INTELLIGENCE. (E.G. 
IRAN IS RECEIVING MILITARY SPARES FRO U.S. EQUIPMENT FROM ISRAEL).   IT 
WAS ALSO INTERESTING TO CONFIRM THAT PRESIDENT CARTER GAVE THE IRAQIS A 
GREEN LIGHT TO LAUNCH THE WAR AGAINST IRAN THROUGH FAHD.
9 talking points prepared and used by Secretary of State Alexander Haig in 
1981.

Was classified and now dug up and published for the first time by Frank 
Parry of Iran/Contra fame.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/haig-docs.html

Say whatever you want Harry.   Why don't call up Haig, he made the 
statement.  But what do I know.  I'm not a pundit just an opera director 
trying to connect the dots.

REH

P.S. note that Haig admits to illegally selling arms to Iran through 
Israel in defiance of the US law.If that was a Democrat doing such 
things Anne Coulter would have listed him in her book on Traitors.


**
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga  CA  91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
***

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003

RE: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court

Leaving aside the matter of what they may or may not have done, the problem
with the idea of 'hauling' anyone before a court is that one must have
custody of the perpetrators first. The US and UK are unlikely to lose this
war militarily (though I believe they will suffer a great defeat in other
ways) and so their leaders should remain beyond the reach of any
international court.

'Excessive' death of innocents through the choice of military strategies and
tactics that can forseeably have had that effect would qualify as a war
crime.  The precedent on this is clear and compelling.  I would predict that
in the same way some Serbs, Bosnians, Kissinger, and Sharon restrict their
international travel for fear of being placed under the administrative
control of a court and tried for war crimes, that President Bush and some
others (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Elliot Abrams?) may do the same.

It is a very sad thing that seems about to happen, for everyone. No one will
'win, in this, and many innocents will  be harmed.

There is a general sense of sadness, here in the US capital, among people
who know what is going on.  They are saddened by seeing a US government
handle itself in this way, and sad for the Iraqi people. And they are not
understanding how it could have gone so wrong.  This includes people who
until recently, when it still seemed to them like a game, backed Bush
without reservation. Many of these people have now abandoned Bush, if only
by raising worries and concerns that they so steadfastly ignored earlier.
Even the architects of this disastrous policy seem shaken and without
energy.

Lawry

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Hudson
> Sent: Wed, March 19, 2003 3:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court
>
>
> Unless the very greatest care has been taken in the choice of targets that
> are going to be bombed in Iraq tomorrow morning, I wouldn't be at all
> surprised if Bush and Blair will not be hauled before an international
> court of war crimes in due course. This may be ten or twenty
> years down the
> line, but the way that the body of international law is
> developing, I think
> it's more likely than not.
>
> The fact that Bush and Blair will be old men then won't be relevant. A
> couple of years ago, General Pinochet in his 80s was almost brought to
> trial for crimes against civilians 20/30 years previously. More
> recently, a
> couple of Argentinian Generals have been indicted for crimes against "the
> disappeared" of 20 years ago. And, of course, Milosevich is being tried at
> this time for his crimes over many years.
>
> International law at present is rather more similar to common law or
> mercantile law in times past than statutory law. It doesn't need
> pre-existing legislative bodies or courts of law or specific authorities.
> It grows and develops according to ethical notions that take shape and
> clarify among those who are more directly affected and scholars
> who take an
> interest. The various institutional devices that are necessary
> for the more
> precise formulation of the crime, its prosecution and its punishment tend
> to follow rather than precede the law itself.
>
> At the present time, international lawyers derive their "authority" from a
> variety of halfway developed international institutions and scholarly
> opinions. International law at present is accumulating rather
> like case law
> or, to quote an example from the Jewish faith, the development of the
> Palestinian or Babylonian Talmuds. Some of such judgements and expositions
> may, superficially, seem antithetical but, nevertheless, common threads
> gradually emerge.
>
> There can be little doubt that, untidy though the situation may seem to be
> at present, international law is evolving at a rapid rate at the present
> time. Unless the most careful intelligence appraisal is made
> before targets
> are selected for bombing in Iraq tomorrow morning -- and, importantly,
> documentation is able to be produced in an international court of law in
> future years -- then it seems to me to be quite possible that President
> Bush, Prime Minister Blair and General Franks, as the most responsible
> people involved, will be in the dock and might be found guilty of crimes
> against humanity.
>
> Keith Hudson
>
> --
> --
> 
>
> Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> Tel: +44 1225 312622;  Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> ___
> Futurework mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uw

