Earths.net

5/26/02
2:00:44 PM

3 Little Jokes

1) The Ape

One day the zoo keeper noticed that the ape was reading two books -- the Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species. In surprise he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books?"

"Well," said the ape, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."

2) Department of Fish and Wildlife Warning

The Louisiana State Department of Fish and Wildlife is advising hikers, hunters, fishermen, and golfers to take extra precautions and keep alert for alligators while in St. Tammany, Jefferson, & Orleans Parish. They advise people to wear noise-producing devices such as "little bells" on their clothing to alert, but not startle the alligators, unexpectedly.

They also advise the carrying of "pepper spray" in case of an encounter with an alligator. It's also a good idea to watch for fresh signs of alligator activity and be able to recognize the difference between young alligator and adult alligator droppings. Young alligator droppings are small, contain fish bones and possibly bird feathers.

Adult alligators droppings have little bells in them and smell like pepper.

3) In the Waiting Room

I was sitting in the waiting room of the hospital after my wife had gone into labour and the nurse walked out and said to the man sitting next to me, "Congratulations sir, you're the new father of twins!"

The man replied, "How about that, I work for the Doublemint Chewing Gum Company." The man then followed the woman to his wife's room.

About an hour later, the same nurse entered the waiting room and announced that Mr. Smith's wife has just had triplets. Mr. Smith stood up and said, "Well, how do ya like that, I work for the 3M Company."

The gentleman that was sitting next to me then got up and started to leave. When I asked him why he was leaving, he remarked, "I think I need a breath of fresh air." The man continued, "I work for 7-UP."

5/26/02
1:50:41 PM

A Tomato Fish Or A Fish Tomato?

by Rosa Silver, Kauai

I remember when I was a child growing up in the seventies and my Mom took me to see Woody Allen's comedy about the future, Sleeper. Most memorable was a chase scene through a garden of human-size vegetables with Woody forever sliding on a giant banana peel.

Ironic as it may seem, the existence of giant vegetables is, today, a possibility. We are on the edge of a new age in science, food production, and life on earth; the age of biotechnology, and more specifically, genetic engineering. Hawaii has more test fields for genetically modified crops than any other state in the U.S., with our share of Biotech companies and their fields stationed here on Kauai. The University of Hawaii is about to open a Biotechnology Center in Hilo. What is this new frontier we are entering and are we prepared?

In the 1970's scientists discovered a way to artificially alter or transfer genes from one organism to another. Genes are made of DNA and contain the instructions by which cells produce proteins. These proteins dictate a cell's function in the specific organism. A flounder, for example survives in the cold. Scientists could now take genes from a fish and insert them into a tomato. Why? They wanted to create a tomato that would be more frost resistant.

In the 1980's Biotechnology companies began field-testing GMO (genetically modified organism) crops for large-scale agricultural use. By 1996, GMO grains were mixed with non-GMO grains and sent to food processing plants all over America. Corn, soy and their by-products (from corn syrup to soy's "protein-enriched" additive) are used in hundreds of products. But GMOs are not only found in grains. Various genetically altered products are found in over 60 percent of all processed foods on the U.S. market, and the market continues to expand with each new genetic alteration. Chances are, you have been eating GMOs for years.

But how would you know? GMO products are not labeled. And because they are not labeled, how could we track possible side effects? Environmental and food safety groups are busy fighting for mandatory labeling of all GMOcontaining products. Biotech companies claim that these foods are safe and do not need to be labeled. Watchdog groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists believe this technology deserves special scrutiny. Jenny Rissler, former EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) scientist, explains, "The government and the industry have been too eager to assume that these plants, these crops, are substantially equivalent to existing ones. . . . But I don't think that they have done the kind of testing that a lot of us would want, to really establish the substantial equivalence. I can understand why industry and government have taken this route. For many years, they have been successful in reversing the burden of proof. The industry is not forced to prove relative safety. Rather, the burden of proof is on people like us to show that there's some risk."

But what are the risks? Many of the questions raised focus on health and the environment. How could GMOs threaten our health? What is the effect of long-term exposure? Do we want to be ingesting a plant substance that has been genetically modified to also be an herbicide? The Federal Department of Agriculture (FDA) has already warned of the decreased effectiveness of antibiotics due to the widespread use of GMO antibiotic-resistant genes on U.S. dairy farms and the UK Ministry of Agriculture cautions of the same potential risks to eight powerful antibiotics used in fighting fatal diseases. But an even greater concern is the FDA warning that GMOs could trigger allergic reactions, for some consumers this is quite dangerous.

For example, one biotech company engineered a soybean with a gene from a Brazil nut, to aid in pest resilience. (Brazil nuts are not prone to bug infestation.) Many people are allergic to Brazil nuts, some to life-threatening levels. As an example, if someone with a severe allergy to Brazil nuts were to eat, say, this specific GMO soy in tofu, they could have an outbreak. Luckily a laboratory test picked up the allergen and the soy never made it to our supermarkets.

But it goes even further. Jeremy Rifkin, author of the controversial book, "The Biotech Century" explains, "We know that 8 percent of children and 2 percent of adults have allergenic reactions to traditional foods. What we're dealing with is the introduction of new genetic foods that have genes that code for proteins that we've never consumed. We just don't know what the reaction's likely to be." A recent study done by the York Nutritional Laboratory in the UK, illustrated a 50% increase in soy allergies during 1998, a time when production of GE soy crops jumped dramatically. This was the first time in seventeen years that soy ranked so high as an allergen. Also in the report, rats that ate the transgenic soy experienced retarded growth and cows fed the same, showed shifted fat levels in their milk.

There are numerous reports raising questions about the safety of GMOs, especially to our heath. One of the most controversial was the published work of Dr. Arpad Pusztai. Dr. Pusztai is a respected Hungarian Biochemist who was working on a three-year project funded by the British government. During his study he was feeding rats genetically engineered and non-GMO potatoes. Pusztai reported and published in the noted medical journal, The Lancet, that GMO-fed rats suffered unusual thickening of the stomach and intestine lining and a weakening of their immune system. Some scientists criticized his methods.

What about the impact of genetic manipulation on the environment? Mainstream media took a good look at this threat when a Cornell University laboratory demonstrated that GE corn crops could be fatal to monarch butterflies. The monarch has now become a symbol of the potential threat to all species on the planet. How is our environment at risk?

Biotechnology is not very precise. During the genetic manipulation process, the location where a gene is inserted into an organism's genetic code is uncontrollable. Also a stable expression of the gene into the new genetically engineered organism is not guaranteed. This is why when scientists tried to clone an animal; they ended up with hundreds of deformities and other mutations before they finally succeeded. Scientists may be able to identify a specific gene, but do they understand the workings of its environment? This may be on a micro scale, but it relates to the concerns on a macro scale as well.

Do we understand all of the possible effects of releasing these altered organisms into our delicate environment and eco-systems? Questions of contamination, genetic erosion, enhanced weed problems, and the reduction or extinction of wild plant and animal populations fill pages and pages of environmental and food advocate websites. Can we predict how GMOs and their offspring will evolve?

Genetic advocates argue that we have already been tampering with nature for a long time, such as in the instance of classical breeding. But traditional breeding crosses only related species, for example when a gardener grafts a red hibiscus onto a white hibiscus. When these two varieties are crossed, thousands of genes at a time are mixed. Genetic scientists move individual genes and do something traditional breeders have never accomplished. They can move genes between different life forms! (Remember the flounder into the tomato?)

What does the organic industry have to say about all of this? When the U.S. government decided to mandate the certification on organic standards, almost 100% of the received public comments demanded GMOs not be allowed in organic food. Furthermore, GMO crops put organic farmers at risk; risk of seed contamination, rendering their natural pesticides useless, introduction of superweeds, destruction of beneficial insects, loss of certificationS. For example, Monsanto (a major GE corporation) has released genetic corn seeds containing genes that produce Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), a natural bacterium used by many organic farmers including farmers here on Kauai. Bt is used by organic farmers to eradicate insect problems, but only a few times a year and for very short periods. The introduction of the Bt corn poses many problems. First, it is in the crop working every hour of every day. Therefore it is killing insects, including non-target species, all of the time. Many insects are beneficial to farmers, like say, the ladybug that eats aphids. And not only is the Bt in the plant, but studies show that Bt remains and accumulates in the soil.

"Another negative impact on organic farming is the expected resistance that insect pests will develop to Bt toxin," states The Hawaii Organic Farmers Association (HOFA), rendering useless a natural pesticide used by organic farmers for years. Also, the pollen from the Bt corn can and has cross-pollinated with organic corn, contaminating the organic corn and its seed, and risking organic certification.

David Vetter of Nebraska owns and operates a 280-acre organic farm. His fields were presumably safe, surrounded by double rows of pines and 60 feet of untilled sod to act as a buffer zone. Sadly, this buffer did not prevent transgenic pollution! Vetter Says, "It's now clear that we won't be able to have both genetically engineered and non-GE crops. As an organic grower, I can no longer guarantee that my crops are GE-free."

