10/20/01
11:20:36 AM

We Will Not Be Silenced

MPs must be free to speak out against this absurd and potentially disastrous war

by George Galloway Saturday October 20, 2001 The Guardian

In exile in Switzerland, shortly before the Russian revolution, Lenin opined that "there are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen". We are, it seems, living through such weeks. It is hard to remember a time when political instability, civil strife and the roar of bombs and missiles have so scarred the international landscape. Governments like Norway's fall, others like Australia's cut and run for a khaki election. General Musharraf, Pakistan's self-appointed military strongman, admits he's forcing through a policy rejected by 83% of his compatriots. General Sharon's Israeli government, riven between hawks and superhawks, now appears to have embarked on a doomsday option, possibly including the assassination of Arafat, following the slaying of the world's least attractive "tourism" minister.

The "soft centered" European governments are beginning to squirm and the Labour benches in the British parliament are turning queasy at the slaughter of the world's poorest by the world's richest. Coalition comrades, India and Pakistan, are shelling each other across the line of control in Kashmir. Aid agencies are in "emotional" revolt and, like Mary Robinson, are having to be ordered back into their box by Clare Short. Muslim streets are burning from Gaza to Jakarta. In the House of Commons, former defence ministers, Labour rightwingers like Gwyneth Dunwoody and MPs with large Muslim electorates have swollen the ranks of the usual suspects - those like me, who have opposed all the wars of the new imperialism.

Internationally, the coalition is shakier still. The Arab League, echoing Nato leaders, has declared that any attack on an Arab country will be regarded as an attack against all of them. The Saudis, having denied the US use of their bases and declined a visit by Tony Blair, are now questioning the basis of the whole campaign - even openly doubting the involvement of Bin Laden in the crimes of September 11.

Meanwhile, the phone-in lines to Arab television stations are jammed with opponents of the war and blood-chilling threats of mayhem in revenge. Bush and Blair may not be "at war with Islam", but "Islam" is now at war with them and we will be lucky if that is not soon visible on the streets of northern English cities.

Nowhere is that more evident than in the reaction to the "Middle East fit for heroes" the Anglo-Americans are promising. The Arabs simply don't believe it. Perfidious Albion, after all, has a track record. The Palestinian tragedy was authored here in the building in which I write. During the Great War, while Lawrence of Arabia rallied the tribal hordes to support our jihad on the Turks - with the promise of Arab independence - over in Downing Street Mr Sykes and Monsieur Picot were carving up the area into British and French colonies. And in 1991, Britain and America offered the Arabs a new deal, with Israel forced to implement international legality, if they backed the fight against Iraq. Promises made and broken with a handshake.

Seldom can a western war drum have sounded more hollow. Seldom can the prattle of ministers - Labour ministers, many of whom I can still see sporting their CND badges as they shuttled around looking for safe seats in the 70s and 80s - about command and control centres, air defences and radar capabilities have seemed so obscenely stupid. The Afghans have none. The airport at Kabul is no more than a collection of shacks, whose telephones couldn't even make outgoing calls. And the statement, delivered by our defence secretary with all the gravitas of Captain Mainwaring, that we had achieved "air-superiority" over Afghanistan - over a Flintstones-style air force which couldn't even leave the ground - will live forever as one of those stories you really couldn't make up.

So what are the "allies" bombing? The four UN mine-clearing staff, the shepherds and their families in the village of Khorum, the Red Cross compound in Kabul, the residents of Kandahar, the trucks full of terrified refugees. More of these human and public relations disasters will conspire to "bury" the government's message. An already restless audience here, never mind among the 1.3bn Muslims nursing their wrath, will not sit through this unequal fight with equanimity. And without a change of policy, the winter snows will soon begin to tilt this disaster into an international catastrophe.