RE: [Futurework] Eyes wide open




There 
is no concept of a Rogue State in international law. 
 
Odd 
that the country that has most bandied the term about is, with Israel, 
considered to qualify.  I fear for the standing of the US and Israel over 
the next 2-3 decades. 
 
L

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Ray Evans 
  HarrellSent: Tue, March 18, 2003 9:05 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]; William B WardSubject: Re: 
  [Futurework] Eyes wide open
  Second question:  
   
  Are any of these activities now considered 
  actions by a Rogue State in International Law? 
   
  REH 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
William B Ward 

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:27 
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Eyes wide 
open

Ray,
 
Good point. It was a ruse that we were drawn into Vietnam. We have 
invaded various Caribbean islands over the last 7 or 8 decades to protect 
the interests of friends of the US president at that time. We helped Panama 
break away rom Colombia.
 
Bill Ward
 
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:15:32 -0500 "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Gail and Lawry, 
   
  Have either of you researched the basis for 
  the models that GWB and the Neo-Cons have in American 
  History?    America has a history of intervention including 
  several in the past two administrations.

RE: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court

Hi, Ray,
Your relatives should be in no LEGAL danger, as long as they follow the
rules of war as laid out in the Army's own doctrine.

I wish them safety.

lawry
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ray Evans
> Harrell
> Sent: Wed, March 19, 2003 8:16 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson
> Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court
>
>
> That would not surprise me either.   What I care about are my own
> relatives
> who are in the field.   They are members of the Army Reserve and are a
> husband and wife medical team.   Most of these people are in their late
> teens or early twenties.   I am concerned that they not be put
> into any kind
> of double bind about that happening to them.
>
> REH
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:04 AM
> Subject: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court
>
>
> > Unless the very greatest care has been taken in the choice of
> targets that
> > are going to be bombed in Iraq tomorrow morning, I wouldn't be at all
> > surprised if Bush and Blair will not be hauled before an international
> > court of war crimes in due course. This may be ten or twenty years down
> the
> > line, but the way that the body of international law is developing, I
> think
> > it's more likely than not.
> >
> > The fact that Bush and Blair will be old men then won't be relevant. A
> > couple of years ago, General Pinochet in his 80s was almost brought to
> > trial for crimes against civilians 20/30 years previously. More
> recently,
> a
> > couple of Argentinian Generals have been indicted for crimes
> against "the
> > disappeared" of 20 years ago. And, of course, Milosevich is
> being tried at
> > this time for his crimes over many years.
> >
> > International law at present is rather more similar to common law or
> > mercantile law in times past than statutory law. It doesn't need
> > pre-existing legislative bodies or courts of law or specific
> authorities.
> > It grows and develops according to ethical notions that take shape and
> > clarify among those who are more directly affected and scholars who take
> an
> > interest. The various institutional devices that are necessary for the
> more
> > precise formulation of the crime, its prosecution and its
> punishment tend
> > to follow rather than precede the law itself.
> >
> > At the present time, international lawyers derive their
> "authority" from a
> > variety of halfway developed international institutions and scholarly
> > opinions. International law at present is accumulating rather like case
> law
> > or, to quote an example from the Jewish faith, the development of the
> > Palestinian or Babylonian Talmuds. Some of such judgements and
> expositions
> > may, superficially, seem antithetical but, nevertheless, common threads
> > gradually emerge.
> >
> > There can be little doubt that, untidy though the situation may
> seem to be
> > at present, international law is evolving at a rapid rate at the present
> > time. Unless the most careful intelligence appraisal is made before
> targets
> > are selected for bombing in Iraq tomorrow morning -- and, importantly,
> > documentation is able to be produced in an international court of law in
> > future years -- then it seems to me to be quite possible that President
> > Bush, Prime Minister Blair and General Franks, as the most responsible
> > people involved, will be in the dock and might be found guilty of crimes
> > against humanity.
> >
> > Keith Hudson
> >
> >
> --
> --
> > 
> >
> > Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
> > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> > Tel: +44 1225 312622;  Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > ___
> > Futurework mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
> ___
> Futurework mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>

