see also: A Real Senior Moment http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17231
fwd... Dear MoveOn member, For years, Democratic lawmakers have been working to make sure that seniors have access to prescription drugs and reasonable healthcare. Now, in an attempt to score political points, the Republican Congressional leadership is pushing through a bill that appears to offer a solution. Actually, the bill undermines the entire Medicare program, pushing people into the very HMOs which contribute heavily to Republican lawmakers and barring the government from negotiating for lower drug prices. Given the danger to seniors, one might expect that the millions-strong American Association of Retired People (AARP) to be on the case. But after huge contributions from pharmaceutical companies and HMOs, and pressure from Republican lawmakers, the AARP is selling out its membership and backing the bill. In response, 85 members of Congress (so far) have canceled their AARP memberships, or announced that they will never join (if they're not yet old enough to be eligible). [1] Today, we urge you to do the same. If the AARP won't stand up for the elderly when it comes to health care, what good is it? You can reach the AARP at: National hotline: 1-800-424-3410 If you're a member, tell them you're quitting. If you're too young to be eligible, tell them you'll never join. You also may want to let your Representative and Senators know that you're keeping the AARP accountable. You could also tell them that you expect them to demand real health care reform -- not this industry-backed bill. [You can find the names and numbers of your members of Congress at: http://www.vote-smart.org/] The AARP has endorsed a bill that would make two fundamental changes in Medicare: 1. First, it would force people to make a stark choice: either pay sharply increased premiums to stay in traditional Medicare, where they can choose their doctor; or be forced out, into an HMO. Newt Gingrich, the former House Republican leader, said in 1995 that he wanted to let Medicare to "wither on the vine." This change would lead to that result, with cost incentives driving people out. (Not coincidentally, AARP CEO William Novelli recently wrote the forward to Gingrich's book. [2]) 2. Second, it offers a prescription drug benefit, but requires people who want this coverage to buy it from private insurance plans. This part of the bill also bars the government from doing the one thing it could do to actually reduce the cost of these drugs -- negotiate for lower prices, using the size of the Medicare program as leverage. Drug prices are soaring now, and unless they're brought under control, they will eventually bankrupt Medicare. AARP itself sells insurance and also sells prescription drugs, so the group stands to reap huge financial gains from this change. The bill has been opposed by a host of liberal groups [3] as well as by major conservative groups, including the Club for Growth, The Heritage Foundation, the American Conservative Union, The Cato Institute, and the National Taxpayers Union. It's also been assailed by virtually every one of the Democratic presidential candidates. [4] In endorsing this bill, the AARP has broken faith with its members. In a recent poll, 65% of AARP members said they're opposed to it. [5] The group has also violated its own written principles. In July, CEO William Novelli wrote to Congress stating the requirements for AARP's support of a Medicare bill. [6] Yet the bill AARP has just endorsed fails to meet nine separate requirements stated in that letter. [7] We need to hold the AARP responsible for selling out its members. If the organization sees sufficient backlash from its members and prospective members, it could still change course and effect the outcome of this legislation. Please call your local AARP branch today. Sincerely, --Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack The MoveOn.org Team November 20th, 2003 ----- [1] 85 Representatives wrote to Novelli, canceling their memberships: http://www.moveon.org/HouseAARPletter.pdf [2] From the foreword by Novelli to Gingrich's new book, "Saving Lives and Saving Dollars". [3] See http://www.moveon.org/medicare.html for a complete list of organizations. [4] See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54358-2003Nov17.html [5] Poll: a majority of AARP members oppose the Medicare bill: http://www.moveon.org/Medicaresurveypr.pdf [6] AARP July letter on minimum acceptable standards http://www.aarp.org/Articles/a2003-08-18-drugbenefitinmedicare.html [7] How AARP goes back on its word http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/Document_AARP_Priorities_11_17_03.html [8] http://www.aarp.org/leadership/Articles/a2002-12-18-aarpfactsheet.html From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 22 22:31:19 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAN6VIdE095126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:31:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B98847114B for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:31:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:31:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:31:19 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] NYT: F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 06:31:19 -0000 http://tinyurl.com/w6be November 23, 2003 F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies By ERIC LICHTBLAU, New York Times WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 — The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum. The memorandum, which the bureau sent to local law enforcement agencies last month in advance of antiwar demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco, detailed how protesters have sometimes used "training camps" to rehearse for demonstrations, the Internet to raise money and gas masks to defend against tear gas. The memorandum analyzed lawful activities like recruiting demonstrators, as well as illegal activities like using fake documentation to get into a secured site. F.B.I. officials said in interviews that the intelligence-gathering effort was aimed at identifying anarchists and "extremist elements" plotting violence, not at monitoring the political speech of law-abiding protesters. The initiative has won the support of some local police, who view it as a critical way to maintain order at large-scale demonstrations. Indeed, some law enforcement officials said they believed the F.B.I.'s approach had helped to ensure that nationwide antiwar demonstrations in recent months, drawing hundreds of thousands of protesters, remained largely free of violence and disruption. But some civil rights advocates and legal scholars said the monitoring program could signal a return to the abuses of the 1960's and 1970's, when J. Edgar Hoover was the F.B.I. director and agents routinely spied on political protesters like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "The F.B.I. is dangerously targeting Americans who are engaged in nothing more than lawful protest and dissent," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred, and I have a serious concern about whether we're going back to the days of Hoover." Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law professor at American University who has written about F.B.I. history, said collecting intelligence at demonstrations is probably legal. But he added: "As a matter of principle, it has a very serious chilling effect on peaceful demonstration. If you go around telling people, `We're going to ferret out information on demonstrations,' that deters people. People don't want their names and pictures in F.B.I. files." The abuses of the Hoover era, which included efforts by the F.B.I. to harass and discredit Hoover's political enemies under a program known as Cointelpro, led to tight restrictions on F.B.I. investigations of political activities. Those restrictions were relaxed significantly last year, when Attorney General John Ashcroft issued guidelines giving agents authority to attend political rallies, mosques and any event "open to the public." Mr. Ashcroft said the Sept. 11 attacks made it essential that the F.B.I. be allowed to investigate terrorism more aggressively. The bureau's recent strategy in policing demonstrations is an outgrowth of that policy, officials said. "We're not concerned with individuals who are exercising their constitutional rights," one F.B.I. official said. "But it's obvious that there are individuals capable of violence at these events. We know that there are anarchists that are actively involved in trying to sabotage and commit acts of violence at these different events, and we also know that these large gatherings would be a prime target for terrorist groups." Civil rights advocates, relying largely on anecdotal evidence, have complained for months that federal officials have surreptitiously sought to suppress the First Amendment rights of antiwar demonstrators. Critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, for instance, have sued the government to learn how their names ended up on a "no fly" list used to stop suspected terrorists from boarding planes. Civil rights advocates have accused federal and local authorities in Denver and Fresno, Calif., of spying on antiwar demonstrators or infiltrating planning meetings. And the New York Police Department this year questioned many of those arrested at demonstrations about their political affiliations, before halting the practice and expunging the data in the face of public criticism. The F.B.I. memorandum, however, appears to offer the first corroboration of a coordinated, nationwide effort to collect intelligence regarding demonstrations. The memorandum, circulated on Oct. 15 — just 10 days before many thousands gathered in Washington and San Francisco to protest the American occupation of Iraq — noted that the bureau "possesses no information indicating that violent or terrorist activities are being planned as part of these protests" and that "most protests are peaceful events." But it pointed to violence at protests against the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as evidence of potential disruption. Law enforcement officials said in interviews that they had become particularly concerned about the ability of antigovernment groups to exploit demonstrations and promote a violent agenda. "What a great opportunity for an act of terrorism, when all your resources are dedicated to some big event and you let your guard down," a law enforcement official involved in securing recent demonstrations said. "What would the public say if we didn't look for criminal activity and intelligence at these events?" The memorandum urged local law enforcement officials "to be alert to these possible indicators of protest activity and report any potentially illegal acts" to counterterrorism task forces run by the F.B.I. It warned about an array of threats, including homemade bombs and the formation of human chains. The memorandum discussed demonstrators' "innovative strategies," like the videotaping of arrests as a means of "intimidation" against the police. And it noted that protesters "often use the Internet to recruit, raise funds and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations." "Activists may also make use of training camps to rehearse tactics and counter-strategies for dealing with the police and to resolve any logistical issues," the memorandum continued. It also noted that protesters may raise money to help pay for lawyers for those arrested. F.B.I. counterterrorism officials developed the intelligence cited in the memorandum through firsthand observation, informants, public sources like the Internet and other methods, officials said. Officials said the F.B.I. treats demonstrations no differently than other large-scale and vulnerable gatherings. The aim, they said, was not to monitor protesters but to gather intelligence. Critics said they remained worried. "What the F.B.I. regards as potential terrorism," Mr. Romero of the A.C.L.U. said, "strikes me as civil disobedience." From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 23 22:30:41 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAO6UedE092423 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:30:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C7DC7066D for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:30:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:30:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:30:41 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Howard Clinton? X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:30:41 -0000 http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2003/000167.html Howard Clinton? By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman Howard Dean is a man with strong Clinton-esque tendencies. He's a self-described triangulator. Say good words about the environment. Take some positive action. Schmooze with the environmentalists. But when push comes to shove, don't offend the powers that be. Mark Sinclair is an senior attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation in Vermont. Sinclair was dismissed in 2001 from Dean's Council of Environmental Advisers because of his criticisms of the Governor. Sinclair says that two utilities in Vermont -- Green Mountain Power and Central Vermont Public Service -- along with IBM -- control the state. "Dean is in the pockets of the utilities and of IBM," Sinclair told us. "Whatever the major economic interest, he's beholden to them." "During his years as Governor, there was a large controversy over our ski areas," Sinclair said. "He supported their major expansion, which has resulted in ski mountain sprawl in places like Killington, Stowe Mountain Resort, Stratton Mountain." "Dean wasn't standing up for sustainable development," Sinclair said. "During his watch, we saw a lot more sprawl and strip development." Despite his professed love of rail transit, Dean pushed development of a major highway project around Burlington, even though he knew it would be disastrous for land use planners. IBM wanted it, so Dean went along. Why did IBM want it? According to Sinclair, IBM has a major facility in the area and Big Blue wanted to make the taxpayers pay for the road improvements. This is one thing that Bush's EPA and Dean agree on -- build the beltway around Burlington. The environmental community in Vermont is opposed. The Burlington highway fight is typical of Dean. He actually cares about light rail, and prefers it to more highways, according to Sinclair. But when push came to shove, he didn't dare stand up to IBM's demands. Sinclair says that Dean understands the problem of sprawl -- he gets it. But time and again, he "refused to stand up and allow his regulators to stand up and say no to sprawl." Dean lured a major Canadian plastics company -- the Husky Company -- to Vermont. Governor Dean allowed them to build on farmlands outside the town of Milton – north of Burlington. "Instead of telling that developer to build in an industrial park, he showed them a greenfield and allowed them to build in a greenfield," Sinclair said. "Convert farmfields into pavement. Once again, when there was a conflict between sprawl and big development, the Governor Dean sided with big development." After Dean's tenure, the Green Mountain State came to look just like the rest of the country. "He doesn't believe in land use planning, and provided no funding for Vermont's towns to do the planning they need," Sinclair said. "As a result, Vermont reacts to development. The only reason we don't look like Maryland is because we are a colder climate and people are just discovering us." Elizabeth Courtney of the Vermont Natural Resources Council also had her run-ins with Governor Dean. Dean dismissed Courtney in 2001 from the Governor's Council of Environmental Advisers because of an article she wrote for the Burlington Free Press. In the article, Courtney was critical of Governor Dean's plan to bring a coal-powered electric generation plant to northern Vermont. The coal powered plant never materialized. Sinclair has had many dealings with the Governor and doesn't like his style. "He very much knows what he thinks," Sinclair says. "He doesn't listen very well. He's very sure of himself. He shoots from the hip a lot. He doesn't believe in surrounding himself with a lot of strong leaders. He's smart, so he seems to know what the public wants to hear." Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter, http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press; http://www.corporatepredators.org). From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 23 22:32:49 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAO6WmdE092615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:32:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D616F70084 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:32:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:32:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:32:49 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Anyone But Bush X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:32:49 -0000 If you already read the other article I sent today, this article takes a very different view... http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/102203A.shtml Anyone But Bush By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Wednesday 22 October 2003 Looking at both sides of the debate over the looming 2004 Presidential campaign, one finds weirdness on both sides of the political aisle. >From the mouths of those who advocate for the current administration, we find this feigned outrage directed at those who criticize George W. Bush. The critics, we are told, have no substance to them. They just hate Bush for the sake of simple hatred. Many who argue from the liberal/progressive realm, conversely, cast their eyes across the nine Democratic candidates for the office and find each and every one of them sorely wanting in one way or another. In other words, liberals just hate Bush because they just hate Bush, and simultaneously dislike all the Democratic candidates because they do not pass the purity test. Those within the liberal realm who argue the 'ABBA' perspective ('ABBA' being the 'Anyone But Bush Association') are denounced by a segment of their fellow liberals for having no standards, no morals, no integrity. ABBA people tend to be upfront about the fact that they would vote for a baloney sandwich before voting Bush in 2004. This does not pass the smell test for many of their fellow progressives. Has the baloney sandwich ever held office before? Does the baloney sandwich have a record it can run on? Did the baloney sandwich vote for the Iraq war? Did the baloney sandwich vote for the Patriot Act? Where does the baloney sandwich stand on the Israel/Palestine issue? Et cetera. There is no doubt that these are important issues, and there is no doubt that ABBA advocates will have to swallow a degree of their liberal integrity when they stand to support whomever wins the Democratic nomination in Boston this coming summer. Yet the conservative defenses of Bush and his 'haters,' along with liberal denunciations of the ABBA perspective as being without integrity, do not pass my own personal smell test. The thing is, the conservative White House defenders are spot-on correct about one thing. I despise George W. Bush. I despise his Vice President, his Senior Political Advisor, his Chief of Staff, his Defense Secretary, his Assistant Defense Secretary, his Attorney General, his National Security Advisor, and his chosen Ambassador to the United Nations. Those names, in case you are confused, are Cheney, Rove, Card, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Rice and Negroponte. I despise his Congressional allies, who have shredded their constitutional duties by refusing to investigate a variety of incredible crimes. For the record, these crimes include the fabrication of Iraq war evidence, the outing of a WMD-hunting CIA agent in an act of political revenge, and the serious questions about how four commercial aircraft fooled the entire domestic defense shield and the entire intelligence community long enough to kill three thousand people. I despise any and all of his people who fanned out two years ago to pound into the American consciousness the idea that criticizing Bush is treason. If you think that is over, take a gander at the first paragraph of an editorial entitled 'Kennedy, Other Critics, Are Traitors' that appeared today in a local Philadelphia paper called the Daily Local. The author, one Harlan "Buck" Ross, does an admirable job of describing the attitude the Bush administration has about its critics: "According to my dictionary a 'traitor' is a person who behaves disloyally; one who betrays his country. What I hear from U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., is nothing short of traitorous. The nine (10?) would-be candidates for the presidency in 2004 are but a short distance behind him with their ranting and raving and irresponsible blaspheming of the president of the United States." Call me old-fashioned, but I could have sworn that one can only blaspheme against God. When criticism of this President, or any President, is rhetorically raised to the level of blasphemy, we the people have an enormous problem on our hands. Yeah, I hate them all. Do I hate for the simple sake of hatred? Do I hate Bush because he is a Republican, a Texan, a white male, a meat-eater? Certainly not. I hate George W. Bush and all of his people because they have done an incredible amount of damage to this nation I hold so dear. I hate them because they are professional liars, thieves, brigands without conscience. I hate them, fully and completely, on the record. They lied about the need for this war. If you won't take it from me, take it from an avowed conservative and Bush voter named Paul Sperry, who wrote an editorial entitled 'Yes, Bush Lied' on October 6. This was published, if you can believe it, on the ultra-right-wing website WorldNetDaily.com, the same page that carries such luminaries as Ann Coulter. Feast: "According to the consensus of Bush's intelligence services, there was 'low confidence' before the war in the views that 'Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland' or 'share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qaida.' Their message to the president was clear: Saddam wouldn't help al-Qaida unless we put his back against the wall, and even then it was a big maybe. If anything, the report was a flashing yellow light against attacking Iraq. Bush saw the warning, yet completely ignored it and barreled ahead with the war plans he'd approved a month earlier (Aug. 29), telling a completely different version of the intelligence consensus to the American people. Less than a week after the NIE was published, he warned that 'on any given day' - provoked by attack or not, sufficiently desperate or not - Saddam could team up with Osama and conduct a joint terrorist operation against America using weapons of mass destruction." In essence, Bush used the attacks of September 11 against the American people to gin up fear and dread, which he then used to push a war which did not need to be fought. Sperry, some devastating paragraphs later, concludes: "Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and daughters in harm's way in Iraq; and forget that he sent 140,000 troops there with bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their attackers to bring it on. It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a war on al-Qaida, the real and proven threat to America. Bush diverted those troops and other resources - including intelligence assets, Arabic translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars - from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani border. And now they've regrouped and are as threatening as ever. That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty and concern for their own families' safety should be mad as hell about it - and that's coming from someone who voted for Bush." Mr. Sperry, in all likelihood, will remember these gems: "This is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaida. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaida as a forward army." - Bush, October 14, 2002 "Yes, there is a linkage between al-Qaida and Iraq." - Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, September 26, 2002 "There have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-Qaida going back for actually quite a long time." - National Security Advisor Rice, September 25, 2002 The list of lies this administration told is long and distinguished. The number of lies told specifically about Iraq - his claim in May that "We found the weapons of mass destruction," his claim that Iraq refused to let the inspectors in when they demonstrably had, his claims about Iraq procuring uranium from Niger, his claims that Iraq was a threatening nation capable of attacking within 45 minutes, the mobile weapons labs, the aluminum tubes story, the mushroom clouds - boggle the mind. A few more to consider: * He lied about wanting Osama bin Laden "Dead or alive" in September of 2001 because he turned around that March and claimed bin Laden was of no importance. * His National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, said, "We had no way of predicting that terrorists would hijack planes and crash them into buildings." This was a lie. I have spoken to several engineers in the building-building business. Large buildings, and especially large government buildings, are constructed with a number of potential catastrophes in mind. A purposefully crashed airplane has been on that hazard list for a very long time. This, in combination with the warnings given to this administration by foreign intelligence services that were specifically about hijacked aircraft being used as aerial bombs, makes the whole sordid excuse reek. * He lied about making America a "humble nation," and lied about "changing the tone." America has virtually no friends left within the international community because we have been violently belligerent instead of humble. The cries of "Traitor!" against administration critics have certainly changed the tone, but for the worse. * He said, "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." This was a fantastic lie. The tax cuts benefited the vast majority of very rich people across the entire spectrum of very rich people. Those truly at the bottom of the spectrum received a pittance, and have watched the social programs they depend on die from lack of funding, because said funding was squandered by the tax cuts. By the end of the decade, Bush's tax cuts will substantially increase the tax burden on middle-class families. * He lied when he said he did not know Mr. Enron, Ken Lay, before 1996. Lay was one of Bush's most generous benefactors well before 1996. The number of lies told about the specifics of Bush's relationship to Lay and Enron, and the many ways Bush tried to rescue that criminal company, would require a list that stretches around the moon. When Bush said, "Ken who?" after being questioned by the press about his Enron connections, this stretched the definition of bold lying into impressive new shapes. * He lied about the reasons for the attacks of September 11. It was "enemies who hate our freedom," and not a constellation of foreign policy decisions made by this administration as well as its predecessors reaching back before 1978, that caused the attack. This lie, in particular, is diabolical. An American populace who are not given the understanding that actions have consequences is an American populace that can be easily led into an unnecessary war in the Mideast. * He lied when he took credit for a Patients Bill of Rights as Governor of Texas. In fact, he vetoed the bill. Likewise, he took credit for reforms to the Texas educational system that had been put in place by Ann Richards and Mark White, among others. * He lied broadly and often about his military service, despite the fact that no one in his Texas Air National Guard unit can remember laying eyes on him for almost two years of his tour. "I've been to war. I've raised twins. Given a choice, I'd rather go to war," said Bush to the Houston Chronicle on January 27, 2002. Cute, George. Problem: You've never been to war. Liar. The swagger across the aircraft carrier, by default, is a nauseating lie as well. * He lied to the entire city of New York, and to the cops, firefighters and EMTs in particular. He said the air in New York was fine after 9/11 when he knew from his EPA chief that it was poison. He promised vast new funding to the police, fire and EMT departments in New York. Not a dime has been provided. It all went to the tax cuts and the Iraq war...which means it went to Bush's wealthy allies and friends in the defense industry. Fancy that. We would be here all day if this list were constructed to be comprehensive. The above is representative: George W. Bush has lied about September 11, the Iraq war, the economy, his record as governor of Texas, his relationship with corporate criminals, and his own military record. In short, he has lied day after day after day about all of the issues he and his administration claim to hold dear. I do not hate George W. Bush merely for the sake of hatred, or because he is a Republican. I hate him because he is a cancer that is rotting out the guts of this country. I hate him because he would not know the truth if it crawled up his leg and grabbed him by the nose. Truth does not advance the profit motive. For liberals who denounce the ABBA perspective as being without integrity, my response is simple. Voting for anyone who can remove Mr. Bush, his administration, and all of these deadly lies from the highest office in the land is an act of singular integrity and patriotism. All hail the baloney sandwich, and never mind the blasphemy. ------------------ William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org. He is a New York Times and international best-selling author of three books - "War On Iraq," available from Context Books, "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available from Pluto Press, and "Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism," available in August from Context Books. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Nov 24 20:50:39 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP4obdE095928 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:50:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id CA25370411 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:50:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:50:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:50:28 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Linking Iraq with the War on Terror X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 04:50:39 -0000 LINKING THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ WITH THE “WAR ON TERRORISM” By Norman Solomon / Creators Syndicate Reuters is one of the more independent wire services. So, a recent news story from Reuters -- flatly describing American military activities in Iraq as part of “the broader U.S. war on terrorism” -- is a barometer of how powerfully the pressure systems of rhetoric from top U.S. officials have swayed mainstream news coverage. Such reporting, with the matter-of-fact message that the Pentagon is fighting a “war on terrorism” in Iraq, amounts to a big journalistic gift for the Bush administration, which is determined to spin its way past the obvious downsides of the occupation. Here are the concluding words from Bush’s point man in Iraq, Paul Bremer, during a Nov. 17 interview on NPR’s “Morning Edition” program: “The president was absolutely firm both in private and in public that he is not going to let any other issues distract us from achieving our goals here in Iraq, that we will stay here until the job is done and that the force levels will be determined by the conditions on the ground and the war on terrorism.” Within hours, many of Bremer’s supervisors were singing from the same political hymnal: * On a visit to Europe, Colin Powell told a French newspaper that “Afghanistan and Iraq are two theaters in the global war on terrorism.” * In Washington, President Bush said: “We fully recognize that Iraq has become a new front on the war on terror.” * Speaking to campaign contributors in Buffalo, the vice president pushed the envelope of deception. “Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror,” Dick Cheney declared. Whether you’re selling food from McDonald’s or cars from General Motors or a war from the U.S. government, repetition is crucial for making propaganda stick. Bush’s promoters will never tire of depicting the war on Iraq as a war on terrorism. And they certainly appreciate the ongoing assists from news media. For the U.S. public, the mythological link between the occupation of Iraq and the “war on terrorism” is in play. This fall, repeated polling has found a consistent breakout of opinion. In mid-November, according to a CBS News poll, 46 percent of respondents said that the war in Iraq is a major part of the “war on terrorism,” while 14 percent called it a minor part and 35 percent saw them as two separate matters. A shift in such perceptions, one way or another, could be crucial for Bush’s election hopes. In large measure -- particularly at psychological levels -- Bush sold the invasion of Iraq as a move against “terrorism.” If he succeeds at framing the occupation as such, he’ll get a big boost toward a second term. Despite the Bush administration’s countless efforts to imply or directly assert otherwise, no credible evidence has ever emerged to link 9/11 or Al Qaeda with the regime of Saddam Hussein. Now, if “terrorism” is going to be used as an umbrella term so large that it covers attacks on military troops occupying a country, then the word becomes nothing more than an instrument of propaganda. Often the coverage in U.S. news media sanitizes the human consequences -- and yes, the terror -- of routine actions by the occupiers. On Wednesday, the U.S. military announced that it had dropped a pair of 2,000-pound bombs 30 miles northeast of Baghdad. Meanwhile, to the north, near the city of Kirkuk, the U.S. Air Force used 1,000-pound bombs -- against “terrorist targets,” an American officer told reporters. Clearly, the vast majority of the people dying in these attacks are Iraqis who are no more “terrorists” than many Americans would be if foreign troops were occupying the United States. But U.S. news outlets sometimes go into raptures of praise as they describe the high-tech arsenal of the occupiers. On Nov. 17, at the top of the front page of the New York Times, a color photo showed a gunner aiming his formidable weapon downward from a Black Hawk helicopter, airborne over Baghdad. Underneath the picture was an article lamenting the recent setbacks in Iraq for such U.S. military aircraft. “In two weeks,” the article said, “the Black Hawks and Chinooks and Apaches that once zoomed overhead with such grace and panache have suddenly become vulnerable.” “Grace” and “panache.” Attributed to no one, the words appeared in a prominent mash note about machinery of death from the New York Times, a newspaper that’s supposed to epitomize the highest journalistic standards. But don’t hold your breath for a correction to appear in the nation’s paper of record. ___________________________________ Norman Solomon’s weekly “Media Beat” column is distributed to daily newspapers by Creators Syndicate. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Nov 24 20:53:14 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP4rCdE096169 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:53:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5029C7136F for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:53:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:53:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:53:14 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Bush's 9/11 Coverup X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 04:53:14 -0000 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17243 22 November 2003 The 9/11 cover-up: What did Bush know about al Quaeda threats? by David Corn: It's fortunate for George W. Bush he has a mess on his hands in Iraq; otherwise, he might have to worry about a significant cover-up coming undone. As matters in Iraq - rising American casualties, helicopter mishaps, and an abrupt Bush decision to hand off political authority to an Iraqi body to be named later - have dominated the news, a tussle between the independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks and the White House did attract a short burst of media attention. It was noted on front pages that the bipartisan 9/11 commission and the Bush administration, after weeks of squabbling, had forged a deal regarding the commission's access to intelligence briefings given to Bush before September 11, 2001. But the news reports generally did not fully explain what was at stake. The White House had refused to turn over this material to the House and Senate intelligence committees when they were conducting a joint investigation of 9/11, and Bush took the same position with the 9/11 commission. But when the commission - headed by former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, a moderate Republican appointed to the panel by Bush - raised the prospect of subpoenaing the documents, the Bush team worked out a compromise. It is permitting the 10-member commission limited access to these intelligence reports, known as the President's Daily Brief (PDB). (It helped that family members of people killed on 9/11 had protested the White House's lack of cooperation.) The arrangement was unprecedented; this is the sort of stuff administrations fight to the death to keep secret. But 9/11 is different. Two Democratic commissioners (former Senator Max Cleland and former Representative Timothy Roemer) and the Family Steering Committee, an association of 9/11 relatives, though, blasted the agreement for imposing tight restrictions on how the commission can use information and, most importantly, on what it can tell the public about the material it is allowed to see. The accord was a partial victory for a Bush White House that has been trying hard to conceal a key slice of the 9/11 tale: what Bush knew of the pre-9/11 intelligence warnings that al Qaeda was planning a strike against the United States, and what Bush did (or did not do) in response to these warnings. And the White House's deal with the commission could well enable the administration to maintain this stonewalling. Some background: While the World Trade Center ashes were still glowing, Bush and his aides told the public that they had had no reason to suspect this type of horrific attack was about to occur. Yet, as the final report of the joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees notes, for years the intelligence community had collected information reporting that terrorist outfits, including al Qaeda, were interested in mounting 9/11-like attacks - that is, hijacking airliners and crashing them into high-profile targets in the United States. U.S. intelligence services, the Pentagon, and the Federal Aviation Administration during the Clinton and Bush II years apparently did not take action in response to these reports. That was a systemic failure. Bush has never addressed it publicly, but if pressed he could blame the bureaucrats at the CIA, the Defense Department and the FAA for ignoring clear-and-present hints. Bush is more vulnerable regarding warnings about al Qaeda that were sent to the White House during his first eight months in office. In May 2002, media reports revealed that the August 6, 2001, PDB had included material regarding Osama bin Laden's interest in hijacking airliners. That caused a brief controversy for Bush. And in September 2002, the House and Senate intelligence committees disclosed that an early July 2001 intelligence warning had noted, "We believe that [bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against the U.S. and/or Israeli interests in coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning." The questions are obvious. Was this dramatic July warning shared with Bush and his top advisers? If so, what did they do? And what did the August 6 PDB presented to Bush actually say? How did Bush react to it? Such queries are not necessarily difficult to resolve. To fulfill its mission, the 9/11 commission ought to provide the answers. But the Bush administration, to date, has acted to stop such answers from reaching the public. When the August 6, 2001, briefing hit the headlines 18 months ago, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice pooh-poohed it and told reporters that the PDB had contained merely a general warning about al Qaeda. And when the House and Senate intelligence committees revealed the existence of the July 2001 warning, the Bush administration refused to allow the committees to say whether this warning had been passed to Bush and his national security advisers. It would only let the committees report that the warning had been furnished to unnamed senior government officials. With these actions, the White House blocked the public from learning what Bush had been told about the al Qaeda threat in the weeks before 9/11, and it hid information that could cause Americans to wonder if Bush might have not reacted to the warnings with sufficient vigor. But the preliminary evidence is that the White House has been protecting itself. According to the House and Senate intelligence committees' final report on 9/11, the committees were told by an intelligence community representative that an August 2001 intelligence report included information that bin Laden wanted to conduct attacks in the United States, that al Qaeda members had been residing and traveling to the United States for years and had apparently maintained a support structure here, that bin Laden was interested in hijacking airliners (to trade for prisoners), that the FBI had discerned patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings, and that bin Laden supporters were planning attacks in the United States with explosives. That sure is different than a general warning about al Qaeda. Did this information appear in Bush's August 6, 2001, PDB? The committees are not in a position to say, but their staff has told reporters they strongly believe some - if not all - of this material was included in the PDB. That suggests that Rice misled the public about this briefing and that Bush had been presented with more than a routine warning about al Qaeda. And one Democratic senator on the committee told reporters (including me) that the July warning - the one noting a "spectacular" attack loomed - had indeed gone to senior White House officials and the president. The current battle over Bush's PDBs is important. They can show what Bush knew before 9/11 about al Qaeda's designs. They can provide a foundation for evaluating - finally - whether he and the federal government acted responsibly and reasonably in the weeks and months before the attacks. Which is one reason why anyone with an inquiring mind should be suspicious of a deal that does not provide the commission unfettered access to these reports and that grants the White House the possible means to protect a serious but little-noticed cover-up. David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 25 22:34:21 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAQ6YJdE002686 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:34:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A9BE571006 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:34:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:34:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:34:15 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:34:21 -0000 see also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4801223-103690,00.html International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."... -------------------------- 21 November 2003 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5267.htm Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com Friday, Nov. 21, 2003: (NewsMax) Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government. Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men's lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado. In the magazine's December edition, the former commander of the military's Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government. Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that "the worst thing that could happen" is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties. If that happens, Franks said, "... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy." Franks then offered "in a practical sense" what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack. "It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important." Franks didn't speculate about how soon such an event might take place. Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent. But Franks' scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government. The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades in the Army. Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars for valor. Known as a "soldier's general," Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.'s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11. Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden. [clip] From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 25 22:39:05 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAQ6d0dE002893 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:39:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FEA26FE10 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:39:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:39:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:39:02 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Military Draft Alert and Rumor X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:39:05 -0000 A response to the e-mail I sent out several days ago warning of another military draft (http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news/2003-November/000904.html)... Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "J.E. McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:09 AM Subject: Draft Alert and the Rumor that will not Die > Dear Friend-- > > For your information,the draft boards have been staffed sincetheearly > 1980s. However, since the maximum amount of time that anyone can serve on a > draft board is 20 years by law, there are a number a vacancies due merely > to the passage of time. No member of the miltary can be a draft board > member. Nor can any retired military. We recommend those who feel > comfortable and not complicite to join the draft boards. > > The Act that you refer to is old--it was introduced with a flurry by Rangle > last New Year.It has been, and remains, dead in committee. Rangle (Dem from > Harlem)introduced it in a misguided effort to discourage further military > action. He continues to lobby behind the scenes but does not even have the > ability to get it out of committee, much less to the floor for a vote. > > The real concern has to be, from our point of view, the possibility of a > Doctors draft and the continuing arguments that we need a draft torelieve > the National Guard and Reserves in Iraq. But the more we talk about a > draft, the more likely it is to happen. If we do want to warn people about > the possibility, it is important to be sure we have all the facts correct. > > We need a multilateral force in Iraq instead of a draft until we can undo > all of the damage we have done and the only was we willget that is if the > US is willing to relinquish total control over the process. > > I am sorry if this comes on a little harsh, but I have been trying to lay > this rumor to rest ever since that twit at Darthmoth said it was > significant because it was "the first reconstruction of draft boards since > Vietnam." You'd think you would want to have you name attached to accurate > information. > > Since I talk with Selective Service on a regular basis and my staff spends > a great deal of time on Capitol Hill just to follow this stuff, please > consider us a source to verify rumors about drafts. We may not be the first > to know, but we know who to ask. :-) > > Yours for Peace and Justice, > > J. E. McNeil > Executive Director > Center on Conscience & War From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 26 23:30:34 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAR7UXdE013247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 36E28701AB for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:30:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:30:34 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Thanksgiving: A National Day of Mourning for Indians X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:30:35 -0000 For more info on the National Day of Mourning, see the website of the United American Indians of New England at: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Euainendom/ Thanksgiving: A National Day of Mourning for Indians by Moonanum James and Mahtowin Munro Every year since 1970, United American Indians of New England have organized the National Day of Mourning observance in Plymouth at noon on Thanksgiving Day. Every year, hundreds of Native people and our supporters from all four directions join us. Every year, including this year, Native people from throughout the Americas will speak the truth about our history and about current issues and struggles we are involved in. Why do hundreds of people stand out in the cold rather than sit home eating turkey and watching football? Do we have something against a harvest festival? Of course not. But Thanksgiving in this country -- and in particular in Plymouth --is much more than a harvest home festival. It is a celebration of the pilgrim mythology. According to this mythology, the pilgrims arrived, the Native people fed them and welcomed them, the Indians promptly faded into the background, and everyone lived happily ever after. The truth is a sharp contrast to that mythology. The pilgrims are glorified and mythologized because the circumstances of the first English-speaking colony in Jamestown were frankly too ugly (for example, they turned to cannibalism to survive) to hold up as an effective national myth. The pilgrims did not find an empty land any more than Columbus "discovered" anything. Every inch of this land is Indian land. The pilgrims (who did not even call themselves pilgrims) did not come here seeking religious freedom; they already had that in Holland. They came here as part of a commercial venture. They introduced sexism, racism, anti-lesbian and gay bigotry, jails, and the class system to these shores. One of the very first things they did when they arrived on Cape Cod -- before they even made it to Plymouth -- was to rob Wampanoag graves at Corn Hill and steal as much of the Indians' winter provisions of corn and beans as they were able to carry. They were no better than any other group of Europeans when it came to their treatment of the Indigenous peoples here. And no, they did not even land at that sacred shrine called Plymouth Rock, a monument to racism and oppression which we are proud to say we buried in 1995. The first official "Day of Thanksgiving" was proclaimed in 1637 by Governor Winthrop. He did so to celebrate the safe return of men from the Massachusetts Bay Colony who had gone to Mystic, Connecticut to participate in the massacre of over 700 Pequot women, children, and men. About the only true thing in the whole mythology is that these pitiful European strangers would not have survived their first several years in "New England" were it not for the aid of Wampanoag people. What Native people got in return for this help was genocide, theft of our lands, and never-ending repression. We are treated either as quaint relics from the past, or are, to most people, virtually invisible. When we dare to stand up for our rights, we are considered unreasonable. When we speak the truth about the history of the European invasion, we are often told to "go back where we came from." Our roots are right here. They do not extend across any ocean. National Day of Mourning began in 1970 when a Wampanoag man, Wamsutta Frank James, was asked to speak at a state dinner celebrating the 350th anniversary of the pilgrim landing. He refused to speak false words in praise of the white man for bringing civilization to us poor heathens. Native people from throughout the Americas came to Plymouth, where they mourned their forebears who had been sold into slavery, burned alive, massacred, cheated, and mistreated since the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620. But the commemoration of National Day of Mourning goes far beyond the circumstances of 1970. Can we give thanks as we remember Native political prisoner Leonard Peltier, who was framed up by the FBI and has been falsely imprisoned since 1976? Despite mountains of evidence exonerating Peltier and the proven misconduct of federal prosecutors and the FBI, Peltier has been denied a new trial. Bill Clinton apparently does not feel that particular pain and has refused to grant clemency to this innocent man. To Native people, the case of Peltier is one more ordeal in a litany of wrongdoings committed by the U.S. government against us. While the media in New England present images of the "Pequot miracle" in Connecticut, the vast majority of Native people continue to live in the most abysmal poverty. Can we give thanks for the fact that, on many reservations, unemployment rates surpass fifty percent? Our life expectancies are much lower, our infant mortality and teen suicide rates much higher, than those of white Americans. Racist stereotypes of Native people, such as those perpetuated by the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, and countless local and national sports teams, persist. Every single one of the more than 350 treaties that Native nations signed has been broken by the U.S. government. The bipartisan budget cuts have severely reduced educational opportunities for Native youth and the development of new housing on reservations, and have caused cause deadly cutbacks in health-care and other necessary services. Are we to give thanks for being treated as unwelcome in our own country? Or perhaps we are expected to give thanks for the war that is being waged by the Mexican government against Indigenous peoples there, with the military aid of the U.S. in the form of helicopters and other equipment? When the descendants of the Aztec, Maya, and Inca flee to the U.S., the descendants of the wash-ashore pilgrims term them 'illegal aliens" and hunt them down. We object to the "Pilgrim Progress" parade and to what goes on in Plymouth because they are making millions of tourist dollars every year from the false pilgrim mythology. That money is being made off the backs of our slaughtered indigenous ancestors. Increasing numbers of people are seeking alternatives to such holidays as Columbus Day and Thanksgiving. They are coming to the conclusion that, if we are ever to achieve some sense of community, we must first face the truth about the history of this country and the toll that history has taken on the lives of millions of Indigenous, Black, Latino, Asian, and poor and working class white people. The myth of Thanksgiving, served up with dollops of European superiority and manifest destiny, just does not work for many people in this country. As Malcolm X once said about the African-American experience in America, "We did not land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us." Exactly. [Mahtowin Munro (Lakota) and Moonanum James (Wampanoag) are co-leaders of United American Indians of New England.] From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 26 23:51:11 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAR7p9dE013545 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:51:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0BD8B703D2 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:51:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:51:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:51:11 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Truth About the First Thanksgiving X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:51:11 -0000 THE TRUTH ABOUT THE FIRST THANKSGIVING by James W. Loewen [Jim Loewen teaches sociology at the University of Vermont- Burlington. Yje following chapter appeared in his book Lies My Teacher Told Me - Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong.] Over the last few years, I have asked hundreds of college students, "When was the country we now know as the United States first settled?" That is a generous way of putting the question. Surely "we now know as" implies that the original settlement happened before the United States. I had hoped that students would suggest 30,000 BC, or some other pre-Columbian date. They did not. Their consensus answer was "1620." Part of the problem is the word "settle." "Settlers" were white. Indians did not settle. Nor are students the only people misled by "settle." One recent Thanksgiving weekend, I listened as a guide at the Statue of Liberty told about European immigrants "populating a wild East Coast." As we shall see, however, if Indians had not already settled New England, Europeans would have had a much tougher job of it. Starting with the Pilgrims not only leaves out the Indians, but also the Spanish. In the summer of 1526 five hundred Spaniards and one hundred black slaves founded a town near the mouth of the Pedee River in what is now South Carolina. Disease and disputes with nearby Indians caused many deaths. Finally, in November the slaves rebelled, killed some of their masters, and escaped to the Indians. By now only 150 Spaniards survived, and they evacuated back to Haiti. The ex-slaves remained behind. So the first non-Native settlers in "the country we now know as the United States" were Africans. The Spanish continued their settling in 1565, when they massacred a settlement of French Protestants at St. Augustine, Florida, and replaced it with their own fort. Some Spanish were pilgrims, seeking regions new to them to secure religious liberty: these were Spanish Jews, who settled in New Mexico in the late 1500s. Few Americans know that one third of the United States, from San Francisco to Arkansas to Natchez to Floirda, has been Spanish longer than it has been "American." Moreover, Spanish culture left an indelible impact on the West. The Spanish introduced horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, and the basic elements of cowboy culture, including its vocabulary: mustang, bronco, rodeo, lariat, and so on. Beginning with 1620 also omits the Dutch, who were living in what is now Albany by 1614. Indeed, 1620 is not even the date of the first permanent British settlement, for in 1607, the London Company sent settlers to Jamestown, Virginia. No matter. The mythic origin of "the country we now know as the United States" is at Plymouth Rock, and the year is 1620. My students are not at fault. The myth is what their testbooks and their culture have offered them. I examined how twelve textbooks used in high school American history classes teach Thanksgiving. Here is the version in one high school history book, THE AMERICAN TRADITION: After some exploring, the Pilgrims chose the land around Plymouth Harbor for their settlement. Unfortunately, they had arrived in December and were not prepared for the New England winter. However, they were aided by freindly Indians, who gave them food and showed them how to grow corn. When warm weather came, the colonists planted, fished, hunted, and prepared themselves for the next winter. After harvesting their first crop, they and their Indian friends celebrated the first Thanksgiving. My students also learned that the Pilgrims were persecuted in England for their religion, so they moved to Holland. They sailed on the Mayflower to America and wrote the Mayflower Compact. Times were rough, until they met Squanto. He taught them how to put fish in each corn hill, so they had a bountiful harvest. But when I ask them about the plague, they stare back at me. "What plague? The Black Plague?" No, that was three centuries earlier, I sigh. "THE WONDERFUL PLAGUE AMONG THE SAVAGES" The Black Plague does provide a useful introduction, however. Black (or bubonic) Plague "was undoubtedly the worst disaster that has ever befallen mankind." In three years it killed 30 percent of the population of Europe. Catastrophic as it was, the disease itself comprised only part of the horror. Thinking the Day of Judgment was imminent, farmers failed to plant crops. Many people gave themselves over to alcohol. Civil and economic disruption may have caused as much death as the disease itself. For a variety of reasons --- their probable migration through cleansing Alaskan ice fields, better hygiene, no livestock or livestock-borne microbes --- Americans were in Howard Simpson's assessment "a remarkable healthy race" before Columbus. Ironically, their very health now proved their undoing, for they had built up no resistance, genetically or through childhood diseases, to the microbes Europeans and Africans now brought them. In 1617, just before the Pilgrims landed, the process started in southern New England. A plague struck that made the Black Death pale by comparison. Today we think it was the bubonic plague, although pox and influenza are also candidates. British fishermen had been fishing off Massachusetts for decades before the Pilgrims landed. After filling their hulls with cod, they would set forth on land to get firewood and fresh water and perhaps capture a few Indians to sell into slavery in Europe. On one of these expeditions they probably transmitted the illness to the people they met. Whatever it was, within three years this plague wiped out between 90 percent and 96 percent of the inhabitants of southern New England. The Indian societies lay devastated. Only "the twentieth person is scare left alive," wrote British eyewitness Robert Cushman, describing a death rate unknown in all previous human experience. Unable to cope with so many corposes, survivors fled to the next tribe, carrying the infestation with them, so that Indians died who had never seen a white person. Simpson tells what the Pilgrims saw: The summer after the Pilgrims landed, they sent two envoys on a diplomatic mission to treat with Massasoit, a famous chief encamped some 40 miles away at what is now Warren, Rhode Island. The envoys discovered and described a scene of absolute havoc. Villages lay in ruins because there was no one to tend them. The ground was strewn with the skulls and the bones of thousands of Indians who had died and none was left to bury them. During the next fifteen years, additional epidemics, most of which we know to have been smallpox struck repeatedly. Europeans caught smallpox and the other maladies, to be sure, but most recovered, including, in a later century, the "heavily pockmarked George Washington." Indians usually died. Therefore, almost as profound as their effect on Indian demographics was the impact of the epidemics on the two cultures, European and Indian. The English Separatists, already seeing their lives as part of a divinely inspired morality play, inferred that they had God on their side. John Winthrop, Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, called the plague "miraculous." To a friend in England in 1634, he wrote: But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by the small pox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts, being in all not fifty, have put themselves under our protect.... Many Indians likewise inferred that their God had abandoned them. Cushman, our British eyewitness, reported that "those that are left, have their courage much abated, and their countenance is dejected, and they seem as a people affrighted." After all, neither they nor the Pilgrims had access to the germ theory of disease. Indian healers offered no cure, their religion no explanation. That of the whites did. Like the Europeans three centuries before them, many Indians surrendered to alcohol or began to listen to Christianity. These epidemics constituted perhaps the most important single geopolitical event of the first third of the 1600s, anywhere on the planet. They meant that the British would face no real Indian challenge for their first fifty years in America. Indeed, the plague helped cause the legendary warm reception Plymouth enjoyed in its first formative years from the Wampanoags. Massasoit needed to ally with the Pilgrims because the plague had so weakened his villages that he feared the Narragansetts to the west. Moreover, the New England plagues exemplify a process, which antedated the Pilgrims and endures to this day. In 1942, more than 3,000,000 Indians lived on the island of Haiti. Forty years later, fewer than 300 remained. The earliest Portuguese found that Labrador teemed with hospitable Indians who could easily be enslaved. It teems no more. In about 1780, smallpox reduced the Mandans of North Dakota from nine villages to two; then in 1837, a second smallpox epidemic reduced them from 1600 persons to just 31. The pestilence continues; a fourth of the Yanomamos of northern Brazil and southern Venezuela died in the year prior to my writing this sentence. Europeans were never able to "settle" China, India, Indonesia, Japan, or most of Africa because too many people already lived there. Advantages in military and social technology would have enabled Europeans to dominate the Americas, as they eventually dominated China and Africa, but not to "settle" the New World. For that, the plague was required. Thus, except for the European (and African) invasion itself, the pestilence was surely the most important event in the history of America. What do we learn of all this in the twelve histories I studied? Three offer some treatment of Indian disease as a factor in European colonization. LIFE AND LIBERTY does quite a good job. AMERICA PAST AND PRESENT supplies a fine analysis of the general impact of Indian disease in American history, though it leaves out the plague at Plymouth. THE AMERICAN WAY is the only text to draw the appropriate geopolitical inference about the importance of the Plymouth outbreak, but it never discuses Indian plagues anywhere else. Unfortunately, the remaining nine books offer almost nothing. Two totally omit the subject. Each of the other seven furnishes only a fragment of a paragraph that does not even make it into the index, let alone into students' minds. Everyone knew all about the plague in colonial America. Even before the Mayflower sailed, King James of England gave thanks to "Almighty God in his great goodness and bounty towards us," for sending "this wonderful plague among the savages." Today it is no surprise that not one in a hundred of my college students has ever heard of the plague. Unless they read LIFE AND LIBERTY or PAST AND PRESENT, no student can come away from these books thinking of Indians as people who made an impact on North America, who lived here in considerable numbers, who settled, in short, and were then killed by disease or arms. ERRAND INTO THE WILDERNESS Instead of the plague, our schoolbooks present the story of the Pilgrims as a heroic myth. Referring to "the little party" in their "small, storm-battered English vessel," their story line follows Perry Miller's use of a Puritan sermon title, ERRAND INTO THE WILDERNESS. AMERICAN ADVENTURES even titles its chapter about British settlement in North America "Opening the Wilderness." The imagery is right out of Star Trek: "to go boldly where none dared go before." The Pilgrims had intended to go to Virginia, where there already was a British settlement, according to the texts, but "violent storms blew their ship off course," according to some texts, or else an "error in navigation" caused them to end up hundreds of miles to the north. In fact, we are not sure where the Pilgrims planned to go. According to George Willison, Pilgrim leaders never intended to settle in Virginia. They had debated the relative merits of Guiana versus Massachusetts precisely because they wanted to be far from Anglican control in Virginia. They knew quite a bit about Massachusetts, from Cape Cod's fine fishing to that "wonderful plague." They brought with them maps drawn by Samuel Champlain when he toured the area in 1605 and a guidebook by John Smith, who had named it "New England" when he visited in 1614. One text, LAND OF PROMISE, follows Willison, pointing out that Pilgrims numbered only about thirty-five of the 102 settlers aboard the Mayflower. The rest were ordinary folk seeking their fortunes in the new Virginia colony. "The New England landing came as a rude surpise for the bedraggled and tired [non-Pilgrim] majority on board the Mayflower," says Promise. "Rumors of mutiny spread quickly." Promise then ties this unrest to the Mayflower Compact, giving its readers a uniquely fresh interpretation as to why the colonists adopted it. Each text offers just one of three reasons---storm, pilot error, or managerial hijacking--to explain how the Pilgrims ended up in Massachusetts. Neither here nor in any other historical controversy after 1620 can any of the twelve bear to admit that it does not know the answer---that studying history is not just learning answers--that history contains debates. Thus each book shuts students out from the intellectual excitement of the discipline. Instead, textbooks parade ethnocentric assertions about the Pilgrims as a flawless unprecedented band laying the foundations of our democracy. John Garraty presents the Compact this way in AMERICAN HISTORY: "So far as any record shows, this was the first time in human history that a group of people consciously created a government where none had existed before." Such accounts deny students the opportunity to see the Pilgrims as anything other than pious stereotypes. "IT WAS WITH GOD'S HELP...FOR HOW ELSE COULD WE HAVE DONE IT?" Settlement proceeded, not with God's help but with the Indians'. The Pilgrims chose Plymouth because of its cleared fields, recently planted in corn, "and a brook of fresh water [that] flowed into the harbor," in the words of TRIUMPH OF THE AMERICAN NATION. It was a lovely site for a town. Indeed, until the plague, it had been a town. Everywhere in the hemisphere, Europeans pitched camp right in the middle of native populations---Cuzco, Mexico City, Natchez, Chicago. Throughout New England, colonists appropriated Indian cornfields, which explains why so many town names---Marshfield, Springfield, Deerfield--end in "field". Inadvertent Indian assistance started on the Pilgrims' second full day in Massachusetts. A colonist's journal tells us: "We marched to the place we called Cornhill, where we had found the corn before. At another place we had seen before, we dug and found some more corn, two or three baskets full, and a bag of beans. ..In all we had about ten bushels, which will be enough for seed. It was with God's help that we found this corn, for how else could we have done it, without meeting some Indians who might trouble us. ...The next morning, we found a place like a grave. We decided to dig it up. We found first a mat, and under that a fine bow...We also found bowls, trays, dishes, and things like that. We took several of the prettiest things to carry away with us, and covered the body up again." A place "like a grave!" More help came from a alive Indian, Squanto. Here my students are on familiar turf, for they have all learned the Squanto legend. LAND OF PROMISE provides an archetypal account" Squanto had learned their language, he explained, from English fishermen who ventured into the New England waters each summer. Squanto taught the Pilgrims how to plant corn, squash, and pumpkins. Would the small band of settlers have survived without Squanto's help? We cannot say. But by the fall of 1621, colonists and Indians could sit down to several days of feast and thanksgiving to God (later celebrated as the first Thanksgiving). What do the books leave out about Squanto? First, how he learned English. As a boy, along with four Penobscots, he was probably stolen by a British captain in about 1605 and taken to England. There he probably spent nine years, two in the employ of a Plymouth merchant who later helped finance the Mayflower. At length, the merchant helped him arrange passage back to Massachusetts. He was to enjoy home life for less than a year, however. In 1614, a British slave raider seized him and two dozen fellow Indians and sold them into slavery in Malaga, Spain. Squanto escaped from slavery, escaped from Spain, made his way back to England, and in 1619 talked a ship captain into taking him along on his next trip to Cape Cod. It happens that Squanto's fabulous odyssey provides a "hook" into the plague story, a hook that our texts choose to ignore. For now Squanto walked to his home village, only to make the horrifying discovery that, in Simpson's words, "he was the sole member of his village still alive. All the others had perished in the epidemic two years before." No wonder he throws in his lot with the Pilgrims, who rename his village "Plymouth!" Now that is a story worth telling! Compare the pallid account in LAND OF PROMISE. "He had learned their language from English fishermen." What do we make of books that give us the unimportant details--Squanto's name, the occupation of his enslavers--while omitting not only his enslavement, but also the crucial fact of the plague? This is distortion on a grand scale. William Bradford praised Squanto for many services, including his "bringing them to unknown places for their profit." "Their profit" was the primary reason most Mayflower colonists made the trip. It too came from the Indians, from the fur trade; Plymouth would never have paid for itself without it. Europeans had neither the skill nor the desire to "go boldly where none dared go before.