Well, what should we do, ask the remaining subalterns of the war party's thin red line. As the Irishman famously replied: "If I wanted to get to Cork, I wouldn't have started from here." The government was repeatedly warned of the grisly consequences of its tango with Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan. I accused it on the eve of the fall of Kabul of having opened the gates to the barbarians and of the long dark night which would follow. Many of us have since described the rising tide of radical Islam, buoyed by our double standards towards Palestine and Iraq, and our buttressing of stooge kings, generals and 99%-of-the-vote presidents of the Muslim world - now laughably lined up behind "operation enduring freedom".

But even for those who have brought us to this terrifying cusp in world events, there were alternatives. The squeeze could have been kept up on the Taliban - three weeks is not a long time to secure extradition on a capital offence, especially without providing evidence to the country concerned. The judicious waving of carrots to tribal chiefs could well have achieved the betrayal of Bin Laden. And if military action was seen as unavoidable, the target should have been the Arab legions in the mountains, not the poor ragged Afghans they've colonised, who never invited them in - we did - and have no way of making them leave. This and a Lockerbie-type trial, in a neutral country and including Muslim jurists, would have been one way to show how "civilised" we were. Instead we've answered savagery with savagery.

On the home front, there are disturbing signs of the Downing Street general staff losing their nerve. Careless talk circulates about members of parliament being carpeted, media appearances vetted, ultimatums issued. This would be the ultimate surrender to democracy's enemies. Throughout the second world war, Aneurin Bevan subjected the line of the Churchill coalition government to excoriating criticism and withering examination - as Churchill himself had done with Chamberlain. Both would have scorned the idea of their actions being licensed by whips, as if we were circus dogs whose duty was to perform tricks for the ringmaster. I too have now been summoned to see the chief whip. Next week, over tea and biscuits at 11 Downing Street, I will have to courteously explain to my old friend Hilary Armstrong that I, for one, will not be gagged. This bombing has to stop - and the war is too important to be left to ministers and generals in conclave.

· George Galloway is Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin and a columnist for the Scottish Mail on Sunday. He will be online on guardian.co.uk/politics on Monday at 1 pm.

George Galloway MailTo:gallowayg@parliament.uk

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,577516,00.html

10/20/01
11:11:41 AM

Claims That China Paid Bin Laden To See Cruise Missiles

by John Hooper in Milan Saturday October 20, 2001 The Guardian

China paid Osama bin Laden several million dollars for access to unexploded American cruise missiles left over from the US attack on his bases three years ago, a senior alleged al-Qaida agent in Europe has claimed.

The alleged agent's account is contained in the transcript of a secretly taped conversation between supporters of Osama bin Laden obtained by the Guardian. His revelation emerged as President Bush yesterday announced that he had won Beijing's support for the war on terrorism. After his first face-to-face meeting with China's President Jiang Zemin in Shanghai, Mr Bush said: "President Jiang and the government stand side by side with the American people as we fight this evil force".

The Chinese government has denied it obtained US missiles after the 1998 raid, which was carried out in reprisal for the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Beijing is said to have made a deal with al-Qaida to acquire the missiles despite the fact that it was facing a growing threat from Muslim separatists in the Xinjiang region. In 1999, China accused Bin Laden's organisation of training members of the independence movement in guerrilla warfare.

The US fired 75 missiles into Afghanistan during the attack on Bin Laden's camps on August 20, 1998. A report four months later in the Pakistani newspaper Ausaf, cited Taliban sources as saying that 40 were found unexploded.

The story of what happened next was taken up by Lased Ben Heni in a conversation with associates this year. Ben Heni, a 32-year-old Libyan arrested in Munich last week, is accused by Italian prosecutors of being the liaison officer between two terrorist cells owing allegiance to al-Qaida in Frankfurt and Milan.

On March 9, in a rundown flat in the Milan suburb of Gallarate, he met the leader of the Italian cell, Sami Ben Khemais Essid (alias "Saber") and told him of his experiences in Afghanistan visiting Osama bin Laden's camps. Unknown to the two men, the flat had been bugged by officers of the Italian anti-terrorist police.