___
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

[Futurework] A little of this and a little of that









Reuters:US Planes bomb West
Iraq after being fired up @ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=1C5YNONGKOC3SCRBAEKSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=2406030

 

Reuters: US Warplanes bomb Southern
Iraq; forces ready @ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2407603

 

Reuters: US denies rumors ‘not
true’ on Iraq’s Aziz @ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2407575

 

BBC: Mystery over vanished
Iraqi general @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2864937.stm

 

Ha’aretz: MI Chief:  US to launch attack early Thursday

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=274587&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

Israelis are instructed
to prepare a sealed room in their homes but not open gas mask kits.

 

Ha’aretz: Background: A Bush
nightmare Could Israel lash out at an Iraqi? 

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=274702&displayTypeCd=1&sideCd=1&contrassID=2

 

Yomiuri: Japan’s money will
be used after Iraq war @ http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/index-e.htm

“The United Nations
has predicted that the world will see about 600,000 to 1.45 million refugees fleeing from Iraq to neighboring
countries such as Jordan and Iran, and has asked major nations to offer 123
million dollars in emergency aid to support those refugees. 

In addition to support
for the refugees, Japan plans to offer bilateral assistance to nations that shoulder financial
burdens as a result of the influx of refugees. The government will give financial aid amounting
to several hundreds of millions of dollars to Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia,
Turkey and other neighboring countries. “

Which explains
a lot of the names on the list of countries that the US has released who are
supporting the US-led war on Iraq. 
Aside from permission for overflights and influx of refugees, there are
names on this I cannot fathom. Can anyone tell me what will El Salvador be
providing?  Fifteen other countries
wish to remain ‘silent partners’.  

See 30 Governments Back US Stance on Iraq
@ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2403034

Excerpt: “Boucher said
the 30 countries on the list are Afghanistan,
Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Britain, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy,
Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the
Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey and
Uzbekistan….”Japan qualified its support” and “Bulgaria was not on
the final list”.  -  KWC

[Futurework] Lemonade out of season

Friedman
attempts to make lemonade out of the lemons we have harvested.

At the moment,
public opinion is swayed by human tendencies to enforce unity for survival, even
with great dissent.

There will be
time ahead when those who opposed this course will need to redirect their
energy to making peace with allies and making the best of a bad situation. History tells us, unfortunately, that
those who believe war is a problem-solver rarely change their minds later, and
so the battles between those who believe in problem-solving without war will
continue. - Karen

D-Day

By Thomas L. Friedman, NYT, March 19, 2003 @ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/opinion/19FRIE.html

President Bush is fond of cowboy imagery, so here's an image
that comes to mind about our pending war with Iraq. In most cowboy movies the
good guys round up a posse before they ride into town and take on the black
hats. We're doing just the
opposite. We're riding into
Baghdad pretty much alone and hoping to round up a posse after we get there. I
hope we do, because it may be the only way we can get out with ourselves, and
the town, in one piece.

This
column has argued throughout this debate that removing Saddam Hussein and
helping Iraq replace his regime with a decent, accountable government that can
serve as a model in the Middle East is worth doing — not because Iraq threatens us with its
weapons, but because we are threatened by a collection of failing Arab-Muslim
states, which churn out way too many young people who feel humiliated,
voiceless and left behind. We have a real interest in partnering with them for
change.

This
column has also argued,
though, that such
a preventive war is so unprecedented and mammoth a task — taking over an entire country from a
standing start and rebuilding it — that it had to be done with maximum U.N legitimacy and with as many allies as possible.