What about Kauai? PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) finds, "... as of January 2001, the ten states and territories that have hosted the most field test sites are: Hawaii (3,275), Illinois (2,832), Iowa (2,820), Puerto Rico (2,296), California (1,435), Idaho (1,060), Minnesota (1,055), Nebraska (971), Wisconsin (918), and Indiana (886)." Pioneer [Seed Co.] is here on the island, and there are at least a few known test fields on the west side, with rumors of expansion. Places like Kauai provide almost a perfect setting for genetic testing, given its remoteness. Is this not a lucrative alternative for all of the old sugarcane fields? Are there test fields closer to the organic growers? Given the unpredictable winds, is the mountain range enough of a buffer for our east and north side organic growers?

Patenting is yet another controversial GMO issue. Companies like Monsanto (who also produce Roundup and Rodeo) continue to file with the U.S. government and claim patents on their genetic organisms. This started in 1972 when General Electric genetically transplanted a bacterium and was granted the first patent on life by the United States. Patents also allow the 'ownership' of genes that occur in nature, leading to the current 'ownership' of the neem tree and Basmati rice by U.S. and Japanese companies. Biotech corporations claim they need the patent because the organism is new and unnatural. But when you read the same literature from these same corporations, they promote themselves as "natural".

Advocates for Biotech companies like Monsanto claim that GMOs can lower the use of pesticides and even alleviate world hunger. Just published, the work of Dr. Charles Benbrook of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center contradicts the first claim. He reports, "Slightly more pounds of herbicides are applied on the average acre of Roundup-Ready (RR) soybeans compared to the average acre planted to conventional soybean varieties. Herbicide use on RR soybean acres is gradually rising as a result of weed shifts, late-season weed escapes leading to a buildup in weed seed banks, and the loss of susceptibility to glyphosate (the main chemical in Roundup) in some weed species (Hartzlet, 1999; HRAC, 2001)." In regard to alleviating world hunger, this is a heated debate as well.

The British Medical Association has called for an indefinite moratorium on GE foods. Genetic foods are also banned in seven countries and 25 mandate labeling laws, restrictive agriculture, environmental, or import policies, or prohibitions. There is great pressure from the U.S. for worldwide acceptance of GMOs, especially because the U.S. is leading the biotech revolution and the market. But why isn't our government as concerned as others? The 2001 budget allocated $310 million for biotechnology in rural development and agricultural development. Organic farming received less than $5 million.

Biotechnology is expanding. Currently under test are GE salmon, trees, and even low maintenance lawn seed. Also in the works is a genetically modified banana implanted with a vaccine. According to Dr. Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, University of Missouri-Columbia, "It's a very broad technology with very broad applications. Agriculture and food is just one application of it. Pharmaceuticals, waste management, forestry, cosmetics, energy and so on; the potential is so large that it's difficult to walk away. Nobody's walking away."

Do we have an alternative? What can one do if they are opposed to the GMO invasion? The obvious is to stop buying their products. Businesses are governed by supply, but mostly, demand. Education is key. Open up dialogue and public debate. The U.S. public is ignorant on this issue. Most Americans do not even realize that GMOs are in most of their food. Developing countries need education, education about alternative agriculture (Permaculture, for example). Support organizations and agricultural research, policies, and educational programs that involve crop rotation and sustainable agriculture. Discuss why GMOs should be labeled. Study biodiversity and crop rotation. Practice self-sustainability and educate yourself about this important issue. There are numerous sites on the web filled with information, some listed below.

Biotechnology may be our future, but this new frontier demands a deeper understanding of its implications. When man begins to artificially create life, he must reflect on deeper issues. Movies about a possible future, like Sleeper, may provide humor, but more importantly, they should stimulate thought concerning our global future due to current values and systems. The Anglican Bishop of Wellington, Bishop Tom Brown declares, "the assumption by scientists that God must have somehow got it wrong and that they need to put it right, we should stop tampering. To date too little is known, too few assurances are given and too little public debate has occurred."

Please send in your comments and questions to

Rosa Silver, mailto:rosa.hugh@usa.net

Books

"Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers" by Ronnie Cummins and Ben Lilliston

(Marlowe, $12.96; online at http://www.purefood.org)

"The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World" by Jeremy Rifkin

(www.http://penguinputnam.com)

"First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato [TM] and the Birth of Biotech Food" by Brenda Martineau

(McGraw-Hill, $24.95)

GE Websites

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/rachelbio.cfm

http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/

http://www.oneworld.org/guides/biotech/index

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/

http://www.ucsusa.org/food/0biotechnology/

http://www.purefood.org

http://www.gefoodalert.org

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/

http://www.sustain.org/biotech/

http://www.psrast.org

http://www.farmingsolutions.org

http://http://www.kevinclarke.com

5/26/02
1:40:38 PM

The Truth About September 11th

From: http://www.LOVEARTH.net

My Country Right Or Wrong -- Questioning September 11th

http://www.MyCountryRightOrWrong.net

More Than 500 Great Articles Mostly Questioning September 11th

http://www.AttackOnAmerica.net

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, And The Three Top Sins Of The Universe

http://www.September112001.net

Audios, Videos, Photographs, Polls, Petition And News Archive

http://www.9112001.net

Bush, bin Laden And War Profits

http://www.CarlyleGroup.net

5/26/02
1:38:16 PM

Rep. Gephardt Seeks Independent 9/11 Inquiry

Mon May 20, 2002

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- House of Representatives Democratic leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri introduced legislation on Monday to create an independent commission to investigate intelligence gathering before the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

But the proposal, opposed by the White House, was not expected to get very far in the Republican-controlled chamber.

John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said there were no plans to bring up such legislation for a vote.

"Let's let the (House and Senate) intelligence committees do their investigations," Feehery said, echoing the administration's position.

Lawmakers increased calls for such a commission after last week's disclosure that President Bush (news - web sites) received a briefing document on Aug. 6 that mentioned the possibility that followers of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) -- blamed by the United States for the Sept. 11 attacks that killed about 3,000 people -- might try to hijack U.S. aircraft.

The White House insisted the warning was not sufficiently detailed to issue a public warning. But members of Congress, primarily Democrats, demanded to know what the president knew, when he knew it and what he did about it.

Republicans say they would support committee investigations of the issue. But Gephardt and other Democrats complain congressional probes could become ensnarled in election-year politics, and say to avoid this an independent commission should be established.

Gephardt joined Rep. Tim Roemer, an Indiana Democrat and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, in offering the measure to establish an independent commission to examine events leading up to Sept. 11 and make recommendations on how to avoid repeat attacks.

Roemer said he and Gephardt had about a dozen co-sponsors, and expected more. So far, he said, they had no Republicans.

Regardless, Gephardt said in a statement, "I hope the Republican majority will agree with me that this legislation deserves immediate consideration in the House. ... And I hope the president will work with us."

Similar legislation is pending in the Democrat-led Senate.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in appearances on Sunday political talk shows, said he would advise the president not to turn over to Congress the August intelligence briefing.

Cheney said the "presidential daily brief" is developed from "our most secret operations" and must be safeguarded.

Roemer said on Monday Congress should have access to the briefing, and so should an independent commission.

"We are not interested in a witch hunt but we want answers," Roemer said in a telephone interview. "We must do better."

5/26/02
1:29:06 PM

F.B.I. Agent Says Superior Altered Report, Foiling Inquiry

by James Risen

WASHINGTON, May 24 -- A senior F.B.I. agent in Minneapolis has accused a supervisor at the agency's Washington headquarters of altering a report in a way that made it impossible for investigators to obtain crucial evidence in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, before the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, government officials said today. Advertisement

Coleen Rowley, an agent and counsel in the F.B.I.'s Minneapolis field office, wrote in a 13-page letter received this week by the joint Congressional committee investigating the terrorist attacks that changes in the search warrant application made it all but impossible to convince the F.B.I.'s national security lawyers to pursue court authorization for the search. The identity of the supervisor at F.B.I. headquarters mentioned in Ms. Rowley's letter could not be determined.

Officials who have seen Ms. Rowley's letter say it accuses the supervisor of altering the application to play down the significance of information provided by French intelligence officials about Mr. Moussaoui's links to Islamic extremists.

Mr. Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, was arrested in Minnesota on Aug. 16 on immigration-related charges after an employee of a local flight school notified the F.B.I. that he was acting suspiciously while taking flight lessons. F.B.I. agents in Minneapolis repeatedly questioned Mr. Moussaoui in late August, and one F.B.I. agent accused him of being a terrorist. But the F.B.I. did not obtain a search warrant to examine his computer and other belongings until after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Mr. Moussaoui has since been indicted on charges connected with the attacks.

Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, and Representative Porter Goss, a Florida Republican, the co-chairmen of the joint committee investigating the terrorist attacks, said today that they were planning to closely examine Ms. Rowley's accusations that officials at F.B.I. headquarters obstructed efforts to aggressively investigate the Moussaoui case.

Central to the dispute between Minneapolis and F.B.I. headquarters over the Moussaoui search warrant application was the quality of intelligence the bureau had received from the French intelligence service about Mr. Moussaoui.