"Perhaps the Americans are convinced by the bombardment of the sheikh's [Bin Laden's] training centres," Ben Heni is quoted as saying. "For them, it was a victory. But, in fact, it was a defeat because the majority of the missiles didn't even explode."

After a digression, the transcript continues: "With these weapons, he [Bin Laden] has boosted his financial resources. From every part of the world businessmen who hate Americans have come to study American missile strategy.

"In particular, businessmen have come from China. He works a great deal with China. He's got good relations with them.

"You see them and you ask 'But what are they doing here?' In the end, you understand that they work for the sheikh and that they came to study these missiles.

"Thanks to the money that comes from these studies from outside, he created the army of mohajedin headed by Omar Zayan (or Zaghan) in Chechnya".

Later, in a passage the meaning of which is not entirely clear, Ben Heni is heard to say: "When [Bin Laden] saw that the Afghan people, who were dying of hunger, passed missiles to sheikh Messaoud, he bargained with the Chinese and sold them to them for an enormous sum - I think $10m dollars - but only after the sheikh had studied them".

The transcript is the first supporting evidence from inside al-Qaida of sporadic reports in the months following the 1998 attack that China had acquired two unexploded Tomahawk missiles. In March 1999, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman described the reports as "groundless".

President Jiang told a joint press conference after his meeting with Mr Bush yesterday that they had reached a "consensus" on terrorism, although he urged that the anti-terrorist action should "hit accurately and also avoid innocent casualties".

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,577542,00.html

10/20/01
11:01:33 AM

New Brothers In Arms - And Cash And Intelligence

How the US and Britain reward countries offering support in war against Taliban

Jamie Wilson, Suzanne Goldenberg, Ewen MacAskill and Jonathan Steele

Saturday October 20, 2001 The Guardian

The US is expected to release shipments of advanced rocket artillery to Egypt and supply helicopter gunship spares to China - where both President George Bush and secretary of state Colin Powell are currently in negotiations - in the latest of a long list of arms, intelligence and cash deals struck to obtain the support of surrounding countries for its war against terrorism and the Taliban.

Britain's contribution is expected to include the granting of Russian demands that a hard line be taken against Chechen exiles in London, and the offer to Malaysia of sophisticated intelligence surveillance kit to use against internal dissent.

The feudal sultanate of Oman is being promised more than $1bn worth of US arms. The nuclear-armed Pakistan military regime is expecting not only large sums of cash and removal of sanctions, but also American diplomatic support over its long-running feud with India over Kashmir.

Turkey is hoping to get a big increase in loans to escape its economic crisis. And Iran, the former "terrorist state" has seen the US government this week move to block an unwelcome lawsuit against them.

James Lindsay, a former director of global issues on the US national security council under President Clinton, says the acquisition by the US of intelligence material from neighbouring states is important, alongside overflying rights and military facilities. "Intelligence sharing is going on. The US wants to get intelligence from these governments, but the way it is trading intelligence is unknown."

We list below some of the deals struck in the last month, often to regimes whose democratic and human rights records had made them virtual international pariahs before September 11.

Iran

Initially condemned the bombing of Afghanistan: but its agreement to rescue American personnel in distress in its territory suggests relations might not be too frosty. Iran is also believed to be providing the US with intelligence and has expelled Imad Mughniyeh, a Lebanese on the FBI's "most wanted" list.

The return? Tehran's views on the shape of a future Afghanistan are being given greater weight by the US. There is already a channel open for quasi-military western co-operation: Iran receives night vision goggles and four-wheel drive vehicles from Britain "to fight the drugs trade". The EU council of foreign ministers pledged consultations with a view to negotiating a trade agreement. On the same day that it was revealed that Iran agreed to help downed pilots, the US administration asked a federal judge to throw out a $10bn lawsuit brought against Iran by Americans taken hostage in 1979.

Palestinians

Yasser Arafat has backed Mr Bush. Now he hears the US president speak positively about the possibility of a Palestinian state. A proposal by a US senator, Diane Feinstein, to ban funding to the Palestinian Authority because of the suicide bombings in Israel was withdrawn after a request from Colin Powell.