President
Bush has failed
to build that framework before going to war. Though the Bush team came to
office with this Iraq project in mind, it has pursued a narrow, ideological and bullying
foreign policy
that has alienated so many people that by the time it wanted to rustle up a
posse for an Iraq war, too many nations were suspicious of its motives.

The president says he went the extra mile to find a diplomatic solution. That is not true. On the eve of the first gulf war, Secretary of
State James Baker met face to face in Geneva with the Iraqi foreign minister —
a last-ditch peace effort that left most of the world feeling it was Iraq that
refused to avoid war. This time the whole world saw President Bush make one
trip, which didn't quite make it across the Atlantic, to sell the war to the
only two allies we had. This is not to excuse France, let alone Saddam. France's role in blocking a credible U.N.
disarmament program was shameful.

But here we are, going to war, basically alone, in the face
of opposition, not so much from "the Arab Street," but from "the
World Street." Everyone wishes it were different, but it's too late —
which is why
this column will henceforth focus on how to turn these lemons into lemonade. Our children's future hinges on doing
this right, even if we got here wrong.

The president's view is that in the absence of a U.N.
endorsement, this war will become "self-legitimating" when the world sees most Iraqis greet
U.S. troops as liberators. I
think there is a good chance that will play out.

But
wars are fought for political ends. Defeating Saddam is necessary but not sufficient to
achieve those ends, which are a more progressive Iraq and a world with fewer
terrorists and terrorist suppliers dedicated to destroying the U.S., so
Americans will feel safer at home and abroad. We cannot achieve the latter without the former. Which means we must bear any burden and pay any price to make Iraq into the sort of
state that fair-minded people across the world will see and say: "You did
good. You lived up to America's promise."

To maximize our chances of doing that, we
need to patch things up with the world. Because having more allied support in rebuilding Iraq will
increase the odds that we do it right, and because if the breach that has been opened between us
and our traditional friends hardens into hostility, we will find it much tougher to manage both
Iraq and all the other
threats down the road.
That means the Bush team needs an "attitude lobotomy" — it needs to get off its high horse and start engaging people on
the World Street,
listening to what's bothering them, and also telling them what's bothering us.

Some 35 years ago Israel won a war in Six Days. It saw its
victory as self-legitimating. Its neighbors saw it otherwise, and Israel has been trapped in the Seventh Day
ever since
— never quite able to transform its dramatic victory into a peace that would
make Israelis feel more secure.

More than 50 years ago America won a war against European
fascism, which it followed up with a Marshall Plan a

Re: [Futurework] Genghis Khan is riding again!

That is disgusting but not surprising.

REH  

From: Tor Førde 

  To: Futurework 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:39 
  AM
  Subject: [Futurework] Genghis Khan is 
  riding again!

  Saddam has said the coming attack might be as 
  destructive as the attack of Genghis Khans mongols.
  And the American ambassador in Norway is in 
  public threatening Norway. He says it will have long lasting consequences to 
  Norway that Norway not will join America in the assault on Iraq. Well, people 
  are so used to threats from America that nothing else was 
  expected.

  I remember about 1973-1975. There were some 
  NATO exercises going on, and one Norwegian private soldier sent copies of some 
  of the NATO communications to newspapers, and NATO was in these exercises 
  dropping atombombs, nuclear weapond, weapons of mass destruction, on Norwegian 
  town, because there were workers on strike in thoses towns. This was frontpage 
  news in lots of newspapers. The name of the soldier who revealed this was 
  Narve Tredal or Narve Trædal. He was sentenced to prison because he had 
  revealed military secrets! It is almost incredible - Norway is a member of 
  NATO, but in exercises  NATO are using weapons of mass destruction 
  against Norway because workers are on strike in Norway! Well, it was 
  thirty years ago, but I guess plans are still ready - so who is next - after 
  Iraq? 
  Will the criminal gang in Washington attack 
  Europe - when?

  Tor

Re: [Futurework] Bush and Blair in Court