According to Ms. Rowley's letter and other bureau officials, the Minneapolis field office believed that the French report on Mr. Moussaoui provided enough troubling information about his ties to Islamic extremism to go to court to obtain a search warrant under the federal law that allows the government to carry out searches and surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases. Under the statute, investigators do not have to show that a subject committed a crime, only that they have reason to believe the suspect is engaged in terrorist activity or espionage on behalf of a foreign power or a terrorist organization.

But headquarters officials did not believe the French report was sufficient to justify a search warrant. F.B.I. officials said today that the French report showed that Mr. Moussaoui was an Islamic extremist, but did not reveal any direct links to specific terrorist groups. The French report revealed that Mr. Moussaoui had a close friend who had fought and died with Islamic separatist fighters battling the Russians in Chechnya, but F.B.I. headquarters believed that connection was too indirect to link Mr. Moussaoui to terrorism.

Officials at the Central Intelligence Agency have also played down the significance of the French information, saying that it did not provide conclusive proof of Mr. Moussaoui's terrorist ties.

In her letter, Ms. Rowley states that F.B.I. headquarters did not take the Minneapolis agents seriously when they made their search warrant request, and that headquarters officials were too dismissive of the quality of the French information. Out of frustration, officials in the Minneapolis field office called directly to the F.B.I.'s legal attache in Paris in an effort to obtain more French information on Mr. Moussaoui. The agents in Minneapolis also went around F.B.I. headquarters and contacted counterterrorism experts at the C.I.A. to further build their case, an action that prompted a reprimand from F.B.I. headquarters.

In her letter, Ms. Rowley was especially critical of the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, whom she wrote had made "misleading" public statements on how the F.B.I. handled the Moussaoui case both before and after Sept. 11, according to officials who have read her letter. She asserted that Mr. Mueller had been covering up for the bureau on the Moussaoui case since the attacks.

"Certain facts have been omitted, downplayed, glossed over, or mischaracterized," Ms. Rowley said, referring to Mr. Mueller's public statements since the hijackings, said officials who have copies of the letter.

The Rowley letter has sent shock waves through the F.B.I. and has seriously damaged Mr. Mueller's standing with the Congressional committee just as it is preparing for it first hearings.

Mr. Graham and Mr. Goss announced today that the joint panel would hold its first closed hearing on June 4, and that it planned public hearings in late June, and Mr. Mueller and the C.I.A.'s director, George J. Tenet, would be asked to testify in those open hearings.

Officials said that particularly damaging for the F.B.I. director was Ms. Rowley's assertion that either intentionally or unintentionally, Mr. Mueller has since Sept. 11 directed people at the bureau to muddy the waters in their public statements about the Moussaoui case.

In her letter, Ms. Rowley criticizes assertions by F.B.I. leaders that the bureau's failure to act on the Moussaoui case and other clues last summer did not make a difference in preventing the attacks. She said that if the same officials at F.B.I. headquarters who handled the search warrant request from the Minneapolis office had been aware of a July memo from an agent in the F.B.I.'s Phoenix office warning that terrorists connected with Osama bin Laden might be trying to go to American flight schools, the Moussaoui case would have been handled differently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/25/national/25INQU.html?todaysheadlines

5/26/02
12:55:09 PM

MEOW ISN'T LANGUAGE, BUT ENOUGH TO MANAGE HUMANS

Cornell University / NewsWise May 20, 2002

Contact: Roger Segelken Office: 607-255-9736 hrs2@cornell.edu

ITHACA, N.Y. -- After more than 5,000 years of human-feline cohabitation and enough elaborations on "meow!" to fill a dictionary, cats still haven't mastered language. But a Cornell University evolutionary psychology study --analyzing people's reactions to feline vocalizations -- shows that cats know how to get what they want.

"No matter what we like to believe, cats are probably not using language," says Nicholas Nicastro, a self-described cat person who has documented hundreds of different feline vocalizations in the common house cat (Felis catus ) and its ancestor, the African wild cat (Felis silvestris lybica ). His study, which he will describe June 5, 2002, at the 143rd meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, in Pittsburgh, "shows that some very effective cat-to-human communication is going on," he says. "Though they lack language, cats have become very skilled at managing humans to get what they want ---- basically food, shelter and a little human affection."

The communication study began when Nicastro, a graduate student, compiled a sample of 100 different vocalizations from 12 cats. No cats were harmed in the experiment, although a few human eardrums were stretched by what came next: He played back the recorded cat calls to 26 human volunteers and asked them to rate each sound for pleasantness and appeal, on a scale of 1 to 7. Nicastro played the same 100 sounds to a second set of 28 volunteers and asked them to indicate how urgent and demanding the sounds were, also on a 1-to-7 scale. He then analyzed the calls to see which acoustic features tended to go with pleasant or urgent meows.

Nicastro, who is a student in the laboratory of Cornell psychology assistant professor Michael Owren, found a clear negative relationship between pleasantness and urgency, rooted in how the calls sounded. "The sounds rated as more urgent (or less pleasant) were longer,". Nicastro says, "with more energy in the lower frequencies, along the lines of 'Mee-O-O-O-O-O-W!' Whereas, the sounds rated as more pleasant (or less demanding) tended to be shorter, with the energy spread evenly through the high and low frequencies. These sounds started high and went low, like 'MEE-ow.'"

An urgent or demanding call "is the kind we hear at 7 a.m. when we walk into the kitchen and the cat wants to be fed. The cat isn't forming sentences and saying, specifically, 'take a can of food out of the cupboard, run the can opener and fill my bowl immediately,' but we get the message from the quality of the vocalization and the context in which it is heard," says Nicastro, a two-cat owner who has been exposed to plenty of context.

A pleasant or appealing sound might be heard from a cat at the animal shelter if it hopes to be adopted by a soft-hearted human, Nicastro says. "In that context, it would not be to a cat's advantage to sound too demanding. The pleasant-sounding cats are the ones most likely to be adopted, while the demanding ones risk being left behind."

The Cornell study examined the evolutionary process of "artificial selection," which Charles Darwin pondered on the way to developing his theory of natural selection, Nicastro notes. "I was interested in learning how humans have shaped cat vocal behavior by artificial selection, and how cats have evolved to exploit pre-existing human perceptual tendencies. Seven thousand years ago, when we think the ancestors of our domesticated cats began wandering into Egyptian granaries and offering to trade rodent-control services for shelter, it was probably the pleasant-sounding cats that were selected and accepted into human society."

Curious about vocalization in the wild ancestors of the house cat, Nicastro visited South Africa's National Zoo in Pretoria and recorded African wild cats. Their calls were neither pleasant nor appealing, he reports. "Those cats sounded permanently angry. If they were looking for affection, they weren't expressing themselves very well. The first individuals to be accepted for domestication must have been exceptional, but of course that's the point from which things start to evolve."

Having said that, Nicastro turns off the lights in his Cornell office and heads home, where urgent calls for the can opener await. "They're not little people," he observes, "and they're not using true language because, among other reasons, cats do not know the meaning of their own meows. Humans (or at least well-trained cat people) can assign meaning to sounds with various acoustical qualities because, through long association with cats, we have learned how they sound in different behavioral contexts.

"Cats are domesticated animals that have learned what levers to push, what sounds to make to manage our emotions," Nicastro says. "And when we respond, we too are domesticated animals." MEOW ISN'T LANGUAGE, BUT ENOUGH TO MANAGE HUMANS Cornell University / NewsWise May 20, 2002

Contact: Roger Segelken Office: 607-255-9736 hrs2@cornell.edu

http://www.newswise.com/articles/2002/5/CATTALK.CNS.html

"Cats are domesticated animals that have learned what levers to push, what sounds to make to manage our emotions," Nicastro says. "And when we respond, we too are domesticated animals."

Source: http://www.newswise.com/articles/2002/5/CATTALK.CNS.html

5/26/02
12:55:01 PM

MEOW ISN'T LANGUAGE, BUT ENOUGH TO MANAGE HUMANS

Cornell University / NewsWise May 20, 2002

Contact: Roger Segelken Office: 607-255-9736 hrs2@cornell.edu

http://www.newswise.com/articles/2002/5/CATTALK.CNS.html

"Cats are domesticated animals that have learned what levers to push, what sounds to make to manage our emotions," Nicastro says. "And when we respond, we too are domesticated animals."

Source: http://www.newswise.com/articles/2002/5/CATTALK.CNS.html

5/26/02
12:52:16 PM

THE BOOK CAN BE PRE-VIEWED AND PURCHASED AT [Also, See Reviews Below]:

http://www.thewaronfreedom.com

COMMENTS ON "The War on Freedom" (May 2002)

"This riveting and throroughly documented study is a 'must' resource for everyone seeking to understand the attack on the World Trade Center of New York on Sept. 11, 2001 and 'America's New War' since . . . this volume provides the detailed documentation in a definitive and masterful record." Professor John McMurty, Department of Philosophy, University of Ontario; Fellow at the Royal Society of Canada; Chair of Jurists, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Tribunal at the Alternative World Summit in Toronto, 1989 (Canada)

"The most complete book I know of, summarizing the relevant background and foreground intersecting upon the events of Sept. 11, 2001 . . . A tour de force in every respect . . . I can't say how much I admire this work. It MUST be seen by as many people as possible all over the world as soon as possible."