|" They went to the Indians. "TRUTH SHOULD BE HELD SACRED, AT WHATEVER COST" Should we teach these truths about Thanksgiving? Or, like our textbooks, should we look the other way? Again quoting LAND OF PROMISE. "By the fall of 1621, colonists and Indians could sit down to several days of feast and thanksgiving to God (later celebrated as the first Thanksgiving)." Throughout the nation, elementary school children still enact Thanksgiving every fall as our national origin myth, complete with Pilgrim hats made of construction paper and Indian braves with feathers in their hair. An early Massachusetts colonist, Colonel Thomas Aspinwall, advises us not to settle for this whitewash of feel - good - history. "It is painful to advert to these things. But our forefathers, though wise, pious, and sincere, were nevertheless, in respect to Christian charity, under a cloud; and, in history, truth should be held sacred, at whatever cost." Thanksgiving is full of embarrassing facts. The Pilgrims did not introduce the Native Americans to the tradition; Eastern Indians had observed autumnal harvest celebrations for centuries. Our modern celebrations date back only to 1863; not until the 1890s did the Pilgrims get included in the tradition; no one even called them "Pilgrims" until the 1870s. Plymouth Rock achieved ichnographic status only in the nineteenth century, when some enterprising residents of the town moved it down to the water so its significance as the "holy soil" the Pilgrims first touched might seem more plausible. The Rock has become a shrine, the Mayflower Compact a sacred text, and our textbooks play the same function as the Anglican BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, teaching us the rudiments of the civil religion of Thanksgiving. Indians are marginalized in this civic ritual. Our archetypal image of the first Thanksgiving portrays the groaning boards in the woods, with the Pilgrims in their starched Sunday best and the almost naked Indian guests. Thanksgiving silliness reaches some sort of zenith in the handouts that school children have carried home for decades, with captions like, "They served pumpkins and turkeys and corn and squash. The Indians had never seen such a feast!" When his son brought home this "information" from his New Hampshire elementary school, Native American novelist Michael Dorris pointed out "the Pilgrims had literally never seen `such a feast,' since all foods mentioned are exclusively indigenous to the Americas and had been provided by [or with the aid of] the local tribe." I do not read Aspinwall as suggesting a "bash the Pilgrims" interpretation, emphasizing only the bad parts. I have emphasized untoward details only because our histories have suppressed everything awkward for so long. The Pilgrims' courage in setting forth in the late fall to make their way on a continent new to them remains unsurpassed. In their first year, like the Indians, they suffered from diseases. Half of them died. The Pilgrims did not cause the plague and were as baffled as to its true origin as the stricken Indian villagers. Pilgrim-Indian relations began reasonably positively. Thus the antidote to feel-good history is not feel-bad history, but honest and inclusive history. "Knowing the truth about Thanksgiving, both its proud and its shameful motivations and history, might well benefit contemporary children," suggests Dorris. "But the glib retelling of an ethnocentric and self-serving falsehood does no one any good." Because Thanksgiving has roots in both Anglo and Native cultures, and because of the interracial cooperation the first celebration enshrines, Thanksgiving might yet develop into a holiday that promotes tolerance and understanding. Its emphasis on Native foods provides a teachable moment, for natives of the Americas first developed half of the world's food crops. Texts could tell this--only three even mention Indian foods---and could also relate other contributions form Indian societies, from sports to political ideas. The original Thanksgiving itself provides an interesting example: the Natives and newcomers spent the better part of three days showing each other their various recreations. Origin myths do not come cheaply. To glorify the Pilgrims is dangerous. The genial omissions and false details our texts use to retail the Pilgrim legend promote Anglocentrism, which only handicaps us when dealing with all those whose culture is no Anglo. Surely, in history, "truth should be held sacred, at whatever cost." From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 27 22:55:18 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAS6tHdE010954 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:55:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 94E7A70300 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:55:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:55:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:55:13 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] The First Thanksgiving in America X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:55:18 -0000 The First Thanksgiving in America >From the Community Endeavor News, November, 1995, as reprinted in Healing Global Wounds, Fall, 1996 The first official Thanksgiving wasn't a festive gathering of Indians and Pilgrims, but rather a celebration of the massacre of 700 Pequot men, women and children, an anthropologist says. Due to age and illness his voice cracks as he talks about the holiday, but William B. Newell, 84, talks with force as he discusses Thanksgiving. Newell, a Penobscot Indian, has degrees from two universities, and was the former chairman of the anthropology department at the University of Connecticut. "Thanksgiving Day was first officially proclaimed by the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1637 to commemorate the massacre of 700 men, women and children who were celebrating their annual green corn dance-Thanksgiving Day to them-in their own house," Newell said. "Gathered in this place of meeting they were attacked by mercenaries and Dutch and English. The Indians were ordered from the building and as they came forth they were shot down. The rest were burned alive in the building," he said. Newell based his research on studies of Holland Documents and the 13 volume Colonial Documentary History, both thick sets of letters and reports from colonial officials to their superiors and the king in England, and the private papers of Sir William Johnson, British Indian agent for the New York colony for 30 years in the mid-1600s. "My research is authentic because it is documentary," Newell said. "You can't get anything more accurate than that because it is first hand. It is not hearsay." Newell said the next 100 Thanksgivings commemorated the killing of the Indians at what is now Groton, Ct. [home of a nuclear submarine base] rather than a celebration with them. He said the image of Indians and Pilgrims sitting around a large table to celebrate Thanksgiving Day was "fictitious" although Indians did share food with the first settlers. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 27 23:09:55 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAS79rdE011195 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:09:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BF11B70176 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:09:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 02:09:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 02:09:54 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Be Thankful You're Not Dubya X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:09:55 -0000 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/11/26/notes112603.DTL Be Thankful You're Not Dubya: Craving more juicy reasons to offer up profound gratitude this T-day? Try a few of these By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Wednesday, November 26, 2003 This Thanksgiving, as you sip the wine and hug the family and toast the friends and hoard the stuffing and curse the airport security, remember to give thanks you are not G.W. Bush. Hey, it's important. 1) Be thankful that you do not have to suffer Dubya's massive crushing karmic burden, as wrought by inflicting heaps of environmental disaster and vicious unnecessary war and a stunning string of lies lies lies like a firehose of giblet gravy splattered all over the planet. For it really is all too plain: G.W. Bush is one of the most reviled and openly disrespected major world leaders in modern history. America has never been so embarrassed and reluctant to send a president abroad. We cringe when the man takes the stage. We offer humiliated apologies to our former allies, and to the 200,000 Bush/war protesters in London, just last week. In Bush's defense, it cannot be easy to be so undeservedly powerful, yet so bumbling and inarticulate and globally loathed for your abhorrent policies and hollow corporate agenda and baffled doofus manner. This Thanksgiving, be grateful you are not him. 2) Thanks, you might want to give, that you are not Iraqi. Be grateful you did not go from brutal scowling despot who at least kept the damn lights on to brutish occupying army no one asked for that is right now laying waste to whatever remains of your once semi-proud oil-rich nation. Give thanks, furthermore, that you are not one of the estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed to date by U.S. forces, not to mention one of the untold tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers who were hammered by our million pounds of billion-dollar ordnance in the first few days of the massacre. Be grateful you are not dead in the name of American political and petrochemical profiteering. 3) Give thanks you are not a member of the much-abused U.S. military. Sad but true. Be grateful you are not right now suffering that sickening sinking feeling that you are not, in fact, protecting America from any sort of marauding terrorists, or defending our honor, or our way of life, or guarding innocents from swarthy evildoers and nonexistent WMDs. But that you are, instead, a wholly disposable henchman for the BushCo corporate regime, with the odds increasing every minute that you will soon join the more than 9,000 U.S. wounded or more than 430 "necessary" dead U.S. soldiers Rumsfeld mentions when he shrugs off the latest round of guerrilla bombings that killed another batch of your friends. Support our troops. Bring them home right now. 4) Be grateful BushCo's ratings are slipping lower than an SUV's mpg rating, and there is only one year left until he joins his father as one of those embarrassing historical footnotes, a jagged scar on the heart of a wary America that other countries point to in years to come and say wow that's a nasty scar where'd you get that, and we reply, George W. Bush, and they go, oh my God, that's right. So sorry. 5) Be grateful you are not right now in any way related to, or serve as a spokesperson for, or are employed as one of the apparently very deranged or heavily drugged plastic surgeons who worked on Michael Jackson. This is a gimme. 6) While you're at it, give thanks you're not Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith, Bennifer, Britney, Liza Minnelli, Joan Rivers, Howard Stern, Ann Coulter, Ashton Kutcher, Bill O'Reilly, Anna Kournikova, Madonna or Mary Hart. These are lives you probably do not want to lead. Give thanks your soul is not all withery and Botoxed and that it still manages to radiate cool colors like one of those funky cheesy fiber-optic lamps from the '70s. 7) Be thankful they have yet to figure out a way to blot out the sun. Or, for that matter, the moon. 8) Offer immense gratitude that despite a massive ongoing Herculean effort on the part of numerous world governments to rape and pillage and pretty much slap down most all tender offerings of the planet, Earth still manages to produce for us an astonishing array of flora and fauna and oxygen and edible delicacies and awe-inspiring trees and relentless merciless beauty. 9) Be thankful the planet rather effortlessly continues to baffle scientists and confound astronomers and completely entrance biologists and philosophers and poets. We still, for example, have no idea why whales sing, or how long they live, or where blue whales, the largest and most magnificent creatures on the planet, go to mate. Be grateful for the Mystery. 10) Kneel down, right now, for free speech. Oh yes. We must. Because it is under severe duress. To exercise it now, to speak out against BushCo and war and global corporate profiteering, is a true sign that you are a traitor and an al Qaeda operative and a personal friend of Barbra Streisand. This is what they sneer at you. Give it up, instead, for free unfettered alt-news sources like truthout.org. And commondreams.org. And alternet.org and counterpunch.com and buzzflash.com and smirkingchimp.com and even Slate and the BBC and The Onion. Cheney scowls, Rove oozes, Ashcroft would love nothing more than to shut down the entire impious godforsaken Internet. Be grateful they can only quiver and hiss and rattle their chains. So far. 11) Molly Ivins. Gore Vidal. Michiko Kakutani. David Foster Wallace. Don DeLillo. Maureen Dowd. Caroline Myss. W.G. Sebald. Tom Robbins. Starhawk. William Rivers Pitt. Rob Brezny. David Attenborough. Dave Eggers. Joseph Campbell. Lewis Lapham. Haruki Murakami. Katha Pollitt. Et al. Thank you. 12) For baskets of locally grown organic small-farm produce delivered to your door. For handmade whiskey-filled chocolate truffles smeared over a lover's tailbone. For Bernese mountain dogs. For the return of Opus. For Rufus Wainwright and Beth Orton and the Mini Cooper. L'Occitane honey incense and the Apple iPod and "Six Feet Under." For Cate Blanchett, The Sun magazine, The New Yorker, Peet's coffee and "Spirited Away." 13) Here is the big cliché. Here is the final praise. It cannot be overstated: Despite an impressive assault on civil liberties, despite savage BushCo attacks on everything from national forests to air quality to rivers and oceans and water quality and health care, despite attempts to numb the national consciousness overall, we must give enormous, unfettered thanks for this incredible and kaleidoscopic America. Ours remains the most breathtakingly beautiful, diverse, epic, multifaceted, multiorgasmic landscape on the planet today. It's true. We tend to forget. We take for granted. We presume it must be like this everywhere. But one quick trip abroad will only serve to remind you and reinforce your devout appreciation for what this country can offer, the free expression and the religious autonomy and the clean water and the good dentistry and the fresh produce and the space to explore. We are deeply flawed. We are massively arrogant. We are bratty and insolent and abusive and sloppy and violent. But we balance it with astounding acts of love and beauty and art, nature preserves and activism and organic awareness and sex positivism and community awareness and quiet personal spiritual questing and lots and lots of great bookstores. 14) Here is where you make you own list. Here is where you set aside the cynicism and the sighing and the bitterness, just for a moment, and get quiet, look around, look inside, check the karmic inventory and offer up heaping pies of gratefulness for what you find. Sure it seems clichéd. Of course you don't need some holiday to be deeply thankful for the radiance in your life. But, hey, an opportunity is an opportunity. Just remember, big meaty drumsticks of general gratitude are absolutely fine. But the divine, personal gravy is where the real flavor is. __________________ Subscribe to Mark's deeply skewed, mostly legal Morning Fix newsletter. Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate, unless it appears on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which it never does. He also writes the Morning Fix, a deeply skewed thrice-weekly e-mail column and newsletter. Subscribe at sfgate.com/newsletters. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 28 21:59:11 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAT5x9dE007478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:59:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C79E7033D for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:59:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:59:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:59:11 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Militarization in Miami: Threatening the Right to Protest X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 05:59:11 -0000 Militarization in Miami: Threatening the Right to Protest By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman There was a real threat to the social order on the streets of Miami last week, during the Ministerial Meeting of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). It wasn't protesters, not even those calling themselves anarchists or even those dressed in black. No, the threat came from the Miami police, Florida state troopers and the other police and military forces patrolling the city. With more than $10 million in special funding (including an $8.5 million allocation in the federal government's Iraq appropriations bill), 2,500 or so officers -- many clad in full body armor and backed up by armored vehicles -- turned Miami into a veritable police state. As was almost inevitable, the police used wildly excessive force to deal with protesters. They launched unprovoked attacks against people who were doing nothing illegal. They sprayed tear gas and pepper spray at protesters -- including retirees -- and shot many with rubber bullets. They used taser guns. They knocked down peaceful protesters and held guns to their heads. They blocked thousands of retirees and union members on buses from joining a rally and march for which all required permits had been obtained. They attacked journalists viewed as hostile. They arrested approximately 250 persons, according to the best estimates, with little or no rationale. Credible reports have emerged of brutality and sexual harassment against several of those jailed. At least as serious, the police deterred thousands from even considering joining the FTAA protests -- and protests into the future. In sunny Miami, it was a dark week for the First Amendment, for civil liberties and for the right to dissent. A South African activist told us how deeply frightened she was walking down the streets of Miami. Even before the police violence erupted, marching in the streets amidst thousands of armored police sent chills down her spine, she said. Last week's outrages had their roots in months of planning led by Miami Police Chief John Timoney. He whipped the city and the police force into a frenzy. The absurdist invocation of an anarchist threat convinced the local media (especially television reporters) and much of the local population that downtown would be a riot zone. That was enough to empty the downtown, and scare many local Miamians from joining any of the protests, no matter how tame. We had first-hand experience with this problem. We had been involved in a planning a small demonstration on Tuesday -- two days before the main protests. We had obtained all requisite permits from the police. With agreement from their teachers, hundreds of high school students were ready to join our small action highlighting how the FTAA and trade agreements interfere with anti-smoking and other public health measures. But no teacher could feel comfortable sending students to a militarized downtown, and so the students were not able to demonstrate. We turned our rally into a news conference. This was a small incident. Our demonstration wasn't going to change the world. (We do, however, intend to win on our demand to exclude tobacco products from all trade agreements.) But as an illustrative example, it is incredibly important, for it shows how police overdeployment, scare tactics and militarization intimidates people from marching in the streets and opposing corporate- and state-approved policy. It wasn't just the public and media that Timoney managed to frighten. There's little doubt that the police themselves buy the propaganda. After months of excessive training and hearing about the dangers posed by protesters, and empowered by new body armor, shields, batons and other equipment, the police were, to say the least, overeager to lunge at protesters. (Said one of a group of 10 cops on bikes as they crossed the street to assess the scene at our news conference, and with one of us standing right next to them, "Let's go fuck 'em up.") By the time of the main demonstrations on Thursday, the police couldn't hold themselves back. In different circumstances, it would have been funny to see the police outnumbering the direct action protesters, or the comically attired "undercover" agents who were a bit too well built to credibly seem part of the ranks of the slight direct action protesters -- many of whom are vegans. But it wasn't funny. Not when the police -- responding to the smallest provocations, such as a couple small fires lit in trashcans -- went berserk and attacked large crowds of protesters. Not when credible reports say some of those undercover agents may have been provocateurs, and when several of them emerged as some of the most brutal in attacking protesters. There is immediate need now to support those who were jailed and mistreated, and force the city to drop trumped up charges against protesters. You can help by sending a fax to Miami Mayor Manuel Diaz protesting the violation of constitutional rights. Public Citizen has established a free fax site at: http://www.citizen.org/fax/background.cfm?ID=245&source=19 Those who are facing charges will need legal help. You can donate to support them by going to: http://stopftaa.org/article.php?list=type&type=42 or to http://www.unitedforpeace.org/ftaadonate Activists, the National Lawyers Guild, the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil liberties standard bearers must do all they can and will do to oppose the rising repression evidenced in Miami. But that's not enough. There will, undoubtedly, be civil lawsuits down the road, and, if there is any justice, they will succeed. But that's not enough, either. As important as such litigation is, it is clear from recent crackdown on protests around the United States that police forces are willing to absorb the costs of these suits. The present cycle is that the media and political establishment applaud the police for running scare campaigns, militarizing cities, directing violence against protesters and blatantly violating civil liberties. Often, as details emerge, criticism emerges from those same pillars of society. This must change. The establishment must speak out now, immediately after the abuses occurred. They are apparent to anyone who cares to know about them. In the future, the establishment -- we mean newspaper editors, political leaders of all parties, lawyers, even corporate executives -- must insist on appropriate police tactics in advance of large-scale protests, and they must make clear that regular police and top officers alike will be held personally accountable for abuses. If they fail to pursue this course, the consequences for the right to protest will be grim indeed. Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter, http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org, and co-director of Essential Action, a corporate accountability group. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press; http://www.corporatepredators.org). (c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman This article is posted at: <http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2003/000169.html>. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 28 22:10:14 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAT6ACdE007746 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:10:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 11F8D705A4 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:10:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:10:14 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Afghanistan Takes a Toll X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:10:14 -0000 The New York Times 24 November 2003 The Other Conflict Continues to Take a G.I. Toll By DAVID ROHDE LOZANO RIDGE, Afghanistan, Nov. 23 ‹ As Sgt. First Class Vernon Story's column of Humvees climbed a desolate ridge a mile from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border here on Sunday morning, the sergeant got the feeling that someone was watching. The five unexploded land mines he and his men had found along this same ridge in a firefight with Taliban rebels here less than two months ago lingered in his mind. "Hey, don't be driving down the tracks," Sergeant Story warned his driver. Just after he spoke, the front of his Humvee abruptly lurched into the air as a mine or remote-controlled bomb detonated under the right front tire. It severed the lower left leg of a young soldier in the front passenger seat and tossed the 6,000-pound vehicle violently on its side. Sergeant Story, seven soldiers and four journalists traveling with them in the back of vehicle were thrown to the ground. Scrambling to his feet, his face cut, the sergeant cursed, suspected an ambush and ordered his men to fire at the surrounding hillsides. No one shot back. So went a typical engagement in the grinding conflict for the 10,000 American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, overshadowed by the larger conflict in Iraq. Casualties are not as high here, but fatal clashes with a shadowy enemy continue. "It's aggravating," Sergeant Story, 34, said in his southern drawl, referring to guerrilla attacks that have killed five Americans and four Afghan soldiers along the border with Pakistan in the last eight weeks. "It's very frustrating." The risks are by no means limited to ground forces. On Sunday at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, at least five American soldiers were killed when their helicopter crashed. So far this year, 9 of the 10 American combat deaths have occurred in this area around Shkin, an isolated military base three miles from the Pakistan border. Sunday morning's attack on Lozano Ridge, named after an American soldier killed here in April, was the latest in a series of strikes by pro-Taliban fighters who launch missiles, plant mines and mount fierce ambushes against American forces within miles of the Pakistan border, according to American military officials. After the engagements, the gunmen are often seen retreating toward Pakistan. Lt. Col. Michael Howard, the commanding officer of two American bases along the border, said that Pakistan's government was trying to control the border, but that it was impossible to seal off such mountainous terrain. "You've got a president who is committed; you've got a military who is committed," Colonel Howard said, referring to Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. "They've got a lot of challenges like everybody else." The Americans here face their own challenges. Sergeant Story and his soldiers, stationed in Shkin, are fighting on some of the bleakest terrain on earth. It is a jarring existence that mixes the primitive and the modern, intense boredom and intense fear. By day, they inhabit a world of brown earth, brown mud-brick houses and translucent blue skies. By night, temperatures drop below freezing, and bands of stars blaze across a sky unspoiled by man-made light. Their battleground is a swath of dozens of miles of arid plateau, 7,000 feet above sea level in eastern Afghanistan, lined by hills and mountains to the east and west. They can patrol for days without incident, but then, without warning, be ambushed by gunmen on barren hillsides covered with boulders and bushes. The soldiers relax only when inside their base, a bubble of Americana in a sea of Afghan dust. On Sunday night, a few hours after the mine explosion, Sergeant Story and other soldiers sat in a crude mud-brick mess hall watching the Dallas Cowboys-Carolina Panthers game via satellite on a widescreen television. The soldiers eat burgers, fries and baked beans for dinner. They have been watching "Bulletproof Monk" and other Hollywood movies on a DVD player, over and over. The desolate terrain here aids the Americans in some ways. Unlike urban Iraq, this part of Afghanistan affords few places for guerrillas mounting ambushes to hide. But their effort is slowed by a problem also confounding American forces in Iraq ‹ limited intelligence on the enemy. Military officials said villagers generally provided little information about pro-Taliban fighters, who threaten to kill those who collaborate with the Americans. "They are all afraid for their lives to give us information about who is coming over the mountains," said Sgt. Katrina Presley, 24, from New Castle, Del., who helps run weekly meetings with local villagers. Maj. Dennis Sullivan, the base commander, said the Taliban fighters were not making military headway. But aid groups and United Nation officials contend that Taliban guerrillas are now circumventing well-armed American forces and attacking soft targets, like aid workers and Afghan policemen. They say the attacks have slowed reconstruction projects in eastern and southern Afghanistan. Villagers living around Shkin complain that they are not receiving enough aid. American military officials said two schools and a well were being built in the area with United Nations funds. Despite the dangers, American soldiers said they were eager to come to Shkin. Sunday's explosion occurred while Sergeant Story was escorting a new group of soldiers who will be replacing his unit. Most interviewed expressed enthusiasm. Seen as the posting with the best chance to engage in combat in Afghanistan, soldiers said coming here allowed them to "do their job." One young soldier called Shkin a "once in a lifetime" opportunity. Asked for what, he said "to kill." But some soldiers who have served here for months admitted the experience had changed them. Sgt. Christopher McGurk, a 29-year-old native of Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, saw one of his soldiers, Pvt. First Class Evan O'Neill, 19, of Haverhill, Mass., die in battle on Sept. 29. In an Oct. 25 battle, a wounded American slowly bled to death as Sergeant McGurk cared for him under fire. The son of a 28-year Army veteran, the sergeant feels that he has done his duty and is thinking of leaving the Army and becoming a New York City police officer. "Once you're involved in a situation like that," he said, "you realize it's for real." Sergeant Story, a father of three, constantly jokes and refuses to discuss the personal risks. "I can't answer that question," he said. "Never thought about it. Never. Never." From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 29 20:51:14 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAU4pCdE010904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:51:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id C92736FF41 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:51:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:51:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:51:14 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Purported Bush Tape Raises Fear of New Attacks X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:51:15 -0000 New Purported Bush Tape Raises Fear of New Attacks (A Parody) by the Disassociated Press A tape today surfaced in U.S. media outlets of someone purporting to be George W. Bush at a U.S. military base in Baghdad. Intelligence analysts around the world are studying the videotapes. "It certainly looked and sounded like him, but we get so few glimpses at Bush in real-life situations that it is hard to tell," said one operative from a Western intelligence agency. People who know Bush said it appeared to be him. "That's him, all right," said one longtime associate. The tape shows the man claiming to be Bush praising U.S. attacks in Iraq. "We will stay until the job is done," he threatened. The videotape was delivered to the Baghdad bureau of FOX News by an intermediary courier who has brought material before from the U.S. military, according to the U.S. network. There were calls for FOX to be banned from some Arabic countries for broadcasting American militaristic propaganda. While the quality of the tape was not poor, the alleged Bush did appear tired in portions of it, prompting speculation that he is on the run. The man claiming to be Bush said: "We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins." Analysts pointed out that given the ongoing nature of the Iraqi resistance since "the end of major combat operations," that comment could have been recorded anytime in the past six months. "When the man identified as Bush tells U.S. troops, 'You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq so we don't have to face them in our own country,' well, it's a little hard to believe that even the Bush White House would try to spin that," said the operative from a Western intelligence agency. "How could anyone believe, after all that has been disclosed about the lies and distortions used to manipulate the public into accepting this war, that U.S. troops are defending the American people in Iraq? No major world leader would be so obtuse or so low as to try to sell that to people at this stage." Members of the Iraqi Governing Council who met with the man identified as Bush said they had met with a man identified as Bush and were delaying comment until Paul Bremer was available to tell them what their comments would be. Omar Ali, an Iraqi in a poor area of Baghdad said: "I don't understand why he didn't stay. Just because the U.S. nearly starved us with the sanctions for 12 years, killed my cousin during the invasion, busted down my door last week and is trying to find a way to steal our oil -- does he think that Iraqis would want to hurt him, our great liberator?" Private Charles Sanders, who has been stationed in Iraq since the invasion said: "I was supposed to be back home by now. It was really getting depressing, but this is great. Sure, I don't get to look into the eyes of my little girl, or hold my wife tenderly in my arms, but the president served me turkey!" Susan Jones in Pittsburgh, who this morning was driven to tears while watching "Dances with Wolves" on cable TV, said: "I was planning on talking over the Thanksgiving Day table with my family about how we slaughtered the Indians and enslaved the blacks, bullied Latin America and bombed Vietnam, and now were occupying Iraq. I don't know, is it just me, or do we just have this brutal aggressive side to us? But now I guess, well, just talk about Bush's visit instead." When asked whether she was certain the president had gone to Iraq, Laura Bush said she hadn't noticed her husband had left the Crawford ranch. "I assumed he was out clearing brush," the First Lady said. Correspondents Robert Jensen and Sam Husseini contributed to this report. (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1128-06.htm) From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 29 20:59:31 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAU4xTdE011113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:59:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 535697046A; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:59:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:59:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:59:31 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] The Soldiers At My Front Door X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:59:31 -0000 Published on Saturday, November 29, 2003 by CommonDreams.org The Soldiers At My Front Door by John Dear I live in a tiny, remote, impoverished, three block long town in the desert of northeastern New Mexico. Everyone in town--and the whole state--knows that I am against the occupation of Iraq, that I have called for the closing of Los Alamos, and that as a priest, I have been preaching, like the Pope, against the bombing of Baghdad. Last week, it was announced that the local National Guard unit for northeastern New Mexico, based in the nearby Armory, was being deployed to Iraq early next year. I was not surprised when yellow ribbons immediately sprang up after the press conference. But I was surprised the following morning to hear 75 soldiers singing, shouting and screaming as they jogged down Main Street, passed our St. Joseph’s church, back and forth around town for an hour. It was 6 a.m., and they woke me up with their war slogans, chants like “Kill! Kill! Kill!” and “Swing your guns from left to right; we can kill those guys all night.” Their chants were disturbing, but this is war. They have to psyche themselves up for the kill. They have to believe that flying off to some tiny, remote desert town in Iraq where they will march in front of someone’s house and kill poor young Iraqis has some greater meaning besides cold-blooded murder. Most of these young reservists have never left our town, and they need our support for the “unpleasant” task before them. I have been to Iraq, and led a delegation of Nobel Peace Prize winners to Baghdad in 1999, and I know that the people there are no different than the people here. The screaming and chanting went on for one hour. They would march passed the church, down Main Street, back around the post office, and down Main Street again. It was clear they wanted to be seen and heard. In fact, it was quite scary because the desert is normally a place of perfect peace and silence. Suddenly, at 7 a.m., the shouting got dramatically louder. I looked out the front window of the house where I live, next door to the church, and there they were--all 75 of them, standing yards away from my front door, in the street right in front of my house and our church, shouting and screaming to the top of their lungs, “Kill! Kill! Kill!” Their commanders had planted them there and were egging them on. I was astonished and appalled. I suddenly realized that I do not need to go to Iraq; the war had come to my front door. Later, I heard that they had deliberately decided to do their exercises in front of my house and our church because of my outspoken opposition to the war. They wanted to put me in my place. This, I think, is a new tactic. Over the years, I have been arrested some 75 times in demonstrations, been imprisoned for a “Plowshares” disarmament action, been bugged, tapped, and harassed, searched at airports, and monitored by police. But this time, the soldiers who will soon march through Baghdad and attack desert homes in Iraq, practiced on me. They confronted me personally, just as the death squad militaries did in Guatemala and El Salvador in the 1980s, which I witnessed there on several occasions. I decided I had to do something. I put on my winter coat and walked out the front door right into the middle of the street. They stopped shouting and looked at me, so I said loudly, publicly for all to hear, “In the name of God, I order all of you to stop this nonsense, and not to go to Iraq. I want all of you to quit the military, disobey your orders to kill, and not to kill anyone. I do not want you to get killed. I want you to practice the love and nonviolence of Jesus. God does not bless war. God does not want you to kill so Bush and Cheney can get more oil. God does not support war. Stop all this and go home. God bless you.” Their jaws dropped, their eyeballs popped and they stood in shock and silence, looking steadily at me. Then they burst out laughing. Finally, the commander dismissed them and they left. Later, military officials spread lies around town that I had disrupted their military exercises at the Armory, so they decided to come to my house and to the church in retaliation. Others appealed to the archbishop to have me kicked out of New Mexico for denouncing their warmaking. Then, a general called the mayor and asked him to mediate “negotiations” with me, saying he did not want the military “in confrontation” with the church. Really, the mayor told me, they fear that I will disrupt the gala send-off next month, just before Christmas, when the soldiers go to Iraq. This dramatic episode is only the latest in a series of confrontations since I came to the desert of New Mexico in the summer of 2002 to serve as pastor of several poor, desert churches. I have spoken out extensively against the U.S. war on Iraq, and been denounced by people, including church people, across the state. I have organized small Christian peace groups throughout the state. We planned a prayer vigil for nuclear disarmament at Los Alamos on the anniversary of Hiroshima this past August, but when the devout people of Los Alamos, most of them Catholic, heard about it, they appealed to the archbishop to have me expelled if I appeared publicly in their town. In the end, I did not attend the vigil, but the publicity gave me further opportunities to call for the closing of Los Alamos. I receive hate mail, negative phone calls and at least one death threat for daring to criticize our country. But New Mexico is the poorest state in the U.S. It is also number one in military spending and number one in nuclear weapons. It is the most militarized, the most in need of disarmament, the most in need of nonviolence. It is the first place the Pentagon goes to recruit poor youth into the empire’s army. If we are to change the direction of our country, and turn people against Bush’s occupation of Iraq, we are going to have to face the ire and persecution of our local communities. If peace people in every local community insisted that our troops be brought home immediately, that the U.N. be sent in to restore Iraq, that all U.S. military aid to the Middle East be cut, and that our arsenal of weapons of mass destruction be dismantled, then we might all find soldiers marching at our front doors, trying to intimidate us. If we can face our soldiers, call them to quit the military and urge them to disobey orders to kill, then perhaps some of them will refuse to fight, become conscientious objectors and take up the wisdom of nonviolence. If we can look them in the eye and engage them in personal Satyagraha as Gandhi demonstrated, then we know that the transformation has begun. In the end, the episode for me was an experience of hope. We must be making a difference if the soldiers have to march at our front doors. That they failed to convert me or intimidate me, that they had to listen to my side of the story, may haunt their consciences as they travel to Iraq. No matter what happens, they have heard loud and clear the good news that God does not want them to kill anyone. I hope we can all learn the lesson. John Dear is a Catholic priest, peace activist, lecturer, and former executive director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. His latest books include “Mohandas Gandhi” (Orbis) and “Mary of Nazareth, Prophet of Peace” (Ave Maria Press). For info, see http://www.johndear.org From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 30 23:21:43 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB17LgdE009330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:21:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 7945F7086E for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:21:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:21:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:21:37 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Iraq is not America's to sell X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:21:43 -0000 http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1079575,00.html Iraq is not America's to sell International law is unequivocal - Paul Bremer's economic reforms are illegal Naomi Klein Friday November 7, 2003 The Guardian Bring Halliburton home. Cancel the contracts. Ditch the deals. Rip up the rules. Those are just a few of the suggestions for slogans that could help unify the growing movement against the occupation of Iraq. So far, activist debates have focused on whether the demand should be for a complete withdrawal of troops, or for the United States to cede power to the United Nations. But the "troops out" debate overlooks an important fact. If every last soldier pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to power, Iraq would still be occupied: by laws written in the interest of another country; by foreign corporations controlling its essential services; by 70% unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs. Any movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end to Iraq's military occupation, but to its economic colonisation as well. That means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer has fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction", and cancelling all privatisation contracts that are flowing from these reforms. How can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that Bremer's reforms were illegal to begin with. They clearly violate the international convention governing the behaviour of occupying forces, the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the US army's own code of war. The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". The coalition provisional authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq's constitution outlaws the privatisation of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally. On September 19, Bremer enacted the now infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream". Order 39 violated the Hague regulations in other ways as well. The convention states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct." Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "usufruct" (possibly the ugliest word in the English language) as an arrangement that grants one party the right to use and derive benefit from another's property "without altering the substance of the thing". Put more simply, if you are a housesitter, you can eat the food in the fridge, but you can't sell the house and turn it into condos. And yet that is just what Bremer is doing: what could more substantially alter "the substance" of a public asset than to turn it into a private one? In case the CPA was still unclear on this detail, the US army's Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of [non-military] property". This is pretty straightforward: bombing something does not give you the right to sell it. There is every indication that the CPA is well aware of the lawlessness of its privatisation scheme. In a leaked memo written on March 26, the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Tony Blair that "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorised by international law". So far, most of the controversy surrounding Iraq's reconstruction has focused on the waste and corruption in the awarding of contracts. This badly misses the scope of the violation: even if the sell-off of Iraq were conducted with full transparency and open bidding, it would still be illegal for the simple reason that Iraq is not America's to sell. The security council's recognition of the United States' and Britain's occupation authority provides no legal cover. The UN resolution passed in May specifically required the occupying powers to "comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva conventions of 1949 and the Hague regulations of 1907". According to a growing number of international legal experts, that means that if the next Iraqi government decides it doesn't want to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Bechtel and Halliburton, it will have powerful legal grounds to renationalise assets that were privatised under CPA edicts. Juliet Blanch, global head of energy and international arbitration for the huge international law firm Norton Rose, says that because Bremer's reforms directly contradict Iraq's constitution, they are "in breach of international law and are likely not enforceable". Blanch argues that the CPA "has no authority or ability to sign those [privatisation] contracts", and that a sovereign Iraqi government would have "quite a serious argument for renationalisation without paying compensation". Firms facing this type of expropriation would, according to Blanch, have "no legal remedy". The only way out for the administration is to make sure that Iraq's next government is anything but sovereign. It must be pliant enough to ratify the CPA's illegal laws, which will then be celebrated as the happy marriage of free markets and free people. Once that happens, it will be too late: the contracts will be locked in, the deals done and the occupation of Iraq permanent. Which is why anti-war forces must use this fast-closing window to demand that the next Iraqi government be free from the shackles of these reforms. It's too late to stop the war, but it's not too late to deny Iraq's invaders the myriad economic prizes they went to war to collect in the first place. It's not too late to cancel the contracts and ditch the deals. Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies (Picador) and, most recently, Fences and Windows: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (Picador). From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 30 23:44:12 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB17iAdE009634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:44:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 91C59706FF for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:44:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:44:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Media War Has Come Home X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:44:12 -0000 --> If you pass this comment along to others -- periodically but not repeatedly -- please explain that Commentaries are a premium sent to Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to learn more folks can consult ZNet at http://www.zmag.org Today's commentary: http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-11/22schechter.cfm The Media War Has Come Home November 23, 2003 By Danny Schechter During the 60's, some elements of the anti-war movement believed that it was time to bring the war home. The idea: give America a taste of what Vietnam was suffering by launching an armed resistance. Their "blows against the empire" were misguided and self-destructive, as even most of the surviving wannabe guerilla warriors now agree, Oddly enough, the Bush Administration as well as many conservatives became obsessed with that 60's notion and are apllying its tactics to achieve opposite results. They are bringing their war home-literally. The Republican Party has just announced it is importing Doha to New York, by reapplying the lessons learned at the Iraq War Coalition Press Center, the centerpiece of a well crafted propaganda system to domestic politics, This is not entirely new. During the war, corporate PR veteran and Pentagon media Victoria Clarke told the Wall Street Journal that she was running her operation as if it was a political campaign. And now that we realize how specious most of the arguments for the war were, we can see that politics and PR (along with oil and region change) was what it was about. It wasn't much of a armed clash since the other side folded most its tent through bribes and bullying when the invasion began, only to reappear when it ended. Clarke was so impressive at orchestrating the media that a media outlet has now hired her. She joined CNN as a correspondent. (The Pentagon briefer in chief during Gulf War 1 joined NBC News in its aftermath.) Now, the New York Observer tells of an impending merger between military media strategy and domestic news management. Ben Smith reports: "We're looking at embedding reporters, we're looking at new and interesting camera angles," Jim Wilkinson said recently in the quick, confidential drawl reporters got used to at the U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar. But while the Republican operative spent much of the year in desert camouflage as General Tommy Franks' director of strategic communications, he's now in Brooks Brothers mufti in foreign territory, New York. "Mr. Wilkinson started last month as the director of communications for the Republican National Convention, which will take place from Aug. 30 to Sept. 2 next year. His office, on the 18th floor over Madison Square Garden, is furnished with the essentials: leather-bound Bible, Yankee cap, Fox News on the flat-screen TV." There are signs that media organizations are waking up-or more likely-being unleashed from the handcuffs of patriotic coverage rituals embedded in war coverage the way those 7th inning renditions of "God Bless America" infiltrated baseball games According to Smith, there was rage in the press corps at those Doha briefings even if we rarely saw the, The BBC film War Spin captured it but was not shown in America. New York Magazine media critic Michael Wolff's on camera challenge to General Vincent Brooks did come through but only as an isolated instance.: Smith says he had plenty of company: "Plenty of reporters seethed at him during the war, and not covertly. Reporters there barked and protested-many are still brutally angry-at the "No comment" after "No comment" they received in Doha as their embedded colleagues broke news in the field and Mr. Rumsfeld gave press conferences at the Pentagon. Doha was, to them, a kind of biosphere of non-news." Now that some in the press rediscover their skepticism, the Bush Administration is shifting strategies-from seducing journalists to bypassing them all together. Frank Rick writes about this in New York Times: He begins by noting that the President himself says he doesn't not even read the press or watch TV, He told Fox News' Brit Hume:" "The best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world." After nearly three years, reporters who cover politics are realizing there is no there there. Writes Rich: "Until recently, the administration had often gotten what it wanted, especially on television, and not just on afternoon talk shows. From 9/11 through the fall of Saddam, the obsequiousness became so thick that even Terry Moran, the ABC News White House correspondent, said his colleagues looked "like zombies" during the notorious pre-shock-and-awe Bush news conference of March 6, 2003.' As criticisms of his policies could no longer be contained, Bush went over the heads of the Washington Press corps by doing interviews satellite with local TV anchors who presumably follow the details the least. This little trick was first used by his father during the l992 presidential campaign. The word has now gone to his "team" not to book Administration Bigs on hostile shows like Nightline or Frontline. Instead they will continue to rely on the Sunday Beltway blather talk shows as their venue du jour This prompts Rich to observe: "When an administration is hiding in a no-news bunker, how do you find the news? The first place to look, we're starting to learn, is any TV news show on which Ms. Rice, Mr. Card, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld are not appearing. If they're before a camera, you can assume that the White House has deemed the venue a safe one - a spin zone," In this media war, the Administration seems to still be way ahead but the upstart Marlins of the media could still vanquish the powerful imperial Yankees in the next game or the one after that. Think of the upset at the World Series as a political metaphor, Just as Iraq policy is unraveling the Administration's media management strategies unravel with it. Those of us with a memory remember Vietnam, the war in which the media began as a cheerleader and ended up presiding over its funeral. The war has come home. This is not a parallel that is lost on Mr. Rich of the New York Times who concludes: "At the tender age of six months, the war in Iraq is not remotely a Vietnam. But from the way the administration tries to manage the news against all reality, even that irrevocable reality encased in flag-draped coffins, you can only wonder if it might yet persuade the audience at home that we're mired in another Tet after all. " News Dissector Danny Schechter writes daily for Mediachannel.org. His latest book; Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception is out this week from Prometheus Books. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 1 22:46:42 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB26kedE011402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:46:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6108670B5C for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:46:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:46:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:46:41 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] 1/2 Bill Moyers on Media Reform X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:46:43 -0000 http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_111403E.shtml 'Our Democracy is in Danger of Being Paralyzed' Keynote Address to the National Conference on Media Reform By Bill Moyers Saturday 08 November 2003 Thank you for inviting me tonight. I’m flattered to be speaking to a gathering as high-powered as this one that’s come together with an objective as compelling as “media reform.” I must confess, however, to a certain discomfort, shared with other journalists, about the very term “media.” Ted Gup, who teaches journalism at Case Western Reserve, articulated my concerns better than I could when he wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education (November 23, 2001) that the very concept of media is insulting to some of us within the press who find ourselves lumped in with so many disparate elements, as if everyone with a pen, a microphone, a camera, or just a loud voice were all one and the same. …David Broder is not Matt Drudge. “Meet the Press” is not “Temptation Island.” And I am not Jerry Springer. I do not speak for him. He does not speak for me. Yet ‘the media” speaks for us all. That’s how I felt when I saw Oliver North reporting on Fox from Iraq, pressing our embattled troops to respond to his repetitive and belittling question, “Does Fox Rock? Does Fox Rock?” Oliver North and I may be in the same “media” but we are not part of the same message. Nonetheless, I accept that I work and all of us live in “medialand,” and God knows we need some “media reform.” I’m sure you know those two words are really an incomplete description of the job ahead. Taken alone, they suggest that you’ve assembled a convention of efficiency experts, tightening the bolts and boosting the output of the machinery of public enlightenment, or else a conclave of high-minded do-gooders applauding each other’s sermons. But we need to be – and we will be – much more than that. Because what we’re talking about is nothing less than rescuing a democracy that is so polarized it is in danger of being paralyzed and pulverized. Alarming words, I know. But the realities we face should trigger alarms. Free and responsible government by popular consent just can’t exist without an informed public. That’s a cliché, I know, but I agree with the presidential candidate who once said that truisms are true and clichés mean what they say (an observation that no doubt helped to lose him the election.) It’s a reality: democracy can’t exist without an informed public. Here’s an example: Only 13% of eligible young people cast ballots in the last presidential election. A recent National Youth Survey revealed that only half of the fifteen hundred young people polled believe that voting is important, and only 46% think they can make a difference in solving community problems. We’re talking here about one quarter of the electorate. The Carnegie Corporation conducted a youth challenge quiz of l5-24 year-olds and asked them, “Why don’t more young people vote or get involved?” Of the nearly two thousand respondents, the main answer was that they did not have enough information about issues and candidates. Let me rewind and say it again: democracy can’t exist without an informed public. So I say without qualification that it’s not simply the cause of journalism that’s at stake today, but the cause of American liberty itself. As Tom Paine put it, “The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth.” He was talking about the cause of a revolutionary America in 1776. But that revolution ran in good part on the energies of a rambunctious, though tiny press. Freedom and freedom of communications were birth-twins in the future United States. They grew up together, and neither has fared very well in the other’s absence. Boom times for the one have been boom times for the other. Yet today, despite plenty of lip service on every ritual occasion to freedom of the press radio and TV, three powerful forces are undermining that very freedom, damming the streams of significant public interest news that irrigate and nourish the flowering of self-determination. The first of these is the centuries-old reluctance of governments – even elected governments – to operate in the sunshine of disclosure and criticism. The second is more subtle and more recent. It’s the tendency of media giants, operating on big-business principles, to exalt commercial values at the expense of democratic value. That is, to run what Edward R. Murrow forty-five years ago called broadcasting’s “money-making machine” at full throttle. In so doing they are squeezing out the journalism that tries to get as close as possible to the verifiable truth; they are isolating serious coverage of public affairs into ever-dwindling “news holes” or far from prime- time; and they are gobbling up small and independent publications competing for the attention of the American people. It’s hardly a new or surprising story. But there are fresh and disturbing chapters. In earlier times our governing bodies tried to squelch journalistic freedom with the blunt instruments of the law – padlocks for the presses and jail cells for outspoken editors and writers. Over time, with spectacular wartime exceptions, the courts and the Constitution struck those weapons out of their hands. But they’ve found new ones now, in the name of “national security.” The classifier’s Top Secret stamp, used indiscriminately, is as potent a silencer as a writ of arrest. And beyond what is officially labeled “secret” there hovers a culture of sealed official lips, opened only to favored media insiders: of government by leak and innuendo and spin, of misnamed “public information” offices that churn out blizzards of releases filled with self-justifying exaggerations and, occasionally, just plain damned lies. Censorship without officially appointed censors. Add to that the censorship-by-omission of consolidated media empires digesting the bones of swallowed independents, and you’ve got a major shrinkage of the crucial information that thinking citizens can act upon. People saw that coming as long as a century ago when the rise of chain newspaper ownerships, and then of concentration in the young radio industry, became apparent. And so in the zesty progressivism of early New Deal days, the Federal Communications Act of 1934 was passed (more on this later.) The aim of that cornerstone of broadcast policy, mentioned over 100 times in its pages, was to promote the “public interest, convenience and necessity.” The clear intent was to prevent a monopoly of commercial values from overwhelming democratic values – to assure that the official view of reality – corporate or government – was not the only view of reality that reached the people. Regulators and regulated, media and government were to keep a wary eye on each other, preserving those checks and balances that is the bulwark of our Constitutional order. What would happen, however, if the contending giants of big government and big publishing and broadcasting ever joined hands? Ever saw eye to eye in putting the public’s need for news second to free-market economics? That’s exactly what’s happening now under the ideological banner of “deregulation.” Giant megamedia conglomerates that our founders could not possibly have envisioned are finding common cause with an imperial state in a betrothal certain to produce not the sons and daughters of liberty but the very kind of bastards that issued from the old arranged marriage of church and state. Consider where we are today. Never has there been an administration so disciplined in secrecy, so precisely in lockstep in keeping information from the people at large and – in defiance of the Constitution – from their representatives in Congress. Never has the so powerful a media oligopoly – the word is Barry Diller’s, not mine – been so unabashed in reaching like Caesar for still more wealth and power. Never have hand and glove fitted together so comfortably to manipulate free political debate, sow contempt for the idea of government itself, and trivialize the people’s need to know. When the journalist-historian Richard Reeves was once asked by a college student to define “real news”, he answered: “The news you and I need to keep our freedoms.” When journalism throws in with power that’s the first news marched by censors to the guillotine. The greatest moments in the history of the press came not when journalists made common cause with the state but when they stood fearlessly independent of it. Which brings me to the third powerful force – beyond governmental secrecy and megamedia conglomerates – that is shaping what Americans see, read, and hear. I am talking now about that quasi-official partisan press ideologically linked to an authoritarian administration that in turn is the ally and agent of the most powerful interests in the world. This convergence dominates the marketplace of political ideas today in a phenomenon unique in our history. You need not harbor the notion of a vast, right wing conspiracy to think this more collusion more than pure coincidence. Conspiracy is unnecessary when ideology hungers for power and its many adherents swarm of their own accord to the same pot of honey. Stretching from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal to the faux news of Rupert Murdoch’s empire to the nattering nabobs of no-nothing radio to a legion of think tanks paid for and bought by conglomerates – the religious, partisan and corporate right have raised a mighty megaphone for sectarian, economic, and political forces that aim to transform the egalitarian and democratic ideals embodied in our founding documents. Authoritarianism. With no strong opposition party to challenge such triumphalist hegemony, it is left to journalism to be democracy’s best friend. That is why so many journalists joined with you in questioning Michael Powell’s bid – blessed by the White House – to permit further concentration of media ownership. If free and independent journalism committed to telling the truth without fear or favor is suffocated, the oxygen goes out of democracy. And there is a surer way to intimidate and then silence mainstream journalism than to be the boss. If you doubt me, read Jane Kramer’s chilling account in the current New Yorker of Silvio Berlusconi. The Prime Minister of Italy is its richest citizen. He is also its first media mogul. The list of media that he or his relatives or his proxies own, or directly or indirectly control, includes the state television networks and radio stations, three of Italy’s four commercial television networks, two big publishing houses, two national newspapers, fifty magazines, the country’s largest movie production-and-distribution company, and a chunk of its Internet services. Even now he is pressing upon parliament a law that would enable him to purchase more media properties, including the most influential paper in the country. Kramer quotes one critic who says that half the reporters in Italy work for Berlusconi, and the other half think they might have to. Small wonder he has managed to put the Italian State to work to guarantee his fortune – or that his name is commonly attached to such unpleasant things as contempt for the law, conflict of interest, bribery, and money laundering. Nonetheless, “his power over what other Italians see, read, buy, and, above all, think, is overwhelming.” The editor of The Economist, Bill Emmott, was asked recently why a British magazine was devoting so much space to an Italian Prime Minister. He replied that Berlusconi had betrayed the two things the magazine stood for: capitalism and democracy. Can it happen here? It can happen here. By the way, Berlusconi’s close friend is Rupert Murdoch. On July 3lst this year, writes Jane Kramer, programming on nearly all the satellite hookups in Italy was switched automatically to Murdoch’s Sky Italia So the issues bringing us here tonight are bigger and far more critical than simply “media reform.” That’s why, before I go on, I want to ask you to look around you. I’m serious: Look to your left and now to your right. You are looking at your allies in one of the great ongoing struggles of the American experience – the struggle for the soul of democracy, for government “of, by, and for the people.” It’s a battle we can win only if we work together. We’ve seen that this year. Just a few months ago the FCC, heavily influenced by lobbyists for the newspaper, broadcasting and cable interests, prepared a relaxation of the rules governing ownership of media outlets that would allow still more diversity-killing mergers among media giants. The proceedings were conducted in virtual secrecy, and generally ignored by all the major media, who were of course interested parties. In June Chairman Powell and his two Republican colleagues on the FCC announced the revised regulations as a done deal. But they didn’t count on the voice of independent journalists and citizens like you. Because of coverage in independent outlets – including PBS, which was the only broadcasting system that encouraged its journalists to report what was really happening – and because citizens like you took quick action, this largely invisible issue burst out as a major political cause and ignited a crackling public debate. You exposed Powell’s failure to conduct an open discussion of the rule changes save for a single hearing in Richmond, Virginia. Your efforts led to a real participatory discussion, with open meetings in Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, New York and Atlanta. Then the organizing that followed generated millions of letters and “filings”at the FCC opposing the change. Finally, the outcry mobilized unexpected support for bi-partisan legislation to reverse the new rules that cleared the Senate – although House Majority Leader Tom De Lay still holds it prisoner in the House. But who would have thought six months ago that the cause would win support from such allies as Senator Trent Lott or Kay Bailey Hutchinson, from my own Texas. You have moved “media reform” to center-stage, where it may even now become a catalyst for a new era of democratic renewal. We working journalists have something special to bring to this work. This weekend at your conference there will be plenty of good talk about the mechanics of reform. What laws are needed? What advocacy programs and strategies? How can we protect and extend the reach of those tools that give us some countervailing power against media monopoly – instruments like the Internet, cable TV, community-based radio and public broadcasting systems, alternative journals of news and opinion. But without passion, without a message that has a beating heart, these won’t be enough. There’s where journalism comes in. It isn’t the only agent of freedom, obviously; in fact, journalism is a deeply human and therefore deeply flawed craft – yours truly being a conspicuous example. But at times it has risen to great occasions, and at times it has made other freedoms possible. That’s what the draftsmen of the First Amendment knew and it’s what we can’t afford to forget. So to remind us of what our free press has been at its best and can be again, I will call on the help of unseen presences, men and women of journalism’s often checkered but sometimes courageous past. Think with me for a moment on the reasons behind the establishment of press freedom. It wasn’t ordained to protect hucksters, and it didn’t drop like the gentle rain from heaven. It was fought and sacrificed for by unpretentious but feisty craftsmen who got their hands inky at their own hand presses and called themselves simply “printers.” The very first American newspaper was a little three-page affair put out in Boston in September of 1690. Its name was Publick Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestick and its editor was Benjamin Harris, who said he simply wanted “to give an account of such considerable things as have come to my attention.” The government shut it down after one issue – just one issue! – for the official reason that printer Ben Harris hadn’t applied for the required government license to publish. But I wonder if some Massachusetts pooh-bah didn’t take personally one of Harris’s proclaimed motives for starting the paper – “to cure the spirit of Lying much among us”? No one seems to have objected when Harris and his paper disappeared – that was the way things were. But some forty-odd years later when printer John Peter Zenger was jailed in New York for criticizing its royal governor, things were different. The colony brought Zenger to trial on a charge of “seditious libel,” and since it didn’t matter whether the libel was true or not, the case seemed open and shut. But the jury ignored the judge’s charge and freed Zenger, not only because the governor was widely disliked, but because of the closing appeal of Zenger’s lawyer, Andrew Hamilton. Just hear him! His client’s case was: Not the cause of the poor Printer, nor of New York alone, [but] the cause of Liberty, and. . . every Man who prefers Freedom to a Life of Slavery will bless and honour You, as Men who. . .by an impartial and uncorrupt Verdict, [will] have laid a Noble Foundation for securing to ourselves, our Posterity and our Neighbors, That, to which Nature and the Laws of our Country have given us a Right, -- the Liberty – both of exposing and opposing arbitrary Power…by speaking and writing – Truth. Still a pretty good mission statement! During the War for Independence itself most of the three dozen little weekly newspapers in the colonies took the Patriot side and mobilized resistance by giving space to anti-British letters, news of Parliament’s latest outrages, and calls to action. But the clarion journalistic voice of the Revolution was the onetime editor of the Pennsylvania Magazine, Tom Paine, a penniless recent immigrant from England where he left a trail of failure as a businessman and husband. In 1776 – just before enlisting in Washington’s army – he published Common Sense, a hard-hitting pamphlet that slashed through legalisms and doubts to make an uncompromising case for an independent and republican America. It’s been called the first best seller, with as many as 100,000 copies bought by a small literate population. Paine followed it up with another convincing collection of essays written in the field and given another punchy title, The Crisis. Passed from hand to hand and reprinted in other papers, they spread the gospel of freedom to thousands of doubters. And why I bring Paine up here is because he had something we need to restore – an unwavering concentration to reach ordinary people with the message that they mattered and could stand up for themselves. He couched his gospel of human rights and equality in a popular style that any working writer can envy. “As it is my design,” he said, “to make those that can scarcely read understand, I shall therefore avoid every literary ornament and put it in language as plain as the alphabet.” That plain language spun off memorable one-liners that we’re still quoting. “These are the times that try men’s souls.” “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.” “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.” “Virtue is not hereditary.” And this: “Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.” I don’t know what Paine would have thought of political debate by bumper sticker and sound bite but he could have held his own in any modern campaign. There were also editors who felt responsible to audiences that would dive deep. In 1787 and ‘88 the little New-York Independent Advertiser ran all eighty-five numbers of The Federalist , those serious essays in favor of ratifying the Constitution. They still shine as clear arguments, but they are, and they were, unforgiving in their demand for concentrated attention. Nonetheless, The Advertiser felt that it owed the best to its readers, and the readers knew that the issues of self-government deserved their best attention. I pray your goal of “media reform” includes a press as conscientious as the New-York Advertiser, as pungent as Common Sense, and as public-spirited as both. Because it takes those qualities to fight against the relentless pressure of authority and avarice. Remember, back in l79l, when the First Amendment was ratified, the idea of a free press seemed safely sheltered in law. It wasn’t. Only seven years later, in the midst of a war scare with France, Congress passed and John Adams signed the infamous Sedition Act. The act made it a crime – just listen to how broad a brush the government could swing – to circulate opinions “tending to induce a belief” that lawmakers might have unconstitutional or repressive motives, or “directly or indirectly tending” to justify France or to “criminate,” whatever that meant, the President or other Federal officials. No wonder that opponents called it a scheme to “excite a fervor against foreign aggression only to establish tyranny at home.” John Ashcroft would have loved it. But here’s what happened. At least a dozen editors refused to be frightened and went defiantly to prison, some under state prosecutions. One of them, Matthew Lyon, who also held a seat in the House of Representatives, languished for four months in an unheated cell during a Vermont winter. But such was the spirit of liberty abroad in the land that admirers chipped in to pay his thousand-dollar fine, and when he emerged his district re-elected him by a landslide. Luckily, the Sedition Act had a built-in expiration date of 1801, at which time President Jefferson – who hated it from the first – pardoned those remaining under indictment. So the story has an upbeat ending, and so can ours, but it will take the kind of courage that those early printers and their readers showed. Courage is a timeless quality and surfaces when the government is tempted to hit the bottle of censorship again during national emergencies, real or manufactured. As so many of you will recall, in 1971, during the Vietnam War, the Nixon administration resurrected the doctrine of “prior restraint” from the crypt and tried to ban the publication of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times and the Washington Post – even though the documents themselves were a classified history of events during four earlier Presidencies. Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of the Times, and Katherine Graham of the Post were both warned by their lawyers that they and their top managers could face criminal prosecution under espionage laws if they printed the material that Daniel Ellsberg had leaked – and, by the way, offered without success to the three major television networks. Or at the least, punitive lawsuits or whatever political reprisals a furious Nixon team could devise. But after internal debates – and the threats of some of their best-known editors to resign rather than fold under pressure – both owners gave the green light – and were vindicated by the Supreme Court. Score a round for democracy. Bi-partisan fairness requires me to note that the Carter administration, in 1979, tried to prevent the Progressive magazine, published right here in Madison, from running an article called “How to Make an H-Bomb.” The grounds were a supposed threat to “national security.” But Howard Morland had compiled the piece entirely from sources open to the public, mainly to show that much of the classification system was Wizard of Oz smoke and mirrors. The courts again rejected the government’s claim, but it’s noteworthy that the journalism of defiance by that time had retreated to a small left-wing publication like the Progressive. In all three of those cases, confronted with a clear and present danger of punishment, none of the owners flinched. Can we think of a single executive of today’s big media conglomerates showing the kind of resistance that Sulzberger, Graham, and Erwin Knoll did? Certainly not Michael Eisner. He said he didn’t even want ABC News reporting on its parent company, Disney. Certainly not General Electric/NBC’s Robert Wright. He took Phil Donahue off MNBC because the network didn’t want to offend conservatives with a liberal sensibility during the invasion of Iraq. Instead, NBC brought to its cable channel one Michael Savage whose diatribes on radio had described non-white countries as “turd-world nations” and who characterized gay men and women as part of “the grand plan to cut down on the white race.” I am not sure what it says that the GE/NBC executives calculated that while Donahue was offensive to conservatives, Savage was not. continued... From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 1 22:48:10 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB26m9dE011602 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:48:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 96F9C70A1C for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:48:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:48:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:48:10 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] 2/2 Bill Moyers on Media Reform X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:48:11 -0000 http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_111403E.shtml 'Our Democracy is in Danger of Being Paralyzed' Keynote Address to the National Conference on Media Reform By Bill Moyers continued... And then there’s Leslie Moonves, the chairman of CBS. In the very week that the once-Tiffany Network was celebrating its 75th anniversary – and taking kudos for its glory days when it was unafraid to broadcast “The Harvest of Shame” and “The Selling of the Pentagon” – the network’s famous eye blinked. Pressured by a vociferous and relentless right wing campaign and bullied by the Republican National Committee – and at a time when its parent company has billions resting on whether the White House, Congress, and the FCC will allow it to own even more stations than currently permissible – CBS caved in and pulled the miniseries about Ronald Reagan that conservatives thought insufficiently worshipful. The chief honcho at CBS, Les Moonves, says taste, not politics, dictated his decision. But earlier this year, explaining why CBS intended to air a series about Adolf Hitler, Moonves sang a different tune: “If you want to play it safe and put on milquetoast then you get criticized…There are times when as a broadcaster when you take chances.” This obviously wasn’t one of those times. Granted, made-for-television movies about living figures are about as vital as the wax figures at Madame Tussaud’s – and even less authentic – granted that the canonizers of Ronald Reagan hadn’t even seen the film before they set to howling; granted, on the surface it’s a silly tempest in a teapot; still, when a once-great network falls obsequiously to the ground at the feet of a partisan mob over a cheesy mini-series that practically no one would have taken seriously as history, you have to wonder if the slight tremor that just ran through the First Amendment could be the harbinger of greater earthquakes to come, when the stakes are really high. And you have to wonder what concessions the media tycoons-cum-supplicants are making when no one is looking. So what must we devise to make the media safe for individuals stubborn about protecting freedom and serving the truth? And what do we all – educators, administrators, legislators and agitators – need to do to restore the disappearing diversity of media opinions? America had plenty of that in the early days when the republic and the press were growing up together. It took no great amount of capital and credit – just a few hundred dollars – to start a paper, especially with a little political sponsorship and help. There were well over a thousand of them by 1840, mostly small-town weeklies. And they weren’t objective by any stretch. Here’s William Cobbett, another Anglo-American hell-raiser like Paine, shouting his creed in the opening number of his 1790s paper, Porcupine’s Gazette. “Peter Porcupine,” Cobbett’s self-bestowed nickname, declared: Professions of impartiality I shall make none. They are always useless, and are besides perfect nonsense, when used by a newsmonger; for, he that does not relate news as he finds it, is something worse than partial; and . . . he that does not exercise his own judgment, either in admitting or rejecting what is sent him, is a poor passive tool, and not an editor. In Cobbett’s day you could flaunt your partisan banners as you cut and thrust, and not inflict serious damage on open public discussion because there were plenty of competitors. It didn’t matter if the local gazette presented the day’s events entirely through a Democratic lens. There was always an alternate Whig or Republican choice handy – there were, in other words, choices. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted, these many blooming journals kept even rural Americans amazingly well informed. They also made it possible for Americans to exercise one of their most democratic habits – that of forming associations to carry out civic enterprises. And they operated against the dreaded tyranny of the majority by letting lonely thinkers know that they had allies elsewhere. Here’s how de Tocqueville put it in his own words: It often happens in democratic countries that many men who have the desire or directed toward that light, and those wandering spirits who had long sought each other the need to associate cannot do it, because all being very small and lost in the crowd, they do not see each other and do not know where to find each other. Up comes a newspaper that exposes to their view the sentiment or the idea that had been presented to each of them simultaneously but separately. All are immediately in the shadows finally meet each other and unite. No wandering spirit could fail to find a voice in print. And so in that pre-Civil War explosion of humanitarian reform movements, it was a diverse press that put the yeast in freedom’s ferment. Of course there were plenty of papers that spoke for Indian-haters, immigrant-bashers, bigots, jingoes and land-grabbers proclaiming America’s Manifest Destiny to dominate North America. But one way or another, journalism mattered, and had purpose and direction. Past and present are never as separate as we think. Horace Greeley, the reform-loving editor of the New York Tribune, not only kept his pages “ever open to the plaints of the wronged and suffering,” but said that whoever sat in an editor’s chair and didn’t work to promote human progress hadn’t tasted “the luxury” of journalism. I liken that to the words of a kindred spirit closer to our own time, I.F. Stone. In his four-page little I.F. Stone’s Weekly, “Izzy” loved to catch the government’s lies and contradictions in the government’s own official documents. And amid the thunder of battle with the reactionaries, he said: “I have so much fun I ought to be arrested.” Think about that. Two newsmen, a century apart, believing that being in a position to fight the good fight isn’t a burden but a lucky break. How can our work here bring that attitude back into the newsrooms? That era of a wide-open and crowded newspaper playing field began to fade as the old hand-presses gave way to giant machines with press runs and readerships in the hundreds of thousands and costs in the millions. But that didn’t necessarily or immediately kill public spirited journalism. Not so long as the new owners were still strong-minded individuals with big professional egos to match their thick pocketbooks. When Joseph Pulitzer, a one-time immigrant reporter for a German-language paper in St. Louis, took over the New York World in 1883 he was already a millionaire in the making. But here’s his recommended short platform for politicians: 1.Tax luxuries 2. Tax Inheritances 3. Tax Large Incomes 4. Tax monopolies 5. Tax the Privileged Corporation 6. A Tariff for Revenue 7. Reform the Civil Service 8. Punish Corrupt Officers 9. Punish Vote Buying. 10. Punish Employers who Coerce their Employees in Elections Also not a bad mission statement. Can you imagine one of today’s huge newspaper chains taking that on as an agenda? Don’t get me wrong. The World certainly offered people plenty of the spice that they wanted – entertainment, sensation, earthy advice on living – but not at the expense of news that let them know who was on their side against the boodlers and bosses. Nor did big-time, big-town, big bucks journalism extinguish the possibility of a reform-minded investigative journalism that took the name of muckraking during the Progressive Era. Those days of early last century saw a second great awakening of the democratic impulse. What brought it into being was a reaction against the Social Darwinism and unrestrained capitalistic exploitation that is back in full force today. Certain popular magazines made space for – and profited by – the work of such journalists – to name only a few – as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair, Samuel Hopkins Adams and David Graham Phillips. They ripped the veils from – among other things – the shame of the cities, the crimes of the trusts, the treason of the Senate and the villainies of those who sold tainted meat and poisonous medicines. And why were they given those opportunities? Because, in the words of Samuel S. McClure, owner of McClure’s Magazine, when special interests defied the law and flouted the general welfare, there was a social debt incurred. And, as he put it: “We have to pay in the end, every one of us. And in the end, the sum total of the debt will be our liberty.” Muckraking lingers on today, but alas, a good deal of it consists of raking personal and sexual scandal in high and celebrated places. Surely, if democracy is to be served, we have to get back to putting the rake where the important dirt lies, in the fleecing of the public and the abuse of its faith in good government. When that landmark Communications Act of 1934 was under consideration a vigorous public movement of educators, labor officials, and religious and institutional leaders emerged to argue for a broadcast system that would serve the interests of citizens and communities. A movement like that is coming to life again and we now have to build on this momentum. It won’t be easy, because the tide’s been flowing the other way for a long time. The deregulation pressure began during the Reagan era, when then-FCC chairman Mark Fowler, who said that TV didn’t need much regulation because it was just a “toaster with pictures,” eliminated many public-interest rules. That opened the door for networks to cut their news staffs, scuttle their documentary units (goodbye to “The Harvest of Shame” and “The Selling of the Pentagon”), and exile investigative producers and reporters to the under-funded hinterlands of independent production. It was like turning out searchlights on dark and dangerous corners. A crowning achievement of that drive was the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the largest corporate welfare program ever for the most powerful media and entertainment conglomerates in the world – passed, I must add, with support from both parties. And the beat of “convergence” between once-distinct forms of media goes on at increased tempo, with the communications conglomerates and the advertisers calling the tune. As safeguards to competition fall, an octopus like GE-NBC-Vivendi-Universal will be able to secure cable channels that can deliver interactive multimedia content – text, sound and images – to digital TVs, home computers, personal video recorders and portable wireless devices like cell phones. The goal? To corner the market on new ways of selling more things to more people for more hours in the day. And in the long run, to fill the airwaves with customized pitches to you and your children. That will melt down the surviving boundaries between editorial and marketing divisions and create a hybrid known to the new-media hucksters as “branded entertainment.” Let’s consider what’s happening to newspapers. A study by Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America reports that two-thirds of today’s newspaper markets are monopolies. And now most of the country’s powerful newspaper chains are lobbying for co-ownership of newspaper and broadcast outlets in the same market, increasing their grip on community after community. And are they up-front about it? Hear this: Last December 3 such media giants as The New York Times, Gannett, Cox, and Tribune, along with the trade group representing almost all the country’s broadcasting stations, filed a petition to the FCC making the case for that cross ownership the owners so desperately seek. They actually told the FCC that lifting the regulation on cross ownership would strengthen local journalism. But did those same news organizations tell their readers what they were doing? Not all. None of them on that day believed they had an obligation to report in their own news pages what their parent companies were asking of the FCC. As these huge media conglomerates increase their control over what we see, read, and hear, they rarely report on how they are themselves are using their power to further their own interests and power as big business, including their influence over the political process. Take a look at a new book called Leaving Readers Behind: The Age of Corporate Newspapering published as part of the Project on the State of the American Newspaper under the auspices of the Pew Charitable Trusts. The people who produced the book all love newspapers – Gene Roberts, former managing editor of The New York Times; Thomas Kunkel, dean of the Philip Merrill College of Journalism; Charles Layton, a veteran wire service reporter and news and feature editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer, as well as contributors such as Ken Auletta, Geneva Overholser, and Roy Reed. Their conclusion: the newspaper industry is in the middle of the most momentous change in its three hundred year history – a change that is diminishing the amount of real news available to the consumer. A generation of relentless corporatization is now culminating in a furious, unprecedented blitz of buying, selling and consolidating of newspapers, from the mightiest dailies to the humblest weeklies. It is a world where “small hometown dailies in particular are being bought and sold like hog futures. Where chains, once content to grow one property at a time, now devour other chains whole. Where they are effectively ceding whole regions of the country to one another, further minimizing competition. Where money is pouring into the business from interests with little knowledge and even less concern about the special obligations newspapers have to democracy.” They go on to describe the toll that the never-ending drive for profits is taking on the news. In Cumberland, Maryland, for example, the police reporter had so many duties piled upon him he no longer had time to go to the police station for the daily reports. But newspaper management had a cost-saving solution: put a fax machine in the police station and let the cops send over the news they thought the paper should have. In New Jersey, the Gannett chain bought the Asbury Park Press, then sent in a publisher who slashed fifty five people from the staff and cut the space for news, and was rewarded by being named Gannett’s Manager of the Year. In New Jersey, by the way, the Newhouse and Gannett chains between them now own thirteen of the state’s nineteen dailies, or seventy three percent of all the circulation of New Jersey-based papers. Then there is The Northwestern in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, with a circulation of 23,500. Here, the authors report, is a paper that prided itself on being in hometown hands since the Johnson administration – the Andrew Johnson administration. But in 1998 it was sold not once but twice, within the space of two months. Two years later it was sold again: four owners in less than three years. You’d better get used to it, concluded Leaving Readers Behind, because the real momentum of consolidation is just beginning – it won’t be long now before America is reduced to half a dozen major print conglomerates. You can see the results even now in the waning of robust journalism. In the dearth of in-depth reporting as news organizations try to do more with fewer resources. In the failure of the major news organizations to cover their own corporate deals and lobbying as well as other forms of “crime in the suites” such as Enron story. And in helping people understand what their government is up to. The report by the Roberts team includes a survey in l999 that showed a wholesale retreat in coverage of nineteen key departments and agencies in Washington. Regular reporting of the Supreme Court and State Department dropped off considerably through the decade. At the Social Security Administration, whose activities literally affect every American, only the New York Times was maintaining a full-time reporter and, incredibly, at the Interior Department, which controls five to six hundred million acres of public land and looks after everything from the National Park Service to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, there were no full-time reporters around. That’s in Washington, our nation’s capital. Out across the country there is simultaneously a near blackout of local politics by broadcasters. The public interest group Alliance for Better Campaigns studied forty-five stations in six cities in one week in October. Out of 7,560 hours of programming analyzed, only 13 were devoted to local public affairs – less than one-half of 1% of local programming nationwide. Mayors, town councils, school boards, civic leaders get no time from broadcasters who have filled their coffers by looting the public airwaves over which they were placed as stewards. Last year, when a movement sprang up in the House of Representatives to require these broadcasters to obey the law that says they must sell campaign advertising to candidates for office at the lowest commercial rate, the powerful broadcast lobby brought the Congress to heel. So much for the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” So what do we do? What is our strategy for taking on what seems a hopeless fight for a media system that serves as effectively as it sells – one that holds all the institutions of society, itself included, accountable? There’s plenty we can do. Here’s one journalist’s list of some of the overlapping and connected goals that a vital media reform movement might pursue. First, we have to take Tom Paine’s example – and Danny Schecter’s advice – and reach out to regular citizens. We have to raise an even bigger tent than you have here. Those of us in this place speak a common language about the “media.” We must reach the audience that’s not here – carry the fight to radio talk shows, local television, and the letters columns of our newspapers. As Danny says, we must engage the mainstream, not retreat from it. We have to get our fellow citizens to understand that what they see, hear, and read is not only the taste of programmers and producers but also a set of policy decisions made by the people we vote for. We have to fight to keep the gates to the Internet open to all. The web has enabled many new voices in our democracy – and globally – to be heard: advocacy groups, artists, individuals, non-profit organizations. Just about anyone can speak online, and often with an impact greater than in the days when orators had to climb on soap box in a park. The media industry lobbyists point to the Internet and say it’s why concerns about media concentration are ill founded in an environment where anyone can speak and where there are literally hundreds of competing channels. What those lobbyists for big media don’t tell you is that the traffic patterns of the online world are beginning to resemble those of television and radio. In one study, for example, AOL Time Warner (as it was then known) accounted for nearly a third of all user time spent online. And two others companies – Yahoo and Microsoft – bring that figure to fully 50%. As for the growing number of channels available on today’s cable systems, most are owned by a small handful of companies. Of the ninety-one major networks that appear on most cable systems, 79 are part of such multiple network groups such as Time Warner, Viacom, Liberty Media, NBC, and Disney. In order to program a channel on cable today, you must either be owned by or affiliated with one of the giants. If we’re not vigilant the wide-open spaces of the Internet could be transformed into a system in which a handful of companies use their control over high-speed access to ensure they remain at the top of the digital heap in the broadband era at the expense of the democratic potential of this amazing technology. So we must fight to make sure the Internet remains open to all as the present-day analogue of that many-tongued world of small newspapers so admired by de Tocqueville. We must fight for a regulatory, market and public opinion environment that lets local and community-based content be heard rather than drowned out by nationwide commercial programming. We must fight to limit conglomerate swallowing of media outlets by sensible limits on multiple and cross-ownership of TV and radio stations, newspapers, magazines, publishing companies and other information sources. Let the message go forth: No Berlusconis in America! We must fight to expand a noncommercial media system – something made possible in part by new digital spectrum awarded to PBS stations – and fight off attempts to privatize what’s left of public broadcasting. Commercial speech must not be the only free speech in America! We must fight to create new opportunities, through public policies and private agreements, to let historically marginalized media players into more ownership of channels and control of content. Let us encourage traditional mainstream journalism to get tougher about keeping a critical eye on those in public and private power and keeping us all informed of what’s important – not necessarily simple or entertaining or good for the bottom line. Not all news is “Entertainment Tonight.” And news departments are trustees of the public, not the corporate media’s stockholders In that last job, schools of journalism and professional news associations have their work cut out. We need journalism graduates who are not only better informed in a whole spectrum of special fields – and the schools do a competent job there – but who take from their training a strong sense of public service. And also graduates who are perhaps a little more hard-boiled and street-smart than the present crop, though that’s hard to teach. Thanks to the high cost of education, we get very few recruits from the ranks of those who do the world’s unglamorous and low-paid work. But as a onetime “cub” in a very different kind of setting, I cherish H.L. Mencken’s description of what being a young Baltimore reporter a hundred years ago meant to him. “I was at large,” he wrote, in a wicked seaport of half a million people with a front seat at every public . . [B]y all orthodox cultural standards I probably reached my all-time low, for the heavy reading of my teens had been abandoned in favor of life itself. . .But it would be an exaggeration to say I was ignorant, for if I neglected the humanities I was meanwhile laying in all the worldly wisdom of a police lieutenant, a bartender, a shyster lawyer or a midwife. We need some of that worldly wisdom in our newsrooms. Let’s figure out how to attract youngsters who have acquired it. And as for those professional associations of editors they might remember that in union there is strength. One journalist alone can’t extract from an employer a commitment to let editors and not accountants choose the appropriate subject matter for coverage. But what if news councils blew the whistle on shoddy or cowardly managements? What if foundations gave magazines such as the Columbia Journalism Review sufficient resources to spread their stories of journalistic bias, failure or incompetence? What if entire editorial departments simply refused any longer to quote anonymous sources – or give Kobe Bryant’s trial more than the minimal space it rates by any reasonable standard – or to run stories planted by the Defense Department and impossible, for alleged security reasons, to verify? What if a professional association backed them to the hilt? Or required the same stance from all its members? It would take courage to confront powerful ownerships that way. But not as much courage as is asked of those brave journalists in some countries who face the dungeon, the executioner or the secret assassin for speaking out. All this may be in the domain of fantasy. And then again, maybe not. What I know to be real is that we are in for the fight of our lives. I am not a romantic about democracy or journalism; the writer Andre Gide may have been right when he said that all things human, given time, go badly. But I know journalism and democracy are deeply linked in whatever chance we human beings have to redress our grievances, renew our politics, and reclaim our revolutionary ideals. Those are difficult tasks at any time, and they are even more difficult in a cynical age as this, when a deep and pervasive corruption has settled upon the republic. But too much is at stake for our spirits to flag. Earlier this week the Library of Congress gave the first Kluge Lifetime Award in the Humanities to the Polish philosopher Leslie Kolakowski. In an interview Kolakowski said: “There is one freedom on which all other liberties depend – and that is freedom of expression, freedom of speech, of print. If this is taken away, no other freedom can exist, or at least it would be soon suppressed.” That’s the flame of truth your movement must carry forward. I am older than almost all of you and am not likely to be around for the duration; I have said for several years now that I will retire from active journalism when I turn 70 next year. But I take heart from the presence in this room, unseen, of Peter Zenger, Thomas Paine, the muckrakers, I.F. Stone and all those heroes and heroines, celebrated or forgotten, who faced odds no less than ours and did not flinch. I take heart in your presence here. It’s your fight now. Look around. You are not alone. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 3 06:52:37 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB3EqZdE017013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:52:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C9E3712E8 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:52:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:52:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:52:30 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] It's official: Cointelpro is back X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:52:37 -0000 http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wx112403.html November 24, 2003 Ashcroft's Cointelpro It's official: Cointelpro is back The infamous FBI counterintelligence program of the 1960s and '70s, which spied on Martin Luther King and Malcolm X and disrupted the Panthers and the American Indian Movement, is being revived right now by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller. FBI headquarters sent out a memo last month to local law enforcement agencies telling them to gather intelligence on anti-war protesters who were assembling in Washington and San Francisco, according to The New York Times (http://tinyurl.com/w6be). "Report any potentially illegal acts" to FBI counterterrorism task forces, the memo said. The basis for viewing these protesters as terrorists is flimsy, as even the memo seems to acknowledge. The FBI "possesses no information indicating that violent or terrorist activities are being planned as part of the protests," the memo said. So why are they being treated as such? One law enforcement official suggested to the Times that some protesters may be acting in league with terrorists by distracting the FBI with a big demonstration while a terrorist attack is planned for somewhere else. That's pretty far-fetched, if you ask me. But the FBI is casting its net wide. The memo is concerned not only with people who commit violence but who are "capable of violence," one official said. That could be 275 million people! The intelligence the FBI used in this memo came from FBI counterterrorism officials, the Times said. But much of the memo cited perfectly legal protest tactics, like using the Internet to recruit supporters, raise funds, and coordinate activities, the Times said. The memo also noted that protesters sometimes go to activist training camps, raise money for lawyers, and film the police. The latter activity, the memo said, was designed to "intimidate" law enforcement. But the ones doing the intimidating are not the protesters but Ashcroft and Mueller. Protesters aren't terrorists. And by equating the two, Ashcroft and Mueller do grievous harm to our civil liberties. ------------- from votenowar.org Over 10,000 organizations and individuals have already signed the following statement in support of the First Amendment and in opposition to the FBI's targeting of the antiwar movement (over 6,000 on the first day that VoteNoWar and A.N.S.W.E.R. began circulating this statement). Initial signers include former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark; historian Howard Zinn; National Lawyers Guild Executive Director Heidi Boghosian; Ron Kovic, author Born on the Fourth of July, and others. We want to get tens of thousands more signers and publicize this campaign to support the First Amendment which is under attack. It is crucial that people in the anti-war movement take strong, proactive actions to expose Bush and Ashcroft’s efforts to intimidate and stifle political dissent. That so many thousands of organizations and individuals immediately stepped forward to show their support is an expression of the power of the people to stop the ultra-right enemies of Free Speech. Let’s keep the pressure up in the days ahead. If you or others would like to sign the statement you can click on the link below, underneath the statement. In the past year the antiwar movement has grown into one of the most important political forces in society, which is why Bush and Ashcroft have set out to try to silence and intimidate the people of conscience across the United States who have stepped forward to fight for justice and peace. We will not allow the Bush administration to turn the clock back to a time of J. Edgar Hoover and Nixon-era attacks on those who opposed the war in Vietnam, the civil rights movement and the fight for justice. The momentum and power of the United States anti-war and free speech movement is growing every day. Your help is urgently needed to maintain this crucial effort. Many have already made a contribution which has been vital to the growth of the movement. We encourage you to consider making another badly needed donation to support the fight for free speech today. For those who have volunteered your time and energy but have not considered making a financial donation please consider whether you can do so now. To make an online donation using our secure server, or for information to write a check, go to: http://www.votenowar.org/donate.html Defend the First Amendment, Oppose the FBI's Targeting of the Antiwar Movement We the undersigned stand in defense of the First Amendment and in opposition to the Bush Administration's expanding effort to stifle dissent. Confronted with a rising tide of political opposition from the people of the United States, who are outraged at the lies used to justify a war and occupation of Iraq, Bush and Ashcroft are resorting to crass intimidation tactics against the anti-war movement. The current campaign of FBI intimidation was revealed in the front-page NY Times story of Sunday, November 23 under the headline: "F.B.I. SCRUTINIZES ANTIWAR RALLIES - Officials Say Effort Aims at 'Extremist Elements'" (http://tinyurl.com/w6be). Citing an internal FBI memorandum circulated ten days prior to the October 25 demonstrations that drew 100,000 in Washington D.C. and 20,000 in San Francisco, this well placed "revelation" of FBI targeting of the antiwar movement should be seen as a measure of the desperation of an Administration that is increasingly alarmed that people of this country are rejecting its illegal and immoral policies. As they become isolated on Iraq, Bush and Ashcroft are borrowing a page from the Nixon and Mitchell tenure during Vietnam: use the secret police and FBI to disrupt and intimidate their opponents. Like Nixon they will fail because the people of the United States will stand together to reject FBI intimidation. Bush and Ashcroft seek to stifle dissent by making the exercise of First Amendment rights synonymous with terrorism but the people will defend these cherished rights today as they have been forced to in the past. We will never be silenced! We publicly affirm the right to express dissent and to engage in protest free from FBI and government harassment and we vow to support the growing efforts of the antiwar movement to end the illegal and ongoing war and occupation of Iraq. To SIGN the statement in defense of the First Amendment and opposition to the FBI's targeting of the antiwar movement, go to: http://tinyurl.com/xj6r Your help is needed now to keep the pressure on as we organize growing opposition against the Bush Administration to end its criminal war and occupation of Iraq and to defend our right to free speech. Please support this important work at this critical juncture. You can make a donation online through our secure server or get address information to send a check by going to http://www.votenowar.org/donate.html If you were forwarded this message and would like to SUBSCRIBE to receive action alerts (low volume) please visit: http://www.capwiz.com/votenowar/mlm/ From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 3 07:08:45 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB3F8gdE017351 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 07:08:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 19ED971314 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 07:08:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:08:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:08:43 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Corporations Defeated in Miami X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:08:45 -0000 http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2003/000167.html Corporations and Their Proxies Defeated in Miami -- But They Refuse to Give Up By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman There was good news and bad news from inside the negotiations of the Ministerial meeting for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), held last week in Miami. The good news: Brazil has succeeded in putting forward a framework that would alleviate the worst aspects of the U.S.-backed extremist proposals that threaten public health, the environment, and worker rights. With mobilized populations at home demanding nothing less, Brazil, Argentina and other countries appear to have defeated the U.S. effort to expand NAFTA to the entire hemisphere. In at least four separate places, the final statement of the meeting, known as the Ministerial Declaration, reiterates the need for a "balanced" agreement. The key phrase of the Declaration states that, "Ministers recognize that countries may assume different levels of commitments." What this means in practice is that countries will not be required to adhere to the market fundamentalist proposals advanced by the United States in the areas of intellectual property, investment, services and other areas. While it would be best if there were no agreements in these areas whatsoever -- since the agreements in various ways are designed to subordinate public interest considerations to the commercial interests of multinational corporations -- at least no country will be required to agree to these proposals as a condition of participating in the FTAA. Those countries that agree to specific commitments, in the investment area, say, will be required to honor them. But none of the Latin American or Caribbean countries have any real interest in doing so. There aren't many Uruguayan or Honduran investors looking for special protections in the U.S. market. Brazil gained the upper hand by responding effectively to the U.S. position that it could not negotiate key agricultural issues within the FTAA. U.S. negotiators said they wanted to move on agricultural issues of concern to Brazil and other countries, but these matters had to be handled at the World Trade Organization (WTO), where they could be negotiated as well with the European Union and Japan. Well, said Brazil, if agriculture is a WTO issue, then so is intellectual property, which is already covered by a WTO agreement, and so are other controversial issues. Given this move by Brazil, the United States was happy to maintain even opt-in agreements as part of the FTAA. But there's no question the United States has lost its ability to impose its maniacal NAFTA vision on the hemisphere. "This is not what we wanted, and we have serious concerns," said Frank Vargo, U.S. National Association of Manufacturers vice president for international economic affairs. A good sign. Unfortunately, the inside news from Miami wasn't all good. The United States violated the spirit of the ministerial declaration by announcing an intensified strategy of negotiating bilateral and mini-regional agreements containing exactly the horrific proposals -- on intellectual property, investment, and other areas -- that it failed to ram through in the FTAA. The United States has already concluded a free trade agreement with Chile, and is scheduled to conclude negotiations over a free trade agreement with the Central American countries next month. In Miami, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick announced that the United States would soon commence negotiations over trade deals with the Dominican Republic, Panama, Colombia and Peru, as well as supposedly with Ecuador and Bolivia. We asked the trade minister of a small country, the Bahamas, what he thought about the U.S. strategy of negotiating bilaterals. "Most countries in the hemisphere have concerns" about the U.S. approach, Bahamian Minister of Trade and Industry Leslie Miller told us. "It's just pressure tactics. The U.S. wants to consolidate its position." The strategy is euphemistically called "competitive liberalization" by its advocates, but it's little more than divide and conquer. The idea is to pit countries in the hemisphere against each other, negotiating individual deals that offer incremental benefits of improved access to the U.S. market, in exchange for massive concessions for U.S. multinationals. As countries watch others enter into free trade deals, they worry about being left behind, and agree to similar terms. Whereas developing countries when united can stand up to U.S. pressure and demands, in isolation and in competition with each other, they are easy pickings. Notwithstanding the benefits, this strategy has significant limitations from the U.S. corporate perspective, which is why some business groups have been publicly critical. The strategy requires too many negotiations with too many countries, and may leave the biggest markets out. Noting that Chile and Mexico already have free trade deals with the United States, Mark Weisbrot of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research points out that 70 percent of the remaining Latin American market (measured by economic output) is attributable to Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela -- countries with no interest in signing on to bilateral agreements with the United States that advance the U.S. extremist economic agenda. Still, there's no getting around the fact that existing trade pacts, plus those under negotiation and those for which negotiations are pending, will lock up a huge chunk of Latin America, and significantly deprive countries of freedom to pursue independent economic policies. Whether the USTR bilateral trade agreement offensive can be halted may turn on the U.S.-Central American agreement. If brought before the U.S. Congress next year and defeated, U.S. trade negotiators may be forced to abandon their present approach. A victory for U.S. negotiators and their business controllers will give renewed life to a model that has failed by any objective measure, other than serving multinational corporate interests. Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter, http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press; http://www.corporatepredators.org). From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 3 21:16:06 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB45G4dE028673 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:16:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D1B316FC8C for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:16:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:16:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:16:05 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] US Military: Mission Creep Hits Home X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 05:16:06 -0000 http://tinyurl.com/whx2 American armed forces are assuming major new domestic policing and surveillance roles. By William M. Arkin November 23, 2003 SOUTH POMFRET, Vt. — Preoccupied with the war in Iraq and still traumatized by Sept. 11, 2001, the American public has paid little attention to some of what is being done inside the United States in the name of anti-terrorism. Under the banner of "homeland security," the military and intelligence communities are implementing far-reaching changes that blur the lines between terrorism and other kinds of crises and will break down long-established barriers to military action and surveillance within the U.S. "We must start thinking differently," says Air Force Gen. Ralph E. "Ed" Eberhart, the newly installed commander of Northern Command, the military's homeland security arm. Before 9/11, he says, the military and intelligence systems were focused on "the away game" and not properly focused on "the home game." "Home," of course, is the United States. Eberhart's Colorado-based command is charged with enhancing homeland security in two ways: by improving the military's capability to defend the country's borders, coasts and airspace — unquestionably within the military's long-established mission — and by providing "military assistance to civil authorities" when authorized by the secretary of Defense or the president. That too may sound unexceptionable: The military has long had mechanisms to respond to a request for help from state governors. New after 9/11 are more aggressive preparations and the presumption that local government will not be able to carry the new homeland security load. Being the military, moreover, contingency planners approach preparing by assuming the worst. All of this is a major — and potentially dangerous — departure from past policy. The U.S. military operates under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the direct use of federal troops "to execute the laws" of the United States. The courts have interpreted this to mean that the military is prohibited from any active role in direct civilian law enforcement, such as search, seizure or arrest of civilians. "There are abundant reasons for rejecting the further expansion of the military's domestic role," says Mackubin T. Owens, a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College. Looking at the issue historically, Owens wrote in an August 2002 essay in the National Review's online edition that "the use of soldiers as a posse [places] them in the uncomfortable position of taking orders from local authorities who had an interest in the disputes that provoked the unrest in the first place." Moreover, Owens said, becoming more involved in domestic policing can be "subtle and subversive … like a lymphoma or termite infestation." Though we are far from having "tanks rumbling through the streets," he said, the potential long-term effect of an increasing military role in police and law enforcement activities is "a military contemptuous of American society and unresponsive to civilian authorities." Eberhart says his Northern Command operates scrupulously within the bounds of the law. "We believe the [Posse Comitatus] Act, as amended, provides the authority we need to do our job, and no modification is needed at this time," he told the House Armed Services Committee in March. Of course, what he knows is that amendments approved by Congress in 1996 for that earlier civilian war, the war on drugs, have already expanded the military's domestic powers so that Washington can act unilaterally in dispatching the military without waiting for a state's request for help. Long before 9/11, Congress authorized the military to assist local law enforcement officials in domestic "drug interdiction" and during terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the president, after proclaiming a state of emergency, can authorize additional actions. Indeed, the military is presently operating under just such an emergency declaration. Eberhart's command has defined three levels of operations, each of which triggers a larger set of authorized activities. The levels are "extraordinary," "emergency" and "temporary." At the "temporary" level, which covers such things as the Olympic Games or the Super Bowl, limited assistance can be provided to law enforcement agencies when a governor requests it, primarily in such areas as logistics, transportation and communications. During "emergencies," the military can provide similar support, mostly in response to specific events such as the attacks on the World Trade Center. It is only in the case of "extraordinary" domestic operations that the unique capabilities of the Defense Department are deployed. These include not just such things as air patrols to shoot down hijacked planes or the defusing of bombs and other explosives, , but also bringing in intelligence collectors, special operators and even full combat troops. Given the absence of terrorist attacks inside the United States since 9/11, it may seem surprising that Northern Command is already working under the far-reaching authority that goes with "extraordinary operations." But it is. "We are not going to be out there spying on people," Eberhart told PBS' NewsHour in September. But, he said, "We get information from people who do." Some of that information increasingly comes not from the FBI or those charged with civilian law enforcement but from a Pentagon organization established last year, the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA). The seemingly innocuous CIFA was originally given the mission of protecting the Defense Department and its personnel, as well as "critical infrastructure," against espionage conducted by terrorists and foreign intelligence services. But in August, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld expanded CIFA's mission, charging it with maintaining "a domestic law enforcement database that includes information related to potential terrorist threats directed against the Department of Defense." The group's Assessments and Technology Directorate, which shares offices with the Justice Department's Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, has already identified 200 foreign terrorist suspects in the U.S., according to a Defense Department report to Congress. This year, the Pentagon inspector general authorized assigning military special agents to 56 FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force operations at FBI field offices. These military agents will pursue leads in local communities of potential threats to the military. Eberhart also plans to have his own cadre of agents working with local law enforcement. Next year, he plans to transform Joint Task Force Six, a drug interdiction unit of 160 military personnel at Ft. Bliss, Texas, into Joint Interagency Task Force North. The new task force will be given nationwide responsibility for working with law enforcement agencies. CIFA, moreover, has been given a domestic "data mining" mission: figuring out a way to process massive sets of public records, intercepted communications, credit card accounts, etc., to find "actionable intelligence." "Homeland defense relies on the sharing of actionable intelligence among the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies," says Lt. Gen. Edward G. Anderson III, Eberhart's deputy. Another ambitious domestic project is being undertaken by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which is gathering "geospatial information" about 133 cities, the borders and seaports. This "urban data inventory" combines unclassified and classified data (including such things as the location of emergency services, communications, transportation and food supplies) with a high-resolution satellite map of the United States. When the mapping efforts are completed, a national "spatial data infrastructure" will be created down to the house level. Intelligence analysts speak of one day being able to identify individual occupants, as well as their national background and political affiliations. Though the military is just getting its systems in place, there can be no other conclusion: Domestic surveillance is back. It's not that we're heading toward martial law. We're not. But outside the view of most of the public, the government is daily expanding military operations into areas of local government and law enforcement that historically have been off-limits. And it doesn't seem far-fetched to imagine that those charged with assembling "actionable intelligence" will slowly start combining databases of known terrorists with seemingly innocuous lists of contributors to charities or causes, that membership lists for activist organizations will be folded in, that names and personal data of anti-globalization protesters will be run through the "data mine." After all, the mission of Northern Command and other Pentagon agencies is to identify groups and individuals who could potentially pose threats to Defense Department and civilian installations. Given all this, it might be a good time for state and local governments to ask themselves whether the federal government, through the military, is slowly eroding their power to manage what — for very good reasons — have always been considered local responsibilities. William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly for Opinion. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 3 21:19:36 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB45JZdE028865 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:19:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 68E4D6FD86 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:19:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:19:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:19:36 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Chavez vs. the FTAA X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 05:19:36 -0000 CHAVEZ VERSUS THE FREE TRADE ZOMBIES OF THE AMERICAS Greg Palast reporting from Caracas Saturday, November 29, 2003 It's as if they were locked in a crypt for the last ten years. The finance ministers of every Latin American nation last week signed on to a resolution in principle to join the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the hemispheric expansion of NAFTA. The walking corpse of Argentina's economy was there, as well as the long-deceased body of Ecuador and several other South American nations whose economies were long ago murdered and buried by the free trade and free market nostrums of the World Bank and the IMF. Yet on they came. Stiff-legged, covered in rotting bandages, the official zombies marched to Miami to pledge, one and all, to sign on for their next dose of free market poison. Every nation but one: Venezuela, the single and solitary nation to say "no thanks" at Miami's treaty of the living dead economies. Today, I met up with Venezuela's chief FTAA negotiator. Victor Alvarez was saved from zombification by his sense of humor. He noted that while the Bush Administration was preaching free trade to their dark-skinned compatriots south of the border, the USA itself was facing one of the largest penalties in World Trade Organization history for raising tariffs on steel products. He would have laughed out loud in Miami if it didn't hurt so much: the illegal US trade barriers have closed two steel plants in Venezuela. Venezuela's 'negociador jefe' Alvarez went through the well-known data: in ten years of free market free-for-all, industrialization in Venezuela dropped from 18% of GNP to 13%. And Venezuela fared best. Elsewhere in Latin America, economies simply imploded. And NAFTA created employment only in a fetid trench along the Rio Grande, the 'maquiladora' sweatshops which suck down wages on both sides of the Mexico-US border. We finished our conversation as the President walked in. Hugo Chavez is not one for subtleties. "FTAA is the PATH TO HELL," said Chavez. He meant this in the deepest theological sense. What is at stake for Chavez is Latin America's mortal soul. "I have seen children shot to death," said the president, "not by an invading Army but by our own nation's soldiers." Chavez was referring to February 27, 1989. While the Northern Hemisphere was celebrating the impending fall of the Berlin Wall, "another wall was going up," he explained, "the wall of globalization." That day, the army massacred Venezuelans, young and old, during a demonstration against diktats of the International Monetary Fund imposed on that nation. The President raced through a dozen more examples, from Bolivia to Chiapas, Mexico, where the miracle of the marketplace came out of the barrel of a gun. FTAA is far more than a trade document. It's not just about fruit and cars that we sell across borders. FTAA is an entire new multi-state government in the making, with courts and executives, unelected, with the power to bless or damn any one nation's laws which impede foreign investment, foreign sales or even foreign pollution. FTAA is revolutionary in the sense that governments are overthrown. And the easiest way to do that, of course, is to convince governments to overthrow themselves. Hence, the zombification process. Chavez offers an alternative to FTAA. Following a numbing one-hour discourse on the philosophy of the nineteenth century founding fathers of South America (I could sympathize with this former history professor's students), he dropped the Big One. Instead of ALCA [the Spanish acronym for FTAA], he proposes ALBA, standing for the Bolivarian Alternative for America. Named after his hero Simon Bolivar, Chavez would create a "compensation" fund, in which the wealthier nations of North and South America would fund development in the poorer states. If that sounds like an Andean pipe dream, he reminds us that the European Union created just such a redistribution fund to jump-start the economies of its poorest nations. (To the anger of the English, I should add, who saw Ireland use the funds to zoom past their former lords to a higher standard of living today.) If Chavez' proposal appears at first to have a snow ball's chance in NAFTA hell, I remember when, in fact, it was accepted gospel: John Kennedy's Alliance for Progress. In those years when JFK's Alliance was promising northern capital for southern development, a strange group of well-heeled and well-armed revolutionaries in Chicago under Milton Friedman were plotting to overthrow Kennedy's vision. They succeeded. Over three decades, the Chicago Boys and their neo-liberal cohort have ridden history's pendulum to the top, announcing that history itself has come to an end in a free market consensus. But when the pendulum swings back, the history professor in Caracas will be waiting with his Bolivarian elixir to make the economic dead rise again. ***** Greg Palast is on assignment in Caracas for Rolling Stone Magazine. For photos and more on Venezuela, go to http://www.GregPalast.com. Palast is the author of, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (Penguin 2003). From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 4 21:12:18 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB55CHdE033349 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:12:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 73235702CF for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:12:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 00:12:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 00:12:18 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Iraq's Shiites Insist on Democracy X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:12:18 -0000 The New York Times 30 November 2003 Iraq's Shiites Insist on Democracy. Washington Cringes. By Alex Berenson For seven months, the United States has tried to finesse two crucial questions about the future of Iraq: How much control will the country's Shiite majority have over the drafting of a constitution? And how Islamic will that constitution be? The answers could determine whether Iraq becomes a multiparty democracy, an Islamic theocracy, or even slides into civil war. Last week, those questions took on a new urgency. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most important Shiite religious leader in Iraq and probably the most powerful local leader of any kind, said he opposed the American plan to turn over power to an Iraqi government next year without direct elections. Ayatollah Sistani has vast influence over Iraq's 15 million Shiites, and so far he has urged them to show patience with the occupation. But he has insisted that delegates elected by popular vote write Iraq's constitution and approve its new government. "No one has the right to appoint the members of the constitutional assembly," he said several weeks ago, in a statement in response to written questions. "We see no alternative but to go back to the people for choosing their representatives." That view has opened a rift between the Shiite majority, roughly 60 percent of Iraq's population, and the Sunnis and Kurds, each about 20 percent of the population. (The Kurds, who dominate northern Iraq, are themselves Sunni Muslim but have little in common with the Arab Sunnis, who ran Iraq under Saddam Hussein and are usually referred to only as Sunnis.) Nor can the United States afford to ignore the Shiite position, analysts say. The Shiite leaders "have a tremendous amount of clout," said Kenneth Katzman, senior Iraq analyst for the Congressional Research Service. "They can set off major, major demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people at the drop of a hat." In addition, it is unclear whether the United States, whose motives for invading Iraq are regarded with skepticism by many, will feel it can oppose a clear call for popular democracy - exactly what the United States said it wanted to bring to Iraq. The United States and the American-appointed Governing Council agreed on Nov. 15 that council members and local governments would choose an assembly next June to pick an interim Iraqi government. That government would then draft a constitution. The process would probably mute the influence of Ayatollah Sistani and the other three Shiite grand ayatollahs who live in Najaf, about 100 miles south of Baghdad. On Wednesday, however, Ayatollah Sistani, through a spokesman, said he would not support an interim government unless it was elected by a direct vote. In an effort to reach a compromise, Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish president of the Governing Council, traveled Thursday to Najaf to meet with the ayatollah. A senior coalition official in Iraq, speaking on condition of anonymity, said on Friday that the American-led coalition was not opposed in principle to direct elections but did not believe it could be ready to conduct one by June. But the official noted that the coalition would not automatically approve direct elections even if the procedural problems could be worked out. "It would be something we would talk about," he said. But finding a compromise may be difficult. Mr. Hussein, a Sunni, impoverished much of Shiite southern Iraq, and jailed or killed many Shiite leaders. Now the Shiites want power to match their numbers - which is precisely what the Kurds and Sunnis fear. In addition, the United States is concerned that many of Iraq's Shiite clerics are supported by the anti-American Iranian theocracy. To make sure their followers understand the issue, Shiite clerics across the south have for months proselytized about the importance of the constitution, while mosques offer worshipers pamphlets explaining the subject. Then there is the constitution itself. However they are chosen, Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish delegates will have to balance the conservatism of the Shiites with the relative liberalism of Sunnis and Kurds. Critical questions include the rights of women; whether senior clerics can overrule laws passed by an elected parliament; and how closely Iraqi law will follow the Koranic Sharia law. "We totally allow women to go and work," Sheik Ali al-Najafi, the son of and spokesman for Bashir al-Najafi, one of the grand ayatollahs, said in an interview last month. "But to work in jobs that respect their dignity." The Shiite ayatollahs say they want any constitution to be based closely on Islamic law, while still respecting individual and minority rights. What that means in practice is less clear, and may not be entirely to the liking of the United States. Ayatollah Sistani has said constitution should guarantee individual liberties as long as they are consistent "with the religious facts and the social values of the Iraqi people." At the same time, he said elected leaders, not clerics, should have the final authority to make laws in a democratic Iraq. "The authority will be for the people who will get the majority of votes," he said in response to questions last month. Bridging the gap between Islamic values and Western views of human rights will not be easy, said Noah Feldman, an assistant professor at New York University and expert on Islamic law who is advising Iraq on the drafting process. But Mr. Feldman said he believed the clerics would not demand an Iranian-style theocracy. "It's going to be tricky and it's delicate, but it's going to be solvable, because in the end the Shia clerics are open to a state that's a democratic state but is also respectful of Islam," Mr. Feldman said. "No one around Sistani is saying, `Rule of the clerics.' " Perhaps not, but the coalition official acknowledged that the coalition would have little control over an elected assembly and that it might result in a government unfriendly to the United States. "There are some people who I think are on principle have concern about the Shias," he said. Still, the coalition has little choice but to move quickly to hand over power to Iraqis, he said. "No one likes an occupation." From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 4 21:17:32 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB55HUdE033594 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:17:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 612D17010A for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:17:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 00:17:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 00:17:31 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Blood, Oil, Guns And Bullets X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:17:32 -0000 --> If you pass this comment along to others -- periodically but not repeatedly -- please explain that Commentaries are a premium sent to Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to learn more folks can consult ZNet at http://www.zmag.org Today's commentary: http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-11/26choudry.cfm ================================== ZNet Commentary Blood, Oil, Guns And Bullets November 27, 2003 By Aziz Choudry Terror, invasion, occupation and militarization are hallmarks of the US-led corporate recolonisation of Iraq. But they have long been the hallmarks of colonialism and imperialism the world over. Neoliberal globalization and war are two sides of the same coin. So too are oil and imperialism. Former Shell scientist Claude Ake, described Shell's activities in Nigeria, as a process of the "militarization of commerce and the privatization of the state". In 2003, this process is sweeping across the world, perhaps most visibly in Iraq. In 1999, neoconservative journalist Thomas Friedman wrote that the "hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States' Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps." Among today's transnational corporations, the modernday heirs of the colonial chartered corporations, the oil and gas giants are some of the most politically and economically powerful players in the world. The ancestor of the Royal-Dutch Shell group was 'Royal Dutch Company for the Exploitation of Petroleum Wells in the Netherlands East Indies'. With so much of the world's economy dependent on oil, the colonial exploitation and genocide continues, on an unprecedented scale. The lyrics may have changed a little, but the tune remains much the same. The U'wa people in Colombia believe that oil maintains the balance of the world and is the blood of Mother Earth - to take the oil is worse than killing your mother. To the US corporate/political/military elites, oil is the lifeblood of capitalist expansion, a national security concern, and a vital resource to be controlled by US corporate interests for American economic and geopolitical dominance. As well as being central to US imperial interests, the interests of the oil and defense sectors are closely intertwined. Weapons production and the maintenance of US military and economic might across the world depends on massive consumption of oil and petroleum. In turn, massive defense and security spending boosts an ailing US economy, and is a boon to the profits of its defense and security corporations. We hear a lot of talk about weapons of mass destruction. But the so-called "war on terror" is a weapon of mass distraction away from the growing US deficit, from the naked corporate greed and colonial mindset that underpins the US and a model of development that is as exploitative as it is unsustainable, lurching as it does from one crisis of capitalism to the next. And this war kills. Before this "war on terror", there have been other pretexts to kill for oil. Behind the convenient cloak of "war on drugs", Plan Colombia has provided US $98 million to train and equip Colombian military to protect an Occidental Petroleum pipeline. With a US presidential election looming let us remember that it was the Clinton Administration that between 1996 and 1999 quadrupled military aid for the Colombian government for the "war on drugs", and recall the Gore family's deep financial ties to Occidental. With making the country "safe" for US investors and regional geopolitical goals a real priority, Occidental, and defense contractor UTC -whose subsidiary Sikorsky's Black Hawk helicopters are used there - have lobbied hard for increased US "aid" to Colombia. US military hardware has been used against the U'wa who opposed oil and gas exploration by Occidental and Shell on their lands, leftist guerrillas and many other communities. When Conoco's Mogadishu office became the de facto US embassy before the Marines landed in Somalia, it was not a war on terror, but supposedly a "humanitarian mission". Protecting oil concessions to Conoco and other US corporations was a key factor behind this invasion, after major oil finds in Somalia. The president of the company's subsidiary in Somalia served as the US government's volunteer "facilitator" before and during the US invasion and occupation. The operations of oil and gas corporations have long been characterized by militarization, human rights abuses, economic injustice and ecological disaster and obscene profits. Sometimes this means protection for drilling operations and pipelines by local military, police or private security firms, frequently backed by military aid. Increasingly it means the direct deployment of US forces, on some other pretext, just as we can see in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, the Philippines, Iraq and Afghanistan. Eight years after the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders who stood up to military occupation, and the ecological devastation wrought by Shell in their territory, we should remember how, in the Niger Delta, Shell and Chevron both directly supported military operations against Ogoni and Ijaw communities protesting their activities, by providing helicopters and boats to armed forces. Shell admitted to importing weapons into Nigeria to arm the police, to paying field allowances to Nigerian military, and to bribing witnesses to testify against Saro-Wiwa in his military trial. In the North and the South, oil corporations, backed by state security forces confront Indigenous Peoples struggling for self-determination, and control over their lands and resources. These battlefronts include the unceded territory of the Lubicon Cree in Northern Alberta, Canada, from which billions of dollars of oil and gas revenues have been extracted without consent, by companies such as Shell, Norcen, Petrocanada, and Unocal, backed by armed police, while disrupting Lubicon Cree society and poisoning the land and people. There is BP's Tangguh LNG project in West Papua, where a longstanding struggle for independence from Indonesia has met with massive military force and human rights abuses, in the name of protecting foreign investments extracting the territory's rich resources. In Aceh, Exxon Mobil has colluded with the Indonesian military, the beneficiaries of US and British military aid, who have been conducting a brutal war of terror against the Acehnese independence movement which has been challenging the oil and gas plunder of their territory. The Bush regime is an oiligarchy. George Bush is former CEO of Harken Energy. Harken has lodged a claim against the Costa Rican government for US $57 million over the cancellation of an oil exploration contract because of serious concerns about its impact in an environmentally sensitive area. The compensation demanded is equivalent to more than three times the Costa Rican GDP, and 11 times larger than the annual government budget. After serving as Bush senior's Defense Secretary, Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of oil services corporation Halliburton from 1995-2000 - which was awarded a massive no-bid contract in Iraq and is wellplaced to control Iraqi oil production for US interests. Cheney also served on the board of defense giant TRW, while his wife Lynne sat on Lockheed Martin's board. Donald Evans, Bush's Commerce Secretary, was with Colorado Oil's Tom Brown Inc. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is a former board director of Chevron, and its principal expert on Kazakhstan, where Chevron has major interests and until recently, had an oil tanker named in her honor. Oil and defense corporations donate generously to both Republican and Democratic party coffers. If the US was in the global South, its governments would be slammed for corruption, crony capitalism, and nepotism. Instead we are told that it is the world's champion of freedom, integrity and democracy. Meanwhile, these corporations help shape national economies and global trade and investment rules, using the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the baby banks like the Asian Development Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), official development aid, and other international economic agreements as weapons of mass extraction with which to pursue economic warfare. The World Bank and agencies like the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have encouraged the expansion of oil and gas development for export, deregulation, corporatization, privatization and liberalization. In the name of economic development and poverty reduction through oil and gas sector development and reform, the World Bank has funded a number of controversial oil and gas production and pipeline projects in areas where there is popular resistance to these activities, and despite threats to the environment. USAID is actively involved in promoting the interests of US oil corporations - from its role in the so-called reconstruction of Iraq, to its public-private alliance for enterprise development with ChevronTexaco in Angola, to its involvement in rewriting hydrocarbon laws and regulations to suit US companies in Central Asian republics. Ironically the World Bank highlights Bolivia's Hydrocarbon Sector Reform and Capitalization as a success story. The 1995 World Bank-imposed partial privatization of the oil and gas industry forms part of the backdrop for last month's uprising, which was largely triggered by plans by US-backed neoliberal President Gonzales Sanchez De Lozada to export gas to the US and Mexico. This was yet another unjust neoliberal policy which would deliver great benefits to the latest corporate conquistadors, Spanish-British consortium, Pacific LNG, at the expense of the peoples of Bolivia. In the military repression against the popular revolt, scores of people were killed. While enjoying corporate welfare through generous subsidies and other forms of government support at home (not least a revolving door into politics for many big business executives), US oil gas and defense corporations are active lobbyists for expanded trade and investment liberalization through the WTO and other trade and investment agreements. They seek to remove governments' ability to regulate their economies. US oil and gas corporations seek unrestricted access to markets in the entire range of energy services, through the further liberalization of services and investment, and rules on competition policy. These could severely constrain governments' ability to set energy policy, to regulate oil and gas industry and control its own energy supply. Through neoliberal prescriptions or outright military occupation, or both, transnational corporations have been able to gain control over these resources. And while markets are prised open, while social spending is slashed, and an attractive investment climate created, there is no shortage of funds being turned over to the police and the military, the muscle of neoliberal globalization. While oil literally and figuratively fuels this war - or these wars - of terror - there is much more to it than that. The US wants to control as much of the world's oil resources for its own use and for the power and leverage such dominance will afford it over economic and political rivals such as China, Russia and Europe and their oil corporations. This strategy aims to maintain, expand and defend a 21st century colonial empire for the US military and economic elites. A central feature of this agenda is to attack countries and social movements which are standing up to US imperialism and the neoliberal agenda, wherever they may be. In the face of rising global resistance against the operations of oil and gas corporations, war and the military-industrial complex these companies now employ public relations firms to craft illusions of environmental and social responsibility. Look at the websites of the top 10 defense contractors in the US, and you will find heartwarming stories about how these corporate killers help the poor and disadvantaged, take care of the environment through employees' voluntary work, or corporate contributions to various NGOs and foundations. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon propaganda tries to sell weapons production as a contribution to peacemaking, while Shell, BP, ChevronTexaco and Statoil join corporate NGOs like Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy in the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative which aims to integrate biodiversity conservation into upstream oil and gas development. In October, the Guardian reported that ExxonMobil held a series of secret meetings with selected environmental and human rights NGOs to try to change its negative public image. Such spin reinvents Shell and ExxonMobil as champions of human rights and defenders of the environment, and the world's biggest defense contractors as peace activists. NGOs which collude with such corporations should be exposed and denounced. In our struggles for social and economic and environmental justice we must be clear that neither war nor neoliberal globalization can be humanized or reformed. We need to stop the economic and environmental warfare waged by the corporations, their proxies in government and the Bretton Woods institutions. We must oppose the militarization of the planet in all its forms, and expose the interconnections between the hidden hand of the market and the not-so-hidden fist. To do that we need to support the grassroots resistance movements which are already struggling against these injustices, and to confront the oil and war corporations in our own backyards. (Adapted from a talk at the Asia-Pacific Research Network 5th Annual Conference, Beirut, 4 November 2003. See www.aprnet.org for further details) From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 5 22:56:31 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB66uOdE034219 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:56:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 737FD705BA for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:56:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:56:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:56:20 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] "I punched an Arab in the face'" X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:56:31 -0000 Ha'aretz 23 November 2003 Twilight Zone / `I punched an Arab in the face' By Gideon Levy Staff Sergeant (res.) Liran Ron Furer cannot just routinely get on with his life anymore. He is haunted by images from his three years of military service in Gaza and the thought that this could be a syndrome afflicting everyone who serves at checkpoints gives him no respite. On the verge of completing his studies in the design program at the Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, he decided to drop everything and devote all his time to the book he wanted to write. The major publishers he brought it to declined to publish it. The publisher that finally accepted it (Gevanim) says that the Steimatzky bookstore chain refuses to distribute it. But Furer is determined to bring his book to the public's attention. "You can adopt the most hard-line political positions, but no parent would agree to his son becoming a thief, a criminal or a violent person," says Furer. "The problem is that it's never presented this way. The boy himself doesn't portray himself this way to his family when he returns from the territories. On the contrary - he is received as a hero, as someone who is doing the important work of being a soldier. No one can be indifferent to the fact that there are many families in which, in a certain sense, there are already two generations of criminals. The father went through it and now the son is going through it and no one talks about it around the dinner table." Furer is certain that what happened to him is not at all unique. Here he was - a creative, sensitive graduate of the Thelma Yellin High School of the Arts, who became an animal at the checkpoint, a violent sadist who beat up Palestinians because they didn't show him the proper courtesy, who shot out tires of cars because their owners were playing the radio too loud, who abused a retarded teenage boy lying handcuffed on the floor of the Jeep, just because he had to take his anger out somehow. "Checkpoint Syndrome" (also the title of his book), gradually transforms every soldier into an animal, he maintains, regardless of whatever values he brings with him from home. No one can escape its taint. In a place where nearly everything is permissible and violence is perceived as normative behavior, each soldier tests his own limits of violence impulsiveness on his victims - the Palestinians. His book is not easy reading. Written in terse, fierce prose, in the blunt and coarse language of soldiers, he reconstructs scenes from the years in which he served in Gaza (1996-1999), years that, one must remember, were relatively quiet. He describes how he and his comrades forced some Palestinians to sing "Elinor" - "It was really something to see these Arabs singing a Zohar Argov song, like in a movie"; the emotions the Palestinians aroused in him - "Sometimes these Arabs really disgust me, especially those that try to toady up to us - the older ones, who come to the checkpoint with this smile on their faces"; the reactions they spurred - "If they really annoy us, we find away to keep them stuck at the checkpoint for a few hours. They lose a whole day of work because of it sometimes, but that's the only way they learn." He described how they would order children to clean the checkpoint before inspection time; how a soldier named Shahar invented a game: "He checks someone's identity card, and instead of handing it back to him, just tosses it in the air. He got a kick out of seeing the Arab have to get out of his car to pick up his identity card ... It's a game for him and he can pass a whole shift this way"; how they humiliated a dwarf who came to the checkpoint every day on his wagon: "They forced him to have his picture taken on the horse, hit him and degraded him for a good half hour and let him go only when cars arrived at the checkpoint. The poor guy, he really didn't deserve it"; how they had a souvenir picture taken with bloodied, bound Arabs whom they'd beaten up; how Shahar pissed on the head of an Arab because the man had the nerve to smile at a soldier; how Dado forced an Arab to stand on four legs and bark like a dog; and how they stole prayer beads and cigarettes - "Miro wanted them to give him their cigarettes, the Arabs didn't want to give so Miro broke someone's hand, and Boaz slashed their tires." Chilling confession The most chilling of all the personal confessions: "I ran toward them and punched an Arab right in the face. I'd never punched anyone that way. He collapsed on the road. The officers said that we had to search him for his papers. We pulled his hands behind his back and I bound them with plastic handcuffs. Then we blindfolded him so he wouldn't see what was in the Jeep. I picked him up from the road. Blood was trickling from his lip onto his chin. I led him up behind the Jeep and threw him in, his knees banged against the trunk and he landed inside. We sat in the back, stepping on the Arab ... Our Arab lay there pretty quietly, just crying softly to himself. His face was right on my flak jacket and he was bleeding and making a kind of puddle of blood and saliva, and it disgusted and angered me, so I grabbed him by the hair and turned his head to the side. He cried out loud and to get him to stop, we stepped harder and harder on his back. That quieted him down for a while and then he started up again. We concluded that he was either retarded or crazy. "The company commander informed us over the radio that we had to bring him to the base. 'Good work, tigers,' he said, teasing us. All the other soldiers were waiting there to see what we'd caught. When we came in with the Jeep, they whistled and applauded wildly. We put the Arab next to the guard. He didn't stop crying and someone who understood Arabic said that his hands were hurting from the handcuffs. One of the soldiers went up to him and kicked him in the stomach. The Arab doubled over and grunted, and we all laughed. It was funny ... I kicked him really hard in the ass and he flew forward just as I'd expected. They shouted that I was a totally crazy, and they laughed ... and I felt happy. Our Arab was just a 16-year-old mentally retarded boy." In his sister's rooftop Tel Aviv apartment, where he is living now, Furer, 26, comes across as a thoughtful, intelligent young man. He grew up in Givatayim, after his parents immigrated from the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Before Yitzhak Rabin's assassination, his mother was a right-wing activist, but he says that their home was not political. He wanted to be in a combat unit in the army, and served in two elite infantry units. He did his entire army service in the Gaza Strip. After the army, he traveled to India, like so many others. "Now I was free. The crazy energies of Goa and the chakras opened my mind ... You stuck me in this stinking Gaza and before that you brainwashed me with your rifles and your marches, you turned me into a dishrag that didn't think anymore," he wrote from Goa. But it was only afterward, when he was studying at Bezalel, that the experiences from his army service really began to affect him. "I came to realize that there was an unchanging pattern here," he says. "It was the same in the first intifada, in the period that I was serving, which was quiet, and in the second intifada. It's become a permanent reality. I started to feel very uncomfortable with the fact that such a loaded subject was hardly mentioned at all in public. People listened to the victim and they listened to the politicians, but this voice that says: I did this, we did things that were wrong - crimes, actually - that's a voice I didn't hear. The reason it wasn't being heard was a combination of repression - just as I repressed it and ignored it - and of deep feelings of guilt. "As soon as you get away from army service, the political and media reality around you is not ready to hear this voice. I remember that I was surprised that no soldier had gone public with this yet. It all somehow dissolved in the debate about the legitimacy of settlement in the territories, about the occupation - for or against - and nothing connected to the routine of maintaining the occupation appeared in the media or in art." Not an individual case Furer is out to prove that this is a syndrome and not a collection of isolated, individual cases. That's why he deleted a lot of personal details from the original manuscript, in order to underscore the general nature of what he describes. "During my army service, I believed that I was atypical, because I came from a background of art and creativity. I was considered a moderate soldier - but I fell into the same trap that most soldiers fall into. I was carried away by the possibility of acting in the most primal and impulsive manner, without fear of punishment and without oversight. You're tense about it at first, but as you get more comfortable at the checkpoint over time, the behavior becomes more natural. People gradually test the limits of their behavior toward the Palestinians. It gradually becomes coarser and coarser. "The more confident I became with the situation, as soon as we reached the conclusion - each one at his own stage - that we are the rulers, we are the strong ones, and when we felt our power, each one started to stretch the limits more and more, in accordance with his personality. As soon as serving at the checkpoint became routine, all kinds of deviant behavior became normal. It started with 'souvenir collecting': We'd confiscate prayer beads and then it was cigarettes and it didn't stop. It became normative behavior. "After that came the power games. We got the message from above that we were to project seriousness and deterrence to the Arabs. Physical violence also became normative. We felt free to punish any Palestinian who didn't follow the 'proper code of behavior' at the checkpoint. Anyone we thought wasn't polite enough to us or tried to act smart - was severely punished. It was deliberate harassment on the most trivial pretexts. "During my army service, there wasn't a single incident that made us understand, or made our commanders interfere. No one talked about what was permitted and what was not. It was all a matter of routine. In retrospect, the biggest source of guilt feelings for me didn't happen at the checkpoint, but by the Gush Katif fence, when we caught the retarded boy. I demonstrated the most extreme behavior. It was a chance for me to catch one - the closest thing to catching a terrorist, a chance to vent all the pressure and impulses that had built up in all of us. To lash out the way we wanted to. We were used to giving slaps, to handcuffing, to a little kicking, a little beating, and here was a situation in which it was justified to let go entirely. Also, the officer who was with us was himself very violent. We gave the kid a real beating and as soon as we got to the post, I remember having a great feeling of pride, that I'd been treated like someone strong. They said, 'What a nut you are, how crazy you are,' which was basically like saying, 'How strong you are.' "At the checkpoint, young people have the chance to be masters and using force and violence becomes legitimate - and this is a much more basic impulse than the political views or values that you bring from home. As soon as using force is given legitimacy, and even rewarded, the tendency is to take it as far as it can go, to exploit it much as possible. To satisfy these impulses beyond what the situation requires. Today, I'd call it sadistic impulses... "We weren't criminals or especially violent people. We were a group of good boys, a relatively 'high-quality' group, and for all of us - and we still talk about this sometimes - the checkpoint became a place to test our personal limits. How tough, how callous, how crazy we could be - and we thought of that in the positive sense. Something about the situation - being in a godforsaken place, far from home, far from oversight - made it justified ... The line of what is forbidden was never precisely drawn. No one was ever punished and they just let us continue. "Today, I feel confident saying that even the most senior ranks - the brigade commander, the battalion commander - are aware of the power that soldiers have in this situation and what they do with it. How could a commander not be aware of it when the more crazy and tough his soldiers are, the quieter his sector is? The more complex picture of the long-term effects of this violent behavior is something you only become conscious of when you get away from the checkpoint. "Today it's clear to me that that boy whose father we humiliated for the flimsiest of reasons will grow up to hate anyone who represents what was done to his father. I definitely have an understanding of their motives now. We are cruelty, we are power. I'm sure that their response is affected by elements related to their society - a disregard for human life and a readiness to sacrifice lives - but the basic desire to resist, the hatred itself, the fear - I feel are completely justified and legitimate, even if it's risky to say so. "It's impossible to be in such an emotional state and to go back home on leave and detach yourself from it. I was very insensitive to the feelings of my girlfriend at the time. I was an animal, even when I was on leave. It also sticks with you after your service. I saw the remnants of the syndrome in India - something about being in the Third World, among dark-skinned people, brings out the worst of the 'ugly Israeli,' which is as Israeli as it gets. Or the way you react to a smile: When Palestinians would smile at me at the checkpoint, I got tense and construed it as defiance, as chutzpah. When someone smiled at me in India, I immediately went on the defensive. "I was an average soldier," he says. "I was the joker of the group. Now I see that I was often the one to take the lead in violent situations. I often was the one who gave the slap. I'm the one who came up with all kinds of ideas like letting the air out of tires. It sounds twisted now, but we really admired anyone who could beat up some guy who supposedly had it coming. The officer we admired most was the officer who fired his weapon at every opportunity. Out of everyone I've spoken to, I've been left with the most guilt feelings ... A friend from the army read the book and said that I'm right, that we did bad things, but we were kids. And he said that it's a shame that I took it too hard." Ha'aretz is an Israeli daily newspaper, published in both Hebrew and English versions. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 5 23:04:30 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB674PdE034445 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:04:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 60ABC709D8 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:04:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 02:04:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 02:04:27 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Censored News Stories X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 07:04:30 -0000 http://www.projectcensored.org/ Project Censored Alerts Edited by Adam Stutz Doping Kids Adult pharmaceutical companies have been endangering children. Between 1997 and 2000 the FDA reported 7,000 cases of adverse reactions in children and out of these 7,000 reported incidents there were 769 reported deaths due to allergic reactions attributed to prescription drugs. There have been a large number of children who are often receiving these prescriptions in combination with other medications. The effects can be devastating. Nearly a quarter of a million children took Prilosec in 2000, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and nearly 100,000 children were prescribed similar "proton pump inhibitors"(PPI) heart burn drugs such as Prevacid, Nexium, Protonix, and Aciphex. None of these PPI's were approved for pediatric use at the time (Prevacid was in 2002). The FDA had warned that children taking Prilosec could face the risk of developing pancreatis and liver problems. Three out of four children's prescriptions are "off label." Drug salesmen are prohibited from this practice but it still occurs quite commonly. The pharmaceutical companies look at children as a very lucrative demographic. This can be made apparent in the amount of advertising undertaken by pharmaceutical companies at various children related activities such as sporting events. Source: Mother Jones, Vol. 28, No.5, Sept.-Oct. "Doping Kids" by Helen Cordes; Synopsis by Adam Stutz Indian Rice Feeds Cattle and not Starving Indians The World Trade Organization is forcing the Indian government to export food rather than feed starving people. The Indian government in complying with WTO demands has abdicated its responsibility to feed the nation, and instead shift the economy to food exports. The main foods being exported are wheat and rice, which is sent to the United States to feed our cattle. There is an estimate of 320 million people who are starving in India. However, the Indian Government is cooperating with Monsanto and the American company Rice X want to extract rice brand from raw rice kernals to feed people. The process had not yet been proven safe on human and is currently used to feed cattle. The Indian people would be the first experiment of RiceX on humans. Source: Gene Watch, March-April 2003, "Indian Rice and Wheat feeds American Cattle, Rather than Starving Indians" by Devinder Sharma; Synopsis by Beth Reiken Sex Discrimination in Florida Florida courts still continue to refuse medical aid to women needing abortions this proactice is putting women's health at risk, yet Florida's medical program provides all medical aid necessary for men's reproductive health services Florida's Third District Court of Appeals issued an opinion refusing to overturn Florida's ban on Medicaid-funded abortions. The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the ban last August in A Choice for Women, Inc vs. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, charging that the ban discriminates on the basis of sex. The court ignored the sex discrimination claim and upheld the ban as "rational," thereby allowing the state to continue violating women's rights at the expense of their health. The Center for Reproductive Rights argued that it's unconstitutional to deny low-income women Medicaid-funded abortions when their health is threatened by a pregnancy. By covering all reproductive health services needed by men and denying a particular reproductive health service needed by women, Florida is discriminating against women on the basis of sex. In a Miami health center, a woman was denied Medicaid funding for an abortion even though she suffers from epileptic seizures and her epilepsy medication posed a serious threat to the health of her fetus. Without Medicaid coverage for abortions some low-income women are forced to carry complicated pregnancies further or delay obtaining the procedure while they seek alternative funds. Either way the law threatens the health of these women. Currently, 17 states cover all abortions in their Medicaid programs. While courts in Florida deny Medicaid coverage for abortions for women receiving low income, courts in New Mexico and Connecticut have ruled that denying this coverage is indeed a form of sexual discrimination. Source: People's Weekly World by V/A, "Florida Court Blocks Medicaid-Funded Abortions"; Synopsis by Maria Kyriakos Corporations Privatize Freedom of Speech Corporations pose a growing threat to freedom of speech and information in our society. In some areas, including Washington, D.C., Florida, Arizona and California, the majority of housing units built in the past five years have been in planned developments. Because the rules and restrictions on behavior in planned communities are viewed by courts as voluntary contractual agreements, corporations such as Disney, Mobil Oil and the American Nevada Corporation, who build these communities, can write contracts that limit the colors of exterior paint, types of grass, and colors of drapes. In some cases clotheslines, birdbaths, and basketball hoops are prohibited as well as parking pick-ups and campers within the developments and posting yard signs Corporate controlled e-mail can also be restrict freedom of speech. AOL's e-mail servers are privately owned and are available only to the subscribers who pay a fee for their usage. AOL can bar e-mail messages sent by any non-AOL subscribers. AOL-Time Warner and other ISP's can limit incoming messages and pick and choose the material seen by their subscribers. AOL-Time Warner has censored e-mails sent by Harvard University to applicants, informing them of their acceptance to the school. AOL claims that it mistakenly identified the e-mails as spam. Even so, the mistake shows that AOL is vigorously censoring their e-mails, even those that subscribers want. Corporations can restrict the release and distribution of internal documents, claiming that they are copyrighted or private property; restrict speech on corporate-owned property; terminate employees who speak out about corporate practices; pressure the mass media to kill or alter stories with threats of lawsuits or by withdrawing advertising dollars; or file lawsuits against critics and activists, claming injury to their businesses as a result of free speech. Source: Dollars & Sense, "The Invisible Gag," by Lawrence Soley Synopsis by Jessica Cortez Pharmaceutical Companies Spend More on PR than on Disease The pharmaceutical industry spends twice as much on public relations and marketing than it does on drug research and development. During the year 2000 more than $13.2 billion was spent on pharmaceutical marketing in the U.S. Drug companies such as Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Astra Zeneca hire specialist "healthcare" PR companies to help create profits. The leading healthcare PR companies in the U.S. are Edelman, Ruder Finn and Chandler Chicco Agency. These groups are responsible for persuading doctors and patients to use products from the various companies that they represent. Patient groups are wooed to assist with "disease awareness campaigns." They also organize medical conferences to provide a platform for well trained "product champions" to announce promising results of drug research. PR firms aim to create "buzz" about the new drug in order to increased sales. Chandler Chicco Agency had much success with this when they created the buzz over Pfizer's $1 billion-a-year impotence drug, Viagra. Advertising for drug companies tends to overemphasize the benefits of medication. Other strategies for dealing with problems are ignored. Diseases are created to create new markets for new drugs. Patient groups are created to boost a new drug that is about to emerge from the drug company's "pipeline." An investigation by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that it is commonplace practice for articles to be "ghostwritten" by PR firms for well-respected medical researchers. This creates a market for new products by creating dissatisfaction with existing products. Source: PR Watch, First Quarter 2003," Disease Mongering," by Bob Burton and Andy Rowell; Synopsis by Erin Cossen Do Childhood Vaccines Cause More Harm than Good? Many childhood vaccines are known to contain excessive amounts of mercury. Mercury contribute to neurological development disorders in children. Autism, speech disorders and heart disease are among those that are thought to be linked to the mercury in the thimerosal- contained in vaccines. Many vaccines are said to exceed Federal Safety Guidelines for the amount of mercury to be orally ingested. Autism rates grew 800% during the 80's and 90's and there are members of the scientific community that are highly skeptical that thimerosal vaccines are associated with the disorders. Source: Conscious Choice, June 2003, "Childhood Vaccines: More Harm Than Good?"; Synopsis by Kelly Bullock From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Dec 6 21:31:34 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB75VWdE035225 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:31:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5063B7007D for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:31:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:31:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:31:33 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Bush bribes Max Cleland to shut up? X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:31:34 -0000 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/S00006.htm Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire (Sign up for the wire at: http://www.unansweredquestions.org/headlines.php) Unanswered Questions : Thinking for ourselves. Bush Bribes Max Cleland To Shut Up? - Action To Get A 9/11 Family Member On The Kean Commission - Action Alert From Nicholas Levis Fri., Nov. 28, 2003 Call/fax Tom Daschle's office and the media today! 800 numbers for Tom Daschle: (800) 839-5276 and/or (800) 648-3516 – more below! Dear colleagues, associates and friends, A month has passed since former Senator Max Cleland, member of the National Commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks (the Kean Commission), told the New York Times that the White House and President Bush's re-election campaign had reason to fear what the commission was uncovering in its investigation of intelligence and law enforcement "failures" before Sept. 11. "As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted." (New York Times, Oct. 26, 2003 at http://tinyurl.com/y2xj) In the meantime, the Kean Commission has accepted a deal to radically limit their access to the White House documents detailing just what high-level administration officials knew in advance of the attacks - the Presidential Daily Briefings or PDBs, including the one we know was entitled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S." and that warned of imminent hijackings (Aug. 6, 2001). The only two delegates of the Commission who will be allowed to see *pre-edited* versions of these documents both have obvious conflicts of interest: Philip Zelikow has advised the Bush administration and wrote a book with Condoleeza Rice last year; whereas Jamie Gorelick is a former high-level adviser to President Clinton, whose PDBs will also come under scrutiny. The other commissioners will know only what Zelikow and Gorelick report back to them, based on their notes, which the White House will also be allowed to "edit." Cleland and commission member Tim Roemer, a former congressman, both objected to the deal. "A majority of the commission has agreed to a bad deal," Cleland said in a stunning interview, reproduced below, in which he invokes the sorry history of the Warren Commission. "It is a national scandal... the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that..." Cleland pulls no punches about the possible darker implications of the White House's secrecy fetish: "Let's chase this rabbit into the ground here. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war." (See below for more.) Last week came the news that Bush suddenly appointed Cleland to the board of the Export-Import Bank, as a result of which "he will have to leave the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks." So far only The Washington Times has reported details of this story; the rest of the media have completely ignored it. (See http://tinyurl.com/wkqo) Just when the White House invokes a Nixonian "executive privilege" in the struggle to keep its secrets, how is it possible that Bush can simply act to remove the most outspoken member of the Kean Commission by means of a cushy appointment? What other inducements were applied to Cleland to get him to leave the Commission? This is tantamount to a confession that Cleland is right - the White House has serious dirt to hide! And Cleland is hardly the first high-level representative to pose these questions. I shall cite just two examples: For asking, starting in March 2002, what the Bush administration may have known in advance of Sept. 11, Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was attacked from all sides and run out of Congress on a wave of millions in Republican campaign contributions. Later that year, Senator Bob Graham headed the congressional joint investigation into Sept. 11. Despite its highly limited purview, the congressional investigation was still subjected to heavy executive censorship in its final report, including the deletion of an entire 28-page section that apparently details connections between Saudi Arabian elites and Qaeda (and possibly of the Bush family and Bin Laden family businesses). During his brief run for the presidency this year, Graham said the most important facts about 9/11 have yet to be revealed to the public. Let us leave aside the rich and disturbing history of how the White House has otherwise obstructed the 9/11 investigations for more than two years, and return to the present: Now, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle is expected to nominate Cleland's replacement on the Kean Commission. Other than Cleland, every other member of the Commission has had previous close ties to the national security establishment, oil companies, airline companies, or all three. These are obvious vested interests! Given these vested interests, isn't it about time there was someone on the Commission who has an obvious vested interest not in maintaining secrecy, but in full disclosure? Until now, the work of the Commission has been tracked by several groups including the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, a group appointed by relatives of people who died in the attacks. They have been among the most outspoken advocates of disclosure. Shouldn't a member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee be appointed as Cleland's replacement? Now is the time for all who support the principle of open government and disclosure, without which democracy is impossible, to make their voice heard. Forward this mail to everyone you can. Call or fax Daschle's office today to urge that he appoint a member of the Family Steering Committee as Cleland's replacement. (See below for information on contacting Daschle.) Write and fax your media contacts to cover this story. Do it in your own words - and be insistent! And what if this doesn't work? What if the only supposedly independent investigation into the events of Sept. 11 completes its descent into farce? Then the time will have come for citizens to take this into their own hands; if the government isn't going to let us know what it already knows about Sept. 11, then we the people have the right to sit in judgement on that government, and to establish our own citizens' truth commission. Nicholas Levis http://www.911truth.org *********** Appendices: ONE -- Contact info for Daschle's offices TWO -- Cleland interview with Eric Boehlert THREE -- Kyle Hence of 9/11 Citizens' Watch on the latest developments, including contact info for the National Commission *********** APPENDIX ONE Contact info for Daschle's offices PLEASE call ALL of Dascle's offices (4 calls, 1 to each) to make SURE he gets the message, AND also fax him and email him as well, see below. DC - (202) 224-2321 Aberdeen: (605) 225-8823 Rapid City: (605) 348-7551 Sioux Falls: (605) 334-9596 800 numbers for Tom Daschle-- (800) 839-5276 and/or (800) 648-3516 Fax: (202) 224-6603; or E-mail by visiting: http://daschle.senate.gov/webform.html *********** APPENDIX TWO Selected quotes from Cleland in an interview with Eric Boehlert: "A majority of the commission has agreed to a bad deal." "It is a national scandal." "I say that [The President's] decision compromised the mission of the 9/11 commission, pure and simple. Far from the commissioners being able to fulfill their obligation to the Congress and the American people, and far from getting access to all the documents we need, the president of the United States is cherry-picking what information is shown to that minority of commissioners. Now this is ridiculous. That's not full and open access. "If you trust one commissioner you should trust them all. I don't understand it. You can say, 'I'm not going to show anything to anybody, and take me to court.' At least that's consistent. But it's not consistent at all to say we're going to parse out this information and we determine how many members of the commission get to see it." "It's all about 9/11. This is not a political witch hunt. This is the most serious independent investigation since the Warren Commission. And after watching History Channel shows on the Warren Commission last night, the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious." "Let's chase this rabbit into the ground here. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war. They pulled off their task force in Afghanistan, their Predator assets, and shifted them over to the war in Iraq. They took their eye off the 9/11 ball and transferred it to the Iraq ball. And that's a very strategic question that ultimately has got to be answered. I'm focused on 9/11 and the administration is not focused on it. They don't want to share information, and they didn't agree with the commission in the first place." *********** APPENDIX THREE Compromised 9/11 Investigation a Looming National Scandal -- Demands Congressional Action >From Kyle Hence http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0311/S00206.htm From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Dec 6 21:37:59 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB75brdE035431 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:37:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 71985706A7 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:37:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:37:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:37:54 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Cheney's hawks hijack foreign policy X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:37:59 -0000 The Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/29/1067233251576.html 29 October 2003 Bush no longer in control as Cheney's hawks hijack foreign policy By Ritt Goldstein A former Pentagon officer turned whistleblower says a group of hawks in the Bush Administration, including the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, is running a shadow foreign policy, contravening Washington's official line. "What these people are doing now makes Iran-Contra [a Reagan administration national security scandal] look like amateur hour. . . it's worse than Iran-Contra, worse than what happened in Vietnam," said Karen Kwiatkowski, a former air force lieutenant-colonel. "[President] George Bush isn't in control . . . the country's been hijacked," she said, describing how "key [governmental] areas of neoconservative concern were politically staffed". Ms Kwiatkowski, who retired this year after 20 years service, was a Middle East specialist in the office of the Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, headed by Douglas Feith. She described "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress", adding that "in order to take that first step - Iraq - lies had to be told to Congress to bring them on board". Ms Kwiatkowski said the pursuit of national security decisions often bypassed "civil service and active-duty military professionals", and was handled instead by political appointees who shared common ideological ties. There was speculation earlier this year that such an ideologue group had emerged, and that it was behind the US attack on an Iraqi convoy in Syria in June. The New York Times quoted Patrick Lang, a former senior Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) official, as saying that many in the Government believed the incursion was an effort by ideologues to disrupt co-operation between the US and Syria. Ms Kwiatkowski said there was an extra-governmental network operating outside normal structures and practices, "a network of political appointees in key positions who felt they needed to take some action, to make things happen in a foreign affairs, national security way". She said Pentagon personnel and the DIA were pressured to favourably alter assessments and reports. In a separate interview, Chalmers Johnson, an authority on US policy, said that the Administration's neo-conservatives had in effect seized power from Mr Bush. Dr Johnson said the neo-conservatives had pursued an agenda outlined in the controversial 1992 Defence Planning Guidance. That document, drawn up at the direction of Mr Cheney when he was defence secretary, said the world's only superpower should not be cautious about asserting its power. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 8 11:37:25 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB8JbNdE036170 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:37:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id F1B816F909; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:37:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:37:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:37:18 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] What (some) Republicans believe X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:37:25 -0000 Is this what (some) Republicans believe? By Corey Farley Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq. Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness. "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a diversion for not finding Osama bin Laden. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving and military records are none of our business. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony. >--- I would, of course, print a comparable list of things you have to >believe to be a Democrat, if I >had one, and if it were funny, and if . . . . No. You send one, and I'll >print it even if hell doesn't freeze over. > Cory Farley can be reached at (775) 788-6340 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 8 11:41:36 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB8JfWdE036454 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:41:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B8797099A for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:41:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:41:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:41:32 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] No Media Coverage of Returning Coffins X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:41:36 -0000 The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/emailfriend?contentId=A55816- 2003Oct20&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle 20 October 2003 Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins By Dana Milbank Since the end of the Vietnam War, presidents have worried that their military actions would lose support once the public glimpsed the remains of U.S. soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets. To this problem, the Bush administration has found a simple solution: It has ended the public dissemination of such images by banning news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases. In March, on the eve of the Iraq war, a directive arrived from the Pentagon at U.S. military bases. "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein [Germany] airbase or Dover [Del.] base, to include interim stops," the Defense Department said, referring to the major ports for the returning remains. A Pentagon spokeswoman said the military-wide policy actually dates from about November 2000 -- the last days of the Clinton administration -- but it apparently went unheeded and unenforced, as images of caskets returning from the Afghanistan war appeared on television broadcasts and in newspapers until early this year. Though Dover Air Force Base, which has the military's largest mortuary, has had restrictions for 12 years, others "may not have been familiar with the policy," the spokeswoman said. This year, "we've really tried to enforce it." President Bush's opponents say he is trying to keep the spotlight off the fatalities in Iraq. "This administration manipulates information and takes great care to manage events, and sometimes that goes too far," said Joe Lockhart, who as White House press secretary joined President Bill Clinton at several ceremonies for returning remains. "For them to sit there and make a political decision because this hurts them politically -- I'm outraged." Pentagon officials deny that. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they said the policy covering the entire military followed a victory over a civil liberties court challenge to the restrictions at Dover and relieves all bases of the difficult logistics of assembling family members and deciding which troops should get which types of ceremonies. One official said only individual graveside services, open to cameras at the discretion of relatives, give "the full context" of a soldier's sacrifice. "To do it at several stops along the way doesn't tell the full story and isn't representative," the official said. A White House spokesman said Bush has not attended any memorials or funerals for soldiers killed in action during his presidency as his predecessors had done, although he has met with families of fallen soldiers and has marked the loss of soldiers in Memorial Day and Sept. 11, 2001, remembrances. The Pentagon has previously acknowledged the effect on public opinion of the grim tableau of caskets being carried from transport planes to hangars or hearses. In 1999, the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, said a decision to use military force is based in part on whether it will pass "the Dover test," as the public reacts to fatalities. Ceremonies for arriving coffins, not routine during the Vietnam War, became increasingly common and elaborate later. After U.S. soldiers fell in Beirut, Grenada, Panama, the Balkans, Kenya, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the military often invited in cameras for elaborate ceremonies for the returning remains, at Andrews Air Force Base, Dover, Ramstein and elsewhere -- sometimes with the president attending. President Jimmy Carter attended ceremonies for troops killed in Pakistan, Egypt and the failed hostage rescue mission in Iran. President Ronald Reagan participated in many memorable ceremonies, including a service at Camp Lejeune in 1983 for 241 Marines killed in Beirut. Among several events at military bases, he went to Andrews in 1985 to pin Purple Hearts to the caskets of marines killed in San Salvador, and, at Mayport Naval Station in Florida in 1987, he eulogized those killed aboard the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf. During President George H.W. Bush's term, there were ceremonies at Dover and Andrews for Americans killed in Panama, Lebanon and aboard the USS Iowa. But in early 1991, at the time of the Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon said there would be no more media coverage of coffins returning to Dover, the main arrival point; a year earlier, Bush was angered when television networks showed him giving a news briefing on a split screen with caskets arriving. But the photos of coffins arriving at Andrews and elsewhere continued to appear through the Clinton administration. In 1996, Dover made an exception to allow filming of Clinton's visit to welcome the 33 caskets with remains from Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown's plane crash. In 1998, Clinton went to Andrews to see the coffins of Americans killed in the terrorist bombing in Nairobi. Dover also allowed public distribution of photos of the homecoming caskets after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000. The photos of coffins continued for the first two years of the current Bush administration, from Ramstein and other bases. Then, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, word came from the Pentagon that other bases were to adopt Dover's policy of making the arrival ceremonies off limits. "Whenever we go into a conflict, there's a certain amount of guidance that comes down the pike," said Lt. Olivia Nelson, a spokeswoman for Dover. "It's a consistent policy across the board. Where it used to apply only to Dover, they've now made it very clear it applies to everyone." From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 8 21:51:02 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB95p0dE044773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:51:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C5A0709E3 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:51:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:51:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:51:02 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Michael Moore: Turkeys on the Moon X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:51:02 -0000 Turkeys on the Moon... from Michael Moore December 8, 2003 Dear Mr. Bush, Well, it's going on two weeks now since your surprise visit to one of the two countries you now run and, I have to say, I'm still warmed by the gesture. Man, take me along next time! I understand only 13 members of the media went with you -- and it turns out only ONE of them was an actual reporter for a newspaper. But you did take along FIVE photographers (hey, I get it, screw the words, it's all about the pictures!), a couple wire service guys, and a crew from the Fox News Channel (fair and balanced!). Then, I read in the paper this weekend that that big turkey you were holding in Baghdad (you know, the picture that's supposed to replace the now-embarrassing footage of you on that aircraft carrier with the sign "Mission Accomplished") -- well, it turns out that big, beautiful turkey of yours was never eaten by the troops! It wasn't eaten by anyone! That's because it wasn't real! It was a STUNT turkey, brought in to look like a real edible turkey for all those great camera angles. Now I know some people will say you are into props (like the one in the lower extremities of your flyboy suit), but hey, I get it, this is theater! So what if it was a bogus turkey? The whole trip was bogus, all staged to look like "news." The fake honey glaze on that bird wasn't much different from the fake honey glaze that covers this war. And the fake stuffing in the fake bird was just the right symbol for our country during these times. America loves fake honey glaze, it loves to be stuffed, and, dammit, YOU knew that -- that's what makes you so in touch with the people you lead! It was also a good idea that you made the "press" on that trip to Baghdad pull the shades down on the plane. No one in the media entourage complained. They like the shades pulled and they like to be kept in the dark. It's more fun that way. And, when you made them take the batteries out of their cell phones so they wouldn't be able to call anyone, and they dutifully complied -- that was genius! I think if you had told them to put their hands on their heads and touch their noses with their tongues, they would have done that, too! That's how much they like you. You could have played "Simon Says" the whole way over there. It wouldn't have been that much different from "Karl Says," a game they LOVE to play every day with Mr. Rove. Well, if you're planning any surprises for Christmas, don't forget to include me. When I heard last week that you wanted to send a man back to the moon, I thought, get the fake goose ready -- that's where ol' George is going for the holidays! I don't blame you, what with nearly 3 million jobs disappeared, and a $281 billion surplus disappeared, and the USA stuck in a war that will never end -- who wouldn't want to go to the moon! This time, take ALL the media with you! Embed them on the moon! They'll love it there! It looks just like Crawford! You can golf on the moon, too. You'll have so much fun up there, you might not want to come back. Better take Cheney with you, too. Pretend it's a medical experiment or something. "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for every American who's sick and tired of all this crap." Yours, Michael Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.michaelmoore.com From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 8 21:55:10 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB95t9dE045005 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:55:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BD7C0709EB for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:55:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:55:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:55:10 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Bush-Hitler Ties X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:55:10 -0000 News Canada http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.asp?id=B4991F07-2A7B-49BC-A470-D14A35 5D2C9A 17 October 2003 Bush grandfather director of bank with Hitler ties: U.S. government documents WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush's grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the U.S. government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler's rise to power, government documents show. Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp., a New York City investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, said recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by The Associated Press. Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler. The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that effort. His position with Union Banking never was a political issue for Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952. Reports of Bush's involvement with the seized bank have been circulating on the Internet for years and have been reported by some mainstream media. The newly declassified documents provide additional details about the Union Banking-Thyssen connection. Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the U.S. president, declined comment. Union Banking was owned by a Dutch bank, Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaardt N.V., which was "closely affiliated" with the German conglomerate United Steel Works, said an Oct. 5, 1942, report from the U.S. Office of Alien Property Custodian. The Dutch bank and the steel firm were part of the business and financial empire of Thyssen and his brother, Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the report said. The 4,000 Union Banking shares owned by the Dutch bank were registered in the names of the seven U.S. directors, said a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a Second World War-era agency that no longer exists. Roland Harriman, the bank chairman and brother of former New York state governor Averell Harriman, held 3,991 shares. Bush had one share. Both Harrimans and Bush were partners in the New York investment firm Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co., which handled the financial transactions of the bank, as well as other financial dealings with several other companies linked to Bank voor Handel that were confiscated by the U.S. government during the Second World War. Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act. No charges were brought against Union Banking's U.S. directors. The government was too busy trying to fight the war, said Donald Goldstein, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. "We did not have the resources to do these things," Goldstein said. Fritz Thyssen broke with the Nazis in 1938 over their persecution of Roman Catholics and Jews and fled to Switzerland. He later was arrested and spent 1941 to 1945 in a Nazi prison. His brother lived in Switzerland from 1932 to 1947 but continued to operate businesses in Germany. The new documents were first reported by freelance writer John Buchanan in the New Hampshire Gazette newspaper. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 9 22:52:57 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBA6qtdE054101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:52:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1375270B55 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:52:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:52:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:52:57 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Sept. 11 Widow Sues President Bush X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:52:57 -0000 http://www.rense.com/general45/vanishes.htm UN Observer and International Report Dec. 2, 2004 by W. David Kubiak Think you're already amazed, alarmed or appalled enough by the state of US journalism today? Chew on this a while and think again. A grieving New Hampshire widow who lost her man on 9/11 refused the government's million dollar hush money payoff, studied the facts of the day for nearly two years, and came to believe the White House "intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen" to launch a so-called "War on Terrorism" for personal and political gain. She retained a prominent lawyer, a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, who served with distinction under both Democrats and Republicans and was once a strong candidate for the governor's seat. The attorney filed a 62-page complaint in federal district court (including 40 pages of prima facie evidence) charging that "President Bush and officials including, but not limited to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft and Tenet": 1.) had adequate foreknowledge of 911 yet failed to warn the county or attempt to prevent it; 2.) have since been covering up the truth of that day; 3.) have therefore abetted the murder of plaintiff's husband and violated the Constitution and multiple laws of the United States; and 4.) are thus being sued under the Civil RICO (Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organization) Act for malfeasant conspiracy, obstruction of justice and wrongful death. The suit text goes on to document the detailed forewarnings from foreign governments and FBI agents; the unprecedented delinquency of our air defense; the inexplicable half hour dawdle of our Commander in Chief at a primary school after hearing the nation was under deadly attack; the incessant invocation of national security and executive privilege to suppress the facts; and the obstruction of all subsequent efforts to investigate the disaster. It concludes that "compelling evidence will be presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power, and testimony [that] Defendants failed to act and prevent 9/11 knowing the attacks would lead to an 'International War on Terror' which would benefit Defendants both financially and politically." Press releases detailing these explosive allegations are sent out to 3000 journalists in the print and broadcast media, and a press conference to announce the filing is held in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia on November 26th (commemorating the end of the first futile year of the independent National 9/11 Commission). Imagine the world-churning implications of these charges. Imagine the furor if just one was proved true. Imagine the courage of this bribe- shunning widow and an eminent attorney with his rep on the line. Then imagine a press conference to which nobody came. (Well, more precisely, imagine a press conference at which only FOX News appears, tapes for 40 minutes, and never airs an inch.) Now imagine the air time, column inches and talk show hysteria that same night devoted to the legal hassles of Michael Jackson, Kobe, and California's Scott Peterson, and divide that by the attention paid to our little case of mass murder, war profiteering and treason. (OK, this is really a trick question because no number divided by zero yields any answers whatsoever, which evidently in this case is the result preferred.) When you present documented charges of official treachery behind the greatest national security disaster in modern history and the press doesn't show, doesn't listen, doesn't write - just what in fact is really being communicated? That despite all the deaths, lies, wars, and bizarre official actions that flowed from 9/11 there's actually nothing there to be investigated at all? That addressing desperate victim families' still unanswered cries for truth is not a legitimate journalistic concern? That news will now be what the corporate media say it will be, so drink your infotainment Kool-Aid and kindly shut up? While the 9/11 blackout is the most flagrant sign of current media dysfunction, it hardly stands alone. Where, for example, was our free and fearless press when Pentagon powerbroker Richard Perle confessed to a London audience last month that yes indeed, our war on Iraq was illegal as hell? He calmly explained that "in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing, [it] would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone, and this would have been morally unacceptable." (Guardian/UK, 11/20/03) And what news have we seen of the thousands of Depleted Uranium deaths and birth defects now desolating Afghanis, Iraqis and our own Gulf War troops? And whose looking into the $1.2 trillion the Pentagon admits is "missing" or the half trillion in laundered funds now propping up our banks? And how many times have you seen it reported that unbid Iraq contracts have pushed the worth of VP Cheney's 433,333 Halliburton stock options to $26 million plus? But to return to 9/11, the funny business has just begun. If you thought press performance after JFK's death was a cynical farce, you ain't seen nothing yet. A few years back Harold Evans of the London Sunday Times, observed that the challenge facing American newspapers "is not to stay in business -- it is to stay in journalism.'' As corporations' authoritarian, profit-driven consciousness comes to dominate both media and governance, you can expect a lot more serial celebrity scandals and even less news on the way things work or anything that really counts. There is a clear method and message in this obscurantist madness. All this media consolidation and tightening control is strategically aligned with deregulation, privatization, social program-gutting deficits and free trade regimes. They are all convergent tactics to enforce corporations' full spectrum dominance over democratic humankind. If your progressive or conservative instincts bid you to arise against this coup, standing with our 9/11 widow is a good place to start. Her name is Ellen Mariani, her lawyer is Phillip Berg and their complaint is now online at http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html Read it and weep, wail, or whack out a dozen letters to the editors around your town, but for god's sake make some noise. When 9/11 bombshells fall silent in the corporate media's forest it's up to us to make them resound. ------------------- Ask The New York Times to Answer Lingering 9/11 Questions http://www.petitiononline.com/jtwg126/petition.html To: The New York Times Bill Keller, Executive Editor Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., Publisher & CEO We the people, concerned and frustrated by the ongoing lack of answers to serious questions about 9/11 from President George W. Bush, hereby ask that The New York Times, as the world newspaper of record, aggressively investigate the following Top 10 Most Troubling Questions: 1) With regard to 9/11, what did the President know and when did he know it? If he first learned about the attacks in the Florida classroom, why did he continue reading a story to schoolchildren for another half-hour after what he later described as “an act of war?” 2) If the President truly wants the American people and survivors and families of the 9/11 victims to know and understand what happened on that tragic day, why has he repeatedly done all he can to impede or block a formal investigation? 3) Why were the 29 “redacted” pages of the 9/11 Commission Report personally censored at your request? 4) How is it possible that so many credible and documented warnings, both domestically and from overseas, your administration failed to address the threat until after the attacks? 5) With regard to the anthrax attacks following 9/11, what did the President know and when did he know it? 6) If the President did not know of the anthrax letters in advance, why did the White House begin taking Cipro on 9/11 -- three weeks before the first letter was received in the mail? 7) Why has the FBI made no progress in its anthrax investigation, allowing the killer(s) of five American citizens to go free? Do you have any plans to intensify that investigation? What is its present status? 8) Why has the investigation of the futures trading in United and American Airlines stock not produced any information or suspects? What is the present status of the investigation? 9) Why have the actual identities of the 19 hijackers never been properly investigated or confirmed, given the numerous international press accounts of the “real life” hijackers who are still living and whose identities were stolen for 9/11? 10) Why can’t the American people and 9/11 survivors have access to the complete air traffic control records and logs for Flight 11 and Flight 75? Where are the cockpit voice recorders, “black boxes,” and airport surveillance tapes that show the hijackers boarding the doomed flights? It is up to the press, just as it was during Watergate and other moments of national crisis, to fully investigate these questions and report the factual answers to the American people. Please do your part, Mr. Keller, to begin that process in the pages of The New York Times. Thank you. Sincerely, The Undersigned (sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/jtwg126/petition.html) From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 9 22:54:00 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBA6rxdE054292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:54:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id EA54370B55 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:54:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:54:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:54:00 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] State Dept. Foresaw Iraq Trouble X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:54:00 -0000 The New York Times 19 October 2003 State Dept. Study Foresaw Trouble Now Plaguing Iraq By ERIC SCHMITT and JOEL BRINKLEY WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - A yearlong State Department study predicted many of the problems that have plagued the American-led occupation of Iraq, according to internal State Department documents and interviews with administration and Congressional officials. Beginning in April 2002, the State Department project assembled more than 200 Iraqi lawyers, engineers, business people and other experts into 17 working groups to study topics ranging from creating a new justice system to reorganizing the military to revamping the economy. Their findings included a much more dire assessment of Iraq's dilapidated electrical and water systems than many Pentagon officials assumed. They warned of a society so brutalized by Saddam Hussein's rule that many Iraqis might react coolly to Americans' notion of quickly rebuilding civil society. Several officials said that many of the findings in the $5 million study were ignored by Pentagon officials until recently, although the Pentagon said they took the findings into account. The work is now being relied on heavily as occupation forces struggle to impose stability in Iraq. The working group studying transitional justice was eerily prescient in forecasting the widespread looting in the aftermath of the fall of Mr. Hussein's government, caused in part by thousands of criminals set free from prison, and it recommended force to prevent the chaos. "The period immediately after regime change might offer these criminals the opportunity to engage in acts of killing, plunder and looting," the report warned, urging American officials to "organize military patrols by coalition forces in all major cities to prevent lawlessness, especially against vital utilities and key government facilities." Despite the scope of the project, the military office initially charged with rebuilding Iraq did not learn of it until a major government drill for the postwar mission was held in Washington in late February, less than a month before the conflict began, said Ron Adams, the office's deputy director. The man overseeing the planning, Tom Warrick, a State Department official, so impressed aides to Jay Garner, a retired Army lieutenant general heading the military's reconstruction office, that they recruited Mr. Warrick to join their team. George Ward, an aide to General Garner, said the reconstruction office wanted to use Mr. Warrick's knowledge because "we had few experts on Iraq on the staff." But top Pentagon officials blocked Mr. Warrick's appointment, and much of the project's work was shelved, State Department officials said. Mr. Warrick declined to be interviewed for this article. The Defense Department, which had the lead role for planning postwar operations and reconstruction in Iraq, denied that it had shunned the State Department planning effort. "It is flatly wrong to say this work was ignored," said the Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita. "It was good work. It was taken into account. It had some influence on people's thinking and it was a valuable contribution." The broad outlines of the work, called the Future of Iraq Project, have been widely known, but new details emerged this week after the State Department sent Congress the project's 13 volumes of reports and supporting documents, which several House and Senate committees had requested weeks ago. The documents are unclassified but labeled "official use only," and were not intended for public distribution, officials said. But Congressional officials from both parties allowed The New York Times to review the volumes, totaling more than 2,000 pages, revealing previously unknown details behind the planning. Administration officials say there was postwar planning at several government agencies, but much of the work at any one agency was largely disconnected from that at others. In the end, the American military and civilian officials who first entered Iraq prepared for several possible problems: numerous fires in the oil fields, a massive humanitarian crisis, widespread revenge attacks against former leaders of Mr. Hussein's government and threats from Iraq's neighbors. In fact, none of those problems occurred to any great degree. Officials acknowledge that the United States was not well prepared for what did occur: chiefly widespread looting and related security threats, even though the State Department study predicted them. Senior said the Pentagon squandered a chance to anticipate more of the postwar pitfalls by not fully incorporating the State Department information. "Had we done more work and more of a commitment at the front end, there would be drastically different results now," said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Feb. 11, Marc Grossman, the under secretary of state for political affairs, said the working groups were "not to have an academic discussion but to consider thoughts and plans for what can be done immediately." But some senior Pentagon officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that while some of the project's work was well done, much of it was superficial and too academic to be practical. "It was mostly ignored," said one senior defense official. "State has good ideas and a feel for the political landscape, but they're bad at implementing anything. Defense, on the other hand, is excellent at logistical stuff, but has blinders when it comes to policy. We needed to blend these two together." A review of the work shows a wide range of quality and industriousness. For example, the transitional justice working group, made up of Iraqi judges, law professors and legal experts, has met four times and drafted more than 600 pages of proposed reforms in the Iraqi criminal code, civil code, nationality laws and military procedure. Other working groups, however, met only once and produced slim reports or none at all. "There was a wealth of information in the working group if someone had just collated and used it," said Nasreen Barwari, who served on the economy working group and is now the Iraqi minister of public works. "What they did seems to have been a one-sided opinion." Many of the working groups offered long-term recommendations as well as short-term fixes to potential problems. The group studying defense policy and institutions expected problems if the Iraqi Army was disbanded quickly ‹ a step L. Paul Bremer III, the chief American civil administrator in Iraq, took. The working group recommended that jobs be found for demobilized troops to avoid having them turn against allied forces as some are believed to have done. After special security organizations that ensured Mr. Hussein's grip on power were abolished, the working group recommended halving the 400,000-member military over time and reorganizing Iraqi special forces to become peacekeeping troops, as well as counterdrug and counterterrorism forces. Under the plan, military intelligence units would help American troops root out terrorists infiltrating postwar Iraq. "The Iraqi armed forces and the army should be rebuilt according to the tenets and programs of democratic life," one working group member recommended. The democratic principles working group wrestled with myriad complicated issues from reinvigorating a dormant political system to forming special tribunals for trying war criminals to laying out principles of a new Iraqi bill of rights. It declared the thorny question of the relationship between that secular state and Islamic religion one "only the people of Iraq can decide," and avoided a recommendation on it. Members of this working group were divided over whether to back a provisional government made up of Iraqi exiles or adopt the model that ultimately was adopted, the Iraqi Governing Council, made up of members from a broad range of ethnic and religious backgrounds. The group presented both options. The transparency and anticorruption working group warned that "actions regarding anticorruption must start immediately; it cannot wait until the legal, legislative and executive systems are reformed." The economy and infrastructure working group warned of the deep investments needed to repair Iraq's water, electrical and sewage systems. The free media working group noted the potential to use Iraq's television and radio capabilities to promote the goals of a post-Hussein Iraq, an aim many critics say the occupation has fumbled so far. Encouraging Iraqis to emerge from three decades of dictatorship and embrace a vibrant civil society including labor unions, artist guilds and professional associations, could be more difficult than anticipated, the civil society capacity buildup working group cautioned: "The people's main concern has become basic survival and not building their civil society." The groups' ideas may not have been fully incorporated before the war, but they are getting a closer look now. Many of the Iraqi ministers are graduates of the working groups, and have brought that experience with them. Since last spring, new arrivals to Mr. Bremer's staff in Baghdad have received a CD-ROM version of the State Department's 13-volume work. "It's our bible coming out here," said one senior official in Baghdad. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 10 21:23:53 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBB5NpdE058652 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:23:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BD7526FC30 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:23:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:23:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:23:47 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Will Iraq Counter-insurgency Repeat Mistakes of Vietnam? X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:23:53 -0000 http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031215fa_fact MOVING TARGETS by SEYMOUR M. HERSH Will the counter-insurgency plan in Iraq repeat the mistakes of Vietnam? The Bush Administration has authorized a major escalation of the Special Forces covert war in Iraq. In interviews over the past month, American officials and former officials said that the main target was a hard-core group of Baathists who are believed to be behind much of the underground insurgency against the soldiers of the United States and its allies. A new Special Forces group, designated Task Force 121, has been assembled from Army Delta Force members, Navy seals, and C.I.A. paramilitary operatives, with many additional personnel ordered to report by January. Its highest priority is the neutralization of the Baathist insurgents, by capture or assassination. The revitalized Special Forces mission is a policy victory for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has struggled for two years to get the military leadership to accept the strategy of what he calls “Manhunts”—a phrase that he has used both publicly and in internal Pentagon communications. Rumsfeld has had to change much of the Pentagon’s leadership to get his way. “Knocking off two regimes allows us to do extraordinary things,” a Pentagon adviser told me, referring to Afghanistan and Iraq. One step the Pentagon took was to seek active and secret help in the war against the Iraqi insurgency from Israel, America’s closest ally in the Middle East. According to American and Israeli military and intelligence officials, Israeli commandos and intelligence units have been working closely with their American counterparts at the Special Forces training base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and in Israel to help them prepare for operations in Iraq. Israeli commandos are expected to serve as ad-hoc advisers—again, in secret—when full-field operations begin. (Neither the Pentagon nor Israeli diplomats would comment. “No one wants to talk about this,” an Israeli official told me. “It’s incendiary. Both governments have decided at the highest level that it is in their interests to keep a low profile on U.S.-Israeli coöperation” on Iraq.) The critical issue, American and Israeli officials agree, is intelligence. There is much debate about whether targeting a large number of individuals is a practical—or politically effective—way to bring about stability in Iraq, especially given the frequent failure of American forces to obtain consistent and reliable information there. Americans in the field are trying to solve that problem by developing a new source of information: they plan to assemble teams drawn from the upper ranks of the old Iraqi intelligence services and train them to penetrate the insurgency. The idea is for the infiltrators to provide information about individual insurgents for the Americans to act on. A former C.I.A. station chief described the strategy in simple terms: “U.S. shooters and Iraqi intelligence.” He added, “There are Iraqis in the intelligence business who have a better idea, and we’re tapping into them. We have to resuscitate Iraqi intelligence, holding our nose, and have Delta and agency shooters break down doors and take them”—the insurgents—“out.” A former intelligence official said that getting inside the Baathist leadership could be compared to “fighting your way into a coconut—you bang away and bang away until you find a soft spot, and then you can clean it out.” An American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad said, “The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We’re going to have to play their game. Guerrilla versus guerrilla. Terrorism versus terrorism. We’ve got to scare the Iraqis into submission.” In Washington, there is now widespread agreement on one point: the need for a new American approach to Iraq. There is also uniform criticism of the military’s current response to the growing American casualty lists. One former Pentagon official who worked extensively with the Special Forces command, and who favors the new military initiative, said, “We’ve got this large conventional force sitting there, and getting their ass shot off, and what we’re doing is counterproductive. We’re sending mixed signals.” The problem with the way the U.S. has been fighting the Baathist leadership, he said, is “(a) we’ve got no intelligence, and (b) we’re too squeamish to operate in this part of the world.” Referring to the American retaliation against a suspected mortar site, the former official said, “Instead of destroying an empty soccer field, why not impress me by sneaking in a sniper team and killing them while they’re setting up a mortar? We do need a more unconventional response, but it’s going to be messy.” Inside the Pentagon, it is now understood that simply bringing in or killing Saddam Hussein and his immediate circle—those who appeared in the Bush Administration’s famed “deck of cards”—will not stop the insurgency. The new Special Forces operation is aimed instead at the broad middle of the Baathist underground. But many of the officials I spoke to were skeptical of the Administration’s plans. Many of them fear that the proposed operation—called “preëmptive manhunting” by one Pentagon adviser—has the potential to turn into another Phoenix Program. Phoenix was the code name for a counter-insurgency program that the U.S. adopted during the Vietnam War, in which Special Forces teams were sent out to capture or assassinate Vietnamese believed to be working with or sympathetic to the Vietcong. In choosing targets, the Americans relied on information supplied by South Vietnamese Army officers and village chiefs. The operation got out of control. According to official South Vietnamese statistics, Phoenix claimed nearly forty-one thousand victims between 1968 and 1972; the U.S. counted more than twenty thousand in the same time span. Some of those assassinated had nothing to do with the war against America but were targeted because of private grievances. William E. Colby, the C.I.A. officer who took charge of the Phoenix Program in 1968 (he eventually became C.I.A. director), later acknowledged to Congress that “a lot of things were done that should not have been done.” The former Special Forces official warned that the problem with head-hunting is that you have to be sure “you’re hunting the right heads.” Speaking of the now coöperative former Iraqi intelligence officials, he said, “These guys have their own agenda. Will we be doing hits on grudges? When you set up host-nation elements”—units composed of Iraqis, rather than Americans—“it’s hard not to have them going off to do what they want to do. You have to keep them on a short leash.” The former official says that the Baathist leadership apparently relies on “face-to-face communications” in planning terrorist attacks. This makes the insurgents less vulnerable to one of the Army’s most secret Special Forces units, known as Grey Fox, which has particular expertise in interception and other technical means of intelligence-gathering. “These guys are too smart to touch cell phones or radio,” the former official said. “It’s all going to succeed or fail spectacularly based on human intelligence.” A former C.I.A. official with extensive Middle East experience identified one of the key players on the new American-Iraqi intelligence team as Farouq Hijazi, a Saddam loyalist who served for many years as the director of external operations for the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence service. He has been in custody since late April. The C.I.A. man said that over the past few months Hijazi “has cut a deal,” and American officials “are using him to reactivate the old Iraqi intelligence network.” He added, “My Iraqi friends say he will honor the deal—but only to the letter, and not to the spirit.” He said that although the Mukhabarat was a good security service, capable, in particular, of protecting Saddam Hussein from overthrow or assassination, it was “a lousy intelligence service.” The official went on, “It’s not the way we usually play ball, but if you see a couple of your guys get blown away it changes things. We did the American things—and we’ve been the nice guy. Now we’re going to be the bad guy, and being the bad guy works.” Told of such comments, the Pentagon adviser, who is an expert on unconventional war, expressed dismay. “There are people saying all sorts of wild things about Manhunts,” he said. “But they aren’t at the policy level. It’s not a no-holds policy, and it shouldn’t be. I’m as tough as anybody, but we’re also a democratic society, and we don’t fight terror with terror. There will be a lot of close controls—do’s and don’ts and rules of engagement.” The adviser added, “The problem is that we’ve not penetrated the bad guys. The Baath Party is run like a cell system. It’s like penetrating the Vietcong—we never could do it.” The rising star in Rumsfeld’s Pentagon is Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, who has been deeply involved in developing the new Special Forces approach. Cambone, who earned a doctorate in political science from Claremont Graduate University in 1982, served as staff director for a 1998 committee, headed by Rumsfeld, that warned in its report of an emerging ballistic-missile threat to the United States and argued that intelligence agencies should be willing to go beyond the data at hand in their analyses. Cambone, in his confirmation hearings, in February, told the Senate that consumers of intelligence assessments must ask questions of the analysts—“how they arrived at those conclusions and what the sources of the information were.” This approach was championed by Rumsfeld. It came under attack, however, when the Administration’s predictions about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and the potential for insurgency failed to be realized, and the Pentagon civilians were widely accused of politicizing intelligence. (A month after the fall of Baghdad, Cambone was the first senior Pentagon official to publicly claim, wrongly, as it turned out, that a captured Iraqi military truck might be a mobile biological-weapons laboratory.) Cambone also shares Rumsfeld’s views on how to fight terrorism. They both believe that the United States needs to become far more proactive in combatting terrorism, searching for terrorist leaders around the world and eliminating them. And Cambone, like Rumsfeld, has been frustrated by the reluctance of the military leadership to embrace the manhunting mission. Since his confirmation, he has been seeking operational authority over Special Forces. “Rumsfeld’s been looking for somebody to have all the answers, and Steve is the guy,” a former high-level Pentagon official told me. “He has more direct access to Rummy than anyone else.” As Cambone’s influence has increased, that of Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy, has diminished. In September, 2001, Feith set up a special unit known as the Office of Special Plans. The office, directed by civilians who, like Feith, had neoconservative views, played a major role in the intelligence and planning leading up to the March invasion of Iraq. “There is finger-pointing going on,” a prominent Republican lobbyist explained. “And the neocons are in retreat.” One of the key planners of the Special Forces offensive is Lieutenant General William (Jerry) Boykin, Cambone’s military assistant. After a meeting with Rumsfeld early last summer—they got along “like two old warriors,” the Pentagon consultant said—Boykin postponed his retirement, which had been planned for June, and took the Pentagon job, which brought him a third star. In that post, the Pentagon adviser told me, Boykin has been “an important piece” of the planned escalation. In October, the Los Angeles Times reported that Boykin, while giving Sunday-morning talks in uniform to church groups, had repeatedly equated the Muslim world with Satan. Last June, according to the paper, he told a congregation in Oregon that “Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army.” Boykin praised President Bush as a “man who prays in the Oval Office,” and declared that Bush was “not elected” President but “appointed by God.” The Muslim world hates America, he said, “because we are a nation of believers.” There were calls in the press and from Congress for Boykin’s dismissal, but Rumsfeld made it clear that he wanted to keep his man in the job. Initially, he responded to the Times report by praising the General’s “outstanding record” and telling journalists that he had neither seen the text of Boykin’s statements nor watched the videotape that had been made of one of his presentations. “There are a lot of things that are said by people in the military, or in civilian life, or in the Congress, or in the executive branch that are their views,” he said. “We’re a free people. And that’s the wonderful thing about our country.” He added, with regard to the tape, “I just simply can’t comment on what he said, because I haven’t seen it.” Four days later, Rumsfeld said that he had viewed the tape. “It had a lot of very difficult-to-understand words with subtitles which I was not able to verify,” he said at a news conference, according to the official transcript. “So I remain inexpert”—the transcript notes that he “chuckles” at that moment—“on precisely what he said.” Boykin’s comments are now under official review. Boykin has been involved in other controversies as well. He was the Army combat commander in Mogadishu in 1993, when eighteen Americans were slain during the disastrous mission made famous by Mark Bowden’s book “Black Hawk Down.” Earlier that year, Boykin, a colonel at the time, led an eight-man Delta Force that was assigned to help a Colombian police unit track down the notorious drug dealer Pablo Escobar. Boykin’s team was barred by law from providing any lethal assistance without Presidential approval, but there was suspicion in the Pentagon that it was planning to take part in the assassination of Escobar, with the support of American Embassy officials in Colombia. The book “Killing Pablo,” an account, also by Mark Bowden, of the hunt for Escobar, describes how senior officials in the Pentagon’s chain of command became convinced that Boykin, with the knowledge of his Special Forces superiors, had exceeded his authority and intended to violate the law. They wanted Boykin’s unit pulled out. It wasn’t. Escobar was shot dead on the roof of a barrio apartment building in Medellín. The Colombian police were credited with getting their man, but, Bowden wrote, “within the special ops community . . . Pablo’s death was regarded as a successful mission for Delta, and legend has it that its operators were in on the kill.” “That’s what those guys did,” a retired general who monitored Boykin’s operations in Colombia told me. “I’ve seen pictures of Escobar’s body that you don’t get from a long-range telescope lens. They were taken by guys on the assault team.” (Bush Administration officials in the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon, including General Boykin, did not respond to requests for comment.) Morris Busby, who was the American Ambassador to Colombia in 1993 (he is now retired), vigorously defended Boykin. “I think the world of Jerry Boykin, and have the utmost respect for him. I’ve known him for fifteen years and spent hours and hours with the guy, and never heard him mention religion or God.” The retired general also praised Boykin as “one of those guys you’d love to have in a war because he’s not afraid to die.” But, he added, “when you get to three stars you’ve got to think through what you’re doing.” Referring to Boykin and others involved in the Special Forces planning, he added, “These guys are going to get a bunch of guys killed and then give them a bunch of medals.” The American-Israeli liaison on Iraq amounts to a tutorial on how to dismantle an insurgency. One former Israeli military-intelligence officer summarized the core lesson this way: “How to do targeted killing, which is very relevant to the success of the war, and what the United States is going to have to do.” He told me that the Americans were being urged to emulate the Israeli Army’s small commando units, known as Mist’aravim, which operate undercover inside the West Bank and Gaza Strip. “They can approach a house and pounce,” the former officer said. In the Israeli view, he added, the Special Forces units must learn “how to maintain a network of informants.” Such a network, he said, has made it possible for Israel to penetrate the West Bank and Gaza Strip organizations controlled by groups such as Hamas, and to assassinate or capture potential suicide bombers along with many of the people who recruit and train them. On the other hand, the former officer said, “Israel has, in many ways, been too successful, and has killed or captured so many mid-ranking facilitators on the operational level in the West Bank that Hamas now consists largely of isolated cells that carry out terrorist attacks against Israel on their own.” He went on, “There is no central control over many of the suicide bombers. We’re trying to tell the Americans that they don’t want to eliminate the center. The key is not to have freelancers out there.” Many regional experts, Americans and others, are convinced that the Baathists are still firmly in charge of the insurgency, although they are thought to have little direct connection with Saddam Hussein. An American military analyst who works with the American-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad told me he has concluded that “mid-ranking Baathists who were muzzled by the patrimonial nature of Saddam’s system have now, with the disappearance of the high-ranking members, risen to control the insurgency.” He added that after the American attack and several weeks “of being like deer in headlights,” these Baathists had become organized, and were directing and leading operations against Americans. During an interview in Washington, a senior Arab diplomat noted, “We do not believe that the resistance is loyal to Saddam. Yes, the Baathists have reorganized, not for political reasons but because of the terrible decisions made by Jerry Bremer”—the director of the C.P.A. “The Iraqis really want to make you pay the price,” the diplomat said. “Killing Saddam will not end it.” Similarly, a Middle Eastern businessman who has advised senior Bush Administration officials told me that the reorganized Baath Party is “extremely active, working underground with permanent internal communications. And without Saddam.” Baath party leaders, he added, expect Saddam to issue a public statement of self-criticism, “telling of his mistakes and his excesses,” including his reliance on his sons. There is disagreement, inevitably, on the extent of Baathist control. The former Israeli military-intelligence officer said, “Most of the firepower comes from the Baathists, and they know where the weapons are kept. But many of the shooters are ethnic and tribal. Iraq is very factionalized now, and within the Sunni community factionalism goes deep.” He added, “Unless you settle this, any effort at reconstruction in the center is hopeless.” The American military analyst agreed that the current emphasis on Baathist control “overlooks the nationalist and tribal angle.” For example, he said, the anti-coalition forces in Falluja, a major center of opposition, are “driven primarily by the sheikhs and mosques, Islam, clerics, and nationalism.” The region, he went on, contains “tens of thousands of unemployed former military officers and enlistees who hang around the coffee shops and restaurants of their relatives; they plot, plan, and give and receive instructions; at night they go out on their missions.” This military analyst, like many officials I spoke to, also raised questions about the military’s more conventional tactics—the aggressive program, code-named Iron Hammer, of bombings, nighttime raids, and mass arrests aimed at trouble spots in Sunni-dominated central Iraq. The insurgents, he told me, had already developed a response. “Their S.O.P.”—standard operating procedure—“now is to go further out, or even to other towns, so that American retribution does not fall on their locale. Instead, the Americans take it out on the city where the incident happened, and in the process they succeed in making more enemies.” The brazen Iraqi attacks on two separate American convoys in Samarra, on November 30th, provided further evidence of the diversity of the opposition to the occupation. Samarra has been a center of intense anti-Saddam feelings, according to Ahmed S. Hashim, an expert on terrorism who is a professor of strategic studies at the U.S. Naval War College. In an essay published in August by the Middle East Institute, Hashim wrote, “Many Samarra natives—who had served with distinction in the Baath Party and the armed forces—were purged or executed during the course of the three decades of rule by Saddam and his cronies from the rival town of Tikrit.” He went on, “The type of U.S. force structure in Iraq—heavy armored and mechanized units—and the psychological disposition of these forces which have been in Iraq for months is simply not conducive to the successful waging of counter-insurgency warfare.” The majority of the Bush Administration’s manhunting missions remain classified, but one earlier mission, in Afghanistan, had mixed results at best. Last November, an Al Qaeda leader named Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi was killed when an unmanned Predator reconnaissance aircraft fired a Hellfire missile at his automobile in Yemen. Five passengers in the automobile were also killed, and it was subsequently reported that two previous Predator missions in Yemen had been called off at the last moment when it was learned that the occupants of suspect vehicles were local Bedouins, and not Al Qaeda members. Since then, an adviser to the Special Forces command has told me, infighting among the various senior military commands has made it difficult for Special Forces teams on alert to take immediate advantage of time-sensitive intelligence. Rumsfeld repeatedly criticized Air Force General Charles Holland, a four-star Special Forces commander who has just retired, for his reluctance to authorize commando raids without specific, or “actionable,” intelligence. Rumsfeld has also made a systematic effort to appoint Special Forces advocates to the top military jobs. Another former Special Forces commander, Army General Peter Schoomaker, was brought out of retirement in July and named Army Chief of Staff. The new civilian Assistant Secretary for Special Operations in the Pentagon is Thomas O’Connell, an Army veteran who served in the Phoenix program in Vietnam, and who, in the early eighties, ran Grey Fox, the Army’s secret commando unit. Early in November, the Times reported the existence of Task Force 121, and said that it was authorized to take action throughout the region, if necessary, in pursuit of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and other terrorists. (The task force is commanded by Air Force Brigadier General Lyle Koenig, an experienced Special Forces helicopter pilot.) At that point, the former Special Forces official told me, the troops were “chasing the deck of cards. Their job was to find Saddam, period.” Other Special Forces, in Afghanistan, were targeting what is known as the A.Q.S.L., the Al Qaeda Senior Leadership List. The task force’s search for Saddam was, from the beginning, daunting. According to Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector, it may have been fatally flawed as well. From 1994 to 1998, Ritter directed a special U.N. unit that eavesdropped on many of Saddam Hussein’s private telephone communications. “The high-profile guys around Saddam were the murafaqin, his most loyal companions, who could stand next to him carrying a gun,” Ritter told me. “But now he’s gone to a different tier—the tribes. He has released the men from his most sensitive units and let them go back to their tribes, and we don’t know where they are. The manifests of those units are gone; they’ve all been destroyed.” Ritter added, “Guys like Farouq Hijazi can deliver some of the Baath Party cells, and he knows where some of the intelligence people are. But he can’t get us into the tribal hierarchy.” The task force, in any event, has shifted its focus from the hunt for Saddam as it is increasingly distracted by the spreading guerrilla war. In addition to the Special Forces initiative, the military is also exploring other approaches to suppressing the insurgency. The Washington Post reported last week that the American authorities in Baghdad had agreed, with some reluctance, to the formation of an Iraqi-led counter-terrorism militia composed of troops from the nation’s five largest political parties. The paramilitary unit, totalling some eight hundred troops or so, would “identify and pursue insurgents” who had eluded arrest, the newspaper said. The group’s initial missions would be monitored and approved by American commanders, but eventually it would operate independently. Task Force 121’s next major problem may prove to be Iran. There is a debate going on inside the Administration about American and Israeli intelligence that suggests that the Shiite-dominated Iranian government may be actively aiding the Sunni-led insurgency in Iraq—“pulling the strings on the puppet,” as one former intelligence official put it. Many in the intelligence community are skeptical of this analysis—the Pentagon adviser compared it to “the Chalabi stuff,” referring to now discredited prewar intelligence on W.M.D. supplied by Iraqi defectors. But I was told by several officials that the intelligence was considered to be highly reliable by civilians in the Defense Department. A former intelligence official said that one possible response under consideration was for the United States to train and equip an Iraqi force capable of staging cross-border raids. The American goal, he said, would be to “make the cost of supporting the Baathists so dear that the Iranians would back off,” adding, “If it begins to look like another Iran-Iraq war, that’s another story.” The requirement that America’s Special Forces units operate in secrecy, a former senior coalition adviser in Baghdad told me, has provided an additional incentive for increasing their presence in Iraq. The Special Forces in-country numbers are not generally included in troop totals. Bush and Rumsfeld have insisted that more American troops are not needed, but that position was challenged by many senior military officers in private conversations with me. “You need more people,” the former adviser, a retired admiral, said. “But you can’t add them, because Rummy’s taken a position. So you invent a force that won’t be counted.” At present, there is no legislation that requires the President to notify Congress before authorizing an overseas Special Forces mission. The Special Forces have been expanded enormously in the Bush Administration. The 2004 Pentagon budget provides more than six and a half billion dollars for their activities—a thirty-four-per-cent increase over 2003. A recent congressional study put the number of active and reserve Special Forces troops at forty-seven thousand, and has suggested that the appropriate House and Senate committees needed to debate the “proper overall role” of Special Forces in the global war on terrorism. The former intelligence official depicted the Delta and seal teams as “force multipliers”—small units that can do the work of much larger ones and thereby increase the power of the operation as a whole. He also implicitly recognized that such operations would become more and more common; when Special Forces target the Baathists, he said, “it’s technically not assassination—it’s normal combat operations.” From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 10 21:24:42 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBB5OfdE058844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:24:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B46F96FB8C for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:24:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:24:42 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Sick, wounded U.S. troops held in squalor X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:24:42 -0000 http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20031017-024617-1418r 17 October 2003 Sick, wounded U.S. troops held in squalor By Mark Benjamin, UPI Investigations Editor FORT STEWART, Ga., Oct. 17 (UPI) -- Hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait -- sometimes for months -- to see doctors. The National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers' living conditions are so substandard, and the medical care so poor, that many of them believe the Army is trying push them out with reduced benefits for their ailments. One document shown to UPI states that no more doctor appointments [were] available from Oct. 14 through Nov. 11 -- Veterans Day. "I have loved the Army. I have served the Army faithfully and I have done everything the Army has asked me to do," said Sgt. 1st Class Willie Buckels, a truck master with the 296th Transportation Company. Buckels served in the Army Reserves for 27 years, including Operation Iraqi Freedom and the first Gulf War. "Now my whole idea about the U.S. Army has changed. I am treated like a third-class citizen." Since getting back from Iraq in May, Buckels, 52, has been trying to get doctors to find out why he has intense pain in the side of his abdomen since doubling over in pain there. After waiting since May for a diagnosis, Buckels has accepted 20 percent of his benefits for bad knees and is going home to his family in Mississippi. "They have not found out what my side is doing yet, but they are still trying," Buckels said. One month after President Bush greeted soldiers at Fort Stewart -- home of the famed Third Infantry Division -- as heroes on their return from Iraq, approximately 600 sick or injured members of the Army Reserves and National Guard are warehoused in rows of spare, steamy and dark cement barracks in a sandy field, waiting for doctors to treat their wounds or illnesses. The Reserve and National Guard soldiers are on what the Army calls "medical hold," while the Army decides how sick or disabled they are and what benefits -- if any -- they should get as a result. Some of the soldiers said they have waited six hours a day for an appointment without seeing a doctor. Others described waiting weeks or months without getting a diagnosis or proper treatment. The soldiers said professional active duty personnel are getting better treatment while troops who serve in the National Guard or Army Reserve are left to wallow in medical hold. "It is not an Army of One. It is the Army of two -- Army and Reserves," said one soldier who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, during which she developed a serious heart condition and strange skin ailment. A half-dozen calls by UPI seeking comment from Fort Stewart public affairs officials and U.S. Forces Command in Atlanta were not returned. Soldiers here estimate that nearly 40 percent of the personnel now in medical hold were deployed to Iraq. Of those who went, many described clusters of strange ailments, like heart and lung problems, among previously healthy troops. They said the Army has tried to refuse them benefits, claiming the injuries and illnesses were due to a "pre-existing condition," prior to military service. Most soldiers in medical hold at Fort Stewart stay in rows of rectangular, gray, single-story cinder block barracks without bathrooms or air conditioning. They are dark and sweltering in the southern Georgia heat and humidity. Around 60 soldiers cram in the bunk beds in each barrack. Soldiers make their way by walking or using crutches through the sandy dirt to a communal bathroom, where they have propped office partitions between otherwise open toilets for privacy. A row of leaky sinks sits on an opposite wall. The latrine smells of urine and is full of bugs, because many windows have no screens. Showering is in a communal, cinder block room. Soldiers say they have to buy their own toilet paper. They said the conditions are fine for training, but not for sick people. "I think it is disgusting," said one Army Reserve member who went to Iraq and asked that his name not be used. That soldier said that after being deployed in March he suffered a sudden onset of neurological symptoms in Baghdad that has gotten steadily worse. He shakes uncontrollably. He said the Army has told him he has Parkinson's Disease and it was a pre-existing condition, but he thinks it was something in the anthrax shots the Army gave him. "They say I have Parkinson's, but it is developing too rapidly," he said. "I did not have a problem until I got those shots." First Sgt. Gerry Mosley crossed into Iraq from Kuwait on March 19 with the 296th Transportation Company, hauling fuel while under fire from the Iraqis as they traveled north alongside combat vehicles. Mosley said he was healthy before the war; he could run two miles in 17 minutes at 48 years old. But he developed a series of symptoms: lung problems and shortness of breath; vertigo; migraines; and tinnitus. He also thinks the anthrax vaccine may have hurt him. Mosley also has a torn shoulder from an injury there. Mosley says he has never been depressed before, but found himself looking at shotguns recently and thought about suicide. Mosley is paying $300 a month to get better housing than the cinder block barracks. He has a notice from the base that appears to show that no more doctor appointments are available for reservists from Oct. 14 until Nov. 11. He said he has never been treated like this in his 30 years in the Army Reserves. "Now, I would not go back to war for the Army," Mosley said. Many soldiers in the hot barracks said regular Army soldiers get to see doctors, while National Guard and Army Reserve troops wait. "The active duty guys that are coming in, they get treated first and they put us on hold," said another soldier who returned from Iraq six weeks ago with a serious back injury. He has gotten to see a doctor only two times since he got back, he said. Another Army Reservist with the 149th Infantry Battalion said he has had real trouble seeing doctors about his crushed foot he suffered in Iraq. "There are not enough doctors. They are overcrowded and they can't perform the surgeries that have to be done," that soldier said. "Look at these mattresses. It hurts just to sit on them," he said, gesturing to the bunks. "There are people here who got back in April but did not get their surgeries until July. It is putting a lot on these families." The Pentagon is reportedly drawing up plans to call up more reserves. In an Oct. 9 speech to National Guard and reserve troops in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Bush said the soldiers had become part of the backbone of the military. "Citizen-soldiers are serving in every front on the war on terror," Bush said. "And you're making your state and your country proud." From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 11 18:57:23 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBC2vGdE060664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:57:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id CAD7870043 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:57:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:57:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:57:16 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] ABC Narrows the Field of Political Discourse X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 02:57:24 -0000 Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media analysis, critiques and activism http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-candidates.html ACTION ALERT: ABC Narrows the Field: Did Kucinich's criticism of Koppel influence decision? December 11, 2003 A day after ABC's Ted Koppel moderated a debate between the Democratic presidential contenders, the network decided to withdraw three off-air producers from the campaigns of Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun and Rev. Al Sharpton. ABC's decision was attributed to the fact that these candidates are perceived to have a slim chance of winning the Democratic nomination. An ABC spokesperson explained (Boston Globe, 12/11/03) that "as we prepare for Iowa and New Hampshire, we are putting more resources toward covering those events." Appearing on CNBC with Kucinich (12/10/03), Time reporter Jay Carney suggested that the decision could be due to the fact that "all of the media organizations have limited resources. It's actually, I think, pretty impressive that they had somebody on your campaign day by day by day." Somehow it's hard to believe that the "limited resources" of the Disney corporation (2003 revenues: $27 billion) explains ABC's call. ABC's decision does seem to mirror the opinions of Koppel, who seemed frustrated that these candidates were included in the debate at all. According to the New York Times (12/7/03), Koppel "said he would have preferred a slugfest among the six leading candidates." Koppel was quoted: "You can't have a debate among nine people.... There is no such thing. It's called a food fight." "How did Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun get into this thing?" Koppel was quoted in the Washington Post (12/10/03). "Nobody seems to know. Some candidates who are perceived as serious are gasping for air, and what little oxygen there is on the stage will be taken up by one-third of the people who do not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination." Koppel's dismissive attitude towards those three candidates carried over into the debate itself, as evidenced by this question: "This is question to Ambassador Braun, Rev. Sharpton, Congressman Kucinich. You don't have any money, at least not much. Rev. Sharpton has almost none. You don't have very much, Ambassador Braun. The question is, will there come a point when polls, money and then ultimately the actual votes that will take place here, in places like New Hampshire, the caucuses in Iowa, will there come a point when we can expect one or more of the three of you to drop out? Or are you in this as sort of a vanity candidacy?" Kucinich's response to that question generated perhaps the most media coverage his campaign has received so far: "Ted, you know, we started at the beginning of this evening talking about an endorsement. Well, I want the American people to see where the media takes politics in this country. To start with endorsements, to start talking about endorsements. Now we're talking about polls. And then we're talking about money. Well, you know, when you do that, you don't have to talk about what's important to the American people. "Ted, I'm the only one up here that actually, on the stage, that actually voted against the Patriot Act. And voted against the war. The only one on this stage. I'm also one of the few candidates up here who's talking about taking our healthcare system from this for-profit system to a not-for-profit, single-payer, universal health care for all. I'm also the only one who has talked about getting out of NAFTA and the WTO and going back to bilateral trade conditioned on workers rights, human rights and the environment. Now, I may be inconvenient for some of those in the media, but I'm, you know, sorry about that." One has to wonder whether Kucinich's rebuke of Koppel, and his criticism of the priorities of the media, had something to do with ABC's decision to limit coverage of these candidates. No matter what the rationale, this does raise a concern that ABC is making an early call on the election of 2004-- weeks before any votes have been cast. For the record, before ABC's decision to cut back coverage, Kucinich, Sharpton and Moseley Braun had been mentioned a combined total of ten times this year on ABC's World News Tonight, according to a search of the Nexis database. Only one of those mentions referred to the candidate's position on a policy. ACTION: Contact ABC and ask them why they have decided to limit their coverage of Kucinich, Sharpton and Moseley Braun. Encourage ABC to let voters, not pundits, decide who they want to select as a presidential nominee. CONTACT: ABC News World News Tonight Phone: 212-456-4040 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Nightline 202-222-7000 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if you maintain a polite tone. Please cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] with your correspondence. ---------- Your donation to FAIR makes a difference: http://www.fair.org/donate.html SUBSCRIBE TO EXTRA! AND GET FAIR'S NEW BOOK FOR FREE: The Oh Really? Factor http://www.fair.org/ohreally.html FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at FAIR's online store: http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/ FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html . FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New York office on a rolling basis. For more information, see: http://www.fair.org/internships.html Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . FAIR (212) 633-6700 http://www.fair.org/ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 11 19:02:24 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBC32MdE060881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:02:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2CA9C7014E for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:02:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:02:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:02:24 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Report-back from Miami FTAA protests X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:02:24 -0000 Miami: A Dangerous Victory By Starhawk For those of us who participated in the protests against the FTAA, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, in Miami the third week in November, it’s a bit hard to feel victorious. We are bruised, battered, worried about companeros still in jail, and grieving for the Jordan Feder, a young medic who died of meningitis after the action. We’ve been harassed, arrested, tear gassed, pepper sprayed, hit, beaten, assaulted, lied about, and in some cases literally tortured and sexually assaulted in jail, and we’ve stared directly into the naked red gaze of the New American Fascism. Nevertheless we have had a significant victory that we need to understand and recognize, not least because it throws us into a new and very dangerous phase of activism. Our victory was not tactical. None of our own attempts to physically enter or disrupt the conference were very effective. I’ve heard rumors that one group did actually take down a section of fence, but most of us just managed to march up to it and maintain a presence close to it for short periods of time before being driven back by police riots. And while I could list numerous missed opportunities and tactical errors we made, I can’t honestly think of anything much we could have done, given the overwhelming police presence and the physical layout of Miami, that would have made for a significantly different tactical outcome. We were Iraqued—that is, we were attacked not for anything we’d done but for someone’s inflated fears of what we might do; shot, gassed, beaten and arrested for weapons of destruction we did not have; targeted for who we are and what we stand for, not for acts we had committed. The 8.5 million dollars that was allocated for the policing of this event came out of the 87 billion dollar appropriations bill for Iraq. Miami was the Bush policy of pre-emptive bullying brought home. There is a certain visceral sense of satisfaction in breaching a barricade and directly blocking a meeting, but those are not actually the measures we should use to judge our success. The direct action strategy in contesting the summits is not really about physically disrupting them. It’s about undermining their legitimacy, unmasking them, making visible their inherent violence and the repression necessary to support them and undercutting public belief in their beneficence or right to exist. And there, we are winning, not because of any tactical brilliance on our part, but because in truth all we had to do was show up, to be there as a visible body of opposition and withstand the onslaught. Our most effective direct actions may have been those we did in the days and weeks before the meetings: the outreach, the community gardening, the door-to-door flyering downtown, conducted under the constant threat of arrest by a police force acting like Nazi bully boys, arresting protestors for walking on the street, standing on the sidewalk, talking to people or witnessing other arrests. In spite of the major fear campaign and the negative propaganda being put forth by the police and the media, just about every interaction we had with ordinary Miami folks was positive. Locals were told by police that dangerous anarchists would burn their shops, would shoot them with squirt guns full of urine and feces, would smash their windows, and destroy Miami if not contained. Nevertheless, local people were scared, but interested in what we had to say. The poor and immigrant populations of downtown Miami understand the issues of underlying economic injustice. They could quickly grasp what the FTAA might mean for their jobs. They told us stories of water privatization in their home countries, of 16 hour a day workshifts on cruise ships that unions couldn’t organize because they are registered in other countries, of their daily struggle to survive on the streets, of the ongoing police brutality faced by the homeless and the poor. When we were driven back into Overtown, Miami’s black ghetto, people smiled and waved, came forward to help us, offered places for hunted activists to hide, sheltered our puppets in their back yards. Other local people came forward to offer housing and shelter, to donate food, plants, and time to the mobilization, to hold vigils at the jail and to provide support after most of the action had left town. It was as if the bulk of the population pressed the ‘mute’ button on the soundtrack spewed by the media and the police, noticed what their own eyes were telling them, and knew who their true allies were. That disconnect, that gap between the reality the power structure was attempting to construct and the actual reality of ordinary people, is the fertile political space we need to nurture and explore in order to move forward. For it leaves the bullies building a more and more elaborate fortress of control that is unsupported by any foundation of credibility or legitimacy. Where there should be the concrete of credence and the rebar of faith, there is only air: and such a structure is bound to fall. In its fall, it may well take a lot of us with it, and therein lies both the danger and the opportunity of this political moment. Miami was a clear example of the New American Fascism brought home. I don’t use the word ‘fascism’ lightly. I use it to mean that combination of brutal state power applied ruthlessly against its critics, backed by surveillance, media distortions, hate propaganda, and lies, allied politically and economically with those who profit from the industries of weaponry, prisons, and war.. In "The Lord of the Rings", the evil Sauron is represented by a red, glaring, all-seeing eye. To be in Miami in November was to suffer that searing, hostile gaze. The red eye of fascism is a double-barreled gaze: the eye that watches, that records, that holds you under surveillance and videos your comings and goings and compiles the records: and the media/propaganda eye, that frames the story, that defines and distorts you and tells everyone just what the justification is for your repression. For true totalitarian control, misrepresenting facts, telling a false story, is not enough. Total control requires control over the frame of the story, the meaning of the language you use, the boundaries of what it is possible to think about. So "Violence" becomes a word whose meaning changes radically when it is applied to protestors as opposed to agents of the state. ‘Violence’ is simply not applied to police by the media or the political powers that be. The use of sound bombs, pepper spray, rubber, wooden and plastic bullets, wooden batons, bean bag pellets, and tear gas, illegal arrests, beatings, deprivation of basic human rights, medical care, food and water, overt torture and sexual assault are properly characterized by the word, "restraint," as in "the police acted with restraint." Friends of mine who were watching the news on the days of action all reported a similar experience. They saw police move in on a crowd of peaceful protestors, swinging billy clubs and firing tear gas and rubber bullets. What they heard was commentary suggesting that protestors were ‘violent’, and that therefore the police were justified in whatever measures they chose. Applied to activists, ‘violence’ means, ‘any act of opposition to total military and police control, any act of resistance from walking in the wrong place to talking to the wrong people to allying with other suspects." Above all, any attempts to remove oneself from the all-seeing gaze, to mask oneself, to carve out any space free of that hostile red arc light, are evidence of violence. Totalitarian control is deeply racist, sexist and homophobic, for it depends on division and separation. Police attempted to divide the unions from the direct action folk, by pushing the action into the area where the permitted labor march was scheduled to go, attacking the crowd there, attacking union members and punishing them for associating with ‘potentially dangerous’ others. Activists of color were singled out for special abuse by the police and prison guards, subjected to brutal beatings and outright torture in jail, in spite of solidarity efforts by other activists. Sexual assaults were carried out on women and transgendered prisoners. Queer prisoners were harassed and mistreated. The greatest victory we achieved in Miami is that these strategies of division did not work. Instead of dividing labor and direct action, repressive police tactics angered the unions who are now calling for a congressional investigation. Our solidarity with labor remains strong, as does our commitment to stand together and support each other through the aftermath of the brutal attacks against our fellow activists, and to name and unmask the racism, sexism and homophobia we encountered. The overwhelming military force and brutality of the police was a measure of the utter bankruptcy of the policies they were defending. Neoliberal economics, the ‘Washington consensus’ behind the various free trade agreements and institutions, is not hard to delegitimize because it doesn’t work. It promises increased prosperity for all if we allow corporations free reign over the globe, privatize all public resources, and end government support for any arenas of human activity that actually increase health or well being or quality of life. Somehow the poor are supposed to benefit from this. But this promise has overwhelmingly proved false. Countries that implement these policies have lost economic ground or gone belly-up, like Argentina. The gap between rich and poor has grown into a vast chasm. NAFTA has been devastating to the US economy, costing us over 785.000 good manufacturing jobs, allowing corporations to sue governments for loss of their projected profits if governments pass inconvenient environmental or labor regulations. The developing countries have not been able to use the WTO or any of these trade agreements as platforms to reduce tariffs for their products or persuade the US and EU to reduce the agricultural subsidies that have devastated small farmers around the world—hence the walkout in Cancun of countries from the global south. No one was defending the FTAA with any passion. In fact, brute force seemed to be the major argument in its favor. And the FTAA summit ended in a glossed-over failure. To prevent its utter collapse, the conveners referred all controversial issues back to committee, ended a day early, and pulled back from the original vision of an overarching agreement to a truncated ‘FTAA-Lite’—which even in its watered-down form has little chance of being adopted. Their failure was a result of the years of organizing, education, truth telling, and direct action we’ve done in the north to create and foster that gap of belief, and perhaps even more, a result of the absolute social disruption that the policies of the neoliberalism have spawned in the global south, where governments have already fallen and ministers know their populations will not tolerate more of the same. We in the north are left confronting an alliance between economic powers desperate to retain their advantage in a sinking economy, the most powerful military/police force ever amassed on the planet, and a subservient media willing to tell whatever story the rulers command. But the more ruthless and brutal the system becomes, the wider and deeper that gap of legitimacy may become. Our political success and personal survival may depend on our ability to understand and deepen that disconnect between eyes and ears, direct experience and propaganda. At what point does it set in? When do people start to believe their own eyes, to question the authority of the commentators? How do we prevent the power structure from consolidating a new foundation of belief? How far does that gap extend? How do we widen and deepen the gap, and how do we mobilize and empower those who have ceased to believe to take action? And as the fortress of control begins to crumble over our heads, where do we find shelter from the falling debris, and what new structures will we build in its place? If we can build on the successes of Miami: the solidarity, the deepened alliances, the trust, if we can turn those alliances into real political power, we will have a strong victory. If the combined forces of the progressive movements and the unions and the NGOs can succeed in making the political and police powers of Miami pay a political and social cost, we can stem the tide of repression. There were actions we took in Miami that undoubtedly contributed to the support we received: we waged a proactive media campaign, we planted a community garden in Overtown and gave away dozens of trees, above all, we went out and talked to people on the street. In the worst moments of police assault, there were always those who moved forward to put their bodies on the front line and slow the assault of the storm troopers. People helped and supported and strengthened each other, and the shock of the violence we experienced was tempered by the sweetness of support and the inspiration of acts of courage. We can go further in making our actions and organizing welcoming and friendly, can perhaps devote more of our efforts to outreach and connection instead of obsessing on our tactics, can confront our own vestigial racism, sexism, homophobia and the other prejudices that can divide us, and we can frame our actions and organizing with a clear strategic goal: to broaden and deepen that gap of belief, to make strong alliances with the disaffected and to mobilize the political power of dissent, to unmask the violence, repression, and sheer ugliness of the structures of control, to counter them with the beauty and joy of our visions brought to life. Then we can stare back into that red, totalitarian eye and pierce it with a white-hot gaze of truth, a spear in the eye of the Cyclops. And we will have the support and strength we need to withstand the monster’s crash, and to begin the process of building the world that we want. Starhawk’s daily reports from Miami are achived at: http://www.starhawk.org ________________ Starhawk is an activist, organizer, and author of Webs of Power: Notes from the Global Uprising and eight other books on feminism, politics and earth-based spirituality. She teaches Earth Activist Trainings that combine permaculture design and activist skills, and works with the RANT trainer’s collective, http://www.rantcollective.org that offers training and support for mobilizations around global justice and peace issues. To get her periodic posts of her writings, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put ‘subscribe’ in the subject heading. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Dec 13 00:04:27 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBD84PdE071175 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:04:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id C765D702FF for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:04:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:04:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:04:22 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Take Action Against Potential Voting Fraud X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:04:27 -0000 Greetings to All - The time of the year is upon us where we take stock and give thanks for the health of family & loved ones, and for having what we need. These days, however, there is more to think about. Over the past 2 years Americans have seen their Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, once perceived as rock solid, now being chipped away at in the name of security. What about the right to vote, and the existence of fair, secure, and uncorrupted elections here in the U.S.? Before the 2000 election, we may have also considered these as virtually guaranteed as well. The Florida controversy had its own issues, but now a wider problem with potentially far reaching implications looms as a daunting question mark: ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES A brief summary of the issue here: - There is NO Federal mandate requiring that these machines have a verifiable audit trail, and those installed so far do not have one. There is considerable evidence that such an audit trial is needed to have any degree of confidence in future elections (see additional info and links below), which will be using Electronic Voting Machines to a greatly increased extent thanks to the Help America Vote Act of 2002. - In May 2003, New Jersey Congressman Rush Holt introduced a bill in the House of Representatives called the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (VCIAA). The measure would require all voting machines to produce an actual paper record by 2004 that voters can view to check the accuracy of their votes. The paper records can also be used by election officials to verify votes in the event of a computer malfunction, hacking, or other irregularity. - Until [a few weeks ago], around 60 representatives has co-sponsored the bill, but no Republicans had done so. In the words of Rep. Holt, the most common reaction from Republicans was 'Silence'. "You know, a number of my colleagues, Republican colleagues, have come up to me expressing some interest in this, some concern about the voting. I've explained my bill to them. They said that sounds good, let me go back and talk to my staff and presumably talk to the leadership."--"And I never hear from them again. Well, as long as the Republican leadership doesn't support it, it IS NOT going to get to a vote on the floor. It is that simple." The GOOD NEWS 3 Republican congressmen [have now] signed on to co-sponsor the bill, and the bill now has a total of 84 co-sponsors. I talked with someone on Rep. Holt's staff today, who said the the House is planning to come back the week of December 8th, and that the bill could potentially proceed to a vote then if there is enough momentum [ed. note- it still hasn't as of 12/13]. If it is not passed until January or February, it may prove difficult to implement the required changes nationwide before the election in November. WHAT YOU CAN DO Contact and pressure your representatives to support and vote for the bill (H.R. 2239). For guidance, go to http://www.VERIFIEDVOTING.ORG/ to find out more about the issue, HR 2239’s current status, see the positions on the issue of yours or other representatives (What’s happening in your State), get their contact info, and register your support for the Resolution and Open letter the organization has put together. PLEASE PASS THIS INFO ON TO ANYONE YOU MAY KNOW- Thank you for your attention to this issue. The prospect of elections being taken out of our hands is bone chilling, to say the least. Regardless of whether or not the present push to install more electronic voting machines has malicious motives behind it, there is no reason to expose ourselves to the inherent uncertainties that these voting system carry without a paper, voter verifiable, audit record in place. HAPPY HOLIDAYS - PROTECT WHAT YOU CHERISH ---------------------------------------------------- LINKS Suspect Code Used in State Votes <http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61092,00.html> Did E-Vote Firm Patch Election? <http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60563,00.html> NY TIMES: Report Raises Electronic Vote Security Issues <http://verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=140> Machine Politics in the Digital Age <http://tinyurl.com/z1xa> Interview with Representative Rush Holt <http://tinyurl.com/x2yj> Petition Against Electronic Voting Machines <http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/petition.cfm?itemid=14993> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MORE INFORMATION The Help America Vote Act, passed in 2002, authorized $3.9 billion for 'voting improvements', much of which will go to the manufacturers of electronic voting machines. $650 million has already been disbursed to states for this purpose. By the end of 2002, 16.9% of votes nationwide were cast on touch screen machines, and 31.6% were recorded using optical scanning equipment. The code for these electronic voting systems made by the 3 dominant suppliers (Diebold, Sequoia Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software) is not open to public scrutiny. - A study conducted this past July by professors at Johns Hopkins and Rice Universities of the code used in Diebold's (the industry's largest supplier, with about 50,000 machines installed in 37 states) machines found: "no evidence of rigorous software engineering discipline" "cryptography, when used at all, used incorrectly" "stunning" and significant security flaws: - passwords embedded in the source code, - voter smart cards could be manipulated to cast more than one vote - software could be easily reconfigured to alter voter's choices - machines could be broken into electronically through remote access David Dill, a computer science professor at Stanford, comments "If I was a programmer at one of these companies and I wanted to steal an election, it would be very easy. I could put something in the software that would be impossible to detect, and it would change the votes from one party to another. And you could do it so its not going to show up as a statistical anomoly." The three major suppliers, especially Diebold, are strong supporters of the Republican Party, pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into party coffers in the past few years. Diebold gave at least $195,000 to the Republican party during a two-year period starting in 2000, and its chief executive, Walden W. O'Dell (a longtime Republican, and member of Pres. Bush's "Rangers & Pioneers" elite group of loyalists), once pledged in writing that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president George W. Bush next year." No money from Diebold or its executives has gone to a Democratic Presidential candidate this year. * Software used in the machines is required to be certified by state election board. Some recent suspicious occurrences: An investigation by California's secretary of state has revealed that Diebold Election Systems placed uncertified software on electronic voting machines in Alemeda county (San Francisco & Oakland). This software was used in the recall election and the November 4th election. Georgia's 2002 election. A Wired article quoted a Diebold engineer as saying that his team made no fewer than three rounds of software changes to the machines in Georgia's 2002 election for governor--after the machines had been certified but before the election began. (That election "ended in a major upset that defied all polls and put a Republican in the governor's seat for the first time in more than 130 years.") Roy Barnes, the incumbent Democratic Governor, leading between 9 and 11 points. In a somewhat closer keenly watched Senate race, polls indicated Max Cleland, the popular Democrat up for re-election, was up 2 to 5 points against Saxby Chambliss. Those figures are what political experts would have expected in a state of a long tradition of electing Democrats to statewide office. But then the results came in and all of Georgia appeared to have been turned upside down. Barnes lost the governorship to the Republican, Sonny Purdue, 46% to 51%. A swing as much as 16% from the last opinion polls and Cleland lost to Chambliss 46%-53. A last-minute swing of 9 to 12 points. Big swings do occur in elections sometimes. But the fact was that, you know, with the background of the machinery and the concerns of the way that it was done and various malfunctions on election day, including the mysterious disappearance of 67 voting cards (containing over 3,000 votes) from Fulton County, which is downtown Atlanta. A second study of Diebold's software by Science Applications International Corporation this past September (conducted as part of Maryland's review of potential contractors) concluded that the company's systems were at a "at high risk of compromise" because of software flaws that could make them vulnerable to computer hackers and voting fraud. They recommended 17 ways that the systems could be improved, but Maryland went ahead anyway and awarded the contract to Diebold. In the last few months, student activists worried about potentially buggy e-voting software--and Diebold's ties with the Republican party--have been busily making scores of copies of Diebold's leaked correspondence available on the Web and asking others to join them in a kind of global keep-away game. The wealth of Diebold e-mail, which totals about 11MB when compressed, includes internal conversations that cast doubt on the company's ability to sell secure software. Some messages note that lists of bugs were "irrecoverably lost," while others complain of never having been at another company that has been so mismanaged. In one series of e-mails, a senior engineer dismisses concern from a lower-level programmer who questions why Diebold lacked certification for the operating system in touch-screen voting machines. The Federal Election Commission requires such software to be certified by independent researchers. In another e-mail, an executive scolded programmers for leaving software files on an Internet site without password protection. Diebold did not respond to interview requests, and is locked in a legal battle to keep these files from being posted on the Internet. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Dec 13 00:07:46 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBD87jdE071572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:07:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0611C6FF38 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:07:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:07:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:07:47 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] U.S. Tightens Grip on IraqiTowns X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:07:46 -0000 The New York Times December 7, 2003 Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns By DEXTER FILKINS ABU HISHMA, Iraq, Dec. 6 ‹ As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire. In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in. The Americans embarked on their get-tough strategy in early November, goaded by what proved to be the deadliest month yet for American forces in Iraq, with 81 soldiers killed by hostile fire. The response they chose is beginning to echo the Israeli counterinsurgency campaign in the occupied territories. So far, the new approach appears to be succeeding in diminishing the threat to American soldiers. But it appears to be coming at the cost of alienating many of the people the Americans are trying to win over. Abu Hishma is quiet now, but it is angry, too. In Abu Hishma, encased in a razor-wire fence after repeated attacks on American troops, Iraqi civilians line up to go in and out, filing through an American-guarded checkpoint, each carrying an identification card printed in English only. "If you have one of these cards, you can come and go," coaxed Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander whose men oversee the village, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "If you don't have one of these cards, you can't." The Iraqis nodded and edged their cars through the line. Over to one side, an Iraqi man named Tariq muttered in anger. "I see no difference between us and the Palestinians," he said. "We didn't expect anything like this after Saddam fell." The practice of destroying buildings where Iraqi insurgents are suspected of planning or mounting attacks has been used for decades by Israeli soldiers in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli Army has also imprisoned the relatives of suspected terrorists, in the hopes of pressing the suspects to surrender. The Israeli military has also cordoned off villages and towns thought to be hotbeds of guerrilla activity, in an effort to control the flow of people moving in and out. American officials say they are not purposefully mimicking Israeli tactics, but they acknowledge that they have studied closely the Israeli experience in urban fighting. Ahead of the war, Israeli defense experts briefed American commanders on their experience in guerrilla and urban warfare. The Americans say there are no Israeli military advisers helping the Americans in Iraq. Writing in the July issue of Army magazine, an American brigadier general said American officers had recently traveled to Israel to hear about lessons learned from recent fighting there. "Experience continues to teach us many lessons, and we continue to evaluate and address those lessons, embedding and incorporating them appropriately into our concepts, doctrine and training," Brig. Gen. Michael A. Vane wrote. "For example, we recently traveled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their counterterrorist operations in urban areas." General Vane is deputy chief of staff for doctrine concepts and strategy, at the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command. American officers here say their new hard-nosed approach reflects a more realistic appreciation of the military and political realities faced by soldiers in the so-called Sunni triangle, the area north and west of Baghdad that is generating the most violence against the Americans. Underlying the new strategy, the Americans say, is the conviction that only a tougher approach will quell the insurgency and that the new strategy must punish not only the guerrillas but also make clear to ordinary Iraqis the cost of not cooperating. "You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force ‹ force, pride and saving face." Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top military commander in Iraq, announced the get-tough strategy in early November. After the announcement, some American officers warned that the scenes that would follow would not be pretty. Speaking today in Baghdad, General Sanchez said attacks on allied forces or gunfights with adversaries across Iraq had dropped to under 20 a day from 40 a day two weeks ago. "We've considerably pushed back the numbers of engagements against coalition forces," he said. "We've been hitting back pretty hard. We've forced them to slow down the pace of their operations." In that way, the new American approach seems to share the successes of the Israeli military, at least in the short term; Israeli officers contend that their strategy regularly stops catastrophes like suicide bombings from taking place. "If you do nothing, they will just get stronger," said Martin van Creveld, professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He briefed American marines on Israeli tactics in urban warfare in September. The problems in Abu Hishma, a town of 7,000, began in October, when the American military across the Sunni triangle decided to ease off on their military operations to coincide with the onset of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. In Abu Hishma, as in other towns, the backing off by the Americans was not reciprocated by the insurgents. American troops regularly came under mortar fire, often traced to the surrounding orchards. Meanwhile, the number of bombs planted on nearby roads rose sharply. Army convoys regularly took fire from a house a few miles away from the village. The last straw for the Americans came on Nov. 17, when a group of guerrillas fired a rocket-propelled grenade into the front of a Bradley armored personnel carrier. The grenade, with an armored piercing tip, punched through the Bradley's shell and killed Staff Sgt. Dale Panchot, one of its crewmen. The grenade went straight into the sergeant's chest. With the Bradley still smoldering, the soldiers of the First Battalion, Eighth Infantry, part of the Fourth Infantry Division, surrounded Abu Hishma and searched for the guerrillas. Soldiers began encasing the town in razor wire. The next day, an American jet dropped a 500-bomb on the house that had been used to attack them. The Americans arrested eight sheiks, the mayor, the police chief and most members of the city council. "We really hammered the place," Maj. Darron Wright said. Two and a half weeks later, the town of Abu Hishma is enclosed in a barbed-wire fence that stretches for five miles. Men ages 18 to 65 have been ordered to get identification cards. There is only way into the town and one way out. "This fence is here for your protection," reads the sign posted in front of the barbed-wire fence. "Do not approach or try to cross, or you will be shot." American forces have used the tactic in other cities, including Awja, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein. American forces also sealed off three towns in western Iraq for several days. "With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," Colonel Sassaman said. The bombing of the house, about a mile outside the barbed wire, is another tactic that echoes those of the Israeli Army. In Iraq, the Americans have bulldozed, bombed or otherwise rendered useless a number of buildings which they determined were harboring guerrillas. In Tikrit, residents pointed out a home they said had been bulldozed by American tanks. The occupants had already left, they said. "I watched the Americans flatten that house," said Abdullah al-Ajili, who lives down the road. American officers acknowledge that they have destroyed buildings around Tikrit. In a recent news conference, General Sanchez explained the strategy but ignored a question about parallels to the Israeli experience. "Well, I guess what we need to do is go back to the laws of war and the Geneva Convention and all of those issues that define when a structure ceases to be what it is claimed to be and becomes a military target," General Sanchez said. "We've got to remember that we're in a low-intensity conflict where the laws of war still apply." In Abu Hishma, residents complain that the village is locked down for 15 hours a day, meaning that they are unable to go to the mosque for morning and evening prayers. They say the curfew does not allow them time to stand in the daylong lines for gasoline and get home before the gate closes for the night. But mostly, it is a loss of dignity that the villagers talk about. For each identification card, every Iraqi man is assigned a number, which he must hold up when he poses for his mug shot. The card identifies his age and type of car. It is all in English. "This is absolutely humiliating," said Yasin Mustafa, a 39-year-old primary school teacher. "We are like birds in a cage." Colonel Sassaman said he would maintain the wire enclosure until the villagers turned over the six men who killed Sergeant Panchot, though he acknowledged they may have slipped far away. Colonel Sassaman is feared by many of Abu Hishma's villagers, who hold him responsible for the searches and razor wire around the town. But some said they understood what a difficult job he had, trying to pick out a few bad men from a village of 7,000 people. "Colonel Sassaman, you should come and live in this village and be a sheik," Hassan Ali al-Tai told the colonel outside the checkpoint. The colonel smiled, and Mr. Tai turned to another visitor. "Colonel Sassaman is a very good man," he said. "If he got rid of the barbed wire and the checkpoint, everyone would love him." From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 14 00:04:17 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBE84GdE074952 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:04:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C5E770A22 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:04:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:04:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:04:17 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Cheney and the =?iso-8859-1?q?=91Raw=92_Intelligence?= X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:04:17 -0000 http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3660169&p1=0 Cheney and the ‘Raw’ Intelligence By Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff NewsweekDec. 15 issue - A memo written by a top Washington lobbyist for the controversial Iraqi National Congress raises new questions about the role Vice President Dick Cheney’s office played in the run-up to the war in Iraq. The memo, obtained by NEWSWEEK, suggests that the INC last year was directly feeding intelligence reports about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and purported ties to terrorism to one of Cheney’s top foreign- policy aides. Cheney staffers later pushed INC info—including defectors’ claims about WMD and terror ties—to bolster the case that Saddam’s government posed a direct threat to America. But the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have strongly questioned the reliability of defectors supplied by the INC. For months, Cheney’s office has denied that the veep bypassed U.S. intelligence agencies to get intel reports from the INC. But a June 2002 memo written by INC lobbyist Entifadh Qunbar to a U.S. Senate committee lists John Hannah, a senior national-security aide on Cheney’s staff, as one of two “U.S. governmental recipients” for reports generated by an intelligence program being run by the INC and which was then being funded by the State Department. Under the program, “defectors, reports and raw intelligence are cultivated and analyzed”; the info was then reported to, among others, “appropriate governmental, non-governmental and international agencies.” The memo not only describes Cheney aide Hannah as a “principal point of contact” for the program, it even provides his direct White House telephone number. The only other U.S. official named as directly receiving the INC intel is William Luti, a former military adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who, after working on Cheney’s staff early in the Bush administration, shifted to the Pentagon, where he oversaw a secretive Iraq war-planning unit called the Office of Special Plans. Hannah did not respond to a request for comment. But another Cheney aide insisted that the memo was misleading, and flatly denied that the vice president received “raw” intelligence from the INC. Hannah discussed only Iraqi political issues with INC representatives, not intelligence, the aide said. Francis Brooke, another D.C. lobbyist for the INC, said he often orally discussed Iraqi issues—including claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s terrorist connections—with Hannah, Luti and Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby. But he insisted he talked with them only about INC intelligence matters that had already been reported in the media. A Pentagon official also denied Luti directly got INC intel reports, suggesting the author of the memo was just “dropping names” to drum up support for the INC on Capitol Hill. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 14 00:08:24 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBE88HdE075277 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:08:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id AA47170A29 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:08:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:08:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:08:19 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Corporate Media Ignores US Hypocrisy on War Crimes X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:08:24 -0000 Corporate Media Ignores US Hypocrisy on War Crimes By Peter Phillips During the first week of December 03, US corporate media reported that American forensic teams are working to document some 41 mass graves in Iraq to support future war crime tribunals in that country. Broadly covered in the media, as well, was the conviction of General Stanislav Galic by a UN tribunal for war crimes committed by Bosnian Serb troops under his command during the siege of Sarajevo in 1992-94. These stories show how corporate media likes to give the impression that the US government is working diligently to root out evil doers around the world and to build democracy and freedom. This theme is part of a core ideological message in support of our recent wars on Panama, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Governmental spin transmitted by a willing US media establishes simplistic mythologies of good vs. evil often leaving out historical context, special transnational corporate interests, and prior strategic relationships with the dreaded evil ones. The hypocrisy of US policy and corporate media complicity is evident in the coverage of Donald Rumsfeld's stop over in Mazar-e Sharif Afghanistan December 4 to meet with regional warlord and mass killer General Abdul Rashid Dostum and his rival General Ustad Atta Mohammed. Rumsfeld was there to finalize a deal with the warlords to begin the decommissioning of their military forces in exchange for millions of dollars in international aid and increased power in the central Afghan government. Few people in the US know that General Abdul Rashid Dostum fought alongside the Russians in the 1980s, commanding a 20,000-man army. He switched sides in 1992 and joined the Mujahidin when they took power in Kabul. For over a decade, Dostum was a regional warlord in charge of six northern provinces, which he ran like a private fiefdom, making millions, by collecting taxes on regional trade and international drug sales. Forced into exile in Turkey by the Taliban in 1998, he came back into power as a military proxy of the US during the invasion of Afghanistan. Charged with mass murder of prisoners of war in the mid-90s by the UN, Dostum is known to use torture and assassinations to retain power. Described by the Chicago Sun Times (10/21/01) as a "cruel and cunning warlord," he is reported to use tanks to rip apart political opponents or crush them to death. Dostum, a seventh grade dropout, likes to put up huge pictures of himself in the regions he controls, drinks Johnnie Walker Blue Label, and rides in an armor-plated black Cadillac. A documentary entitled Massacre at Mazar released in 2002 by Scottish film producer, Jamie Doran, exposes how Dostum, in cooperation with U.S. special forces, was responsible for the torturing and deaths of approximately 3,000 Taliban prisoners-of-war in November of 2001. In Doran's documentary, two witnesses report on camera how they were forced to drive into the desert with hundreds of Taliban prisoners held in sealed cargo containers. Most of the prisoners suffocated to death in the vans and Dostum's soldiers shot the few prisoners left alive. One witness told the London Guardian that a US Special Forces vehicle was parked at the scene as bulldozers buried the dead. A soldier told Doran that U.S. troops masterminded a cover-up. He said the Americans ordered Dostum's people to get rid of the bodies before satellite pictures could be taken. Dostum admits that a few hundred prisoners died, but asserts that it was a mistake or that they died from previous wounds. He has kept thousands of Taliban as prisoners-of-war since 2001 and continues to ransom them to their families for ten to twenty thousand dollars each. Doran's documentary was shown widely in Europe, prompting an attempt by the UN to investigate, but Dostum has prevented any inspection by saying that he could not guarantee safety for forensic teams in the area. During the recent meeting with Dostum, Donald Rumsfeld is quote as saying, "I spent many weeks in the Pentagon following closely your activities, I should say your successful activities." (Washington Post 12/5/03) The Post wrote how General Dostum was instrumental in routing Taliban forces from Northern Afghanistan in the early weeks of the war two years ago, but said nothing about General Dostum's brutal past. Nor has US broadcast media aired Doran's documentary. It seems that the US government's interest in addressing mass graves and war crimes extends only to our opponents and that we tolerate such inhuman behavior among those who support our political agendas. The corporate media's complicity in this hypocrisy is a glaring example of the need for widespread media reform in the US. Peter Phillips is Department Chair and Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and director of Project Censored a media research organization (http://www.projectcensored.org/). From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 14 22:46:03 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBF6k1dE075127 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:46:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id EAE0F70490 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:46:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:46:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:46:02 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Greg Palast on Saddam Hussein's Capture X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:46:03 -0000 Published on Monday, December 15, 2003 by the lndependent/UK We Never Had WMD, Former President Tells Interrogators by Chris Bunting Saddam Hussein told his American interrogators that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction, claiming that they were an invention of the US government to justify an invasion, it was reported last night. Although Saddam was captured without a fight and was initially said to be co-operative, US intelligence sources said that he had since been unco-operative and defiant under questioning. Time magazine, quoting an unnamed intelligence official, said Saddam was taken to a cell at Baghdad airport after his capture and interrogated. According to a transcript seen by the official, Saddam was asked: "How are you?" He said: "I am sad because my people are in bondage". He was offered a glass of water but refused, saying: "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?" The official said that Saddam avoided answering questions directly and at times appeared less than coherent. But when he was asked whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction the official said he said: "No, of course not. The US dreamt them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us." One of his interrogators said: "If you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the UN inspectors into your facilities?" He replied: "We didn't want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy." The interrogators asked if Saddam knew the location of Captain Scott Speicher, a US pilot who went missing during the 1991 Gulf war. "No," Saddam replied, "we have never kept any prisoners. I have never known what happened." The intelligence official said a letter from a Baghdad resistance leader, giving details of a meeting in the capital and naming other leaders of the pro-Saddam forces, had been found in Saddam's possession and could provide valuable intelligence. ----------------------- http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=303&row=0 Jessica Lynch Captures Saddam Ex-dictator Demands Back Pay from Baker by Greg Palast Sunday, December 14, 2003 Former Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein was taken into custody yesterday at approximately 8:30pm Baghdad time. Various television executives, White House spin doctors and propaganda experts at the Pentagon are at this time wrestling with the question of whether to claim PFC Jessica Lynch seized the ex-potentate or that Saddam surrendered after close hand-to-hand combat with current Iraqi strongman Paul Bremer III. Ex-President Hussein himself told US military interrogators that he had surfaced after hearing of the appointment of his long-time associate James Baker III to settle Iraq's debts. "Hey, my homeboy Jim owes me big time," Mr. Hussein stated. He asserted that Baker and the prior Bush regime, "owe me my back pay. After all I did for these guys you'd think they'd have the decency to pay up." The Iraqi dictator then went on to list the "hits" he conducted on behalf of the Baker-Bush administrations, ending with the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, authorized by the former US secretary of state Baker. Mr. Hussein cited the transcript of his meeting on July 25, 1990 in Baghdad with US Ambassador April Glaspie. When Saddam asked Glaspie if the US would object to an attack on Kuwait over the small emirate's theft of Iraqi oil, America's Ambassador told him, "We have no opinion…. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America." Glaspie, in Congressional testimony in 1991, did not deny the authenticity of the recording of her meeting with Saddam which world diplomats took as US acquiescence to an Iraqi invasion. While having his hair styled by US military makeover artists, Saddam listed jobs completed at the request of his allies in the Carter, Reagan and Bush administrations for which he claims back wages: 1979: Seizes power with US approval; moves allegiance from Soviets to USA in Cold War. 1980: Invades Iran, then the "Unicycle of Evil," with US encouragement and arms. 1982: Reagan regime removes Saddam's regime from official US list of state sponsors of terrorism. 1983: Saddam hosts Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad. Agrees to "go steady" with US corporate suppliers. 1984: US Commerce Department issues license for export of aflatoxin to Iraq useable in biological weapons. 1988: Kurds in Halabja, Iraq, gassed. 1987-88: US warships destroy Iranian oil platforms in Gulf and break Iranian blockade of Iraq shipping lanes, tipping war advantage back to Saddam. In Baghdad today, the US-installed replacement for Saddam, Paul Bremer, appeared to acknowledge his predecessor Saddam's prior work for the US State Department when he told Iraqis, "For decades, you suffered at the hands of this cruel man. For decades, Saddam Hussein divided you and threatened an attack on your neighbors." In reaction to the Bremer speech, Mr. Hussein said, "Do you think those decades of causing suffering, division and fear come cheap?" Noting that for half of that period, the suffering, division and threats were supported by Washington, Saddam added, "So where's the thanks? You'd think I'd at least get a gold watch or something for all those years on US payroll." In a televised address from the Oval Office, George W. Bush raised Saddam's hopes of compensation when he cited Iraq's "dark and painful history" under the US-sponsored Hussein dictatorship. Saddam was also heartened by Mr. Bush's promise that, "The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq." With new attacks by and on US and other foreign occupation forces, the former strongman stated, "It's reassuring to know my legacy of darkness and pain for Iraqis will continue under the leadership of President Bush." While lauding the capture of Mr. Hussein, experts caution that the War on Terror is far from over, noting that Osama bin Laden, James Baker and George W. Bush remain at large. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 14 22:50:04 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBF6o2dE075402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:50:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3DBA570877 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:50:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:50:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:50:04 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] FBI Applies New Rules to Surveillance X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:50:05 -0000 FBI Applies New Rules to Surveillance Many Searches Not Subject To Regular Courts' Oversight By Dan Eggen, Washington Post, December 13, 2003; Page A01 The FBI has implemented new ground rules that fundamentally alter the way investigators handle counterterrorism cases, allowing criminal and intelligence agents to work side by side and giving both broad access to the tools of intelligence gathering for the first time in decades. The result is that the FBI, unhindered by the restrictions of the past, will conduct many more searches and wiretaps that are subject to oversight by a secret intelligence court rather than regular criminal courts, officials said. Civil liberties groups and defense lawyers predict that more innocent people will be the targets of clandestine surveillance. The new strategy -- launched in early summer and finalized in a classified directive issued to FBI field offices in October -- goes further than has been publicly discussed by FBI officials in the past and marks the final step in tearing down the legal wall that had separated criminal and intelligence investigations since the spying scandals of the 1970s, authorities said. Senior FBI officials said the changes have already helped the bureau disrupt plans for at least four terrorist attacks overseas and uncover a terrorist sleeper cell in the United States, though they declined to provide details on those cases. The approach also has resulted in a notable surge in the number of counter- terrorism investigations, a statistic that is classified but currently stands at more than 1,000 cases, officials said. "With 9/11 as the catalyst for this, what we've done is fundamentally change the approach we take to every counterterrorism case," FBI terrorism chief John S. Pistole said in an interview. "This is a sea change for the FBI." To civil libertarians and many defense lawyers, the changes pose a threat to the privacy and due-process rights of civilians because they essentially eliminate, rather than merely blur, the traditional boundaries separating criminal and intelligence investigations. As a result, these critics say, FBI agents and federal prosecutors will conduct many more searches and seizures in secret, as allowed under intelligence laws, rather than being constrained by the rules of traditional criminal warrants. "By eliminating any distinction between criminal and intelligence classifications, it reduces the respect for the ordinary constitutional protections that people have," said Joshua L. Dratel, a New York lawyer who has filed legal briefs opposing government anti-terrorism policies. "It will result in a funneling of all cases into an intelligence mode. It's an end run around the Fourth Amendment," which protects citizens from unreasonable searches, he said. The overhaul of the FBI's counterterrorism policies began earlier this year with a classified document called the Model Counterterrorism Investigations Strategy (MCIS), officials said. The strategy stems from a November 2002 decision by an intelligence appeals court, which ruled that the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act permits intelligence investigators and criminal prosecutors to more easily share information about terrorism cases. The MCIS and other rules effectively put that finding into practice by reworking the way terrorism cases are handled by the FBI, and by requiring that both criminal and intelligence investigators physically work as part of the same squads on terrorism investigations, officials said. FBI officials declined to release copies of the MCIS or a related Oct. 1 directive, citing national security restrictions, but agreed to describe the outlines of the process. Under previous FBI protocols, terrorism probes could be opened along two separate tracks, one for the purposes of developing a criminal case and one for intelligence gathering. Each was labeled with separate classification numbers, which govern the way cases are tracked and budgeted within the FBI. Sharing between the two categories was sharply limited, overseen by legal mediators from the FBI and Justice Department, and subject to scrutiny by criminal courts and the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Under the new guidelines, all counterterrorism cases are opened under the same classification number, 315, and are handled from the outset like an intelligence or espionage investigation, officials said. The structure allows investigators to more easily use secret warrants and other methods that are overseen by the surveillance court and not available in traditional criminal probes, sources said. All terrorism cases will also be formally run by the counter- terrorism division at FBI headquarters in Washington, rather than by individual field offices, officials said. Pistole said that focusing on intelligence gathering will improve the ability of the FBI to prevent, rather than just investigate, terrorist attacks. He and other FBI officials also said the new system will result in less emphasis on bringing criminal charges against suspects in favor of longer surveillance operations. When charges are eventually brought, however, prosecutors will be able to use information gathered through intelligence methods. "We're still interested in the criminal violations that people may be involved in," Pistole said. "But in many cases we are going to put that in the back seat and go down the road until we have all that we need." Robert M. Blitzer, a former FBI counterterrorism official, said that by merging the criminal and intelligence sides of counterterrorism cases, investigators will be able to work more efficiently on cases and avoid problems that were common before Sept. 11, 2001. "In the past, it was an absolute cardinal rule that there be a wall between the two cases," Blitzer said. "Now, you will have much broader access to see what is going on. You can see the whole scope of things. . . . We were always afraid that something could slip between the cracks on both sides under the old system, and that did happen." In one stark example, FBI lawyers refused to allow criminal agents to join an August 2001 search for Khalid Almidhar, who had entered the United States and would later help commandeer the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon. The lawyers said that information about Almidhar's ties to al Qaeda obtained through intelligence channels could not be used to launch a criminal investigation. An angry New York FBI agent warned in an internal e-mail that was later revealed during congressional hearings that "someday someone will die" because of the decision. In another case, the FBI failed to seek an intelligence warrant to search the belongings of alleged al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussoaui, who had been detained in Minnesota three weeks before the attacks. The legal counsel in the FBI's Minneapolis field office said headquarters officials limited the actions of regular FBI agents in the case because of concerns about breaching the wall between intelligence and criminal cases. The FBI's new strategy is the culmination of a series of new rules and regulations issued since the Sept. 11 attacks to govern terrorism investigations. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft last month issued new national security guidelines, for example, that allow the FBI to conduct an initial "threat assessment" of potential terrorists without firm evidence of a threat or crime, which is required to open a full investigation. Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and other officials argue that such changes are necessary to transform the FBI from a reactive law enforcement agency into one capable of detecting and thwarting terrorist attacks before they occur. According to a study released this week by Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Justice and the FBI have sharply increased the number of terrorism cases they are pursuing since the 2001 attacks, although most of the 6,400 people referred to prosecutors were never charged with a crime related to terrorism. Several civil liberties advocates and defense lawyers said the new FBI rules appear to encourage agents to ignore constitutional concerns and to push the boundaries of what is allowed by recent court rulings. Ann Beeson, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the system will encourage prosecutors to rely too heavily on evidence gathered by secret intelligence methods. "They're going to use all their foreign intelligence tools, and then they're going to prosecute people using those tools," Beeson said. "They're putting this whole class of criminal cases outside the protection of the Fourth Amendment." Michael A. Vatis, a former Justice Department and FBI official, said the changes are necessary but acknowledged the risk that investigators could overreach. "The principal danger is what the old rules were designed to avoid: to make sure that the FBI wasn't using intelligence authorities when they were really just looking to bust bad guys," he said. "There does need to be good oversight to make sure these new rules are not abused." From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 15 21:33:17 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBG5XDdE077983 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:33:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0CEB970361 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:33:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:33:09 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] We Finally Got Our Frankenstein X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:33:17 -0000 http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php We Finally Got Our Frankenstein... and He Was In a Spider Hole! Michael Moore December 14, 2003 Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get. America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops. But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there. But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn’t the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him! We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report): * Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax. * Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin. * Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart. * Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs. * Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness. * Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance. And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up by doing business with him: AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (for a full list of companies and descriptions of how they helped Saddam, click here. We were so cozy with dear old Saddam that we decided to feed him satellite images so he could locate where the Iranian troops were. We pretty much knew how he would use the information, and sure enough, as soon as we sent him the spy photos, he gassed those troops. And we kept quiet. Because he was our friend, and the Iranians were the "enemy." A year after he first gassed the Iranians, we reestablished full diplomatic relations with him! Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds. You would think that would force us to disassociate ourselves from him. Congress tried to impose economic sanctions on Saddam, but the Reagan White House quickly rejected that idea -- they wouldn’t let anything derail their good buddy Saddam. We had a virtual love fest with this Frankenstein whom we (in part) created. And, just like the mythical Frankenstein, Saddam eventually spun out of control. He would no longer do what he was told by his master. Saddam had to be caught. And now that he has been brought back from the wilderness, perhaps he will have something to say about his creators. Maybe we can learn something... interesting. Maybe Don Rumsfeld could smile and shake Saddam's hand again. Just like he did when he went to see him in 1983 (click here to see the photo). Maybe we never would have been in the situation we're in if Rumsfeld, Bush, Sr., and company hadn't been so excited back in the 80s about their friendly monster in the desert. Meanwhile, anybody know where the guy is who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? Our other Frankenstein?? Maybe he's in a mouse hole. So many of our little monsters, so little time before the next election. Stay strong, Democratic candidates. Quit sounding like a bunch of wusses. These bastards sent us to war on a lie, the killing will not stop, the Arab world hates us with a passion, and we will pay for this out of our pockets for years to come. Nothing that happened today (or in the past 9 months) has made us ONE BIT safer in our post-9/11 world. Saddam was never a threat to our national security. Only our desire to play Dr. Frankenstein dooms us all. Yours, Michael Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.michaelmoore.com For a look back to the better times of our relationship with Saddam Hussein, see the following: Patrick E. Tyler, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq in war despite use of gas," New York Times, August 18, 2002. "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their possible impact on health consequences of the Gulf War," 1994 Report by the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. William Blum's cover story in the April 1998 issue of The Progressive, "Anthrax for Export.” Jim Crogan's April 25-May 1, 2003 report in the LA Weekly, "Made in the USA, Part III: The Dishonor Roll." "Iraq: U.S. military items exported or transferred to Iraq in the 1980s," United States General Accounting Office, released February 7, 1994. "U.S. had key role in Iraq buildup; trade in chemical arms allowed despite their use on Iranians and Kurds," Washington Post, December 30, 2002. "Iraqgate: Saddam Hussein, U.S. policy and the prelude to the Persian Gulf War, 1980-1994," The National Security Archive, 2003 From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 15 21:39:14 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBG5dAdE078194 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:39:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3421E6F9B6; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:39:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:39:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:39:11 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Has a New Day Come for Iraq? X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:39:14 -0000 "Capturing Saddam Hussein: Will It Mean a New Day for Iraq?" William D. Hartung, World Policy Institute December 15, 2003 The capture of Saddam Hussein is an historic event by any standard. But aside from providing some dramatic footage for global TV audiences, what has really changed, for the people of Iraq, the Middle East, the United States, or the world? Despite the wave of triumphalism that has seized the Bush administration and certain U.S. media outlets, the harsh bottom lines in Iraq remain the same. If virtually everything about the U.S. occupation in Iraq remains the same EXCEPT that Saddam Hussein has been found, the Bush administration is not going to be able to "change the subject" and declare victory in the face of the ongoing unraveling of its policy on the ground. While the people of Iraq can breathe a sigh of relief that Saddam Hussein will never return to power, the real questions going forward are not about the behavior of the OLD ruler, but about what the NEW ruler-- the United States. What is Washington going to do to fulfill its pledges to bring security, democracy, and a decent standard of living to the Iraqi people? · Will U.S. troops, Iraqi police and security forces, civilian contract personnel, and humanitarian aid workers continue to get killed on an almost daily basis? · Will Iraqis continue to suffer shortages of food, fuel, safe drinking water, housing, and jobs; · Will steps be taken to open up the governing process to a much broader segment of the Iraqi public beyond the Pentagon/Paul Bremer-approved membership of the Iraqi Governing Council and the U.S.-selected individuals working in the ministries? · Will companies like Halliburton and Bechtel continue to be allowed to overcharge for shoddy work while qualified Iraqis and companies from allied nations are relegated to the sidelines? · Will Saddam Hussein and other Baathist war criminals be tried in biased courts dominated by exiles like Ahmed Chalabi and his nephew, who have serious political axes to grind, rather than in an internationally recognized tribunal? · Will U.S. forces continue to use assassination techniques, aggressive house raids, lock downs of entire communities, bombing raids, and other tactics virtually guaranteed to alienate the Iraqi people? Unless these practices change, the capture of Saddam Hussein will be a symbolic event that has little real meaning in the day-to-day lives of the Iraqi people going forward. For citizens of the United States, the capture of Saddam Hussein doesn't change the fact that, as Senator Robert Byrd said at The Nation magazine annual dinner on December 14th, Iraq was "the wrong war, at the wrong time, fought for the wrong reasons." While the mainstream media focuses on what a "major league bad guy" Saddam Hussein was, it is important to remind ourselves that Iraq is a sideshow in the war on terrorism. The capture of Saddam Hussein does not necessarily make us any safer. There was no significant stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. There was no imminent threat to the United States or its neighbors. There was no operational link to Al Qaeda. There was no need to spend $150 billion and counting, to waste hundreds of American lives, to kill thousands of Iraqis, and to alienate large parts of the world, all to "get" Saddam Hussein. While we're speaking of history, let's not forget that Saddam Hussein came to power in 1968 with the aid of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Let's also acknowledge that his worst crimes occurred in the 1980s, when the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations were supplying him with military technology, tactical intelligence, and billions of dollars worth of taxpayer-subsidized loans. U.S. assistance included precursors for chemical and biological weapons and targeting information that was used to target Iranian troops with chemical weapons. If the United States had adopted some "get tough" diplomacy with Iraq then-- when the crimes were being committed-- it might not have saved tens of thousands of lives and created conditions in which the Iraqi people themselves could have ejected this brutal dictator from power years sooner. Driving Saddam Hussein from power now, in a war of questionable legality that has left thousands of Iraqis dead and destabilized the country for months and years to come, is hardly compensation for the complicity in his past abuses. Given the strong U.S.-role in creating and sustaining his regime, if there's a Jessica Lynch-style TV movie about the capture of Saddam, it may have to be entitled "The Return of the Prodigal Son." Even worse, in its "with us or against us," "war without end" approach to fighting terrorism, the United States is arming and financing the next generation of Saddam Husseins as we speak, in places like Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Djibouti, Yemen, and other undemocratic regimes. These new age dictatorships are being propped up with U.S. tax dollars on the dubious theory that supporting the "lesser of two evils" will somehow stem the spread of evil, violence, danger, and war, despite overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary. Perhaps we need to pause in our national celebration of the capture of Saddam Hussein to investigate how and why our government's policies so regularly seem to help create, nurture and sustain tyrants like Saddam Hussein in the first place. We are a democracy, after all. We should be strong enough to look at our own faults and correct them, even as we acknowledge a successful event like the capture of Saddam Hussein. William D. Hartung, Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute and Director of the Arms Trade Resource Center. www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms Other Good Writing on the Subject: Hussein's Capture Is Yesterday's News Christopher Scheer, AlterNet, December 14, 2003 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17387 Capital Games David Corn, The Nation, December 15, 2003 http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1129 IRAQ: Triumph Becomes Also a Problem Peyman Pejman, InterPress, December 15, 2003 http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21543 IRAQ: Future Uncertain as Saddam Unearthed Jim Lobe, InterPress, December 14, 2003 http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21541 ======================= The Arms Trade Resource Center was established in 1993 to engage in public education and policy advocacy aimed at promoting restraint in the international arms trade. http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 16 23:29:16 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBH7TFdE089039 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:29:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BBE52709E0 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:29:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:29:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:29:16 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Radio Consciencia is on the Air X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:29:16 -0000 From: Steve Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> RADIO CONSCIENCIA IS ON THE AIR! Several weeks ago, on a (mostly) balmy winter weekend in southwestern Florida, scores of community media activists from around the country descended on the small farming town of Immokalee to build a radio station. Not just any radio station-- a radio station owned and operated by farm workers. Almost everywhere in the United States, radio is a medium obsessed with delivering ears to advertisers (or underwriters). This story is not about radio as we have come to know it. It's about a station devoted to educating and organizing farm workers. It's peak growing season in Immokalee, Florida right now. Every day, workers assemble before dawn at the labor pool downtown-- ready to hire themselves out to the crew bosses who provide contract labor to the major growers. If they work hard all day, picking tomatoes at the rate of $.40 per basket, they'll make about $50 and will have handled two tons of produce each. They are being paid about what they made in 1980. A quick stroll through the compact downtown reveals Immokalee's political economy. Most of the businesses are there to service a migrant farm worker community. You can wire money to Mexico, Haiti, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras. You can find an immigration lawyer. And you can get a bail bond. Not much else. The storefront signs bear silent testimony to a dream-- to earn some money and send it home. The reality is somewhat different. With low wages and high expenses (a bed in a shared room in a dingy trailer runs $200 a month or more), farm workers in Immokalee make barely enough to survive. Changing this situation is tough. Most of the workers don't speak English, and the immigration status for many of them is shaky. They're hesitant to speak out, even in the face of modern-day slavery conditions that made the front page of the Miami Herald as recently as last month. That's where the new radio station fits in. The plan is to broadcast in Spanish, Creole, and various indigenous languages-- no English. The goal is to provide a channel of communication to bring a disparate workforce together to work for change. The effort to organize workers in Immokalee is the local component of a two pronged strategy: the other is to bring the struggle to the outside world. Even with snow piling up outside grocery stores across the Northeast, shoppers expect to find ripe, red tomatoes inside, at a good price. Few consumers trouble themselves with the details of how this minor miracle takes place on a daily basis. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers wants us to know. This Florida-based group of immigrant farm workers from Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean has been organizing since 1993 to raise the standard of living for people on the bottom rung of the food production chain-- the pickers. Two years ago the Coalition of Immokalee Workers approached Yum! Brands, a purveyor of fast food around the world, for guarantees of basic human rights and a $.01 per pound wage increase for tomato pickers—to no avail. In response, the CIW initiated a boycott of their Taco Bell restaurant chain, one of the largest purchasers of tomatoes in the United States. More than a dozen colleges have thrown Taco Bell franchises off campus as interfaith endorsements of the boycott mount. (Check http://www.ciw-online.org for more information on the CIW and their Taco Bell boycott, and a moving photo essay on working conditions in the tomato fields.) The CIW's sophisticated analysis of the labor environment in which their members exist has led them to come out strongly against both NAFTA and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. This political stance made them ideal partners for an alliance with the community media movement, which has served as the communications wing of the anti-corporate globalization struggle. Grassroots radio, used world-wide to reach low-income populations with limited literacy, is particularly well-suited to the CIW's local organizing effort. And so it was that on the weekend of December 5-7, 2003, nearly 100 media activists from around the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico gathered in a sprawling, vacant office building to help the Coalition of Immokalee Workers build a low-power FM radio station. Billed as a "radio barnraising" by the Prometheus Radio Project (a Philadelphia-based LPFM advocacy group that organized the event in cooperation with the CIW), the weekend of skill-sharing drew a disparate crew: self-proclaimed engineering "geeks" to guide tower construction, oversee installation of the antenna and transmitter as well as coordinate wiring of a full broadcasting studio, along with production, fundraising and administrative types to run a full slate of informational workshops geared to the knowledge needed to run a radio station staffed and managed by volunteers. On Sunday night at 7 PM, Radio Consciencia began broadcasting! There's a beautiful gallery of photos from the weekend at http://www.jjtiziou.net/morepictures/200312xx_radio/ if you'd like to see what happened. You might also want to visit http://www.prometheusradio.org for more information about the radio barnraising, and the phenomenon of low-power FM. Don't miss the next one! From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 16 23:34:20 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBH7YJdE089273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:34:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B5C170EDB for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:34:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:34:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:34:21 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] For Telling the Truth X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:34:21 -0000 The Baltimore Sun December 14, 2003 FOR TELLING THE TRUTH By Norman Solomon Few Americans have heard of Katharine Gun, a former British intelligence employee facing charges that she violated the Official Secrets Act. So far, the American press has ignored her. But the case raises profound questions about democracy and the public's right to know on both sides of the Atlantic. Ms. Gun's legal peril began in Britain on March 2, when the Observer newspaper exposed a highly secret memorandum by a top U.S. National Security Agency official. Dated Jan. 31, the memo outlined surveillance of a half-dozen delegations with swing votes on the U.N. Security Council, noting a focus on "the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policy-makers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals" - support for war on Iraq. The NSA memo said that the agency had started a "surge" of spying on diplomats at the United Nations in New York, including wiretaps of home and office telephones along with reading of e-mails. The targets were delegations from six countries considered to be pivotal - Mexico, Chile, Angola, Cameroon, Guinea and Pakistan - for the war resolution being promoted by the United States and Britain. The scoop caused headlines in much of the world, and sparked a furor in the "Middle Six" countries. The U.S. government and its British ally - revealed to be colluding in the U.N. surveillance caper - were put on the defensive. A few days after the story broke, I contacted the man responsible for leaking the huge trove of secret documents about the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers more than three decades ago. What was his assessment of the U.N. spying memo? "This leak," Daniel Ellsberg replied, "is more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers." The exposure of the memo, he said, had the potential to block the invasion of Iraq before it began: "Truth-telling like this can stop a war." Katharine Gun's truth-telling did not stop the war on Iraq, but it did make a difference. Some analysts cite the uproar from the leaked memo as a key factor in the U.S.-British failure to get Security Council approval of a pro-war resolution before the invasion began in late March. The government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair quickly arrested Ms. Gun. In June, she formally lost her job as a translator at the top-secret Government Communications Headquarters in Gloucester. On Nov. 13, her name surfaced in the British news media when the Labor Party government dropped the other shoe, charging the 29-year-old woman with a breach of the Official Secrets Act. She faces up to two years in prison if convicted. Ms. Gun, who is free on bail and is to appear in court Jan. 19, has responded with measured eloquence. Disclosure of the NSA memo, she said Nov. 27, was "necessary to prevent an illegal war in which thousands of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers would be killed or maimed." And Ms. Gun reiterated something that she had said two weeks earlier: "I have only ever followed my conscience." All the realpolitik in the world cannot preclude the exercise of the internal quality that most distinguishes human beings. Of all the differences between people and other animals, Charles Darwin observed, "the moral sense of conscience is by far the most important." In this case, Ms. Gun's conscience fully intersected with the needs of democracy and a free press. The British and American people had every right to know that their governments were involved in a high-stakes dirty tricks campaign at the United Nations. For democratic societies, a timely flow of information is the lifeblood of the body politic. As it happened, the illegal bugging of diplomats from three continents in Manhattan foreshadowed the illegality of the war that was to come. Shortly before the invasion began, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan pointed out that - in the absence of an authorizing resolution from the Security Council - an attack on Iraq would violate the U.N. Charter. Ms. Gun's conspicuous bravery speaks louder than any rhetoric possibly could. Her actions confront Britons and Americans alike with difficult choices: To what extent is the "special relationship" between the two countries to be based on democracy or duplicity? How much do we treasure the substance of civil liberties that make authentic public discourse distinct from the hollowness of secrecy and manipulation? How badly do we want to know what is being done in our names with our tax money? And why is it so rare that conscience takes precedence over expediency? Norman Solomon is executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy in San Francisco. He is co-author of Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You (Context Books, 2003). From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 17 21:56:19 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBI5uHdE095190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:56:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4801E6FECF for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:56:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:56:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:56:13 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Saddam captured - what will change? X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:56:19 -0000 Saddam captured - what will change? By Donna Mulhearn in Baghdad The gunshots are firing thick and fast. Some are in the distance, others are just outside my window. It's about 7pm on Sunday night, the shots have been regular since news of the capture of Saddam Hussein started to spread around Baghdad at about 2pm this afternoon. "Be careful Miss Donna," my Iraqi friends are saying. "Don't go outside or a bullet might fall on your head!" I appreciate their concern (and yours) but how can you ask a former journalist with an ingrained news sense to stay inside when the world's biggest story is happening outside her front door? I have to go out, but I promise I won't stay out late! Many Iraqis are in a state of disbelief tonight, as I was until I saw images of a dazed, bushy-bearded Saddam willingly having his teeth checked in a video shown at the occupier's press conference in Baghdad this afternoon. I stood around a television with a bunch of Iraqis and watched their jaws drop in unison as they saw their deposed former president pose sedately for a mug shot, his bushy-beard newly shaved and his hair neatly trimmed for the picture. Now many are celebrating the capture (hence the gunshots). When I first heard the news I felt a sense of relief and laughed out loud with the Iraqis around me. My landlord told me the gunshots will go all night. "Do you want a gun?" he asked. "I can give you one to fire too." I politely declined. "I'll just have a beer and a falafel," I said. But some Iraqis are still wary, after being betrayed by so many people so many times, they want more confirmation. Others are sad and angry: "What is our hope now?" one man asked under his breathe as he watched the press conference. My friends have just returned from one suburb in Baghdad where a large pro-Saddam mob are nearing a riot - "if Saddam is gone," said one man Mustafa, "we will fight even harder". One philosophical young man I spoke to shrugged his shoulders. 'What does it mean?" he said. "One man is captured." "Did so many people have to die for this? So many thousands of people-- for this? "What will change now?" As I walked back to my home this afternoon I wondered what would change now. I looked at the 2-kilometre long queue for petrol along Sadoon Street. Iraqis with cars have to leave home early in the morning and wait seven hours before getting to the bowser for their ration of petrol. Tensions are rising as taxi drivers, transporters and businesses are thrown into disarray by the delays. This won't change overnight. I walked past the generators that sit on the footpath outside shops and hotels, big dirty things, chugging out clouds of black smoke with the noise of a thousand lawnmowers. The generators are necessary for survival here, with power only lasting a few hours a day. For those without generators life is cold and dark. That won't change overnight. I thought about the 15,000 people detained in the bleak Abu Graib prison without charge or trial. Many were taken from their homes in the middle of the night by gunpoint and their families have not heard from them. I wonder if tomorrow they get legal representation, a family visit and a fair trial? I thought about the poor family we know who live in the concrete basement of a bombed out building. They huddle in a corner and try to hide from the wind coming in the open doors. We've given them mattresses and blankets, but the nights are bitter cold. I wonder what they think of the news and what it might mean for them - husband without a job, with wife and five small children. I asked the philosophical young man what effect the capture of Saddam will have on the Iraqi resistance. Will the military activity against the occupiers decrease? "Why?" he said patiently. "The Iraqi resistance is not about Saddam Hussein, it is about the occupation of Iraq by foreigners." "Less than 5 per cent of the resistance support Saddam, look at the Shia," he said "They hate Saddam, but are strong in the resistance." "It will continue. "The resistance is not about Saddam' he mused. "It's about fighting for our country." We talked some more about the war and the occupation and the effect it has had on this country. Battered infrastructure, civilian deaths, bodies maimed, orphaned children, an oil-rich country with no petrol, rows of razor wired where gardens should be. "The people are happy that Saddam is captured," said the young man. We nodded in agreement. "But do you really think any of this was about Saddam? No one answered. I hung my head with the shame of the west on my shoulders. With its technological wizardry I know that a capture of Saddam could have occurred without bloodshed years ago. The Iraqis know this too. The young man's stinging question hung in the air like an unpleasant smell. I'll just let it hang again now. ___________________ Former Australian human shield Donna Mulhearn is currently in Baghdad working with street kids and poor families. A book she wrote about her experience earlier this year in Iraq may be published soon. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 17 21:57:33 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBI5vWdE095384 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:57:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id EEB3D7134A for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:57:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:57:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:57:33 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] We Caught the Wrong Guy X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:57:33 -0000 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17391 We Caught the Wrong Guy By William Rivers Pitt, TruthOut.com December 15, 2003 Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American federal government, was captured near a farmhouse in Tikrit in a raid performed by other employees of the American federal government. That sounds pretty deranged, right? Perhaps, but it is also accurate. The unifying thread binding together everyone assembled at that Tikrit farmhouse is the simple fact that all of them – the soldiers as well as Hussein – have received pay from the United States for services rendered. It is no small irony that Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the monster under your bed lo these last twelve years, was paid probably ten thousand times more during his time as an American employee than the soldiers who caught him on Saturday night. The boys in the Reagan White House were generous with your tax dollars, and Hussein was a recipient of their largesse for the better part of a decade. If this were a Tom Clancy movie, we would be watching the dramatic capture of Hussein somewhere in the last ten minutes of the tale. The bedraggled dictator would be put on public trial for his crimes, sentenced to several thousand concurrent life sentences, and dragged off to prison in chains. The anti-American insurgents in Iraq, seeing the sudden futility of their fight to place Hussein back into power, would lay down their arms and melt back into the countryside. For dramatic effect, more than a few would be cornered by SEAL teams in black face paint and discreetly shot in the back of the head. The President would speak with eloquence as the martial score swelled around him. Fade to black, roll credits, get off my plane. The real-world version is certainly not lacking in drama. The streets of Baghdad were thronged on Sunday with mobs of Iraqi people celebrating the final removal of a despot who had haunted their lives since 1979. Their joy was utterly unfettered. Images on CNN of Hussein, looking for all the world like a Muslim version of Charles Manson while getting checked for head lice by an American medic, were as surreal as anything one might ever see on a television. Unfortunately, the real-world script has a lot of pages left to be turned. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, reached at his home on Sunday, said, "It's great that they caught him. The man was a brutal dictator who committed terrible crimes against his people. But now we come to rest of story. We didn't go to war to capture Saddam Hussein. We went to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons have not been found." Ray McGovern, senior analyst and 27-year veteran of the CIA, echoed Ritter's perspective on Sunday. "It's wonderful that he was captured, because now we'll find out where the weapons of mass destruction are," said McGovern with tongue firmly planted in cheek. "We killed his sons before they could tell us." Indeed, reality intrudes. The push for war before March was based upon Hussein's possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 1,000,000 pounds of sarin gas, mustard gas, and VX nerve gas, along with 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents, uranium from Niger to be used in nuclear bombs, and let us not forget the al Qaeda terrorists closely associated with Hussein who would take this stuff and use it against us on the main streets and back roads of the United States. When they found Hussein hiding in that dirt hole in the ground, none of this stuff was down there with him. The full force of the American military has been likewise unable to locate it anywhere else. There is no evidence of al Qaeda agents working with Hussein, and Bush was forced some weeks ago to publicly acknowledge that Hussein had nothing to do with September 11. The Niger uranium story was debunked last summer. Conventional wisdom now holds that none of this stuff was there to begin with, and all the clear statements from virtually everyone in the Bush administration squatting on the public record describing the existence of this stuff looks now like what it was then: A lot of overblown rhetoric and outright lies, designed to terrify the American people into supporting an unnecessary go-it-alone war. Said war made a few Bush cronies rich beyond the dreams of avarice while allowing some hawks in the Defense Department to play at empire building, something they have been craving for more than ten years. Of course, the rhetoric mutated as the weapons stubbornly refused to be found. By the time Bush did his little 'Mission Accomplished' strut across the aircraft carrier, the occupation was about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of the Iraqi people. No longer were we informed on a daily basis of the "sinister nexus between Hussein and al Qaeda," as described by Colin Powell before the United Nations in February. No longer were we fed the insinuations that Hussein was involved in the attacks of September 11. Certainly, any and all mention of weapons of mass destruction ceased completely. We were, instead, embarking on some noble democratic experiment. The capture of Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad, feeds nicely into these newly minted explanations. Mr. Bush and his people will use this as the propaganda coup it is, and to great effect. But a poet once said something about tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow. "We are not fighting for Saddam," said an Iraqi named Kashid Ahmad Saleh in a New York Times report from a week ago. "We are fighting for freedom and because the Americans are Jews. The Governing Council is a bunch of looters and criminals and mercenaries. We cannot expect that stability in this country will ever come from them. The principle is based on religion and tribal loyalties," continued Saleh. "The religious principle is that we cannot accept to live with infidels. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, said, `Hit the infidels wherever you find them.' We are also a tribal people. We cannot allow strangers to rule over us." Welcome to the new Iraq. The theme that the 455 Americans killed there, and the thousands of others who have been wounded, fell at the hands of pro-Hussein loyalists is now gone. The Bush administration celebrations over this capture will appear quite silly and premature when the dying continues. Whatever Hussein bitter-enders there are will be joined by Iraqi nationalists who will now see no good reason for American forces to remain. After all, the new rhetoric highlighted the removal of Hussein as the reason for this invasion, and that task has been completed. Yet American forces are not leaving, and will not leave. The killing of our troops will continue because of people like Kashid Ahmad Saleh. All Hussein's capture did for Saleh was remove from the table the idea that he was fighting for the dictator. He is free now, and the war will begin in earnest. The dying will continue because America's presence in Iraq is a wonderful opportunity for a man named Osama bin Laden, who was not captured on Saturday. Bin Laden, it has been reported, is thrilled by what is happening in Iraq, and plans to throw as much violence as he can muster at American forces there. The Bush administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this Iraq invasion, not one dime of which went towards the capture or death of the fellow who brought down the Towers a couple of years ago. For bin Laden and his devotees, Iraq is better than Disneyland. For all the pomp and circumstance that has surrounded the extraction of the former Iraqi dictator from a hole in the ground, the reality is that the United States is not one bit safer now that the man is in chains. There will be no trial for Hussein, at least nothing in public, because he might start shouting about the back pay he is owed from his days as an employee of the American government. Because another former employee of the American government named Osama is still alive and free, our troops are still in mortal danger in Iraq. Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His capture means nothing to the safety and security of the American people. The money we spent to put the bag on him might have gone towards capturing bin Laden, who is a threat, but that did not happen. We can be happy for the people of Iraq, because their Hussein problem is over. Here in America, our Hussein problem is just beginning. The other problem – that Osama fellow we should have been trying to capture this whole time – remains perched over our door like the raven. William Rivers Pitt is the managing editor of truthout.org. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 18 22:49:39 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBJ6nYdE000270 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:49:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F2E56FBA3; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:49:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:49:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:49:35 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Arresting Children in Iraq X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 06:49:39 -0000 http://electroniciraq.net/news/1274.shtml Arresting Children Jo Wilding, Electronic Iraq, 18 December 2003 "Two days ago there was a demonstration after school finished, against the coalition and for Saddam. Yesterday the American army came and surrounded the whole block. They just crashed into the school, 6, 7, 8 into every classroom with their guns. They took the name of every student and matched the names to the photos they got from the day before and then arrested the students. They actually dragged them by their shirts onto the floor and out of the class." They wouldn't give their names. The children at Adnan Kheiralla Boys' School in the Amiriya district of Baghdad were still scared, still seething with rage. Another boy, Hakim Hamid Naji, was taken today. "They were kicking him," one of the pupils said. A car pulled up and a tall, thin boy ran into the school, talked briefly with staff and left again. The kids said the soldiers had come looking for this boy too. The headmaster, too, was reluctant to speak. No, he said, looking down at the desk, there were no guns. But Ahmed, an English teacher, followed the soldiers on the raid. "The translators had masks or scarves because maybe they are from this area. They came and they chose several students and they took them. The demonstration started after school on Tuesday. I advised them not to do it because I am their teacher and the Americans don't care. The children had pictures of Saddam Hussein from their text books and that's all, so they demonstrated and just said we want Saddam Hussein. "There were no leaders, this wasn't an arranged demonstration. It comes honestly, some of the students say, we love Saddam Hussein. Some of the students say no, we hate Saddam Hussein. I told them, it's OK, let them love him and let them hate him, we can all express our opinions. There are no weapons, there is no bombing." "The American soldiers came with tanks and stopped the demonstration and the kids sat in front of the tanks. They took pictures of the students and they had some spy maybe, I'm not sure, maybe students in the school. I begged the soldiers to leave these students because they are naïve, they just believe this is a civilian demonstration, but the soldiers were very rude to the students and treated them like soldiers. They are kids, they are teenagers, so I begged the officer, but he didn't care. "I told them, just calm down, but they said no, they are not kids. In Abu Ghraib we have 16 year olds shooting at us. I said yes, but these are in school. They have books, not weapons. And they took pictures of us, what is your name, stand here. I am not a criminal, I am a teacher. They took pictures of most of the teachers. "I told them you have to educate people about freedom, not punish them, but they brought tanks and helicopters. Yesterday they surrounded the school and came in with weapons everywhere, soldiers everywhere and used tear gas on the students. They fired guns to scare them, above their heads. One student got a broken arm because of the beating. They had some sticks, electric sticks and they hit the students. Some of them were vomiting, some of them were crying and they were very afraid." All the other teachers and students who talked to us backed Ahmed's version over the headmaster's: the soldiers were armed when they came into the classrooms. One of the arrested boys decided he trusted Ahmed enough to talk to the people that Ahmed told him were safe, as long as he wasn't recorded and we promised not to identify him in any way. He wouldn't give his name or age. "The soldiers pointed at me and I was grabbed by about 8 of them and dragged out by my clothes and my collar. They threw me on the ground and searched me and cocked their guns on me. We were held in chicken cages, about two metres by a metre and a half with criss cross wire. They were swearing at us a lot. They didn't beat us but they accused us of having relations with Saddam Hussein, asking who organized the demonstration, telling us anyone who is against our American interests will be arrested. "They offered us some food but more curses. They didn't inform our parents at all. The headmaster came with three of the fathers. Most of us were held between 7 and 10 hours but one student is not Iraqi and he was held for much longer and they questioned him for two hours and made him stand outside from 10pm till 2am in the freezing cold. The youngest was 14." The school is named after a brother-in-law of Saddam's who was popular with both Sunni and Shia people. For this he was killed by Saddam and, when the statues of former regime figures were being destroyed after the invasion, both of his monuments, in Baghdad and Basra, were protected by local people. The pupils have painted over the sign at the school's entrance, renaming it Saddam's School. The depiction of Saddam on TV in American hands seems to have made him a heroic symbol even to many who disliked him. One of the boys told me, "Only 40 kids out of all of us were on the first demonstration but after the raid, we will all go out on Saturday after school and demonstrate against the occupation. They have turned us all against the American soldiers. We don't care about their tanks, we don't care about their machine guns, we don't care about their prisons any more." Outside the school, Rana asked me, "Did you see the bodies in Amiriya? There were bodies in the street, Americans and Iraqis. They stopped an ambulance, threw in 5 bodies and said go, just go. It is a war zone. They don't want to give the bodies to the families. Even my neighbour, he was killed by the Americans a few days ago and they didn't receive his body yet. When they went to the hospital the doctors said you have to go to the Americans, bring permission from them and we will give you your son's body." Wasef, one of the Iraq Indymedia members, was shot in the foot while filming the demonstration in Amiriya yesterday. He's OK, still smiling, doesn't know who fired the bullet that hit him. In the Abu Ghraib hospital while I was visiting someone, there was a noise, something more than a groan but weaker than a shout, broken by short in-breaths, aah, aah, aah: a man with a gunshot wound, a crowd of men trying to lift him from the trolley to the bed. Outside was exploding at frequent intervals. In the doorway they were loading a coffin onto a pick up. A woman with a full pregnant belly told us her two children were playing in the garden when a rocket landed in the flower bed. Another one landed in the street outside. The petrol queues are now about 2-3km long, two cars wide in places. Billboards and leaflets declare the new penalty of 3 to 10 years in jail -- yes, it does say years -- for buying or selling black market petrol. They, like the posters advertising rewards for information, are plastered with paint, red or black. I have to apologise to Hamsa and Khalid -- I misunderstood. Hamsa said, "Now you are in handcuffs, the bastards," not "you bastard" about Saddam -- a small but significant linguistic cock-up on my part, and Khalid said they will make him crawl over nails not that they should. I'm sorry. See also: Secondary School under Siege by US Forces, Dahr Jamail, Electronic Iraq (18 December 2003) http://electroniciraq.net/news/1271.shtml Jo Wilding is based in Baghdad and wrote for Electronic Iraq during the war. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 18 23:03:05 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBJ733dE000682 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:03:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 58E196FD16 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:03:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:03:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:03:05 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Privatization of War X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:03:05 -0000 http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1103566,00.html The privatisation of war Ian Traynor Wednesday December 10, 2003 The Guardian Private corporations have penetrated western warfare so deeply that they are now the second biggest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq after the Pentagon, a Guardian investigation has established. While the official coalition figures list the British as the second largest contingent with around 9,900 troops, they are narrowly outnumbered by the 10,000 private military contractors now on the ground. The investigation has also discovered that the proportion of contracted security personnel in the firing line is 10 times greater than during the first Gulf war. In 1991, for every private contractor, there were about 100 servicemen and women; now there are 10. The private sector is so firmly embedded in combat, occupation and peacekeeping duties that the phenomenon may have reached the point of no return: the US military would struggle to wage war without it. While reliable figures are difficult to come by and governmental accounting and monitoring of the contracts are notoriously shoddy, the US army estimates that of the $87bn (£50.2bn) earmarked this year for the broader Iraqi campaign, including central Asia and Afghanistan, one third of that, nearly $30bn, will be spent on contracts to private companies. The myriad military and security companies thriving on this largesse are at the sharp end of a revolution in military affairs that is taking us into unknown territory - the partial privatisation of war. "This is a trend that is growing and Iraq is the high point of the trend," said Peter Singer, a security analyst at Washington's Brookings Institution. "This is a sea change in the way we prosecute warfare. There are historical parallels, but we haven't seen them for 250 years." When America launched its invasion in March, the battleships in the Gulf were manned by US navy personnel. But alongside them sat civilians from four companies operating some of the world's most sophisticated weapons systems. When the unmanned Predator drones, the Global Hawks, and the B-2 stealth bombers went into action, their weapons systems, too, were operated and maintained by non-military personnel working for private companies. The private sector is even more deeply involved in the war's aftermath. A US company has the lucrative contracts to train the new Iraqi army, another to recruit and train an Iraqi police force. But this is a field in which British companies dominate, with nearly half of the dozen or so private firms in Iraq coming from the UK. The big British player in Iraq is Global Risk International, based in Hampton, Middlesex. It is supplying hired Gurkhas, Fijian paramilitaries and, it is believed, ex-SAS veterans, to guard the Baghdad headquarters of Paul Bremer, the US overlord, according to analysts. It is a trend that has been growing worldwide since the end of the cold war, a booming business which entails replacing soldiers wherever possible with highly paid civilians and hired guns not subject to standard military disciplinary procedures. The biggest US military base built since Vietnam, Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, was constructed and continues to be serviced by private contractors. At Tuzla in northern Bosnia, headquarters for US peacekeepers, everything that can be farmed out to private businesses has been. The bill so far runs to more than $5bn. The contracts include those to the US company ITT, which supplies the armed guards, overwhelmingly US private citizens, at US installations. In Israel, a US company supplies the security for American diplomats, a very risky business. In Colombia, a US company flies the planes destroying the coca plantations and the helicopter gunships protecting them, in what some would characterise as a small undeclared war. In Kabul, a US company provides the bodyguards to try to save President Hamid Karzai from assassination, raising questions over whether they are combatants in a deepening conflict with emboldened Taliban insurgents. And in the small town of Hadzici west of Sarajevo, a military compound houses the latest computer technology, the war games simulations challenging the Bosnian army's brightest young officers. Crucial to transforming what was an improvised militia desperately fighting for survival into a modern army fit eventually to join Nato, the army computer centre was established by US officers who structured, trained, and armed the Bosnian military. The Americans accomplished a similar mission in Croatia and are carrying out the same job in Macedonia. The input from the US military has been so important that the US experts can credibly claim to have tipped the military balance in a region ravaged by four wars in a decade. But the American officers, including several four-star generals, are retired, not serving. They work, at least directly, not for the US government, but for a private company, Military Professional Resources Inc. "In the Balkans MPRI are playing an incredibly critical role. The balance of power in the region was altered by a private company. That's one measure of the sea change," said Mr Singer, the author of a recent book on the subject, Corporate Warriors. The surge in the use of private companies should not be confused with the traditional use of mercenaries in armed conflicts. The use of mercenaries is outlawed by the Geneva conventions, but no one is accusing the Pentagon, while awarding more than 3,000 contracts to private companies over the past decade, of violating the laws of war. The Pentagon will "pursue additional opportunities to outsource and privatise", the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, pledged last year and military analysts expect him to try to cut a further 200,000 jobs in the armed forces. It is this kind of "downsizing" that has fed the growth of the military private sector. Since the end of the cold war it is reckoned that six million servicemen have been thrown on to the employment market with little to peddle but their fighting and military skills. The US military is 60% the size of a decade ago, the Soviet collapse wrecked the colossal Red Army, the East German military melted away, the end of apartheid destroyed the white officer class in South Africa. The British armed forces, notes Mr Singer, are at their smallest since the Napoleonic wars. The booming private sector has soaked up much of this manpower and expertise. It also enables the Americans, in particular, to wage wars by proxy and without the kind of congressional and media oversight to which conventional deployments are subject. >From the level of the street or the trenches to the rarefied corridors of strategic analysis and policy-making, however, the problems surfacing are immense and complex. One senior British officer complains that his driver was recently approached and offered a fortune to move to a "rather dodgy outfit". Ex-SAS veterans in Iraq can charge up to $1,000 a day. "There's an explosion of these companies attracting our servicemen financially," said Rear Admiral Hugh Edleston, a Royal Navy officer who is just completing three years as chief military adviser to the international administration running Bosnia. He said that outside agencies were sometimes better placed to provide training and resources. "But you should never mix serving military with security operations. You need to be absolutely clear on the division between the military and the paramilitary." "If these things weren't privatised, uniformed men would have to do it and that draws down your strength," said another senior retired officer engaged in the private sector. But he warned: "There is a slight risk that things can get out of hand and these companies become small armies themselves." And in Baghdad or Bogota, Kabul or Tuzla, there are armed company employees effectively licensed to kill. On the job, say guarding a peacekeepers' compound in Tuzla, the civilian employees are subject to the same rules of engagement as foreign troops. But if an American GI draws and uses his weapon in an off-duty bar brawl, he will be subject to the US judicial military code. If an American guard employed by the US company ITT in Tuzla does the same, he answers to Bosnian law. By definition these companies are frequently operating in "failed states" where national law is notional. The risk is the employees can literally get away with murder. Or lesser, but appalling crimes. Dyncorp, for example, a Pentagon favourite, has the contract worth tens of millions of dollars to train an Iraqi police force. It also won the contracts to train the Bosnian police and was implicated in a grim sex slavery scandal, with its employees accused of rape and the buying and selling of girls as young as 12. A number of employees were fired, but never prosecuted. The only court cases to result involved the two whistleblowers who exposed the episode and were sacked. "Dyncorp should never have been awarded the Iraqi police contract," said Madeleine Rees, the chief UN human rights officer in Sarajevo. Of the two court cases, one US police officer working for Dyncorp in Bosnia, Kathryn Bolkovac, won her suit for wrongful dismissal. The other involving a mechanic, Ben Johnston, was settled out of court. Mr Johnston's suit against Dyncorp charged that he "witnessed co-workers and supervisors literally buying and selling women for their own personal enjoyment, and employees would brag about the various ages and talents of the individual slaves they had purchased". There are other formidable problems surfacing in what is uncharted territory - issues of loyalty, accountability, ideology, and national interest. By definition, a private military company is in Iraq or Bosnia not to pursue US, UN, or EU policy, but to make money. The growing clout of the military services corporations raises questions about an insidious, longer-term impact on governments' planning, strategy and decision-taking. Mr Singer argues that for the first time in the history of the modern nation state, governments are surrendering one of the essential and defining attributes of statehood, the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force. But for those on the receiving end, there seems scant alternative. "I had some problems with some of the American generals," said Enes Becirbasic, a Bosnian military official who managed the Bosnian side of the MPRI projects to build and arm a Bosnian army. "It's a conflict of interest. I represent our national interest, but they're businessmen. I would have preferred direct cooperation with state organisations like Nato or the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. But we had no choice. We had to use MPRI." From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 19 20:49:16 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBK4nFdE099995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:49:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 74D727096B for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:49:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:49:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:49:16 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Is the Search for WMDs Over? X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:49:16 -0000 Published on Friday, December 19, 2003 by the Independent/UK Is the Search for WMDs Over? After Eight Months with No Discoveries, Mission Chief Quits by Rupert Cornwell, Andrew Grice and Anne Penketh After eight months of fruitless search, George Bush has in effect washed his hands of the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, in whose name the United States and Britain went to war last March. David Kay, the CIA adviser who headed the US-led search for WMD, is to quit, before submitting his assessment to the US President in February. The departure of Mr Kay, a strong believer in the case for toppling Saddam Hussein because of his alleged weapons, comes as a particular embarrassment to Tony Blair. This week he maintained that Mr Kay had uncovered "massive evidence" of a network of WMD laboratories. For Mr Bush, the missing weapons are a politically charged issue. Pressed to explain why his administration had asserted Saddam possessed weapons, when at best fragmentary evidence of programs had been found, Mr Bush replied: "So what's the difference? "If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger," he said in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer. Mr Bush's public dismissal of the weapons issue is the latest move by Washington and London to change the justification for war. Weapons of mass destruction, and even weapons programs, are no longer being put forward as the reason for the invasion. Senior US and British officials now dwell almost exclusively on the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam against his people, and the opportunity provided by his removal for a regeneration of the Middle East. Opinion polls point to the strategy working. The US public has forgotten what it was being told every day only nine months ago about the "imminent threat" the former Iraqi leader posed to the US, while the capture of Saddam last Saturday had boosted the President's approval ratings to a healthy 60 per cent-plus. Mr Kay's departure as head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is said to be for family and personal reasons. He is not in Iraq at present but on holiday in Washington. Mr Kay himself sounds increasingly doubtful that chemical or biological weapons will be found, and is said to be resentful that the US military was less than helpful to his experts, preferring to prioritize the counter-insurgency. Publicly, Mr Kay insists, and points to his first interim report this autumn as proof, that the ISG has already unearthed evidence of ongoing weapons programs But he acknowledged on the BBC's Panorama program three weeks ago he was prepared to be proved wrong that no weapons existed. Downing Street played down reports of Mr Kay's departure as "rumor, not fact", and denied that Mr Blair had given up hope that evidence of WMD would be found. Privately, British ministers cling to the hope of finding evidence of weapons programs rather than the actual chemical or biological weapons systems. They hope Saddam's capture will end the "climate of fear" among Iraqi scientists and enable them to be honest about his regime. This week Mr Blair was accused by the Tories and Lib Dems of "spinning" the ISG's interim report after he said they had "found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long range ballistic missiles". The ISG, set up in June, has a nominal staff of 1,400 specialists, analysts and translators, all theoretically dedicated to the search for WMD. But the numbers in the field have been less: two teams of 20 at most. In October, the group's strength dwindled further when Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, ordered many personnel to be transferred to the regular forces to help counter the growing rebellion. Despite the capture and interrogation of many senior Iraqi officials, there has been no breakthrough. Saddam is said to have told investigators what Iraq told the UN before the invasion: that it no longer had banned weapons. But the seizure of Saddam has given some American officials new hope that banned materials will be found. Peter Kilfoyle, a former Defense minister, said Saddam's capture had not relieved the pressure on Mr Blair for weapons to be tracked down. The former deputy chief UN weapons inspector Charles Duelfer said: "What is important is Saddam's intentions. The case can be made that he may not have had existing weapons, but his intention was to outlast the inspectors and reconstruct his weapons capabilities." From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 19 20:54:14 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBK4sDdE000328 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:54:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B0A970999 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:54:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:54:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:54:14 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] 9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:54:14 -0000 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml 9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable (CBS NEWS) For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston. "This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean. "As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen." Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame. "There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said. To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building. "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002. "How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission. The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots. "If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said. Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers. Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will." Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Dec 20 23:47:06 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBL7l5dE003705 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:47:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 735CD70671 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:47:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 02:47:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 02:47:01 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Letters from the troops in Iraq X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:47:06 -0000 The activist website moveon.org has sponsored a competition for people to send in their best 30 second anti-Bush ads. The top submission-- picked by a panel of celebrity judges-- will air on television in January during the week of Bush's State of the Union address. You can vote on the ads and help narrow down the best submissions by going to http://www.bushin30seconds.org Here's my favorite from the ones I've seen so far: http://tinyurl.com/3d6ax Scott ___________________ Letters the Troops Have Sent Me... by Michael Moore December 19, 2003 As we approach the holidays, I've been thinking a lot about our kids who are in the armed forces serving in Iraq. I've received hundreds of letters from our troops in Iraq -- and they are telling me something very different from what we are seeing on the evening news. What they are saying to me, often eloquently and in heart-wrenching words, is that they were lied to -- and this war has nothing to do with the security of the United States of America. I've written back and spoken on the phone to many of them and I've asked a few of them if it would be OK if I posted their letters on my website and they've said yes. They do so at great personal risk (as they may face disciplinary measures for exercising their right to free speech). I thank them for their bravery. Lance Corporal George Batton of the United States Marine Corps, who returned from Iraq in September (after serving in MP company Alpha), writes the following: “You'd be surprised at how many of the guys I talked to in my company and others believed that the president's scare about Saddam's WMD was a bunch of bullshit and that the real motivation for this war was only about money. There was also a lot of crap that many companies, not just marine companies, had to go through with not getting enough equipment to fulfill their missions when they crossed the border. It was a miracle that our company did what it did the two months it was staying in Iraq during the war…. We were promised to go home on June 8th, and found out that it was a lie and we got stuck doing missions for an extra three months. Even some of the most radical conservatives in our company including our company gunnery sergeant got a real bad taste in their mouth about the Marine corps, and maybe even president Bush.”: Here's what Specialist Mike Prysner of the U.S. Army wrote to me: “Dear Mike -- I’m writing this without knowing if it’ll ever get to you…I’m writing it from the trenches of a war (that’s still going on,) not knowing why I’m here or when I’m leaving. I’ve toppled statues and vandalized portraits, while wearing an American flag on my sleeve, and struggling to learn how to understand… I joined the army as soon as I was eligible – turned down a writing scholarship to a state university, eager to serve my country, ready to die for the ideals I fell in love with. Two years later I found myself moments away from a landing onto a pitch black airstrip, ready to charge into a country I didn't believe I belonged in, with your words (from the Oscars) repeating in my head. My time in Iraq has always involved finding things to convince myself that I can be proud of my actions; that I was a part of something just. But no matter what pro-war argument I came up with, I pictured my smirking commander-in-chief, thinking he was fooling a nation… An Army private, still in Iraq and wishing to remain anonymous, writes: “I would like to tell you how difficult it is to serve under a man who was never elected. Because he is the president and my boss, I have to be very careful as to who and what i say about him. This also concerns me a great deal... to limit the military's voice is to limit exactly what America stands for... and the greater percentage of us feel completely underpowered. He continually sets my friends, my family, and several others in a kind of danger that frightens me beyond belief. I know several other soldiers who feel the same way and discuss the situation with me on a regular basis.” Jerry Oliver of the U.S. Army, who has just returned from Baghdad, writes: “I have just returned home from "Operation Iraqi Freedom". I spent 5 months in Baghdad, and a total of 3 years in the U.S. Army. I was recently discharged with Honorable valor and returned to the States only to be horrified by what I've seen my country turn into. I'm now 22 years old and have discovered America is such a complicated place to live, and moreover, Americans are almost oblivious to what's been happening to their country. America has become "1984." Homeland security is teaching us to spy on one another and forcing us to become anti-social. Americans are willingly sacrificing our freedoms in the name of security, the same Freedoms I was willing to put my life on the line for. The constitution is in jeopardy. As Gen. Tommy Franks said, (broken down of course) One more terrorist attack and the constitution will hold no meaning.” And a Specialist in the U.S. Army wrote to me this week about the capture of Saddam Hussein: “Wow, 130,000 troops on the ground, nearly 500 deaths and over a billion dollars a day, but they caught a guy living in a hole. Am I supposed to be dazzled?” There are lots more of these, straight from the soldiers who have been on the front lines and have seen first hand what this war is really about. I have also heard from their friends and relatives, and from other veterans. A mother writing on behalf of her son (whose name we have withheld) wrote: “My son said that this is the worst it's been since the "end" of the war. He said the troops have been given new rules of engagement, and that they are to "take out" any persons who aggress on the Americans, even if it results in "collateral" damage. Unfortunately, he did have to kill someone in self defense and was told by his commanding officer ‘Good kill.’ "My son replied ‘You just don't get it, do you?’ "Here we are...Vietnam all over again.” >From a 56 year old Navy veteran, relating a conversation he had with a young man who was leaving for Iraq the next morning: “What disturbed me most was when I asked him what weapons he carried as a truck driver. He told me the new M-16, model blah blah blah, stuff never made sense to me even when I was in. I asked him what kind of side arm they gave him and his fellow drivers. He explained, "Sir, Reservists are not issued side arms or flack vests as there was not enough money to outfit all the Reservists, only Active Personnel". I was appalled to say the least. "Bush is a jerk agreed, but I can't believe he is this big an Asshole not providing protection and arms for our troops to fight HIS WAR!” >From a 40-year old veteran of the Marine Corps: “Why is it that we are forever waving the flag of sovereignty, EXCEPT when it concerns our financial interests in other sovereign states? What gives us the right to tell anyone else how they should govern themselves, and live their lives? Why can't we just lead the world by example? I mean no wonder the world hates us, who do they get to see? Young assholes in uniforms with guns, and rich, old, white tourists! Christ, could we put up a worse first impression?” (To read more from my Iraq mailbag -- and to read these above letters in full -- go to my website: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/dudewheresmycountry/soldierletters/index.php) Remember back in March, once the war had started, how risky it was to make any anti-war comments to people you knew at work or school or, um, at awards ceremonies? One thing was for sure -- if you said anything against the war, you had BETTER follow it up immediately with this line: "BUT I SUPPORT THE TROOPS!" Failing to do that meant that you were not only unpatriotic and un-American, your dissent meant that YOU were putting our kids in danger, that YOU might be the reason they lose their lives. Dissent was only marginally tolerated IF you pledged your "support" for our soldiers. Of course, you needed to do no such thing. Why? Because people like you have ALWAYS supported "the troops." Who are these troops? They are our poor, our working class. Most of them enlisted because it was about the only place to get a job or receive the guarantee of a college education. You, my good friends, have ALWAYS, through your good works, your contributions, your activism, your votes, SUPPORTED these very kids who come from the other side of the tracks. You NEVER need to be defensive when it comes to your "support" for the "troops" -- you are the only ones who have ALWAYS been there for them. It is Mr. Bush and his filthy rich cronies -- whose sons and daughters will NEVER see a day in a uniform -- they are the ones who do NOT support our troops. Our soldiers joined the military and, in doing so, offered to give THEIR LIVES for US if need be. What a tremendous gift that is -- to be willing to die so that you and I don't have to! To be willing to shed their blood so that we may be free. To serve in our place, so that WE don't have to serve. What a tremendous act of selflessness and generosity! Here they are, these 18, 19, and 20-year olds, most of whom have had to suffer under an unjust economic system that is set up NOT to benefit THEM -- these kids who have lived their first 18 years in the worst parts of town, going to the most miserable schools, living in danger and learning often to go without, watching their parents struggle to get by and then be humiliated by a system that is always looking to make life harder for them by cutting their benefits, their education, their libraries, their fire and police, their future. And then, after this miserable treatment, these young men and women, instead of coming after US to demand a more just society, they go and join the army to DEFEND us and our way of life! It boggles the mind, doesn't it? They not only deserve our thanks, they deserve a big piece of the pie that we dine on, those of us who never have to worry about taking a bullet while we fret over which Palm Pilot to buy the nephew for Christmas. In fact, all that these kids in the army ask for in return from us is our promise that we never send them into harm's way unless it is for the DEFENSE of our nation, to protect us from being killed by "the enemy." And that promise, my friends, has been broken. It has been broken in the worst way imaginable. We have sent them into war NOT to defend us, not to protect us, not to spare the slaughter of innocents or allies. We have sent them to war so Bush and Company can control the second largest supply of oil in the world. We have sent them into war so that the Vice President's company can bilk the government for billions of dollars. We have sent them into war based on a lie of weapons of mass destruction and the lie that Saddam helped plan 9-11 with Osama bin Laden. By doing all of this, Mr. Bush has proven that it is HE who does not support our troops. It is HE who has put their lives in danger, and it is HE who is responsible for the nearly 500 American kids who have now died for NO honest, decent reason whatsoever. The letters I've received from the friends and relatives of our kids over there make it clear that they are sick of this war and they are scared to death that they may never see their loved ones again. It breaks my heart to read these letters. I wish there was something I could do. I wish there was something we all could do. Maybe there is. As Christmas approaches (and Hanukkah begins tonight), I would like to suggest a few things each of us could do to make the holidays a bit brighter -- if not safer -- for our troops and their families back home. 1. Many families of soldiers are hurting financially, especially those families of reservists and National Guard who are gone from the full-time jobs ("just one weekend a month and we'll pay for your college education!"). You can help them by contacting the Armed Forces Emergency Relief Funds at http://www.afrtrust.org/ (ignore the rah-rah military stuff and remember that this is money that will help out these families who are living in near-poverty). Each branch has their own relief fund, and the money goes to help the soldiers and families with paying for food and rent, medical and dental expenses, personal needs when pay is delayed, and funeral expenses. You can find more ways to support the troops, from buying groceries for their families to donating your airline miles so they can get home for a visit, by going to my website, www.michaelmoore.com. 2. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by our bombs and indiscriminate shooting. We must help protect them and their survivors. You can do so by supporting the Quakers' drive to provide infant care kits to Iraqi hospitals—find out more here: http://www.afsc.org/iraq/relief/default.shtm. You can also help the people of Iraq by supporting the Iraqi Red Crescent Society—here’s how to contact them: http://www.ifrc.org/address/iq.asp, or you can make an online donation through the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies by going here: http://www.ifrc.org/HELPNOW/donate/donate_iraq.asp. 3. With 130,000 American men and women currently in Iraq, every community in this country has either sent someone to fight in this war or is home to family members of someone fighting in this war. Organize care packages through your local community groups, activist groups, and churches and send them to these young men and women. The military no longer accepts packages addressed to “Any Soldier,” so you’ll have to get their names first. Figure out who you can help from your area, and send them books, CDs, games, footballs, gloves, blankets—anything that may make their extended (and extended and extended…) stay in Iraq a little brighter and more comfortable. You can also sponsor care packages to American troops through the USO: http://www.usocares.org/. 4. Want to send a soldier a free book or movie? I’ll start by making mine available for free to any soldier serving in Iraq. Just send me their name and address in Iraq (or, if they have already left Iraq, where they are now) and the first thousand emails I get at [EMAIL PROTECTED] will receive a free copy of "Dude..." or a free “Bowling…” DVD. 5. Finally, we all have to redouble our efforts to end this war and bring the troops home. That's the best gift we could give them -- get them out of harm's way ASAP and insist that the U.S. go back to the UN and have them take over the rebuilding of Iraq (with the US and Britain funding it, because, well, we have to pay for our mess). Get involved with your local peace group—you can find one near where you live by visiting United for Peace, at: http://www.unitedforpeace.org and the Vietnam Veterans Against War: http://www.vvaw.org/contact/. A large demonstration is being planned for March 20, check here for more details: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2136. To get a “Bring Them Home Now” bumper sticker or a poster for your yard, go here: http://bringthemhomenow.org/yellowribbon_graphics/index.html. Also, back only anti-war candidates for Congress and President (Kucinich, Dean, Clark, Sharpton). I know it feels hopeless. That's how they want us to feel. Don't give up. We owe it to these kids, the troops WE SUPPORT, to get them the hell outta there and back home so they can help organize the drive to remove the war profiteers from office next November. To all who serve in our armed forces, to their parents and spouses and loved ones, we offer to you the regrets of millions and the promise that we will right this wrong and do whatever we can to thank you for offering to risk your lives for us. That your life was put at risk for Bush's greed is a disgrace and a travesty, the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime. Please be safe, come home soon, and know that our thoughts and prayers are with you during this season when many of us celebrate the birth of the prince of "peace." Yours, Michael Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.michaelmoore.com From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 21 00:03:00 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBL82xdE004151 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:03:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BF9886FDB6 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:03:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:03:00 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Senators were told Iraqi weapons could hit U.S. X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 08:03:00 -0000 Florida Today http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryN1216NELSON.htm 15 December 2003 Senators were told Iraqi weapons could hit U.S. Nelson said claim made during classified briefing By John McCarthy FLORIDA TODAY U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities. Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force. Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing. The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim. Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones. "They have not found anything that resembles an UAV that has that capability," Nelson said. Nelson delivered the news during a half-hour conference call with reporters Monday afternoon. The senator, who is on a seven-nation trade mission to South America, was calling from an airport in Santiago, Chile. "That's news," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington, D.C.-area military and intelligence think tank. "I had not heard that that was the assessment of the intelligence community. I had not heard that the Congress had been briefed on this." Since the late 1990s, there have been several reports that Iraq was converting a fleet of Czechoslovakian jet fighters into UAVs, as well as testing smaller drones. And in a speech in Cincinnati last October, Bush mentioned the vehicles. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," the president said. Nelson, though, said the administration told senators Iraq had gone beyond exploring and developed the means of hitting the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction. Nelson wouldn't say what the original source of the intelligence was, but said it contradicted other intelligence reports senators had received. He said he wants to find out why there was so much disagreement about the weapons. "If that is an intelligence failure . . . we better find that out so we don't have an intelligence failure in the future." Pike said any UAVs Iraq might have had would have had a range of only several hundred kilometers, enough to hit targets in the Middle East but not the United States. To hit targets on the East Coast, such drones would have to be launched from a ship in Atlantic. He said it wasn't out of the question for Iraq to have secretly acquired a tramp steamer from which such vehicles could have been launched. "The notion that someone could launch a missile from a ship off our shores has been on Rummy's mind for years," Pike said, referring to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Sen. Bob Graham, who voted against using military force in Iraq, didn't return phone calls concerning the briefing. Spokespersons for Reps. Dave Weldon and Tom Feeney said neither congressman could say if they had received similar briefings since they don't comment on classified information. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 21 21:29:21 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBM5TAdE098705 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:29:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A4D0C7086F for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:29:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:29:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:29:11 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] FTAA: Good For Corporations; Bad For People X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:29:21 -0000 see also: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1220-03.htm A judge presiding over the cases of free trade protesters said in court that he saw ''no less than 20 felonies committed by police officers'' during the November demonstrations, adding to a chorus of complaints about police conduct... ---[snip]--- --------------- --> If you pass this comment along to others -- periodically but not repeatedly -- please explain that Commentaries are a premium sent to Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to learn more folks can consult ZNet at http://www.zmag.org Today's commentary: http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-12/18landau.cfm FTAA: Good For Big Us Corporations; Bad For The People By Saul Landau As kids we swapped baseball cards, or sold them for money (10 cents). But today trade means something very different. Indeed, every child in the Americas should understand that those attending the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) meeting in Miami do not seek to improve your leverage in exchanging vintage Hank Aaron or Pele cards for Ted Williams or Diego Maradona; nor will it help small Florida manufacturers of zippers or paper boxes better sell their wares in Uruguay or Belize. FTAA mavens envision a Hemispheric “free-trade zone,” excluding Cuba, of course. The CEOs and government officials who see the world through corporate lenses boast about the potential of “the world's largest free market.” The combined gross domestic product of the countries involved (800 million consumers) equals $13 trillion, the FTAAers assert. FTAA would extend NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico) from Hudson Bay to the tip of Patagonia (minus Cuba, of course). The very thought of such a giant Latin American and Caribbean market awaiting their entrance has led major US corporations to become the FTAA’s biggest promoters. The FTAA looms like a temptress for corporate acquisitiveness. A services chapter of the Agreement, for example, might well increase already existing pressure on hemispheric governments to sell public services to private foreign investors. US companies could then offer expensive health care to poor Latin Americans, rid them of public schools and offering the highest (in cost) level of private education. Humongous corporations would also find new opportunities to take over public transport, telephone, gas, electricity, water and sewage treatment. FTAA would even encourage governments to privatize nursing homes and day care centers.The public would lose its historic property, and foreign investors would gain rights denied to local business. Indeed, after governments cede public property to private monoliths the Treaty then gives these foreign “investors” the right to sue governments that interfere with their “rights” to make profits. For these reasons and more, tens of thousands of anti-free traders will appear in Miami to demonstrate for “fair trade.” “Free” means “free for takeover” by a handful of US banks and corporations; freedom to invest in nations with low-age labor and no “anti-business” barriers like taxes or environmental and workplace safety regulations to inhibit their profit-making proclivities. Imperial motives have not changed over the centuries. But since they can no longer utilize the practices of past centuries (outright looting), the major “investors” now seek legal arrangements to obtain the same benefits. Instead of US marines enforcing their “rights” to profits from the third world (the Gunboat, Dollar and Good Neighbor Policies in the first part of the 20th Century), they now prefer to go to the courts. “Trade treaties” signify governments putting their “Good Housekeeping” seals of approval on business arrangements that screw the poor and the environment. FTAA presumes non-existent levels of equality between the signing countries. During the 1993 NAFT debate, its proponents convinced Congress that Mexico merited free trade partnership with the United States and Canada because she had achieved a mature commitment to democracy and clean government. Some zealous NAFTA advocates offered fantasies in place of facts. In his July 20, 1993 Los Angeles Times column, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has Mexican President Carlos Salinas turning “Mexico on its head.” In addition to opening his country to foreign investment and free competition, Salinas “quelled corruption.” Shortly after Kissinger wrote these words, Salinas became the focus of major scandals, including murder and a “$25 million a plate dinner.” Salinas invited those who had benefited most from his privatizing schemes to an elite dinner, where they could repay their debt to him by putting up $25 million each for the Salinas family investment fund, of course. Kissinger, who made no comment on this affair, waxed eloquent on “a Western Hemisphere-wide free trade system -- with NAFTA as the initial step.” Between 1970-3 Henry encouraged the Chilean military to unseat the freely elected Allende government. He supported the installation of the antithesis of freedom in Chile a military dictatorship. But for Kissinger NAFTA represented real freedom: “a system for global free trade based on incentives for those willing to abide by its principles and by penalties for those nations not playing by the rules.” In 1993, Clinton came to the presidency agnostic on free trade. Most Americans at the time had not even heard of NAFTA. But Clinton quickly turned missionary on the subject and regularly preached neo-liberal doctrine at home and to Western Hemisphere leaders except for Castro, of course. Clinton tempted them with his vision of a Free Trade Area of the Americas. But between the 1994 onset of NAFTA and the planned next steps to expand “free trade,” millions of people began to understand the down side to these arrangements. In Mexico, maquilas (foreign owned export factories) did generate growth. But in 2000, recession hit. Some maquilas closed or reduced shifts. These engines of development responded directly to US recession by cutting investment in Mexico. The 9/11/01 attacks reverberated into another hit on “free trade.” “Security” temporarily interrupted the smooth border crossings needed for successful maquila business. Meanwhile, some of the very investors who had sung Mexico’s praises for its cheap labor and lax enforcement policies on environment and worker health and safety began to move their holdings to even cheaper labor markets China. Mexico took what the bankers call “a hit.” Tens of thousands who had left the countryside to seek work in the maquila dominated frontier cities found themselves jobless but now in a dangerous and polluted environment. In places like Ciudad Juarez, air quality has gone from very bad to absolutely terrible. Women live in a social climate dominated by the rapes and mutilations of several hundred maquila workers. In the Southern Cone “free trade” failed even more dramatically. On December 20, 2001, the Argentine economy collapsed. Riots ensued. Banks closed. The standard of living dropped catastrophically. The government that had administered the neo-liberal model at its optimal level declared a state of siege. In December 1998, Venezuelans, who held bloody riots in 1989 to protest IMF “free trade” schemes, ousted the traditional parties and elected anti-free trader Hugo Chavez to the presidency. Similarly, in Ecuador and Peru anti “free trade” sentiment had forced political changes. Most importantly, Brazilians elected Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as president, a man skeptical about free trade’s benefits. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick called Lula’s representatives “won’t dos.” He referred to Brazil’s leadership role in a coalition of 22 countries against U.S. and European positions at the September 2003 World Trade Organization meeting in Cancun. From the Brazilian point of view, “systematic arrogance”--an understatement--described the US position. Until the Cancun meeting, “developed” country delegates have relied on their ability to bribe, intimidate and distract enough representatives of the poorer nations so as to break up any block such as the one formed in Cancun. The standard US position “do as I say, not as I do” don’t you dare subsidize your agriculture or steel industry as we subsidize ours -- position has begun to draw fire. In 2004, Bush sees it as an election year necessity to continue to subsidize US agribusiness and raise tariffs on selected third world imports to protect uncompetitive US industries. Brazilian exports have suffered. Bush hypocritically accused Brazil, the victim, of “dumping” goods on the subsidized US market. The US delegates, showing imperial chutzpah, also proposed that Brazil grant US investors even greater access to their national economy by allowing them into the exclusive club of government contracting. The Brazilian delegates tried to keep a veneer of calm as they made meaningless counterproposals. US delegates now try to induce Latin American leaders to resuscitate Clinton’s tarnished utopian dream. This gang of neo-liberal fanatics has ignored the basic fact: the model doesn’t work. It has taken massive demonstrations in various cities against the very arrangements the free traders have celebrated to dramatize that fact. In 1999, between 50 and 100 thousand anti-free traders, union members, environmentalists, small farmers, and just plain folk demonstrated at the Seattle World Trade Organization summit. Following the Seattle affair, the anti-globalization movement spread. Protests erupted at every major meeting of the unelected trade elite.Now, this unelected elite who decide on world economic arrangements, live in fear of demonstrators as well they should. In October 2003, Bolivians rose up and at a cost of more than eighty dead kicked out their “free trade” president, Sanchez de Losada, who returned to Miami where he belonged. Under free market arrangements foreign companies like Bechtel owned Bolivian water, before the Bolivians said: “basta ya!” Perhaps, the demonstrators and the presence of the pathetic Sanchez de Losada in Miami will bring the message home to the FTAA negotiators. The movement for global justice will counter the push for corporate globalization. And all the Miami police force, making arrests as they will, cannot contain the just anger of those who represent the vast majority of the world’s population. See Landau's essays in Spanish on http://www.rprogreso.com Landau’s new book, THE PRE-EMPTIVE EMPIRE: A GUIDE TO BUSH’S KINGDOM, was just released by Pluto Press. He teaches at Cal Poly Pomona University and is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 21 21:29:57 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBM5TpdE098891 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:29:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3706170887 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:29:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:29:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:29:53 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Escaping NY's Angry Masses X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:29:58 -0000 http://www.nypress.com/16/50/news&columns/signorile.cfm Cruisin’ for a Bruisin’ No luxury liner can insulate the GOP from New York’s masses. by Michelangelo Signorile The plan by House Majority Leader, Tom "the Hammer" DeLay, to quarantine Republican politicians, donors, delegates and assorted other GOPers out on a cruise ship in the Hudson during next year’s Republican National Convention has been sunk. But for Bush opponents, there sure is a lot of blood in the water. With Democrats hooting and howling, and many fellow Republicans quietly wincing, DeLay caved, but only after letting the controversy play out for a while, so determined was he to have his colleagues stay docked off Manhattan Island. The dramatic debacle revealed that the Republicans–including Tough Guy DeLay–are wimps of the first order, scared to death of mingling among the Clinton-loving, sodomite-friendly masses. What are they truly afraid of? Some have speculated about a fear of terrorism–that new old standby–particularly since DeLay’s spokesman said the ship would provide an "opportunity to stay in one place, in a secure fashion." But it’s doubtful that security concerns were the main reason for leasing the ship. Putting the Republicans on an ocean liner, after all, only makes for a bigger target. Besides, they’d still have to navigate the streets of the city to get to Madison Square Garden, where the actual convention will take place. And Republican leaders, including the folks in the White House, knew what they were getting into when they picked New York, a major terrorist target. The real fear is of protestors and the negative media coverage caused by them, and for good reason: Hundreds of thousands of angry Bush opponents could quite possibly hit the streets of Manhattan next August 30 to September 2. With the dozens of events that usually punctuate the Republican National Convention–events that would normally take place in restaurants, nightclubs, bars, parks and outdoor spaces all over the city–it will be impossible to control the swarms of demonstrators and keep them out of the range of cameras. A few thousand protestors can be cordoned off in fenced-in pen blocks from the convention site–as the GOP convention planners, in cahoots with local Republican authorities, did at their Houston convention (1992), their San Diego convention (1996) and their Philadelphia convention (2000), all of which I covered. But a hundred thousand people–the size of the anti-war marches here last spring–or even a quarter of that, is a mob too big to keep back in a relatively small, compact place like Manhattan, particularly if various factions among the demonstrators target the different Republican events. At the San Diego convention, I remember when the anti-abortion crowd, led by fanatical, right-wing organizer Phyllis Schlafly, held a "Whale of the Party" day at Sea World. T-shirts and balloons that read "Life of the Party" were handed out. Porpoises and whales frolicked amid the blue-haired ladies carrying dead fetus posters. Yes, it was quite lovely. Where do you suppose they’ll have their bash here? The New York Public Library? The Met? Union Square? And are New Yorkers, and the untold numbers of others who might come into the city to protest, going to let such events go on undisturbed? Not if I–or you, hopefully–can help it. That’s why the ship idea–the 2240-room Norwegian Dawn, with 15 decks and 14 bars and lounges–was brilliant for the Republicans, if they could have pulled it off. It would keep the protestors far away from gatherings, and it would keep the most extreme of the wingnuts locked up, like your crazy old aunt hidden in the attic. It would also provide a space for the upscale fundraisers–the kind filled with glittery, supremely tacky Texans–undeterred by chanting masses or infiltrators who might stand up and make a peaceful but embarrassing protest. When the Republicans decided on New York last January–and when they pushed the convention forward a week so that it would be closer to the 9/11 anniversary, which Bush could milk for photo-ops–there weren’t supposed to be any protestors in New York. In the neo-con hawks’ vision of the future, by next September even New Yorkers, who were as supportive as most of the rest of the country about the war in Afghanistan, would be thankful that we invaded Iraq, found weapons of mass destruction and saved the world. We’d be eternally grateful for Bush’s supposed leadership in the days after 9/11, happy to anoint him during that terrible day’s anniversary right after his party’s convention, believing his insinuations of a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Or, we wouldn’t care whether or not there is such a connection. Things went a vastly different way. And like Bush’s recent, long-planned trip to London, a Republican convention that was planned here a long time ago now seems pretty ill-considered. There’s the anger and resentment among New Yorkers over the administration’s stalling the 9/11 commission, which the White House resisted from the beginning. There’s the cutting of funds for reconstruction and to fight terrorism on the domestic front. We’ve now found out that the air quality after the attacks was pretty horrible, but that Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency didn’t want to tell us perhaps for fear we wouldn’t go back to work. In the lead-up to the war came the demonizing and diminishing of the U.N., which is as much a part of this city as, well, September 11. And then came the war in Iraq itself, which New Yorkers have opposed with more vigor than most of the rest of the country in part because they have been fearful of the ramifications in the form of terrorist attacks in years to come. In the first days after 9/11, people were comforted by Bush’s appearances at Ground Zero, especially since he was promising to find the terrorists who committed the mass murder and destruction, including Osama bin Laden. But nowadays, Bush can’t even say bin Laden’s name. The thought of his using 9/11 as the capper for his convention is enraging to many. And a lot of people, including the families of many victims, will no doubt be making their voices heard during Bush’s convention. In light of all that, the ship idea made sense and was certainly a way to do some damage control and diminish negative publicity. It wasn’t so different from the cancellation of the traditional carriage parade through the streets of London during Bush’s state visit to Buckingham Palace, or his cancellation of a speech before Britain’s Parliament (where the tradition is for opposition party members to heckle a speaker with whom they disagree). Both were chocked up to security concerns. But you have to wonder if speaking before Britain’s Parliament is really more dangerous than flying into Baghdad on Thanksgiving Day, something Bush did with a bunch of reporters at his side. So, the Republicans’ ship may have gone down. But if Bush opponents are smart, we’ll smell that blood in the water and make sure there’s a feeding frenzy at next year’s convention. Michelangelo Signorile hosts a daily radio show on Sirius Satellite Radio, stream 149. He can be reached at http://www.signorile.com From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 22 22:06:48 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBN66ldE097574 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:06:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 41B3670B17 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:06:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:06:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:06:49 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Threats from Computerized Voting Machines X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:06:49 -0000 The Threat From Computerized Voting Machines: A Message from Actor Martin Sheen I am writing to you to ask for your help in preventing a scandal that could shake our nation to the roots of our democratic principles. Please take a moment to send a free fax to your Representative in Congress, and then to pass this letter on to your friends and family in the hope that they will help too. We start with a principle so obvious it seems strange even to write it: For a democracy to work, the people must believe that balloting is conducted fairly and votes are counted accurately. Americans feel justifiable pride that our nation has created a system to ensure this, including provisions for recounts. In the wake of the punch card voting mess in Florida, the federal government dedicated billions of dollars to help states purchase new voting machines. Some pioneering states have begun purchasing a new type of touch screen computerized voting machine. These machines register votes on a memory chip and then digitally transmit the results via telephone modem to election headquarters. We can only hope that neither glitches nor tampering will change or erase any of our votes. We all know that computers sometimes crash and lose data. Power cords get pulled out of the wall. And what better trophy for a hacker--or over zealous campaign worker--than to skew the outcome of the actual election? There is a simple solution to these problems. The California Secretary of State has ordered that these new computerized voting machines print out a paper copy of your vote for your approval before the vote is registered. These printouts would then be saved in case the machines malfunction or there is any question as to whether or not they have been tampered with. Without them we would just have to trust the companies that make the machines--companies like Diebold whose CEO, Walden W. O'Dell, recently wrote in a fundraising letter for the Republicans, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year." Without a paper trail, there is no way to reliably validate an election or conduct a reliable recount. It's that simple. To send a fax (text below) to your Representative urging him or her to support voting machines across the country that we can trust, just go to: http://action.truemajority.org/ctt.asp?u=184283&l=255 POWERFUL LETTER TO THE EDITOR FEATURE Letters to the editor are another powerful way to influence your Congressmembers. This feature uses state-of-the-art technology to make it really easy for you to send a letter to the editor. Click here to give it a try: http://action.truemajority.org/ctt.asp?u=184283&l=261 TrueMajority is working on this important issue with some of our partners, including Working Assets, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, and MoveOn.org. The California Voter Foundation has lots of great links to these groups and news articles about this problem. You can find them here: http://www.calvoter.org/votingtechnology.html The New York Times also did a great editorial on this issue. You can find it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/opinion/08MON1.html So please take a moment to protect your right--our right--to make sure every vote is counted and every election is fair. Thanks for your help, Martin Sheen Here is the letter that TrueMajority will fax to your Member of Congress: Dear Representative: The bedrock upon which any democracy is built is confidence that elections are free, fair and accurate. Yet companies such as Diebold are selling machines that leave no tangible evidence of a person's vote. We all know that computers sometimes crash and data is lost, yet the companies selling these machines refuse to let election officials inspect the inner workings of the machines or software. Please support legislation that would simply require that I as a voter be able to approve a paper copy of my choices before they are registered in the computer. These anonymous paper copies can then be saved. If there is ever a question about the intent of the voters the paper ballots can be checked and both voters and candidates can be confident in the outcome. I urge you to support this simple measure that can prevent a real crisis in our democracy. Sincerely, (We will insert your name and address here.) From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 22 22:08:04 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBN683dE097779 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:08:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0295570A6C for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:08:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:08:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:08:05 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Noam Chomsky on Saddam Hussein's Capture X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:08:04 -0000 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1222-07.htm Published on Monday, December 22, 2003 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Obituaries JAMES KNOX, 78, died peacefully on December 15, 2003. Although born in Nebraska, he lived in Seattle for many years, enjoying all it has to offer including his favorite, live theatre. Jim indulged his curiosity for diverse cultures by traveling worldwide. He resided in both Sweden and Japan, bringing home an appreciation for topless beaches but not sushi. Jim was a man of wit, talent, and many accomplishments. He was a respected educator, historian, and journalist. He was active in politics, educational union development, and most recently, a decorated crossing guard. Jim was known as a crafty bridge player, a smooth dancer, and in his younger days, a connoisseur of fine martinis. As well as a close circle of friends, Jim shared his life with his beautiful and most patient wife Barbro, daughters Diane, Elise, Jules, granddaughters Jennifer, Morelia, and Margaret, grandson Madison, and great-granddaughters Sydney and Quinn. He will be deeply missed but fabulously remembered as the loving, compassionate, and player of wits he was. In lieu of flowers, it would be Jim's wish, to donate to the campaign to Absolutely Not Re-Elect George W. Bush. ------------- http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17435 Dictators R Us By Noam Chomsky December 22, 2003 All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal. An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991. At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times. Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam. With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's reaction overlooked that support. Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally – a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste anymore time on this boring, stale stuff." The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes. For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers. The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East. Sometimes, the repetition of this democracy-building posture reaches the level of rapturous acclaim. Last month, for example, David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator, described the invasion of Iraq as "the most idealistic war in modern times" – fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region. Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, "the Bush administration's idealist in chief," whom he described as a genuine intellectual who "bleeds for (the Arab world's) oppression and dreams of liberating it." Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz's career – like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan. As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines. All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of change of course. So, yes, Wolfowitz's heart bleeds for the victims of oppression – and if the record shows the opposite, it's just that boring old stuff that we want to forget about. One might recall another recent illustration of Wolfowitz's love of democracy. The Turkish parliament, heeding its population's near-unanimous opposition to war in Iraq, refused to let U.S. forces deploy fully from Turkey. This caused absolute fury in Washington. Wolfowitz denounced the Turkish military for failing to intervene to overturn the decision. Turkey was listening to its people, not taking orders from Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C. The most recent chapter is Wolfowitz's "Determination and Findings" on bidding for lavish reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Excluded are countries where the government dared to take the same position as the vast majority of the population. Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss – along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies. What's revealing and important to the future is that Washington's display of contempt for democracy went side by side with a chorus of adulation about its yearning for democracy. To be able to carry that off is an impressive achievement, hard to mimic even in a totalitarian state. Iraqis have some insight into this process of conquerors and conquered. The British created Iraq for their own interests. When they ran that part of the world, they discussed how to set up what they called Arab facades – weak, pliable governments, parliamentary if possible, so long as the British effectively ruled. Who would expect that the United States would ever permit an independent Iraqi government to exist? Especially now that Washington has reserved the right to set up permanent military bases there, in the heart of the world's greatest oil-producing region, and has imposed an economic regime that no sovereign country would accept, putting the country's fate in the hands of Western corporations. Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent – and rhetoric about bestowing freedom and independence. An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the world situation of his day: "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations." Political activist and author Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His new book is "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" (The American Empire Project). This piece originally appeared in The Toronto Star. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 23 23:01:49 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBO71hdE099557 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:01:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1706F70BC5 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:01:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:01:39 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] 2003 P.U.- Litzer Awards X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:01:49 -0000 ANNOUNCING THE P.U.-LITZER PRIZES FOR 2003 By Norman Solomon The P.U.-litzer Prizes were established more than a decade ago to give recognition to the stinkiest media performances of the year. As usual, I have conferred with Jeff Cohen, founder of the media watch group FAIR, to sift through the large volume of entries. In view of the many deserving competitors, we regret that only a few can win a P.U.-litzer. And now, the twelfth annual P.U.