Syria

Last week this former "terrorist state" was made a non-permanent member of the UN security council. This elevation passed without America using its veto.

Egypt

Israeli intelligence sources say that Tel Aviv is particularly worried about the likely sale of 26 rocket artillery systems to Egypt. Israeli lobbyists previously managed to block the sale in the US Congress before September 11.

Oman

Thousands of western troops are deployed there. On the day the defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld arrived for talks, the US announced the sale of 12 late-model F-16C fighters; plus night-attack navigation and laser-bomb targeting devices; advanced air-to-air missiles; kits to make laser-guided weapons out of bombs; Harpoon anti-ship missiles and radar equipment.

Pakistan

US sources see four elements to the deal with Pakistan: complete lifting of sanctions; increased aid and restructuring of its loans; a promise that Pakistan will have a say in the future shape of the next Afghan government and, finally, Kashmir. The Pakistani leader, General Pervez Musharraf, is understood to have demanded formal recognition of the existing Kashmir boundary with India.

The US Senate foreign relations committee approved a bill enabling Pakistan to receive emergency military assistance to combat terrorism - a useful tool should Gen Musharraf find himself facing a pro-Taliban insurgency.

The international development secretary Clare Short offered another £15m in British aid and spoke of cancelling interest payments. The EU council of foreign ministers is to boost aid. The European commission has rushed through trade concessions worth about $1.35bn.

Russia

Chechnya has been a constant source of awkward questions from foreign governments. The west now accepts that Russia is confronting "terrorism" with regard to bombings in Moscow. President Vladimir Putin has already won a change of wording from the White House, which referred the participation of al-Qaida terrorists in Chechnya.

Russia will also be expecting a clampdown on the alleged flow of young UK Muslims to fight in Chechnya. It also received a promise that the west will soften its attitude over Russia's behaviour towards unstable Muslim countries on its southern flank: where there is fighting, especially over water rights.

China

US government sources say the Bush administration wants to promote exchanges of anti-terrorist intelligence.

Sanctions bar the sale of military-related equipment to Chinese security forces: they were imposed after the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square demonstrators. But Mr Bush is reported to be considering clearing the way for the sale of spare parts for Black Hawk helicopter gunships the US sold to China during the 1980s.

Uzbekistan

US forces are being given the use of bases in the former Soviet republic. When Mr Rumsfeld visited there he carried a letter from Mr Bush underscoring Washington's interests in a new relationship.

The authoritarian president, Islam Karimov, is known to be keen to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to a port in Pakistan. With a friendly US-controlled government in Kabul the pipeline could finally become a reality. US oil companies would no doubt be willing to get involved.

EU foreign ministers have also agreed to boost cooperation with Uzbekistan.

Turkey

Nato's sole Muslim member and a key US ally - airbases in Turkey have been a key staging post for the attacks on Afghanistan - has been offered IMF and World Bank loans totalling $1.7bn and is seeking a further $9bn to help shore up its crumbling export and tourism industries in the wake of the attacks.

Malaysia

The US has been seeking assistance to provide intelligence and arrest Bin Laden terrorist suspects from lists provided by the FBI.

British intelligence sources say interception and surveillance equipment to enable regimes to spy on their own people is being offered as a sweetener to states such as Malaysia offering information about Bin Laden and al-Qaida.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is under fierce criticism in Washington for its refusal to allow the unrestricted use of US airbases there and apparent refusal to share intelligence and act against al-Qaida supporters.

Members of the US intelligence community have been briefing journalists including the New Yorker magazine about the contents of some of their unsavoury national security agency phone taps involving members of the Saudi royal family and prostitutes. The threat to the Saudi elite is clear: help us or else.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,577569,00.html

10/19/01
10:36:10 PM

Don't Use The Sept. 11 Tragedy To Loot Social Security

by Alan Benjamin

A story that is buried in the financial pages should have every working family up in arms. The Bush administration, with the willing collaboration of leading figures in the Democratic Party, is using the tragedy of Sept. 11 to try to rob working people of trillions of dollars in Social Security.