Barry Zwicker, Producer and Host, MediaFile, Vision TV Insight; award-winning journalist on CBC-TV and CTV (Canada)

"The material you have collected is immensely important and useful. You look at the right subjects and report a number of things I had missed entirely."

Professor Peter Dale Scott, Co-Founder of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program, University of California, Berkeley (United States)

"Powerful, disturbing, and interesting indeed. Your excellent research on the background of Sept. 11 should become known to a larger audience." Professor Arno Tausch, Institute for Political Science, University of Innsbruck (Austria)

"A meticulous investigation of circumstances, events, and circumstantial evidence of what really happened before and on Sept. 11. . . Your excellent report goes deep into what really happened and what the American defense machinery had let happen."

Peter G. Spengler, Editor, Contemporary Studies (Germany)

ORDER COPIES AT: http://www.thewaronfreedom.com

5/26/02
12:48:08 PM

9/11 - More cracks in the dam

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=27460

CHANDRA LEVY WAS MURDERED! CONNECT THE DOTS!

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=27455

5/26/02
12:46:49 PM

Fort Stewart soldier jailed in Florida on $5 million bond

Police believe soldier tried to plant explosive device at power plant.

by Noelle Phillips Savannah Morning News

Jacksonville, Fla., police arrested a Fort Stewart soldier Saturday after finding him armed, wearing black clothes and leaving a power plant where he allegedly left an explosive.

Spc. Derek Lawrence Peterson, 27, is being held on a $5 million bond by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Department of Corrections. He has been charged with attempting to detonate an explosive device.

Peterson belongs to B Company, 1st Battalion, 64th Armor and has been stationed at Fort Stewart since March, said Dina McCain, a Fort Stewart spokeswoman.

McCain said she did not know whether Army investigators were involved with the case and referred all questions about it to Jacksonville police.

An officer with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office stopped Peterson at 11:15 p.m. Saturday for speeding. The officer found Peterson wearing all black clothing and black, plastic pads on his knees and elbows, according to a sheriff's department report. He also had a pistol in a shoulder holster.

The officer recognized Peterson's black 2002 Chevrolet Silverado pickup because he had noticed it backed up to the Florida Power and Light station's main gate 30 minutes earlier as he drove to assist another officer.

The officer searched Peterson's truck and found a 12-inch knife, a six-inch knife, a 12-gauge shotgun, shotgun shells, .45-caliber bullets, four ammo magazines, a six-volt battery, duct tape, speaker wire and plastic from an explosive device, the report said.

After being informed of his rights, wrote arresting officer D.F. Valiante, "the suspect advised me that he was on the power plant property to practice recon tactics."

Police followed footprints on a dirt road at the power plant and found an explosive device underneath the power lines, the report said.

Peterson allegedly told police he had placed a Hoffman explosive device, equal in power to a half-stick of dynamite. He had planned to detonate the explosive but was worried that he would be injured in the blast, the report said. Instead, Peterson removed a six-volt battery and threw it into the woods.

A bomb squad disposed of the explosive.

Peterson's next court date is June 4. He is not allowed visitors at the jail, according to the corrections department.

Military reporter Noelle Phillips can be reached at

mailto:phillips@savannahnow.com

Source: http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/051602/LOCsoldierarrest.shtml

5/26/02
12:40:49 PM

Michigan Green Party Candidate Dragged Out Of Debate And Arrested

Green Party of Michigan News Release - May 22, 2002

Green Party Candidate for Governor Dragged Out of Debate and Arrested.

(Ann Arbor, MI) -- The Green Party of Michigan responded strongly today to the expulsion and arrest of its declared gubernatorial candidate from the Gubernatorial Candidate Forum on the Environment at Brighton High School on Tuesday night. Ray Ziarno, declared Green candidate for secretary of state, was present at the forum, among a few dozen other supporters. "Democracy was not served tonight, obviously. There's no reason Doug should have been excluded."

The forum, hosted by the League of Conservation Voters, declared that "all gubernatorial candidates" were invited to speak. When Douglas Campbell, the Greens' candidate pending their convention this August 3-4, asked why he had not been invited, the League informed him that only those who were participating in the upcoming primaries were actually invited.

"It is ludicrous to consider that the only party which puts ecological and environmental concerns in the forefront of its platform should be shut out of a public forum on the environment using this ridiculous standard," said GPMI elections coordinator Peter Schermerhorn, also citing the fact that Campbell is filed as a candidate with the secretary of state in the same manner as the rest and follows the same rules.

Green party chair Marc Reichardt concurred. "How does participation in the primary system grant special status to the views of two parties, as opposed to the other three on the ballot (Green, Libertarian, Natural Law)? How does that participation validate those two parties' plans for preserving Michigan's environment (very few of which have come to fruition in the past), and invalidate ours, which are likely far closer to LCV's image of the future? This is as much a question of basic democracy and inclusion as it is of the content of the forum."

GPMI called for Michigan citizens to demand equal representation at public events for all parties on the ballot (Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, and Natural Law).

Press contact: Marc Reichardt, 734 635.3541

mailto:dystopia@wwnet.com

http://www.migreens.org

5/26/02
12:30:53 PM

Congress' Sept. 11 Probe Finds More Missed Clues

By Reuters | New York Times, May 24, 2002

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A congressional investigation into U.S. intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attack has turned up more missed clues that in hindsight might have helped uncover the plot, a lawmaker said on Friday.

"There was no single piece of information that on its own would have led you to a further investigation that might have avoided September the 11th," Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham told reporters.

"But the fact is, it was not a single piece of information, there were a series of pieces of information, and in fact we are continuing to surface additional pieces of information where clues were given," the Florida Democrat said.

The FBI has come under fire from Republicans and Democrats for not pursuing a memo written by an agent in Phoenix last July expressing concerns that Middle Eastern men linked to Osama bin Laden were taking lessons at U.S. flight schools.

"Of all the things I've seen, I think the Phoenix document is the brightest light," Graham said. That memo was sent to two places at the FBI in Washington -- the Radical Fundamentalist Unit and the Osama bin Laden Unit -- but not any further.

The FBI also has been criticized for not correlating that memo with the August arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen who sought flying lessons in Minnesota. Moussaoui is charged with conspiring in the attack, and U.S. officials suspect he was to have been the 20th hijacker.

Among materials collected by congressional investigators were notes an FBI agent in Minnesota made about a telephone conversation with an official at FBI headquarters in which the agent said Moussaoui was going to "fly a plane into the WTC."

"There will be more coming out in our investigation," a congressional source said.

WHISTLE-BLOWERS

Four commercial airliners were hijacked on Sept. 11. Two crashed into the World Trade Center's twin towers, one into the Pentagon, and one in rural Pennsylvania before it was able to reach its target, which was apparently the White House.

Washington blames the attacks, which killed about 3,000 people, on bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. Sept. 11 has become a defining event for American views and policies toward security vulnerabilities at home and extremists abroad.

Asked if there were any missed clues apart from the FBI Phoenix memo and the Moussaoui arrest, Graham replied, "The answer is yes, but I can't talk about it."

"As information starts to become public, it causes people to come forward with even more information, so it's kind of a domino effect," Graham said.

FBI Agent Coleen Rowley complained in a recent 13-page letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller and lawmakers that FBI headquarters should have approved a request from the Minneapolis office for a search warrant involving Moussaoui.

Mueller has asked the Justice Department inspector general to investigate the complaints by the Minneapolis agent.

"There were statements indicating that she felt that the higher-echelon leadership in the FBI had had a pattern of submerging what they considered to be critical comment," Graham, who has seen Rowley's letter, said. Congressional investigators interviewed her on Tuesday.

Graham said the letter, which has been classified secret by the FBI in eight places, was "very serious" and that he anticipated investigators would look at the cultures inside the intelligence agencies.

Iowa Republican Charles Grassley, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Rowley's letter alarmed him.

"If FBI headquarters is still handling terrorism information like it handled the Moussaoui case, we're in grave danger. This was worse than dropping the ball," he said in a statement urging the FBI to declassify the letter.

"Director Mueller can label this letter classified and the FBI can circle the wagons, but a cover-up is not going to work," he said, adding he had assured Rowley of protection.

The $2.9 million joint investigation being conducted by the House and Senate intelligence committees is expected to hold its first hearings next month. Initially, the hearings will be closed, but an open one with CIA Director George Tenet and Mueller as witnesses was scheduled for late June.

"We're ready," Tenet said about the coming hearings after a meeting with Graham. "I think it's important that we have hearings. The Senate and the House committees will do their job. We'll try and help them."

The investigation will look into the bureaucratic structures of the intelligence agencies and the information flow, and make recommendations on how to improve them.