-litzer Prizes, for the foulest media performances of 2003: MEDIA MOGUL OF THE YEAR -- Lowry Mays, CEO of Clear Channel While some broadcasters care about their programming, the CEO of America’s biggest radio company (with more than 1,200 stations) admits he cares only about the ads. The Clear Channel boss told Fortune magazine in March: “If anyone said we were in the radio business, it wouldn’t be someone from our company. We’re not in the business of providing news and information. We’re not in the business of providing well-researched music. We’re simply in the business of selling our customers products.” LIBERATING IRAQ PRIZE -- Tom Brokaw Interviewing a military analyst as U.S. jet bombers headed to Baghdad on the first day of the Iraq war, NBC anchor Brokaw declared: “Admiral McGinn, one of the things that we don’t want to do is to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, because in a few days we’re going to own that country.” “THE MORE YOU WATCH, THE LESS YOU KNOW” PRIZE -- Fox News Channel According to a University of Maryland study, most Americans who get their news from commercial TV harbored at least one of three “misperceptions” about the Iraq war: that weapons of mass destruction had been discovered in Iraq, that evidence closely linking Iraq to Al Qaeda had been found, or that world opinion approved of the U.S. invasion. Fox News viewers were the most confused about key facts, with 80 percent embracing at least one of those misperceptions. The study found a correlation between being misinformed and being supportive of the war. “CLEAR IT WITH THE PENTAGON” AWARD -- CNN A month after the invasion of Iraq began, CNN executive Eason Jordan admitted on his network’s “Reliable Sources” show (April 20) that CNN had allowed U.S. military officials to help screen its on-air analysts: “I went to the Pentagon myself several times before the war started and met with important people there and said, for instance -- ‘At CNN, here are the generals we’re thinking of retaining to advise us on the air and off about the war’ -- and we got a big thumbs-up on all of them. That was important.” “CONSERVATIVE TIMES FOR THE ‘LIBERAL’ MEDIA” AWARD -- ABC News Over the years, ABC correspondent John Stossel became known for one-sided, often-inaccurate reporting on behalf of his pro-corporate, “greed is good” ideology. He boasted that his on-air job was to “explain the beauties of the free market,” received lecture fees from corporate pressure groups, and even spoke on Capitol Hill against consumer-protection regulation. In May of this year, when Stossel was promoted to co-anchor of ABC’s “20/20,” a network insider told TV Guide: “These are conservative times. ... The network wants somebody to match the times.” “CODDLING DONALD” PRIZE -- CBS’s Lesley Stahl, ABC’s Peter Jennings and Others On the day news broke about Saddam Hussein’s capture, Stahl and Jennings each interviewed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In step with their mainstream media colleagues, both failed to ask about Rumsfeld’s cordial 1983 meeting with Hussein in Baghdad on behalf of the Reagan administration that opened up strong diplomatic and military ties between the U.S. government and the dictator that lasted through seven years of his worst brutality. MILITARY GROUPIE PRIZE -- Katie Couric of NBC’s “Today” Show “Well, Commander Thompson,” said Couric on April 3, in the midst of the invasion carnage, “thanks for talking with us at this very early hour out there. And I just want you to know, I think Navy SEALs rock.” NOBLESSE OBLIGE OCCUPATION AWARD -- Thomas Friedman, New York Times In a Nov. 30 piece, Times columnist Friedman gushed that “this war (in Iraq) is the most important liberal, revolutionary U.S. democracy-building project since the Marshall Plan.” He lauded the war as “one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad.” Friedman did not mention the estimated 112 billion barrels of oil in Iraq ... or the continuous deceptions that led to the “noble” enterprise. ___________________________________ Norman Solomon is co-author of “Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t Tell You.” For an excerpt and other information, go to: www.contextbooks.com/new.html#target From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 23 23:24:57 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBO7OtdE099884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:24:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A549870BBE for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:24:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:24:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:24:57 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Internal Diebold Memos Released X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:24:57 -0000 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Eric A. Smith Hot Damn! Design +81-03-3959-5371 (in Tokyo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Diebold email: "Make vote printouts too costly for MD" -- Scandals deepen for e-vote manufacturer ANNAPOLIS, Maryland, December 12th — An internal memo has just surfaced suggesting e-vote manufacturer Diebold planned to overcharge the state of Maryland and make voter printouts "prohibitively expensive". An employee named "Ken" wrote the Jan. 3 letter suggesting the company charge Maryland "out the yin" if legislators insisted on printouts. Referring to a University of Maryland study critical of the company's machines, he added: "[The State of Maryland] already bought the system. At this point they are just closing the barn door. Let's just hope that as a company we are smart enough to charge out the yin if they try to change the rules now and legislate voter receipts." He goes on to say "...any after-sale changes should be prohibitively expensive." Delegate Karen S. Montgomery dropped the bombshell on Thursday amid negotiations with Diebold over its touchscreen voting machines. Montgomery, who has written a bill mandating voter-verifiable ballots, described pressure to drop the issue, saying "scurrilous remarks" were being levelled against proponents of the measure. She said she believes the cost is being driven up to prevent anyone from insisting on verifiable printouts. Steven T. Dennis of Gazette.net broke the story yesterday; he said spokesman David Bear deflected criticism by claiming the comments were "the internal discussion of one individual and [do] not reflect the sentiments or the position of the company." Diebold, whose primary business has until recently been ATMs and ticket-vending machines (all of which produce paper printouts), made headlines last week when it dropped copyright-infringement suits against Swarthmore students who had published thousands of its internal memos on the Internet. Prominent among the leaked memos is a missive to Global Election Systems (now Diebold) -- baldly stating that 16 thousand Gore votes were "disappeared" during the 2000 election. Author Lana Hires frantically asks how she should explain the problem to an auditor: > I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 [votes] when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here "looking dumb." Additional memos are equally candid and suggestive: > For a demonstration I suggest you fake it. Program them both so they look the same, and then just do the upload fro [sic] the AV. That is what we did in the last AT/AV demo. > Right now you can open GEMS' .mdb file with MS-Access, and alter its contents. That includes the audit log. This isn't anything new. > Elections are not rocket science. Why is it so hard to get things right! I have never been at any other company that has been so miss [sic] managed. > Johnson County, KS will be doing Central Count for their mail in ballots. They will also be processing these ballots in advance of the closing of polls on election day. They would like to log into the Audit Log an entry for Previewing any Election Total Reports. They need this, to prove to the media, as well as, any candidates & lawyers, that they did not view or print any Election Results before the Polls closed. However, if there is a way that we can disable the reporting functionality, that would be even better. Initially brought to light by activist Bev Harris, these and other alarming disclosures have added weight to the arguments of computer security experts and legislators nationwide, who say that Diebold's machines (as well as those of rivals ES&S and Sequoia) pose a grave risk to America's elections. Harris received over 7,000 of the Diebold memos from an undisclosed source in early September. For the past three years, she has been arguing for greater security and accountability in electronic voting, last year weathering a similar unsuccesful gag lawsuit from e-vote firm ES&S. A month after Harris recieved the memos she went public with them; Diebold immediately launched a gag lawsuit, and Harris's ISP shut down her activist site. A group of Swarthmore students and other activists responded by spreading the memos across the Internet. When Diebold threatened to sue under the auspices of the DMCA, litigators from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU stepped in to defend activists. Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich added significant support by hosting the memos on his own website. Last week, Diebold withdrew its lawsuits. With a new ISP, Harris has resumed her activism, and her book "Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century," can currently be downloaded for free from the site blackboxvoting.org. Meanwhile, on Capital Hill, Congressman Rush Holt has also raised the issue of security, sponsoring the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accountability Act of 2003" (H.R. 2239), which calls for paper ballots, surprise recounts and auditable software in voting machines. But while Holt's bill adds a significant level of transparency to the process, Harris says it doesn't go far enough. In a recent Buzzflash interview, she said: "The problem area, and it is a whopper, is that this bill doesn't attack the crux of the issue, which is proper auditing -- and that is something that is needed for any computerized system, including optical scan machines. The very first thing we need to do is get solid input from auditors who are experienced in fraud detection. While we are designing amendments to the bill, we also must get some people with a solid grasp of history, because we need a voting system that is in keeping with the vision of our founding fathers -- and this is a public policy issue, not a computer issue. The most important thing that we keep forgetting is that the founders, especially Thomas Jefferson, felt that it was critical -- not "important," but CRITICAL to democracy, to keep the vote directly in the hands of the people themselves. Any solution which requires us to trust a handful of experts will, sooner or later, result in the demise of our democracy. That means we need to retain (and enforce) policies to tally the votes at the polls, in front of observers. In some countries, they let as many regular citizens as can fit in the room in to watch the physical counting. It is this neighborhood tallying, and the open and public nature of it, that is the embodiment of democracy." In July, Harris demonstrated just how insecure a Diebold machine could be, showing in a step-by-step expose how to reverse a federal election. New Zealand's Scoop Media posted the illustrated account online. Author Faun Otter and others have also raised the issue of impartiality on the part of Diebold's board, which has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican campaigns. National headlines were made when CEO Michael O'Dell, who recently hosted a $600,000 fundraiser for Vice President Dick Cheney, announced in a Republican fundraising letter that he was "committed to delivering Ohio's votes to the President". But controversy doesn't end with Diebold alone. Rival voting machine company ES&S also came under scrutiny when it surfaced that it was run by Chuck Hagel until two weeks before his own election. Senator Hagel won by the biggest landslide in Nebraskan history; a victory the press characterized as a "stunning upset". His company, ES&S, counted 83% of the votes. Hagel left out details of his ES&S involvement in his SEC filings, and, when the discrepancy surfaced, two days after a closed-door meeting with Hagel SEC legal counsel Victor Baird resigned and the matter was dropped. And Hagel, who prior to his stewardship of ES&S was head of the Private Sector Council for George H.W. Bush, has bigger plans: Harris says the domain name "Bush-Hagel2004.com" was purchased last year but subsequently released and the Senator has already bought the rights to "hagel2008.com" and "ChuckHagel2008.com". Meanwhile Hagel campaign manager Michael McCarthy owns over 30% of ES&S's parent company, and even the Senator hasn't fully divested himself of ownership -- he still has a $5 million stake in ES&S parent company the McCarthy Group. Harris says there are firms offering comparatively secure systems -- competitors Avante, Accupol and Vogue, for example -- but some activists say any machine offers an opportunity for vote tampering. They're calling for a return to simple ballots, though such a solution is unlikely -- Bush's Help America Vote Act mandates a nationwide migration to electronic voting by 2006. Secretary of state Kevin Shelley's recent declaration that all California voting machines must provide printouts may prompt the rest of the country to follow the west’s lead. But it may end up being a matter of too little, too late, as Diebold, ES&S and Sequioa systems are already in place in 37 states. Harris, for one, is calling for a legal injunction to halt the use of any insecure systems prior to the 2004 primaries. If her instincts are right, a fierce battle may loom on the horizon -- a battle for the very heart and soul of America's democracy. ---------------- Officials to phone, fax and email about secure voting: Congress http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ State elections boards: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID29/47.html State Attorneys General (party affiliations listed): http://www.naag.org/ag/full_ag_table.php State Election Officials http://www.nased.org/ Members, Natl. Assoc. of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks: http://www.nacrc.org/leadership/st_coord.htm Penelope Bonsall, national director of the Office of Election Administration Office of Election Administration Federal Election Commission 999 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20463 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (202) 694-1095 (phone) (202) 219-8500 (fax) Online e-petitions EFF and VerifiedVoting.org: http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2821 http://www.verifiedvoting.org Media Contacts: http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/News/ http://newslink.org http://www.cantufind.com/american_newspapers.htm http://dmoz.org/Arts/Radio/Formats/Talk_Radio/Networks/ http://dmoz.org/Arts/Radio/Formats/Talk_Radio/Stations/ http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/Networks/Cable/ http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/Networks/ http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Broadcasting/Information/ From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 24 22:46:19 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBP6kIdE002258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:46:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B81F703C7 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:46:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:46:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:46:19 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Peace at Christmas X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:46:19 -0000 Folksinger John McCutcheon also wrote a famous song about this historic event. You can hear the song, along with an interview we did with him last year by going to: http://archive.webactive.com/pacifica/peacewatch/peace20021224.html -- Scott ---------------------------- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4325510,00.html When peace broke out British and German soldiers made history in 1914 when they stopped shooting and started to sing carols and play football together. Malcolm Brown Guardian Monday December 24, 2001 The facts almost beggar belief. At the first Christmas of a hideous war, Germans and British sang carols to each other, lit each other's cigarettes in no man's land, exchanged souvenirs, took group photographs, even played football. Some sort of accommodation with the enemy, from cheerful waves and shouted greetings to full-scale fraternisation, took place over two-thirds of the 30 miles of the western front held by the British Expeditionary Force. Far from denouncing the event, the press celebrated it with a spate of approving headlines. Leader writers mused thoughtfully about it. Most national and many local newspapers carried letters from soldiers who had taken part in it. In an early example of instant history, none other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle saluted it in a book published in 1915 as "one human episode among all the atrocities which have stained the memory of the war". And then, to all intents, the story was forgotten. It disappeared under the gas clouds of Ypres and the colossal casualty lists of the Somme and Passchendaele. Thus, looking back on that stunning Christmas from the 1920s, a former infantryman who had shared the camaraderie across the lines could write: "Men who joined us later were inclined to disbelieve us when we spoke of the incident, and no wonder, for as the months rolled by, we who were actually there could hardly realise that it had happened, except for the fact that every little detail stood out well in our memory." "Every little detail" - the devil is often said to be in the detail, but not in this story. On Christmas Eve at Plugstreet Wood, Germans put Christmas trees on the parapet of their front-line trench and sang Stille Nacht (Silent Night), then largely unfamiliar to British ears but instantly acknowledged as a carol of extraordinary beauty. Moved to respond the territorials opposite struck up with The First Noël. So it continued until, when the British sang O Come, All Ye Faithful, they heard the Germans joining in with the Latin words Adeste Fideles. Recalling the event many years later, one former soldier commented: "I thought this a most extraordinary thing - two nations both singing the same carol in the middle of the war." A memorable joint burial service between the trenches on Christmas morning offers another uplifting detail. The prayers and readings were spoken first in English by a battalion chaplain and then in German by a young divinity student. "It was an extraordinary and most wonderful sight," wrote one witness. "The Germans formed up on one side, the English on the other, the officers standing in front, every head bared. I think it was a sight one will never see again." To deal decently with the dead was one powerful motive for establishing a truce. The Christmas spirit provided another. "It doesn't seem right to be killing each other at Xmas time," a Tommy noted in his diary. Officers as well as men succumbed to the festive mood. Thus the commanding officer of a guards battalion strode out to join a mixed group of British and Germans and with the cry "Well, my lads, a Merry Christmas to you! This is damned comic, isn't it?" handed round a bottle of best rum which, one participant recorded, was "polished off before you could say knife". Other lubricants assisted the event. Near Armentières the premises and product of a brewery had fallen to the enemy. On Christmas morning, after calling out "Don't shoot", a party of Germans rolled a barrel of best Belgian beer into no-man's-land and indulged in a seasonal booze-up with the British, who in this particular case were Welsh. No nonconformist conscience inhibited these celebrations. Details which seem almost ludicrous enrich the story. A British Tommy met his German barber from High Holborn in London and had a short-back-and-sides between the lines. A German who had raided an abandoned house strutted about wearing a blouse, skirt and top hat and sporting an umbrella. After a bout of between-the-lines photography, one officer wrote in a letter home that another truce had been fixed for new year's day "as the Germans want to see how the photos come out". "Footer", a favourite recreation then as now on both sides, was an inevitable part of the occasion, but there was not one England v Germany fixture as such, rather a scatter of impromptu games or kickabouts, sometimes using a tin can or a rolled-up sandbag as a ball. Here and there a genuine leather ball was produced and a more serious contest attempted. A German lieutenant wrote of one such effort: "We marked the goals with our caps. Teams were quickly established for a match on the frozen mud, and the Fritzes beat the Tommies 3-2". Not everybody approved. One officer, ordered to prepare a more usable pitch by filling in shell holes, angrily refused to comply. This must surely be a very early case of a failure to create a level playing field. The proposed match did not take place. Some Frenchwomen, hearing of the goings-on at the front, spat at members of one battalion next time they were in town. The medical officer of a non-trucing unit, furious at the unsoldierly behaviour of a neighbouring battalion, approvingly reported "a bit of a scrap" between his men and theirs. He wrote home: "We aren't here to pal up with the enemy." Yet the general reaction was one of amazed acceptance of a happening that delighted far more than it dismayed. Letters home confirm the incredible nature of the occasion. "It would have made a good chapter in Dickens's Christmas Carol," wrote one soldier. "Just you think," mused another, "that while you were eating your turkey I was out talking with the men I had been trying to kill a few hours before! It was astounding." The truce was not organised, nor, as it might be assumed, contagious, with units catching the spark from their neighbours. Rather, it was the spontaneous product of a mass of local initiatives. Thus peaceful areas were interlaced with "business as usual" zones where hostilities continued. This could have unhappy results. One sergeant crossing no man's land to offer cigarettes to a friendly German regiment was shot by a sniper from a regiment not observing a ceasefire. He was officially described as "killed in action", his "action" being the distinctly unmilitary one of attempting to carry Woodbines to the enemy. The Germans sent across an apology. Curious as it might seem, the truce produced no courts-martial. Some generals and local commanders huffed, but most senior officers took a relaxed view. A "rest from bullets", as one of their number put it, allowed the troops to work above ground while improving their often inadequate trenches. Both sides appreciated the opportunity. At one point some Tommies, admiring the better progress made by the enemy opposite, went over and asked if they could borrow some of their tools; the Germans complied. One famous participant who responded to the mood of the occasion was the cartoonist Bruce Bairnsfather, creator of the archetypal British Tommy "Ole Bill", who took part as a front-line subaltern. He later wrote: "There was not an atom of hatred on either side that day, and yet, on our side, not for a moment was the will to war and the will to beat them relaxed. It was just like the interval between the rounds of a friendly boxing match." For clearly the war had to go on. Yet in some areas there was no instant rush to resume hostilities. A guards CO noted in his diary on December 28: "I don't think that they want to start more than we do as it only means a few of each side being hit and does not affect the end of the war." A subaltern wrote on the 30th: "At about lunchtime a message came down the line to say that the Germans had sent across to say that their general was coming along in the afternoon, so we had better keep down, as they might have to do a little shooting to make things look right! And this is war!" By early 1915, however, it became clear that the interlude was, or soon would be, over. The Manchester Guardian spoke the necessary words in an article of January 7: "'But they went back into their trenches,' a perfectly enlightened and quite inhuman observer from another planet would perhaps say, 'and are now hard at it again, slaying and being slain.' Evidently their glimpses of the wiser and better way were interesting but of no very great practical importance. To which, of course, we might reply with great reason that there was very much to be done yet - that Belgium must be freed from the hideous yoke that has been thrust upon her, that Germany must be taught that culture cannot be carried by the sword." And after that the story went underground for many years. The play and film Oh! What A Lovely War revived it - to some disbelief - in the 60s. Paul McCartney made a popular video of it to accompany his moving song The Pipes of Peace in 1984. Before that in 1981 I directed a BBC documentary on the subject, under the title Peace in No Man's Land. The book followed three years later. In 1993 an illustrated children's version of the event by Michael Foreman called War Game won a national prize. Now at every Christmas personal accounts of the truce are regularly read from pulpits, on television, on radio. This year sees the publication of a new history under the title Silent Night, the author being the distinguished American historian, Stanley Weintraub. At a time when the world is yet again at war, this strange event of 1914 - with its message of common humanity and goodwill between enemies - has a special relevance. Far from losing its attraction, it is a story that seems to gain in resonance and potency as the years go by. Malcolm Brown, a historian at the Imperial War Museum, is a former BBC TV producer. Christmas Truce, by Malcolm Brown and Shirley Seaton is published by Pan Books. Silent Night, by Stanley Weintraub, is published by Simon and Schuster. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 25 22:09:36 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBQ69YdE098169 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:09:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id ED04D6FBE8 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:09:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:09:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:09:36 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] For Anthony Zinni, Iraq is Another War on Shaky Territory X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 06:09:36 -0000 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22922-2003Dec22.html For Vietnam Vet Anthony Zinni, Another War on Shaky Territory By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, December 23, 2003; Page C01 Anthony C. Zinni's opposition to U.S. policy on Iraq began on the monsoon-ridden afternoon of Nov. 3, 1970. He was lying on a Vietnamese mountainside west of Da Nang, three rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle in his side and back. He could feel his lifeblood seeping into the ground as he slipped in and out of consciousness. He had plenty of time to think in the following months while recuperating in a military hospital in Hawaii. Among other things, he promised himself that, "If I'm ever in a position to say what I think is right, I will. . . . I don't care what happens to my career." That time has arrived. Over the past year, the retired Marine Corps general has become one of the most prominent opponents of Bush administration policy on Iraq, which he now fears is drifting toward disaster. It is one of the more unusual political journeys to come out of the American experience with Iraq. Zinni still talks like an old-school Marine -- a big-shouldered, weight-lifting, working-class Philadelphian whose father emigrated from Italy's Abruzzi region, and who is fond of quoting the wisdom of his fictitious "Uncle Guido, the plumber." Yet he finds himself in the unaccustomed role of rallying the antiwar camp, attacking the policies of the president and commander in chief whom he had endorsed in the 2000 election. "Iraq is in serious danger of coming apart because of lack of planning, underestimating the task and buying into a flawed strategy," he says. "The longer we stubbornly resist admitting the mistakes and not altering our approach, the harder it will be to pull this chestnut out of the fire." Three years ago, Zinni completed a tour as chief of the Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East, during which he oversaw enforcement of the two "no-fly" zones in Iraq and also conducted four days of punishing airstrikes against that country in 1998. He even served briefly as a special envoy to the Middle East, mainly as a favor to his old friend and comrade Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Zinni long has worried that there are worse outcomes possible in Iraq than having Saddam Hussein in power -- such as eliminating him in such a way that Iraq will become a new haven for terrorism in the Middle East. "I think a weakened, fragmented, chaotic Iraq, which could happen if this isn't done carefully, is more dangerous in the long run than a contained Saddam is now," he told reporters in 1998. "I don't think these questions have been thought through or answered." It was a warning for which Iraq hawks such as Paul D. Wolfowitz, then an academic and now the No. 2 official at the Pentagon, attacked him in print at the time. Now, five years later, Zinni fears it is an outcome toward which U.S.-occupied Iraq may be drifting. Nor does he think the capture of Hussein is likely to make much difference, beyond boosting U.S. troop morale and providing closure for his victims. "Since we've failed thus far to capitalize" on opportunities in Iraq, he says, "I don't have confidence we will do it now. I believe the only way it will work now is for the Iraqis themselves to somehow take charge and turn things around. Our policy, strategy, tactics, et cetera, are still screwed up." 'Where's the Threat?' Anthony Zinni's passage from obedient general to outspoken opponent began in earnest in the unlikeliest of locations, the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He was there in Nashville in August 2002 to receive the group's Dwight D. Eisenhower Distinguished Service Award, recognition for his 35 years in the Marine Corps. Vice President Cheney was also there, delivering a speech on foreign policy. Sitting on the stage behind the vice president, Zinni grew increasingly puzzled. He had endorsed Bush and Cheney two years earlier, just after he retired from his last military post, as chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in Iraq. "I think he ran on a moderate ticket, and that's my leaning -- I'm kind of a Lugar-Hagel-Powell guy," he says, listing three Republicans associated with centrist foreign policy positions. He was alarmed that day to hear Cheney make the argument for attacking Iraq on grounds that Zinni found questionable at best: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." Cheney's certitude bewildered Zinni. As chief of the Central Command, Zinni had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar with the intelligence analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' " Though retired for nearly two years, Zinni says, he remained current on the intelligence through his consulting with the CIA and the military. "I did consulting work for the agency, right up to the beginning of the war. I never saw anything. I'd say to analysts, 'Where's the threat?' " Their response, he recalls, was, "Silence." Zinni's concern deepened as Cheney pressed on that day at the Opryland Hotel. "Time is not on our side," the vice president said. "The risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action." Zinni's conclusion as he slowly walked off the stage that day was that the Bush administration was determined to go to war. A moment later, he had another, equally chilling thought: "These guys don't understand what they are getting into." Unheeded Advice This retired Marine commander is hardly a late-life convert to pacifism. "I'm not saying there aren't parts of the world that don't need their ass kicked," he says, sitting in a hotel lobby in Pentagon City, wearing an open-necked blue shirt. Even at the age of 60, he remains an avid weight-lifter and is still a solid, square-faced slab of a man. "Afghanistan was the right thing to do," he adds, referring to the U.S. invasion there in 2001 to oust the Taliban regime and its allies in the al Qaeda terrorist organization. But he didn't see any need to invade Iraq. He didn't think Hussein was much of a worry anymore. "He was contained," he says. "It was a pain in the ass, but he was contained. He had a deteriorated military. He wasn't a threat to the region." But didn't his old friend Colin Powell also describe Hussein as a threat? Zinni dismisses that. "He's trying to be the good soldier, and I respect him for that." Zinni no longer does any work for the State Department. Zinni's concern deepened at a Senate hearing in February, just six weeks before the war began. As he awaited his turn to testify, he listened to Pentagon and State Department officials talk vaguely about the "uncertainties" of a postwar Iraq. He began to think they were doing the wrong thing the wrong way. "I was listening to the panel, and I realized, 'These guys don't have a clue.' " That wasn't a casual judgment. Zinni had started thinking about how the United States might handle Iraq if Hussein's government collapsed after Operation Desert Fox, the four days of airstrikes that he oversaw in December 1998, in which he targeted presidential palaces, Baath Party headquarters, intelligence facilities, military command posts and barracks, and factories that might build missiles that could deliver weapons of mass destruction. In the wake of those attacks on about 100 major targets, intelligence reports came in that Hussein's government had been shaken by the short campaign. "After the strike, we heard from countries with diplomatic missions in there [Baghdad] that the regime was paralyzed, and that there was a kind of defiance in the streets," he recalls. So early in 1999 he ordered that plans be devised for the possibility of the U.S. military having to occupy Iraq. Under the code name "Desert Crossing," the resulting document called for a nationwide civilian occupation authority, with offices in each of Iraq's 18 provinces. That plan contrasts sharply, he notes, with the reality of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation power, which for months this year had almost no presence outside Baghdad -- an absence that some Army generals say has increased their burden in Iraq. Listening to the administration officials testify that day, Zinni began to suspect that his careful plans had been disregarded. Concerned, he later called a general at Central Command's headquarters in Tampa and asked, "Are you guys looking at Desert Crossing?" The answer, he recalls, was, "What's that?" The more he listened to Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist "neoconservative" ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn't understand. "The more I saw, the more I thought that this was the product of the neocons who didn't understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground." And the more he dwelled on this, the more he began to believe that U.S. soldiers would wind up paying for the mistakes of Washington policymakers. And that took him back to that bloody day in the sodden Que Son mountains in Vietnam. A Familiar Chill Even now, decades later, Vietnam remains a painful subject for him. "I only went to the Wall once, and it was very difficult," he says, talking about his sole visit to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the Mall. "I was walking down past the names of my men," he recalls. "My buddies, my troops -- just walking down that Wall was hard, and I couldn't go back." Now he feels his nation -- and a new generation of his soldiers -- have been led down a similar path. "Obviously there are differences" between Vietnam and Iraq, he says. "Every situation is unique." But in his bones, he feels the same chill. "It feels the same. I hear the same things -- about [administration charges about] not telling the good news, about cooking up a rationale for getting into the war." He sees both conflicts as beginning with deception by the U.S. government, drawing a parallel between how the Johnson administration handled the beginning of the Vietnam War and how the Bush administration touted the threat presented by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "I think the American people were conned into this," he says. Referring to the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the Johnson administration claimed that U.S. Navy ships had been subjected to an unprovoked attack by North Vietnam, he says, "The Gulf of Tonkin and the case for WMD and terrorism is synonymous in my mind." Likewise, he says, the goal of transforming the Middle East by imposing democracy by force reminds him of the "domino theory" in the 1960s that the United States had to win in Vietnam to prevent the rest of Southeast Asia from falling into communist hands. And that brings him back to Wolfowitz and his neoconservative allies as the root of the problem. "I don't know where the neocons came from -- that wasn't the platform they ran on," he says. "Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president." He is especially irked that, as he sees it, no senior officials have taken responsibility for their incorrect assessment of the threat posed by Iraq. "What I don't understand is that the bill of goods the neocons sold him has been proven false, yet heads haven't rolled," he says. "Where is the accountability? I think some fairly senior people at the Pentagon ought to go." Who? "That's up to the president." Zinni has picked his shots carefully -- a speech here, a "Nightline" segment or interview there. "My contemporaries, our feelings and sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice," he said at a talk to hundreds of Marine and Navy officers and others at a Crystal City hotel ballroom in September. "I ask you, is it happening again?" The speech, part of a forum sponsored by the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association, received prolonged applause, with many officers standing. Zinni says that he hasn't received a single negative response from military people about the stance he has taken. "I was surprised by the number of uniformed guys, all ranks, who said, 'You're speaking for us. Keep on keeping on.' " Even home in Williamsburg, he has been surprised at the reaction. "I mean, I live in a very conservative Republican community, and people were saying, 'You're right.' " But Zinni vows that he has learned a lesson. Reminded that he endorsed Bush in 2000, he says, "I'm not going to do anything political again -- ever. I made that mistake one time." Staff researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this article. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 25 22:19:28 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBQ6JRdE098412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:19:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BB0856FCEB for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:19:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:19:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:19:28 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Waking Up From the American Dream X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 06:19:28 -0000 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040105&s=krugman The Death of Horatio Alger by PAUL KRUGMAN [from the January 5, 2004 issue] The other day I found myself reading a leftist rag that made outrageous claims about America. It said that we are becoming a society in which the poor tend to stay poor, no matter how hard they work; in which sons are much more likely to inherit the socioeconomic status of their father than they were a generation ago. The name of the leftist rag? Business Week, which published an article titled "Waking Up From the American Dream." The article summarizes recent research showing that social mobility in the United States (which was never as high as legend had it) has declined considerably over the past few decades. If you put that research together with other research that shows a drastic increase in income and wealth inequality, you reach an uncomfortable conclusion: America looks more and more like a class-ridden society. And guess what? Our political leaders are doing everything they can to fortify class inequality, while denouncing anyone who complains--or even points out what is happening--as a practitioner of "class warfare." Let's talk first about the facts on income distribution. Thirty years ago we were a relatively middle-class nation. It had not always been thus: Gilded Age America was a highly unequal society, and it stayed that way through the 1920s. During the 1930s and '40s, however, America experienced what the economic historians Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have dubbed the Great Compression: a drastic narrowing of income gaps, probably as a result of New Deal policies. And the new economic order persisted for more than a generation: Strong unions; taxes on inherited wealth, corporate profits and high incomes; close public scrutiny of corporate management--all helped to keep income gaps relatively small. The economy was hardly egalitarian, but a generation ago the gross inequalities of the 1920s seemed very distant. Now they're back. According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez--confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office--between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they're not an artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age levels of inequality. Never mind, say the apologists, who churn out papers with titles like that of a 2001 Heritage Foundation piece, "Income Mobility and the Fallacy of Class-Warfare Arguments." America, they say, isn't a caste society--people with high incomes this year may have low incomes next year and vice versa, and the route to wealth is open to all. That's where those commies at Business Week come in: As they point out (and as economists and sociologists have been pointing out for some time), America actually is more of a caste society than we like to think. And the caste lines have lately become a lot more rigid. The myth of income mobility has always exceeded the reality: As a general rule, once they've reached their 30s, people don't move up and down the income ladder very much. Conservatives often cite studies like a 1992 report by Glenn Hubbard, a Treasury official under the elder Bush who later became chief economic adviser to the younger Bush, that purport to show large numbers of Americans moving from low-wage to high-wage jobs during their working lives. But what these studies measure, as the economist Kevin Murphy put it, is mainly "the guy who works in the college bookstore and has a real job by his early 30s." Serious studies that exclude this sort of pseudo-mobility show that inequality in average incomes over long periods isn't much smaller than inequality in annual incomes. It is true, however, that America was once a place of substantial intergenerational mobility: Sons often did much better than their fathers. A classic 1978 survey found that among adult men whose fathers were in the bottom 25 percent of the population as ranked by social and economic status, 23 percent had made it into the top 25 percent. In other words, during the first thirty years or so after World War II, the American dream of upward mobility was a real experience for many people. Now for the shocker: The Business Week piece cites a new survey of today's adult men, which finds that this number has dropped to only 10 percent. That is, over the past generation upward mobility has fallen drastically. Very few children of the lower class are making their way to even moderate affluence. This goes along with other studies indicating that rags-to-riches stories have become vanishingly rare, and that the correlation between fathers' and sons' incomes has risen in recent decades. In modern America, it seems, you're quite likely to stay in the social and economic class into which you were born. Business Week attributes this to the "Wal-Martization" of the economy, the proliferation of dead-end, low-wage jobs and the disappearance of jobs that provide entry to the middle class. That's surely part of the explanation. But public policy plays a role--and will, if present trends continue, play an even bigger role in the future. Put it this way: Suppose that you actually liked a caste society, and you were seeking ways to use your control of the government to further entrench the advantages of the haves against the have-nots. What would you do? One thing you would definitely do is get rid of the estate tax, so that large fortunes can be passed on to the next generation. More broadly, you would seek to reduce tax rates both on corporate profits and on unearned income such as dividends and capital gains, so that those with large accumulated or inherited wealth could more easily accumulate even more. You'd also try to create tax shelters mainly useful for the rich. And more broadly still, you'd try to reduce tax rates on people with high incomes, shifting the burden to the payroll tax and other revenue sources that bear most heavily on people with lower incomes. Meanwhile, on the spending side, you'd cut back on healthcare for the poor, on the quality of public education and on state aid for higher education. This would make it more difficult for people with low incomes to climb out of their difficulties and acquire the education essential to upward mobility in the modern economy. And just to close off as many routes to upward mobility as possible, you'd do everything possible to break the power of unions, and you'd privatize government functions so that well-paid civil servants could be replaced with poorly paid private employees. It all sounds sort of familiar, doesn't it? Where is this taking us? Thomas Piketty, whose work with Saez has transformed our understanding of income distribution, warns that current policies will eventually create "a class of rentiers in the U.S., whereby a small group of wealthy but untalented children controls vast segments of the US economy and penniless, talented children simply can't compete." If he's right--and I fear that he is--we will end up suffering not only from injustice, but from a vast waste of human potential. Goodbye, Horatio Alger. And goodbye, American Dream. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 26 21:54:07 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBR5s6dE094837 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:54:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C73A70468 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:54:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:54:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:54:08 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Antiwar Family's Conflict as Son Dies in Iraq X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:54:08 -0000 Published on Friday, December 26, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times Antiwar Family's Conflict Fervent peace activists sort through complex emotions as they mourn a son killed in Iraq. He died a hero, they say -- a parents' contradiction. by Tomas Alex Tizon KENT, Wash. — Joe Colgan glances at it almost every time he walks into his bedroom: a cardboard box sitting inconspicuously in a corner. It's a care package he had prepared for his son Ben. Inside are items Ben requested: a couple of books, pistachios, canned salmon, beef jerky and a big bag of candy from Costco. Ben liked to pass out candy to children in the street. Joe assembled the package on Nov. 1, not knowing that on the same day, 6,800 miles away in Baghdad, Ben, a second lieutenant in the Army, would be killed by a roadside bomb. More than a month and a half later, Joe still doesn't know what to do with the box. "I know I should give it away," he says, "but I can't seem to let it go yet." The grief is still settling, like a slow sinking to the bottom of the ocean, and somehow, for Joe, the package is something to hold on to. In the midst of their anguish, Joe and Patricia Colgan have clung tightly to one other thing: the idea that their son Ben died a hero. It's a simple idea born out of complicated emotions. The Colgans are longtime peace activists who have opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. They marched in antiwar demonstrations before Ben was deployed to Baghdad. Joe and Patricia Colgan still believe the war to be "completely wrong" and "unjust." "I know it seems like a contradiction. How can your son be a hero in an unjust war?" Joe says. "It's the contradiction of a parent. We had a son in the Army, and we supported him no matter what. He did what the commander in chief wanted. He died doing what he believed in; he died doing what he loved. That's a hero." In the next breath, Joe Colgan, 62, holds his head in his hands. "I'm still sorting it out," he says softly. Patricia Colgan, 60, says she, too, has lingering questions. "After the war started, I prayed every day on my way to work: 'Sweet Jesus, please protect Ben; please put your arms around Ben; please don't take him yet,' " she says. "That prayer wasn't answered. I don't know why." Ben Colgan, 30, was slain on the first day of the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq since the war began. November saw 77 U.S. service members killed. A total of 466 soldiers have died in Iraq, 328 of them since the end of major combat on May 1. For families across the nation, as with the Colgans, the war reached home. It was a wet Sunday morning on Nov. 2 when the metallic gray pickup parked outside the Colgan home in an older, wooded subdivision in this working-class town south of Seattle. Two Army chaplains got out and knocked on the front door. Even before they spoke, Patricia spotted the gold crosses on their lapels and sensed why they were there. She let out a cry. Joe rushed into the living room and saw the uniformed figures in the doorway. "I don't want to hear it," he said to the chaplains. "I don't want to hear it." He took a few steps and raised a fist in the air as if to strike a wall, but held back. The chaplains described the little they knew about the circumstances of Ben's death, and informed the Colgans that the Army had given him a posthumous promotion to first lieutenant. They said his body would be shipped home in about a week. As the chaplains left, the Colgan home filled with wails. Family members took turns with the telephone to break the news. Within hours, all of Ben's seven siblings, his eight aunts and uncles and most of his 32 first cousins were at the house, crying and consoling one another. They told each other Ben stories and began immediately to scour the extended network of Colgan households for pictures of Ben. Suddenly, pictures of him became precious. In the days that followed, grief was overcome by the business of getting Ben home, his body cremated, his life memorialized, his soul ushered into heaven. Four days after Ben's death, nearly 50 members of the Colgan family flew to Aurora, Mo., where Ben's wife of six years, Jill, and their two young daughters had been living with her father. Jill, who has turned down all media interviews, gave birth to a third daughter on Dec. 19. She and the kids had moved in with her father shortly after Ben left for Baghdad. Ben's body was cremated in Aurora. The Colgans returned home in mid-November to prepare Ben's memorial service to be held at St. Philomena Catholic Church in Des Moines, Wash., a few miles from their home. There were hundreds of people to invite. "I don't want the day to just pass," says Gina Johnson, Ben's oldest sister. "I want this to be special for Ben." The family had two weeks to send invitations and make all the arrangements. Ben's mother and sisters feverishly set to work, keeping him close to their hearts: Dangling from thin silver chains around each of their necks were tear-shaped lockets containing Ben's ashes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Colgans are a picture of stability. Joe and Patricia married in 1966. That year, Joe started working at a local utility company, where he has remained for 37 years. They live in the same house they bought for $13,500 in 1967. And they raised all eight of the children in its confines. The children, now ages 18 to 35, were baptized in the same church, attended the same schools, shared many of the same teachers and, except for Ben, lived in the same area — within a half-hour drive of Joe and Patricia's house. It was a raucous Irish American Catholic clan, light on niceties and heavy on bawdy humor. The family was devoted to Christian service and activism. Joe and Patricia protested the Vietnam War and the nuclear arms race. As members of the Catholic peace group Pax Christi, the couple demonstrated against the Trident nuclear submarines at nearby Bangor Naval Base, which they considered "immoral." Mohandas K. Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., champions of nonviolent protest, were held up as models. Toy guns were not allowed in the home. "Benny was right there with us," says Joe, recalling the protest marches at Bangor. "He was only 12, but he understood." More than their other children, Joe and Patricia say, Ben seemed to sympathize and accept his parents' convictions. At home, Ben was equal parts peacemaker and rabble-rouser. He had bright blue eyes and blond hair that darkened as he got older. He grew to have his father's physique: short and stocky, with muscular arms and legs. He had a grin that seemed built in to his face. Family members describe him as the sparkplug of the clan, the bighearted jokester everybody loved. The free spirit who took up bull-riding on a whim, took his parents' car on joy rides and introduced his little brother, Nick, to whiskey. As a senior at Mount Rainier High School, Ben, a 5-foot-7, 165-pound linebacker, helped the football team reach the Class AA state championship. "We saw him as invincible," says sister Gina. >From out of the blue, it seemed to his family, Ben decided to join the Army right after high school. He respected his parents' convictions but was also developing his own ideas. He wasn't sure what to do with his life, and the military gave him a way to explore the world. The decision surprised and distressed his parents. Patricia described the period just after the decision as difficult. Their concern was allayed somewhat when Ben said he wanted to be a medic. His mother told him repeatedly that her constant prayer would be that he never kill another human being. But Ben's military career, which lasted more than 11 years, took unexpected turns. He joined Special Forces and for a while was part of the Army's most elite and secretive combat group, the Delta Force. He learned to be a sniper and a paratrooper. He could shoot pistols with deadly accuracy using either hand. "He was a highly trained killer," says Joe, with astonishment rather than judgment. "Don't say 'killer,' " Gina interjects. "Just say 'highly trained.' " It wasn't until later in his career that he decided to become an officer. Ben's unit — Headquarters Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Armored Division — was assigned to Iraq just days after the first American bombs were dropped on Baghdad. Before the unit left, Joe and Patricia visited Ben and Jill at a U.S. base in Giessen, Germany. The parents argued with Jill over the war, with Ben trying to play mediator. Emotions heated up to the point that, after Joe and Patricia went to bed, Ben and Jill stayed awake all night. "Ben felt strongly Saddam had to go," Joe recalled. "He knew where we stood, and he knew we supported him even if we didn't support the war." The visit at Giessen in late March was the last time they saw him. From then on, Ben communicated through e-mail. He wrote family members that he was in Baghdad, working out of a palace formerly owned by one of Saddam Hussein's sons. For the first few months, his e-mails were optimistic, talking about electricity restored and schools reopened. But the tone changed toward the end. He told of seeing a vehicle in front of him in a convoy explode. In an e-mail sent in late October, he wrote his parents that it "was getting old and it was getting crazy." Early morning on Nov. 1, Ben Colgan wrote his last e-mail to his father. "We treat the people very well," he wrote. "They are just getting sick of seeing our faces and we're sick of seeing theirs…. I see the news also. Many of the good things are not being reported (as well as many of the attacks we receive daily). Only time will tell and I hope it works out for this place. I just don't care to ever visit again. "I'll talk to you soon. Love you, Ben." Hours after writing the e-mail, he was dead. The most complete account of what happened came in a roundabout way, through a eulogy. Lt. Col. William S. Rabena, Ben's commanding officer, spoke at a memorial in Baghdad four days after Ben died, and copies of the eulogy were sent to the family. According to Rabena, Ben's platoon patrolled one of the most dangerous sections of the city. On his last day, Ben was in charge of a quick-reaction force, a unit on call to respond to immediate dangers. A call came in: U.S. soldiers were in pursuit of a man who had fired a rocket-propelled grenade. Ben took off with three other soldiers in a Humvee to cut off the suspect. He was in the passenger seat. On a well-traveled section of road, just as the Humvee made a turn, it hit what the military calls an "improvised explosive device," in this case something resembling a land mine. Ben was struck with shrapnel, and much of the right side of his head was injured. He was conscious at first, able to answer questions about who and where he was. Four hours later, he died. One other soldier in the Humvee suffered a concussion. "Nobody, but nobody, was more dedicated to the mission," Rabena said in his eulogy. He described Ben as "absolutely fearless" and "the greatest guy around — the kind of guy you want living next door to you and your family." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the day the Colgans learned of Ben's death, a family member lit a candle and placed it beneath "Ben's tree," a Japanese maple in the frontyard. Joe and Patricia had planted a tree for every one of their children. Around the tree's trunk was a yellow ribbon, which Patricia had tied shortly after Ben left for Iraq. Just below that hung a black ribbon, which she tied the day the chaplains came to the house. Below the ribbons, the candle flickered in a brass-colored lantern. Joe was vigilant about tending it. There was talk that the candle would remain lit until the memorial service, which took place on the cloudy afternoon of Nov. 29. In all, Ben had three memorial services: one in Baghdad for his fellow soldiers, one in Aurora for Jill's family, and one here, in the town that was home for most of his life. The vast extended family poured into St. Philomena's, as did old childhood friends. Some 650 people filled the pews and packed the aisles. Metal chairs from the closet were brought out to accommodate the overflow. The service opened with a rendition of "Amazing Grace" played on bagpipes, followed by a reading by one of Ben's aunts of Ecclesiastes 3:1-9. It began: "For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die." Quiet sobs could be heard throughout the sanctuary. Afterward, the crowd jammed into a nearby high school to eat, drink and celebrate the memory of Ben — Irish-Catholic style. A slide show of Ben's life was followed by a dance. Young children danced with elders, girls with girls, first cousins with second cousins. At the end of the long day, in pitch darkness, Joe and Patricia, weary from the hectic pace of the last month, went home to the orange-yellow glow flickering in their frontyard. The private part of grieving was upon them. Joe decided not to blow out the candle. He'd decided to build a small memorial for Ben in the backyard. He didn't have the details worked out, but he knew in the center of it would be the candle lantern. "I think I'm going to keep it burning," he said. "I'm just going to keep it burning for as long as we need to." Joe said he has two other projects in mind for the start of the new year. First, he's going to lobby the Army to give Ben a Medal of Honor, the U.S. military's highest honor. Second, he says he is going to campaign for an antiwar presidential candidate. Inside the house, in his bedroom, there was still the matter of the care package. Every so often, Joe told himself that someone else could benefit from the contents. But the thought never went very far. Every time, and without fully understanding why, something in his gut told him that he needed to hang on to it for just a little while longer. "It was for Benny," he says for explanation. "It was for my son." From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 26 21:57:58 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBR5vvdE095054 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:57:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 15DAB70623 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:57:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:57:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:57:59 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] Time for Truth on DU X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:57:58 -0000 Published on Monday, December 22, 2003 by http://www.TomPaine.com A Time For Truth On DU by Steven Rosenfeld The health impacts of depleted uranium (DU) munitions on soldiers who served in the Iraq and the Persian Gulf Wars will be studied by Congress' General Accounting Office, according to two congressmen who have requested a new investigation into whether the Pentagon has ignored the medical consequences of the armaments. "We are requesting further investigation by the GAO of the study of veterans exposed to DU during the 1991 Gulf War, and an assessment of current DoD [Department of Defense] and DVA [Department of Veterans Affairs] policies to identify and provide medical care for veterans exposed to DU during Operation Iraqi Freedom," wrote Reps. Bob Filner, D-Calif., and Ciro Rodriguez, D-Texas, in a Dec. 3 letter requesting the congressional inquiry. "There are many uncertainties about depleted uranium, but one thing is clear: the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs have refused to conduct an adequate study of veterans exposed to DU on the battlefield," said Dan Fahey, a former board member of the National Gulf War Resource Center, a veterans organization, who helped the congressmen frame the GAO inquiry. "Congressmen Filner and Rodriguez have once again demonstrated their concern for the health of veterans by asking the GAO to investigate what appear to be serious flaws in the VA's study of veterans exposed to DU," Fahey said. "The Pentagon has admitted that thousands of veterans may have been "unnecessarily" exposed to DU during and after the 1991 war—including approximately 900 veterans with significant exposures—but this year the VA assessed the health status of just 32 veterans." The GAO study of DU's health impacts on soldiers is significant because the very dense and slightly radioactive metal is used extensively in bullets and shells fired by U.S. tanks and jets. It is a byproduct of making nuclear fuel and is more effective than lead bullets, making DU bullets and warheads a key component of the military's arsenal. DU projectiles puncture almost all metal targets. Due to its m ass and velocity, it breaks up and vaporizes into micron-sized particles upon impact. The Pentagon says DU is safe, but veteran advocates are skeptical, saying the military should scientifically study the most-exposed soldiers to see if they develop illnesses tied to low-level radiation exposure. Such exposure would come from either inhaling or ingesting airborne DU particles from destroyed Iraqi targets or from friendly fire accidents, and the related emergency responses and subsequent clean up. The health impacts of DU have been a controversial issue. Some anti-nuclear activists say there are traces of deadly nuclear isotopes in the metal, because it is made from spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants. But leading medical journals in the United States and England say more study is needed before definitive conclusions can be reached. In Iraq, where the Christian Science Monitor last spring reported an estimated 75 tons of the metal was used by the U.S. Air Force last winter and remains scattered on the ground, the military has posted signs in some places warning people to stay away from destroyed targets. Subsequent statements by the British and American militaries lead independent analysts to estimate that 100-to-150 metric tons of DU was used in the Iraq War. The congressmen, drawing on research prepared by Fahey, have asked the GAO to study whether DU can be linked to cancers and other diseases among Iraq and Persian Gulf War veterans. Before the Iraq War, Fahey unsuccessfully tried to persuade the VA to independently study these same issues. "DoD's own laboratory studies confirm DU may cause cancer, tumors, neurological damage, and reproductive effects, but the possible connection between DU and disease development in the vast majority of exposed veterans remains unexamined, and therefore, unknown," the congressmen’s letter said. "This is of particular concern because it is now almost 13 years since the war, and the latency period for the development of many cancers possibly related to DU is 10 to 30 years." They cited Fahey's belief that the Pentagon officials have made "false statements" about "the existence of a rare Hodgkin's lymphoma and a bone tumor among veterans in the DU Program, signaling a breakdown in the integrity of the study." "On at least two occasions in 2001, DoD spokesmen falsely claimed that no veterans in the DU Program had developed cancer, in an apparent attempt to dampen controversy in Europe about the use of DU munitions in the Balkans," they wrote. "In addition, in April 2003, an Army doctor was quoted in press stories falsely claiming that no veterans in the DU Program had developed any tumors. These prevarications beg the question of whether other health effects have been observed among these veterans, but not reported." That "army doctor" was Dr. Michael Kilpatrick of the Office of the Special Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, who is among the top-raking Pentagon officials who create military health policy. Those remarks were made at a NATO briefing. The congressman also noted that the Pentagon "previously misled" GAO investigators and the Department of Veterans Affairs about "the extent of veterans' exposures to DU during the 1991 war" and said there was "cause for concern that DoD is not providing complete and accurate information about DU exposures in Iraq." Fahey said this pattern of repressing information continues to this day. "The VA is failing in its duty to assist veterans exposed to a known carcinogen on the battlefield, but sadly, it appears that the Pentagon is calling the shots when it comes to DU policy," Fahey said. "Even now, as our troops continue to fight and die in Iraq, the Pentagon refuses to disclose information about its use of DU, or release information to the United Nations Environment Programme about the quantities and locations of DU expenditure." He said a serious inquiry by the GAO could clear up these and other unknowns. "There is a serious lack of transparency and accountability when it comes to Pentagon and VA policy on DU, but this GAO investigation is a huge first step in understanding what—if any—health effects DU has caused among U.S. troops." Congressmen Filner and Rodriguez said the results of the GAO study could lead to legislation reorganizing the military's DU health programs. "Depending on the findings of this GAO investigation, we may wish to introduce legislation requiring a restructuring of the DU Program and extending service-connected benefits to veterans who develop health conditions, such as certain types of cancer that can plausibly be caused by a significant DU exposure," they wrote. The GAO investigation would most likely be completed by next summer. Steven Rosenfeld is a senior editor for http://www.TomPaine.com. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Dec 27 23:00:24 2003 Received: from mail.riseup.net (mail.riseup.net [216.162.217.191]) by typhoon.enabled.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBS70MdE094656 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:00:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from mail.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.riseup.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B7A7F6FB19 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:00:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user parallax) by mail.riseup.net with HTTP; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:00:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:00:23 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: [pjnews] 1/2 Mad Cow Disease: The Chemical Industry Plays Dirty X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Peace + justice news and commentaries <peace-justice-news.enabled.com> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/peace-justice-news> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 07:00:24 -0000 see also: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1224-02.htm First Case of Mad Cow Disease in US http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1225-01.htm Expert Warned That Mad Cow Was Imminent -------------- http://www.free-news.org/pkaiuk01.htm Mad Cow Disease. The Chemical Industry Plays Dirty. By Paul Kail, PhD. BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy), or Mad Cow Disease, and its human form, nvCJD (New Variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease), are incurable brain disorders. Holes appear in victims' brains, then they become demented and die. The diseases are not caused by a virus or a bacterium, but by a mysterious type of twisted protein, known as a «prion». The prion can propagate itself by causing other proteins to twist into the same shape. Prions can be passed on by eating the flesh of another animal, and are resistant to cooking and digestion. A theory about how prions are formed suggests that organophosphate pesticides could be partly to blame. Two people have already died defending this theory, apparently at the hands of professional assassins working either for the British government or the chemical industry. So the theory needs to be taken seriously. BSE first appeared in the UK in 1985. Since then, the disease has affected half of the cow herds in the country. New Variant CJD also first appeared in the UK, ten years later: to date, around 90 people have died from it. Both BSE and CDJ are beginning to spread throughout the rest of Europe; today, 30 European countries have had exports of their cattle banned. The diseases have the potential to destroy the entire European cattle industry, and kill thousands of people. The death toll from nvCJD is increasing by 35% per year, and the disease has a gestation period of twenty years. Some projections suggest that hundreds of thousands of people could eventually die from it. Given the huge amount at stake, one might expect that any credible theory would be welcomed. Yet Mark Purdey, a British farmer from Somerset, has suffered constant harassment and has had to support his research from his own pocket. Purdey has a theory which might explain the mystery of why BSE and new variant nvCJD started in the UK, and why they are so much more serious there. However, since he went public with his ideas, some rather unfortunate things have happened: Both his vet and the lawyer defending his case died in suspicious road accidents. His second lawyer also had a car crash, but survived. When an article about his work appeared in the «Independent», a national British newspaper, his telephone lines were cut. He was therefore unable to take follow up calls from other papers and television stations. His farm house was burnt down just before he was about to move in. His science library was destroyed by a collapsing barn. When he travels around the country to talk about his theory, he is constantly trailed. Purdey believes that the root cause of BSE is an imbalance of magnesium and copper, exacerbated, in the case of the UK, by the use of a highly toxic pesticide known as phosmet. Phosphet is an organophosphate nerve toxin, originally developed by the Nazis. It is also related to the drug Thalidamide, which causes birth defects. Phosmet is made by Zeneca, a subdivision of the British chemical giant ICI. A week after the British government first announced the link between BSE and nvCJD, Zeneca sold the patent for phosmet to a PO Box company in Arizona, apparently to avoid potential legal action. The theory started when Purdey noticed that his cows, unlike those of his neighbours, were not getting BSE. Cows often suffer from a parasitic infection known as warble fly. Since Purdey is an organic farmer, he treated his herd with derris root powder, a natural remedy. Other farmers were using phosmet, which was later made compulsory throughout the UK. When Purdey bought an infected cow from another herd, he was able to reduce the symptoms of BSE by injecting oxime, which is an antidote to pesticide poisoning. However, officials from MAFF (the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) turned up to kill the cow before the experiment could be completed. As well as the link to phosmet use, Purdey discovered that brain diseases such as BSE and nvCJD appear in clusters in many places around the world. The link seems to be a lack of copper and an excess of manganese. For example, in some areas of Colorado and Wyoming, 4-6% of deer and elk suffer from CWD (Chronic Wasting Disease), which is related to nvCJD. These animals live in areas where the soils are very high in manganese. In Slovakia, where the incidence of nvCJD is a thousand times higher than normal, most of the victims live near a glass making plant (where manganese is used) or else down-wind of one of two large ferro-manganese factories. In the UK, two factors have increased the amount of manganese which cows consume. Until 1988, cows were fed chicken manure. The chicken had been fed manganese to strengthen their eggs, but 98% of it ended up in the manure. In addition, a fungicide rich in manganese was used on crops at that time. According to Purdey, a lack of copper and an excess of manganese causes proteins in the nervous system of foetal cattle to change into the abnormal prion forms found in BSE and nvCJD. Phosmet facilitates this process by binding to copper, and therefore reducing the amount available to brain tissues. Recently, Dr David Brown, a chemist at Cambridge University, showed that manganese can replace copper in brain proteins, thereby transforming them into prions. Dr Brown lost his funding, and was not able to continue the research. The BSE crisis started in the UK, and that country still has the highest rate of the disease. Purdey believes that this was because the British government was the only one to enforce systemic phosmet at such a high dose. Phosmet is used elsewhere, but either on a voluntary basis, or at a much lower dose, or non-systemically. However, there is a long lag between the peak of phosmet use and the incidence of BSE. Purdey says that this is for two reasons. First, cows are most susceptible to phosmet damage when they are in the womb. Second, phosmet has to reach a certain concentration in the food-chain before it has an effect. Quite apart from the direct attacks on Mr Purdey, the chemical industry have launched a media campaign to discredit his research. Although MAFF claims that any credible theories for BSE will receive funding, Purdey has received nothing. The effort that the chemical industry has apparently gone to to discredit Mark Purdey mirrors the experiences of Alice Stewart, the scientist who first showed the link between radiation and cancer. Scientists who supported her had their cars rammed. Maybe in this case as well, the truth will come out in the end. Dr. Paul Kail has a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Cambridge University and is founder and Director of the Animal Consciousness Foundation, which can be reached via http://www.animals.org ------------------ see also: http://www.squall.co.uk/squall.cfm/ses/sq=2001061947/ct=2 MAD COW COVER UP An organic farmer from Somerset has gathered convincing evidence to suggest that the outbreak of BSE in the UK was a direct result of a commercial pesticide. Si Mitchell talks to a man who despite being shot at and having his house burnt down, persists in attempts to expose the commercial cover-up...