The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial dated Sept. 19, was among the first to call on Bush to hurry up and take advantage of the "unique political climate" created by the Sept. 11 events to "assert his leadership not just on security and foreign policy but across the board."

Specifically, the Wall Street Journal summoned the president to move ahead on faster tax-rate cuts, expanded oil drilling in Alaska, fast-track authority for trade negotiations -- and, yes, dipping into the Social Security surplus to fund some of his new military expenditures.

A few weeks later, a leading figure in the Clinton administration joined the chorus. In an op-ed article published in the Oct. 8 New York Times, Laura Tyson -- former chief economic adviser to Bill Clinton and current dean of the Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley --argues that the only way the United States can fund its protracted, multifaceted war on terrorism is to use "funds pledged to Medicare and Social Security." She calls this a "temporary raid on the Medicare and Social Security surpluses."

But just how temporary? "The costs of the war are likely to last for years," Tyson continues, "and they will be high." In a word, this "justifiable" raid could go on for many years.

All will not be rosy, Tyson acknowledges, as the government may not have the money down the road to pay recipients the Social Security checks they are entitled to. "Slicing into the Medicare and Social Security surpluses now will only make the day of reckoning, when the baby boomers begin to retire, more painful, Tyson states. "The government will then be forced to choose between higher payroll taxes, reduced retirement benefits and escalating budget deficits."

The meaning is clear: That portion of every working person's paycheck that was deducted month after month to help pay for retirement may not be there after all when the time to retire comes. The "day of reckoning" may be painful -- meaning that retirement benefits may be reduced, or the retirement age may be increased (another form of theft), or the funds simply may have disappeared into all sorts of speculative ventures. Whatever the form, it's highway robbery, pure and simple.

Aren't these funds off limits?

Many working people have a hard time believing that the government has the right to tamper with funds set aside explicitly to pay retirees their Social Security benefits. How did this come to pass?

It didn't all begin with Sept. 11. A number of laws passed since the early 1980s have paved the way.

First came a law that took Social Security funds, which had been held separate from general revenues in their own trust account, and folded them into the government's accounting system. This gave the government direct access to these funds.

Then came a law demanding a balanced budget, forcing the government to cut spending if tax revenues drop. This was followed by the huge tax cut for the rich, sugar-coated with insignificant tax rebate checks for the nation's working families. All this created what the government calls a "cash flow squeeze" and set the stage for doing something a majority in Congress vowed not to do before Sept. 11 -- and that is, dip into the Social Security surplus to pay for tax cuts or government spending.

A perfect pretext

The call from corporate America to "overhaul" Social Security did not originate with the Sept. 11 tragedy. In fact, during his first months in office, Bush handpicked a group of businessmen to propose the revamping of the entire Social Security system. This included plans to dip into the Social Security surplus while also raising the retirement age and reducing both the retirement benefit and cost-of-living adjustments.

But how to carry out this looting of the Social Security fund in the face of major opposition in the Congress? The Sept. 11 events have provided Bush and his corporate buddies with the perfect pretext. Democrats --all-too-eager to jump on the bandwagon of "national unity to fight terrorism" -- have dropped their oppositionist stance, embracing this corporate raid of workers' hard-earned money.

Admittedly, the Social Security checks paid out every month to retirees are limited. But for many older people, they are the difference between eating and starving, between having a roof over one's head and living on the street. With the stocks-based retirement plans rapidly losing value, moreover, it is evident that no 401(K) plan and no investment scheme can take the place of a government-guaranteed retirement fund.

More than ever it is necessary to demand: Bush and the Congress, Hands Off Social Security!

This article originally appeared in the September-October 2001 issue of The Organizer newspaper.