The committees were expected to announce soon that the new head of the investigation would be Eleanor Hill, a former Defense Department inspector general, to replace Britt Snider who resigned over a personnel issue.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-congress-intelligence.html

5/26/02
12:18:22 PM

More Than Just His Location Remains Undisclosed: Why Dick Cheney's Secrecy Scheme For Pre-9/11 Information Makes No Sense

by John W. Dean, 24 May, 2002

Vice President Dick Cheney is at it again: More secrecy. Now he wants to bury the intelligence information given to President Bush on August 6, 2001 - over a month before the terrorist attacks. Indeed, Cheney wants Congress, far more generally, to keep its investigative nose out of issue of what intelligence the Bush Administration did, or did not, have about terrorism prior to September 11.

Nor does Cheney want Congress creating a high-level commission to look into this issue. In resisting any investigation, the Vice President advised Congress threateningly, "Be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions." Furthermore, Cheney has even gone so far as to warn the Democrats that they could be aiding the enemy by going where the Administration does not want them. The accusation takes aim not just at the wisdom, but at the purported lack of patriotism of such an investigation.

According to The Washington Post, White House political types have been putting the word out to their network of conservative radio talk show hosts throughout the country to rally the troops, set the dogs loose, and shout the Democrats down. Secrecy, however, is a tough sell, so they're going to have to attack some of their own as well.

Even Some Republicans Are Sharply Critical of the Secrecy Policy

Increasingly, stalwart conservative supporters of Bush and Cheney have become critical of what columnist Robert Novak calls their "passion for secrecy," noting that they only have themselves to blame for the public and Congressional reaction.

After all, Bush and Cheney could have revealed at the time, rather than keeping secret, that the White House had pre-9/11 intelligence warnings from the CIA and FBI about potential terrorist hijackings, and about the unexplained influx of middle-Eastern men in pilot training. Had they done so, the reaction would have been very different. No one expected the Administration to be psychic and the information, thus far, does not seem to rise to the level of a warning of the type of attacks that actually occurred, in which planes were used as missiles.

Secrecy itself has risen to the level of a policy of the Bush administration - and threatens to achieve the status of an end in itself. National security is only one of the policy's rationalizations.

Conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly has been quite blunt about this secrecy business. In March, she blasted the White House for the Vice President's refusal to turn over the records of his energy task force. (I agree with her criticism, as I discussed in a recent column .) She finds Cheney's "pursuit of secrecy" comparable to "Clinton's refusal to disclose documents revealing who attended the meetings of Hillary's task force on health care."

Ms. Schlafly declared correctly that: "The American people do not and should not tolerate government by secrecy." And she told the Bush White House that no one's "going to buy the sanctimonious argument that the Bush Administration has some sort of duty to protect the power of the presidency."

Meanwhile, Bruce Fein, a former Justice Department official whose Republican credentials and constitutional scholarship are exemplary, has recently reacted to the claims of the Bush White House about the need for secrecy. The loss of secrecy, the Administration has contended, is eroding presidential power. Yet according to Fein, "What the president is claiming is legally and historically absurd and politically stupid."

Fein added, "I've been around this town a long time, almost 30 years, and I've never encountered one individual who told me he's not going to the Oval Office unless he's promised confidentiality. It's the biggest hoax in the world. Why he's making up all this stuff is utterly and completely baffling."

Why The Secrecy? Claims of Eroding Presidential Power Are Implausible.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and all their aides claim that - contrary to any impression they might be giving - they seek to hide nothing. They are keeping secrets for either national security reasons, or to protect the functions of the presidency.

This is only about fundamental principles, they say. It concerns nothing less than preserving and redeeming the power and authority of the presidency. In brief, just as Ms. Schlafly said, they are resting their claim on the "sanctimonious argument" that they are "protect[ing] the power of the presidency."

For example, in January of this year, Dick Cheney told NBC's Campbell Brown during an interview: "For 35 years that I've been in town, there's been a constant, steady erosion of the prerogatives and the powers of the President of the United States. And I don't want to be a part of that."

Most recently, according to the New York Times, Cheney repeated his comment about the last three decades of "continual encroachment by Congress in the executive branch, a weakening of the presidency." Specifically, he mentioned matters like the Congress investigating abuses by the CIA, and the Iran-contra scandal, as encroachments.

Cheney didn't like those investigations either at the time, back in 1987. He was in Congress then, and as the Times reports, he disagreed with the majority of the committee's Iran-contra investigation that accused the Reagan administration of "secrecy, deception and disdain for the law." Cheney also thought that Reagan should never have let Congress exert control over his Central American policy in the first place - by using an Executive Order to make it illegal for Congress to ban sales of weapons to Nicaraguan rebels.

President Bush recently said, "I have an obligation to make sure that the presidency remains robust and that the legislative branch doesn't end up running the executive branch." Surely he is jesting.

Ari Fleischer sings the same tune. The president's press secretary claims that presidential powers have been diminished "in multiple ways" as part of a "long-standing, gradual process." For instance, the president has little say in how the nation's budget is devised, and constraints exist with regard to the ways in which he may use the military.

In addition, Congress has placed additional restrictions on the president in military matters with the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Fleischer also observed that the spate of congressional investigations into presidential activities -particularly during the Clinton era - that involved "the sharing, the yielding of information by the executive branch to the Congress," have tended to weaken the office.

Remarkably, Ari Fleischer may actually believe what he is saying. In fact, however, these claims of presidential power eroding are high-grade, industrial-strength, poppycock. This White House is apparently unaware of Napoleon's maxim that "The tools belong to the man who can use them."

Misreading Nixon's Shadow, and Misinterpreting His Legacy

President Bush and Vice President Cheney are, without being explicit, saying that the presidency was weakened by Watergate, which commenced 30 years ago this June 17th. But they are misreading the Nixon legacy.

No one has watched the impact of Watergate on government more closely than yours truly. I wrote a book, Lost Honor , examining the impact of Watergate ten years after the events. And I do not believe Watergate can possibly justify the secrecy arguments that are being made now. If anything, it justifies openness.

More Watergate lessons can be garnered from the work of Bob Woodward, who launched his career at The Washington Post and as a best-selling author based on his Watergate reporting. Woodward's recent book, Shadow: Five Presidents and The Legacy Of Watergate, written 27 years after Watergate, gives an excellent account of what Nixon's real legacy may be.

Woodward's "Epilogue" to Shadow is edifying. Unfortunately, he points out many presidents have ignored the obvious lessons of Watergate. Recent events suggests that George W. Bush is readying his own place on Woodward's list.

Woodward writes, "Nixon's successors, I thought, would recognize the price of scandal and learn the two fundamental lessons of Watergate. First, if there is questionable activity, release the facts, whatever they are, as early and completely as possible. Second, do not allow outside inquiries, whether conducted by prosecutors, congressmen or reporters, to harden into a permanent state of suspicion and warfare."

Woordward reports that, rather than learn from Nixon's mistakes, however, in varying degrees all the presidents since Nixon have repeated them. Men of widely varying temperaments and politics - Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton - have uniformly failed to understand the need to make information available, rather than hiding it. Now Bush and Cheney are making the same mistakes.

Woodward believes he knows why, and I think he's correct. "They have become victims of the myth of the big-time president," he explains. "As successors to George Washington and Franklin Roosevelt, they expect to rule. But after Vietnam and Watergate, the modern presidency has been limited and diminished."

Does that mean Woodward, too, believes in the "eroding power" argument the White House has recently retailed? I do not believe so. Rather, the loss of power Woodward describes is not a loss of power to Congress, as suggested by Bush and Cheney, but a loss of power to openness itself. Thus, it is a praiseworthy loss of a kind of power that was unhealthily insular and absolute - similar to the loss of power that occurs when a monarchy or dictatorship gives way to democracy.

Woodward says the difference is that the "inner workings" of the presidency "and the behavior of presidents are [now] fully exposed." As I read Woodward, he is simply telling presidents that they cannot operate in secret in today's information age.

Woodward is correct. Accordingly, I believe Bush and Cheney have confused the issues: a lost of presidential secrecy does not mean a loss of presidential power vis-a-vis Congressional power. To the contrary, the institutional powers of the presidency all but overwhelm those of Congress. They are, in fact, stronger today than 30 years ago. Bush and Cheney are ignoring the basics: Congress is still weaker than the President, and secrecy has only weakened the President vis-a-vis the People, the press, and the process of finding the truth.

Why Presidential Power Dominates Congressional Power Now

Ask any constitutional scholar, political scientist, or presidential historian, and they will tell you that the congressional powers and presidential powers are no longer even comparable. During our early history, the Congress and the President vied for dominance, with the Congress more often prevailing. But that is no longer true.

Since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, the executive branch has been the dominant governing power. In truth, Congress has willingly delegated most of its legislative powers to the executive branch. Our system might be better off if, in fact, Congress reclaimed some of the powers it voluntarily gave away - by, for example, allowing powerful administrative agencies to effectively make law under the aegis of broad statutes that empowered them to do so.

But that is unlikely - as the late and learned professor Philip Kurland, who devoted 43 years to teaching law at the University of Chicago, showed in a 1986 essay addressing the institutional differences between the Congress and the presidency. There, Kurland nicely summarized why a president is Gulliver among the congressional Lilliputians, remarking that:

... there is an absence of discipline among the 535 members of Congress. It is a huge body without a head. Most of its legislation does not originate within Congress but is a response to demands or instructions from executive authorities. Too much congressional time is spent as agents of constituents seeking relief in the myriad of government agencies that Congress has created but does not control. The rest of its time seems to be spent in trying to oversee the execution of the laws by way of investigatory hearings which, in theory, are held to help frame legislation but which, in fact, are more devoted to exposure than to cure.

In contrast, he explains, the executive branch has burgeoned, and continues to grow stronger. Professor Kurland found the explanation of the differences in the branches well stated by Justice Jackson in the landmark Steel Seizure Case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer:

Executive power has the advantage of concentration in a single head in whose choice the whole Nation has a part, making him the focus of public hopes and expectations. In drama, magnitude and finality his decisions so far overshadow any others that almost alone he fills the public eye and ear. No other personality in public life can begin to compete with him in access to the public mind through modern methods of communications. By his prestige as head of state and his influence upon public opinion he exerts a leverage upon those who are supposed to check and balance his power which often cancels their effectiveness.

It seems that President Bush and Vice President Cheney want to remove the last vestiges of congressional power - the power to expose. But that will not solve their problem, because it has been the so-called fourth estate, the news media, that has collaborated with Congress in preventing the Executive Branch from operating in secrecy. The news media, as Woodward makes clear, are never going to return to the pre-Watergate days when a president's actions were not questioned. Nor should they, even in a time of war.

Of course, there should not be exposure for exposure's sake - as is the case with too many Congressional investigations, past misguided Independent Counsel investigations, and occasional sensational news coverage. But nor should there be secrecy for secrecy's sake, as appears to be the case now with the Bush Administration.

To claim a need for secrecy to restore presidential power is disingenuous at best, and a deliberate falsehood at worst. Secrecy is the way of dictatorships, not democracies.

Source: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020524.html

5/26/02
12:09:02 PM

Agent Complains FBI Covered Up Moussaoui Case

by Reuters | New York Times, May 24, 2002

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - FBI Director Robert Mueller said on Thursday he asked the Justice Department inspector general to investigate complaints by a Minneapolis agent that FBI headquarters mishandled the case of Zacarias Moussaoui before the Sept. 11 attacks on America.

Agent Coleen Rowley complained in a recent 13-page letter to Mueller and lawmakers that FBI headquarters should have approved a request from the Minneapolis office for a search warrant involving Moussaoui, who was being held in August after arousing suspicions at a Minnesota flight school.

"I immediately referred this matter out of the FBI to the (Justice Department's) inspector general for investigation," Mueller said in a statement.

The classified letter surfaced a day after the Senate Intelligence Committee questioned Mueller about it in a closed session. It was the first known time that any of the FBI's own agents have formally complained about the bureau's failure to pursue aggressively potential warnings before Sept. 11.

Moussaoui was in custody in Minnesota when the September attacks occurred but was charged in December with conspiring to carry out the attacks. Authorities suspect he intended to join the 19 men who hijacked four passenger planes that day.

The FBI already is under fire from lawmakers for failing to properly piece together information available before Sept. 11, including a memo from an FBI agent in Phoenix expressing concern that Middle Eastern extremists who might be tied to Osama bin Laden were attending U.S. flight schools.

The memo, written in July, was never acted on and no one at the FBI linked the memo to Moussaoui at the time of his arrest on immigration violations in mid-August, or shared it with agents in Minneapolis.

Lawmakers said the Moussaoui warrant would have been obtained if the FBI officials making that decision had known about the Phoenix memo.

Mueller said in the statement he could not comment on the specifics of Rowley's letter, but added, "I am convinced that a different approach is required."

CIRCLING THE WAGONS

In the letter, Rowley said she and her Minneapolis

colleagues came to the "sad realization that someone, possibly with your approval, had decided to circle the wagons at FBI Headquarters in an apparent attempt to protect the FBI from embarrassment and the relevant FBI officials from scrutiny," ABC television reported.

"I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle

shading -- skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and is occurring," she said.

Officials familiar with the letter said Rowley had complained about a lack of coordination, some mix-ups and that agents in Minneapolis were hampered by the way the case was handled by headquarters.

According to the letter, the Minneapolis field office felt the case should have been treated more seriously by headquarters and there was a last-minute effort to circumvent FBI headquarters and go to the CIA to get approval for the warrant.

"There is no room after the (Sept. 11) attacks for the types of problems and attitudes that could inhibit our efforts," Mueller said, adding that the FBI was being "open and candid" with the investigations under way in Congress.

"This letter has me very alarmed about the nation's security," Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, who was briefed about the letter with other Senate Judiciary Committee members, said in a statement.

"If FBI headquarters is still handling terrorism information like it handled the Moussaoui case, we're in grave danger. This was worse than dropping the ball. This was bureaucrats at headquarters actively interfering with an investigation that had a terrorist in hand."

A Justice Department official said the issues raised in the Rowley letter were "being addressed" at both the Justice Department and FBI.

In early October Mueller told reporters the FBI had turned down a request from its agents in Minneapolis for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to review Moussaoui's computer hard drive because there was "insufficient probable cause".

Law enforcement officials said in October the FBI later conducted the search after Sept. 11, but did not find anything related to the hijacked plane attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed 3,000 people.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-attack-fbi.html

5/26/02
11:32:28 AM

t r u t h o u t | 05.26

French Prepare for Massive Anti-Bush Protests

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.26A.french.protests.htm

Agent Complains FBI Covered Up Moussaoui Case

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.26B.hide.moussaoui.htm

John Cory | The Devil's Boneyard

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.26C.devil.boneyard.htm

John W. Dean | Why Dick Cheney's Secrecy Scheme For Pre-9/11 Information Makes No Sense

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.26D.dean.cheney.htm

Robert Torricelli | Radio Address -- Jeffords Switch

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.26E.torricellijeffords.htm

Congress' Sept. 11 Probe Finds More Missed Clues

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.26F.missed.clues.htm

Enron Probe Reveals Heavy Influence at White House

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.26G.enron.wh.htm

Protesters Follow Bush Around Russia

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.26H.russia.protests.htm

5/25/02
2:49:48 PM

The Truth About September 11th -- From 23 Informative Websites

LOVEARTH NETWORK

Connecting Through 1,000+ EcoHumanePolitical Websites

Don't You Want To Know The Real Truth

About What Happened On September 11th?

Lovearth.net Has Put Together 23 Informative Websites

To Help You Educate Yourself About This "War On Terror"

1) My Country Right Or Wrong - Questioning September 11th

An Indepth Four Part Article With 30 Sections Of Questions Including - Part II -- The most important questions regarding September 11th that every U.S. corporate media outlet is still unwilling to ask can be found in The "Smoking Gun" September 19th press release from NORAD - Fighters Were 8 Minutes Away From WTC - Part II is a critical analysis of the alarming number of inconsistencies found in this NORAD press release -- in which NORAD had almost 8 day to produce

http://www.MyCountryRightOrWrong.net

2) More Than 500 Great Articles About 911 From Around The World

http://www.AttackOnAmerica.net

3) Tuesday, September 11, 2001, And The Three Top Sins Of The Universe

http://www.September112001.net

4) Audios, Videos, Photographs, Polls, Petition And News Archive

http://www.9112001.net

5) Bin Laden Family Money & Bush 41 & 43 Conflict Of War Profit Interest

http://www.CarlyleGroup.net

6) The History Of Oil And War - The U. S. And British Oil Imperialism

http://www.OilCompanies.net

7) The Unelected Commander In Thief - Articles, Photos, Books And Polls

http://www.GeorgeWalkerBush.net

8) How The USA PATRIOT Act Subverts 6 Amendments Of The Bill Of Rights

http://www.BillOfRights.net

9) The USA PATRIOT Act Search Law Will Provoke 4th Amendment Challenge

http://www.SneakAndPeek.net

10) Preserving Freedom By Wholesale Abrogation Of Our Civil Liberties?

http://www.Police-State.net

11) How The Fourth Estate Have Become Corporate Lap Dog Stenographers

http://www.FreedomOfThePress.net

12) Book Banning In United States Is Alive And Well In The 21st Century

http://www.Freedom-Of-Speech.net

13) The U.S. Is Unilaterally Violating Numerous International Treaties

http://www.UnitedStatesGovernment.net

14) eMail Addresses Of All 535 Congress Members Plus The V.P. And Bush

http://www.eMailCongress.net

15) Articles On The Perversity Of War And How To Bring Peace On Earth

http://www.PeaceOnEarth.net

16) Ashcroft Covers Up The Spirit Of Justice And Majesty Of Law Statues

http://www.Fascistic.net

17) Why Bush Is Addicted To Perpetual War - Lessons Learned From Daddy

http://www.Orwellian.net

18) Bush's Bay Of Piglets - Many Articles On The Failed Venezuelan Coup

http://www.Imperialist.net

19) International Articles On The Israeli War Against The Palestinians

http://www.EndWar.net

20) Congressman Dennis Kucinich Is The One

http://www.DennisKucinich.com

21) Latest EcoHumanePolitical News - Thousands Of Archived Articles

http://www.Earths.net

22) An Extensive Archive Of The Top EcoHumanePolitical Articles

http://www.EarthsNews.net

23) Connecting Through 1000+ EcoHumanePolitical Top Level Websites With Our New Search Engine You Can Find Thousands Of Archived Articles

http://www.Lovearth.net

We Are Opposed To Cunning And Deceit

Lovearth Network Executive Director: Mark Elsis

5/25/02
2:40:12 PM

Venezuelan Coup Plotter Escapes

By The Associated Press | New York Times, May 24, 2002

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- The man who briefly replaced Venezuela's president during a short-lived coup was seeking asylum in the Colombian Embassy Friday after escaping from house arrest.

Pedro Carmona went for a walk outside his home in Caracas on Thursday morning, then slipped away, his lawyer said. A day earlier, a court had ordered him transferred from house arrest to jail.

The 60-year-old Carmona faces up to 20 years in prison for rebellion and conspiracy for the April 12 coup, which was reversed two days later, bringing Chavez back to power and landing Carmona in custody.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Luis Alfonso Davila confirmed Carmona's asylum bid, but did not say how his government planned to react.

In Bogota, Colombian Foreign Minister Guillermo Fernandez said his nation would try to decide on the request quickly.

Carmona's lawyer, Juan Martin Echeverria, had said that the appeals court ruling, which cannot be appealed, violated his client's right to be tried in freedom.

Meanwhile, in Caracas, tens of thousands of anti-government demonstrators took to the streets Thursday, accusing Venezuela's attorney general of bias in the investigation of the coup last month and demanding he resign. The march was the third massive anti-government demonstration since Chavez's return to power.

Chavez was ousted April 12 by military generals after a massive demonstration against his rule ended in bloodshed. He quickly regained power with the help of loyalist troops and an outpouring of popular support.

Carmona, former president of the country's largest business association, helped organize a general strike and march leading up to the coup. Claiming Chavez had resigned, military generals installed Carmona as president.

A day after Chavez's ouster, Carmona closed Congress, the Supreme Court, threw out the constitution and promised general elections within a year. Carmona was promptly arrested after Chavez returned to power.

He has denied conspiring to overthrow the government and said he accepted the presidency because he believed Chavez had resigned.

In Caracas, the demonstrators protested what they said was the government's biased investigation into deadly violence during the protests that briefly toppled Chavez, a leftist former paratrooper whose close ties to Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Iraq's Saddam Hussein have irritated U.S. officials.

``We are marching to demonstrate that Venezuelans are waiting for justice, and we won't have justice while the attorney general is a man clearly partial to the government,'' said opposition lawmaker Andres Velasquez.

After almost six weeks, few results have emerged from Attorney General Isaias Rodriguez's investigation into dozens of deaths during civilian and military uprisings that deposed and quickly restored Chavez.

Seventeen people died and hundreds were wounded April 11 when gunmen opened fire on an opposition march, pro-Chavez protesters and security officials trying to keep the two sides from clashing.

Thursday's march coincided with mounting calls for early elections, including from members of the president's own coalition, the Fifth Republic Movement.

Fifth Republic Movement director general Francisco Ameliach said a referendum was the only way to prevent an explosion of violence like the one that prompted last month's coup.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Venezuela-Coup.html

5/25/02
2:30:54 PM

George W Bush, Political Terrorist

by William Rivers Pitt, May 23, 2002

The earthquake began on Thursday, May 16th: The Bush administration had been warned by the CIA months before September 11th of Al Qaida terrorists and plans to hijack airplanes. Nothing of substance was done to address the threat – "The proper agencies were warned," we were told, but no representative of any pertinent agency has since stepped forward to acknowledge receipt of any warnings.

In fact, the spokesman for Massport, the Massachusetts state agency responsible for security at Logan airport, stated bluntly in the pages of the Boston Globe that his agency never heard from the Federal government regarding any hijacking threat. The two aircraft that destroyed the World Trade Center towers and killed thousands of Americans went wheels-up at Logan.

By Friday the news was sprayed across the headlines of virtually every newspaper on the planet: Bush Knew.

The implications were deadly for the Bush White House. Information had been given that indicated terrorist attacks were imminent, but little if anything was done to prevent them. Concern for the profit margins of the airline industry, which would have been crippled had a serious terrorist warning been disbursed in high summer, were first offered as a good reason why no true measures were taken to prevent the hijackings.

Later, spokesmen like Ari Fleischer and Dick Cheney came forward to claim that the warnings were "vague" and "non-specific" and therefore not worthy of notice. We were told that the hijack warnings pertained to "traditional hijacking" scenarios, as if that forgave the lapse in security. The weekend political talk shows became a showcase for spin, and the word went out for all to hear – the Bush administration is blameless, and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor.

The truly interesting part came on Monday. All of a sudden, the world was coming to an end. FBI Director Mueller claimed there was no chance that another terrorist attack could be stopped. Dick Cheney stuck out his jaw and stated bluntly that another terrorist attack was inevitable. Don Rumsfeld said terrorists would definitely get their hands on nuclear or biological weapons, and then use them to terrible effect. The newswires vibrated with images of suicide bombers on New York subways, and a warning went out to apartment building landlords – watch for suspicious characters, because the next WTC-type catastrophe could be yours. The Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge were draped with bullseyes by the administration, though no one spoke of means to prevent these horrors.

The effect of these warnings was dynamic. People from coast to coast felt the clutch of fear in their guts as images of smallpox and mushroom clouds flickered behind their eyelids. New York City, battered and bruised, clenched its collective fist in a spasm of dread. It must be real, these threats, because the President and his people say so. Let there be terror and meekness in equal measure on the streets of the greatest city on earth.

And yet comes Wednesday, and an extraordinary series of revelations. An article in the May 21st edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that, "the White House quietly acknowledged that the threats are not urgent and that they are partly motivated by political objectives" and that "the blunt warnings issued yesterday and Sunday do not reflect a dramatic increase in threatening information but rather a desire to fend off criticism from the Democrats."

It seems that everyone can calm down. Horrific terrorist attacks are not, in fact, imminent. Everything is well in hand. The Bush administration is merely using the fear and horror that another September 11th-type attack may happen again as a means to deflect legitimate criticism from the Democratic Party. Nothing to see here. Go about your business. This is, after all, just politics.

It was bad enough that Bush had made his crass 'trifecta' joke eight different times. You know this one: Someone reported that Bush promised not to raid social Security or dive into deficit spending unless the nation was faced with war, recession or national emergency. After 9/11, Bush was heard to crack on eight separate occasions, "Lucky me, I hit the trifecta." Let it be noted that the country is running a $66.5 billion deficit seven months into the budget year, and the 9/11 death toll between America and Afghanistan stands above 5,000 souls.. That is one hell of a trifecta, and no laughing matter.

It was bad enough that Bush and his people were selling photographs of his phone calls during the 9/11 attacks to raise political funds. Al Gore called the practice "disgraceful;" the word is not strong enough. The English language is deficient in words required to describe those who seek to profit from a day of such blood and horror.

Now, with leaders like Daschle and Gephardt calling for a public investigation into the obvious intelligence failures behind 9/11, we have well-known members of the Bush administration going on national television to terrify the American people so as to avoid any questions. It wasn't enough for Condoleeza Rice to go on CNN's 'Late Edition' to state that the administration was against a public investigation into 9/11, as she did on May 19th. The American people needed to feel the wrath of pure terror from this administration, to ensure that it would get what it wanted – a continued veil of secrecy and the surety that prickly questions would go unasked.

Why the veil of secrecy? Perhaps it is as simple as the story told by respected British journalist Gordon Thomas, who has reported that Israel warned the American government on five separate occasions of terrorist plots to attack prominent targets. As late as August 24, 2001, the Israeli security agency Mossad informed the CIA that "terrorists plan to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture."

There are those who believe the absolute worst – that Bush and his cronies knew of the 9/11 attacks in advance, and allowed them to happen so they could advance nefarious personal and political goals. For the time being, such accusations are totally unprovable and essentially irresponsible. The truth in hand, however, is worse than the darkest conspiracy theory.

The Bush administration had specific information in hand from the CIA pointing to an airplane-based attack on American targets. They did not warn agencies responsible for security at American airports, nor did they beef up airline security by fiat. The FBI had specific warnings of terrorist attacks in hand earlier in the summer of 2001, but a failure in the chain of command caused these warnings to go unheeded.

The same administration that had the 9/11 attacks happen on its watch has fought tooth and nail to keep any investigation into the security failures that led to the attack from happening. Basically, those security failures are still there, intact, deadly to us all. The warnings of impending catastrophe from the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Mueller may prove to be a self-fulfilling prophesy because this administration refuses to take responsible action to address them.

In fact, the Bush administration has proven itself more than willing to go to wretched extremes to keep any investigation from gaining steam, by frightening the public with warnings of doom that they themselves admit have far more to do with politics than reality.

We were wide open to attack on September 11th because of these security failures. We are wide open to attack today, because the same irresponsible leaders in charge on 9/11 are calling the shots today. Rather than work to protect Americans, they seek to terrify Americans as a means to cow any Democratic move towards an investigation into the causes behind the 9/11 attacks.

If we are attacked again, they will have no one but themselves to blame. The Democrats asking for an investigation are doing so because they want to protect Americans. Bush and his people are fighting this because they want to protect themselves. They are purposefully making people afraid to further this agenda. They play politics on a field littered with the bones of American dead, and they peddle fear to a nation already saturated with woe.

Such foulness is beyond contempt, and reeks of desperation. There will be a reckoning.

Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.24A.Political.Terror.htm

5/25/02
2:20:32 PM

t r u t h o u t | 05.25

Marc Ash | Responding to Senator John McCain

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.25A.Respond.McCain.htm

John McCain | Probe Deep, and Fairly

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.25B.McCain.Probe.htm

Jane Mayer | The House Of Bin Laden

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.25C.Mayer.Bin.Laden.htm

Sierra Club | Judge Rules Against Cheney Energy Task Force

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.25D.Sierra.Judge.htm

Geoffrey Gray | Ari's Faux Pas?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.25E.Gray.Faux.Pas.htm

Paul Krugman | America the Scofflaw

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.25F.Krugman.Scofflaw.htm

White House Acknowledges More Contacts With Enron

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.25G.More.Contacts.htm

Venezuelan Coup Plotter Escapes

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.25H.Plotter.Escapes.htm

BBC's Nick Bryant | On tour with President Bush - Day Two

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.25I.Bryant.Day.2.htm

5/25/02
2:18:18 PM

Military Used Nerve Gas In '60s

By Matt Kelley, Associated Press Writer, May 24, 2002

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) admitted for the first time that chemical and biological weapons were tested on Navy ships in the 1960s, and said anyone who was harmed could be eligible for health benefits.

Two kinds of nerve gas and a biological toxin were sprayed on the ships, military officials said Thursday. Four tests in the Pacific from 1964 to 1968 used either the deadly nerve agent sarin, the nerve gas known as VX, or a biological toxin that causes flu-like symptoms, Defense Department statements said.

Sketchy records of the tests and ships' logs do not indicate any of those involved in the tests suffered serious health problems at the time, said Dr. Michael E. Kilpatrick, a Defense Department health official.

"We believe if anything catastrophic happened or if there were large numbers of ill people, it would be in the log," said Kilpatrick, who was involved in reviewing the records. "There's no indication on any of these tests that that had occurred."

The Department of Veterans Affairs (news - web sites) has mailed letters to about 600 veterans who may have taken part in the tests, VA Secretary Anthony Principi said Thursday.

"There's always been a question whether veterans and active-duty service members became ill as a result of that testing," Principi said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It's been controversial, so we were sending out letters to veterans to ask them to take a physical and to see if they are entitled to any benefits."

The Pentagon released details about six tests from a 1960s program to evaluate chemical and biological weapons and defenses against them. The Defense Department agreed two years ago to begin releasing details about the tests and contacting participants after pressure from Rep. Mike Thompson (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., and veterans involved in the tests.

"I'm somewhat alarmed by it," Thompson said. "It seems to me enough time has passed that someone over there should have known who was involved and what was going on."

The tests also used chemicals and bacteria meant to simulate weapons, as well as fluorescent or radioactive chemicals used as tracers, the Defense Department said. One type of bacteria used to simulate germ weapons was later found to cause infections, and a separate test where that germ was sprayed on San Francisco is believed to have caused an infection that killed a man.

The tests were among 113 conducted as part of a project called SHAD, or Shipboard Hazard and Defense. The Pentagon has acknowledged using chemical and biological simulants before, but has not admitted using the actual weapons agents themselves.

Sarin, the deadly nerve gas used by a cult to kill a dozen people in a Tokyo subway in 1995, was used in a 1964 test off the Hawaiian coast. Both sarin and a chemical simulant were also sprayed onto the USS George Eastman and injected into the ship's ventilation system, the Pentagon statement said.

Crew members wore gas masks during the tests, and those who worked most directly with the sarin wore chemical protection suits, the statement said.

Monkeys were used as test subjects during the exercises using nerve gas and were later "sacrificed" to determine whether they were exposed to the weapons, Kilpatrick said. Although records do not say how potent the sarin was, the fact that participants used protective gear indicates it was in a harmful or deadly form, Kilpatrick said.

Tests in 1964 and 1965 used VX, another deadly nerve gas. During tests in 1965, George Eastman was sprayed with VX and a simulant to test decontamination procedures. VX gas tagged with radioactive phosphorus was also sprayed on a barge to test decontamination procedures.

That second test used a compound that was 90 percent VX — "the most lethal nerve agent" and one that can linger for weeks, Kilpatrick said. But there is no evidence any people were on the barge sprayed with VX, which was towed nearly a half-mile behind a tugboat, he said.

A 1968 test used staphylococcal enterotoxin Type B — a poison produced by bacteria that causes flu-like symptoms such as fever, muscle aches, cough, vomiting and diarrhea.

During that test, the toxin was sprayed over five tugboats, the USS Granville S. Hall and parts of a Pacific atoll to evaluate how it could be spread from the air.

Source: http://www.AP.org

5/25/02
2:08:53 PM

Dan Rather: Bush Issued Bogus Terror Alert to Cover Up 9-11 Bungle

May 22, 2002

"CBS Evening News" anchorman Dan Rather accused the Bush administration Wednesday morning of issuing an unwarranted FBI terrorist alert to New York City yesterday primarily to distract from questions about its handling of pre-Sept. 11 intelligence information.

Appearing on the "Imus in the Morning" radio show, Rather said he "believed" his network's report a week ago that the White House received a CIA briefing before 9-11 on possible al-Qaeda hijackings prompted the administration to issue the alert for political damage control.

"I can believe that the president and the people around him were surprised and peeved, to say the least," Rather contended, "that the information got out last week with [CBS's] report that President Bush had been briefed about some things that, in retrospect after Sept. 11, would indicate that, well, maybe somebody should have done something."

The CBS newsman continued:

"And I can also believe that, as with every president, somebody's in the White House scratching their heads saying, 'How can we change the subject.' Now, the subject has been changed, suddenly and very effectively, from 'How is it that the FBI and the CIA didn't move on the information they had? Where was the president briefed about what, when?'

"The subject's been changed," Rather explained, "from that, to suddenly one administration official after another, and each escalating it, [issuing] a new set of warnings."

The CBS anchor said he doubted the confluence of events was coincidental:

"Maybe these two things are not connected, but surely the people in the administration could forgive us for perhaps thinking, well, perhaps there's some connection here."

Prior to outlining his terrorist alert conspiracy theory, Rather sounded dismissive about the latest warning that had Manhattan in a virtual traffic lockdown Wednesday morning.

"We're on some kind of alert because somebody heard something that somebody may blow something up. [But] as a citizen, what are we supposed to do with that information?"

Rather also defended Democrat calls for a 9-11 investigation into the Bush White House, saying:

"We're not interested in just looking in the rearview mirror so we can nail somebody, you know - 'What did you know and when did you know it?'

"But this is pretty important stuff," he insisted. "Given the stories about intelligence failures that we already have heard about, who can argue that we don't need some kind of commission ... led by professionals that goes into how the situation with al-Qaeda was handled before Sept. 11, what mistakes were made and what we can learn from that."

Rather insisted that curiosity about a possible Bush 9-11 cover-up had nothing to do with partisan politics.

"That's not playing partisan politics. There's already too much of that. That's trying to get information that can help us all in the future."

The CBS newsman also accused Attorney General John Ashcroft of taking advantage of insider information about terrorist warnings to fly on private jets, while the public was kept in the dark about the secret alert, telling Imus:

"If the attorney general is given information that convinces him, 'Hey, I don't want to be on any commercial airliners just now. I'm gonna take government planes everywhere.' If the attorney general was told that ... then it raises a question. Why wasn't the public alerted?"

"Some people probably would not have flown" had they also received the Ashcroft warning, he complained.

After the CBS news anchor's interview, NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski called Imus to correct the record, explaining that Ashcroft's decision not to fly commercial aircraft last summer was prompted by threats against his life - and had no connection whatsoever to pre-Sept. 11 intelligence information.

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/5/22/95452

5/25/02
2:05:36 PM

Most oil polluting the oceans comes from runoff, rivers, small boats, not tanker spills

by Randolph E. Schmid, Associated Press, May 24, 2002

WASHINGTON — Leaking oil tankers produce dramatic photos, but a new study says the vast majority of the human-related petroleum released into U.S. coastal waters comes from consumers, not the ships that carry the oil. The National Research Council reported Thursday that about 29 million gallons of oil enters the oceans around North America each year as a result of human activities. O