10/19/01
10:29:07 PM

Flagging Interest

by Bob Woodiwiss, Cincinnati CityBeat

Dear Neighbor,

The fact that you, along with everyone else on the street, are flying the American flag has not escaped my attention. I suspect that my failure to do the same might also have attracted yours. Please allow me to explain why my display of patriotism is so lacking:

1. I burned all my flags protesting something. Or things, I should say, though I don't remember what exactly. Probably I flambeed a few over nuclear proliferation; I was big on that for a while and I could really get into a froth on the subject. And I torched plenty of them at free speech demonstrations; those rallies always got my flag-burning juices flowing. NAFTA and the WTO claimed a few, too. Honestly, though, a lot my flags got ashed for less than noble reasons. I mean, burning them kind of became my "thing," my "signature." I lit 'em at my nephew's Little League games, at my high school reunion, even one time at the grand opening of a Super Cuts. Whatever, that big box of American flags I had in my basement is empty now.

2. I don't really need a flag in my yard since I recently stuck a teeny-tiny "window cling" decal of an American flag in the middle of my left contact lens. That way, I see a vague, translucent image of the Stars and Stripes out in front of me all day long. Also, if I poke myself hard in the eye with my finger, the red and blue and purple spots I see look like fireworks going off behind Old Glory on the 4th of July.

3. I'm trying to impress an Afghan woman who works in my office and who I'm thinking about asking on a date. Her name's Shelly and she's a second generation American and everything, and from what I've overheard her say to other people in the break room she deplores terrorism and supports this country's fight against it, but, geez, she's really, really cute and I don't want to do anything that could even remotely hurt my chances with her if I ever get the nerve to actually go out with her and, you know, bring her back to my place for coffee or a drink.

4. Stripes make my house look fat. I keep hoping the government will come out with a flag in a solid, muted earth tone or, if they absolutely have to have a print, a subtle houndstooth, you know, something that'll look good on your average Midwestern house, not just on some skinny, New York brownstones.

5. My flagpole, made of black walnut, manufactured in the 1920s and rated for 48 stars, is currently in the shop being restored, updated and modified to accommodate the modern American 50-star standard.

6. It's been almost three years since you all started calling me "the lazy ass who won't paint his house" and I'm sick and tired of it. May I suggest you now switch to "the son of a bitch without the flag?"

7. As someone of Swiss descent, I find myself confronting this time of great crisis with nothing more than a swelling sense of neutrality.

8. You always expect me to play along with your little yard themes and schemes, but you never go along with mine. Like, remember a few years ago? Somebody got a cement goose and dressed it up in different outfits and before you know it everybody's got a goose with outfits. It was practically mandatory. Then came the silhouettes. Of the dog barking up the tree, of the man leaning against the tree, etc., etc. And before this whole Old Glory kick, every house around here was all caught up in hanging holiday flags and special occasion flags and seasonal flags. But how about when I replaced my garage door with strings of glass beads? Or when I turned the front yard into a prairie dog village? Or the condom machine next to the mail box? Where were you trend sheep for those ideas? Nowhere. Well, I'm telling you, you provincial bastards, until somebody gets behind one of my ideas, screw you.

9. There are strict rules governing the hows and whens and wheres of displaying the United States flag, and if I were any good whatsoever at following strict rules, I wouldn't have a pair of cuticle scissors and three bottle caps lodged in my large intestine.

10. My habitual abuse of peyote renders me incapable of undertaking any job which would require my attention for any time period longer than 10 angstroms in the cruel helix of wolf geography. Repiffens?

Yours sinceremoniously,

Bob

Bob Woodiwiss writes humor and satire columns for the Cincinnati Citybeat.

http://www.CityBeat.com

10/19/01
10:12:36 PM

Operation Enduring Protest

by Liza Featherstone

On Saturday, October 13, a cry to stop the bombing in Afghanistan was heard all over the world. More than 20,000 demonstrators in London, 15,000 in Berlin, 10,000 in San Francisco and thousands more in Sweden, Nepal, South Korea, Nigeria and elsewhere called for peace. A rally in New York City's Washington Square was comparatively small, attracting some 700 people.

That rally, organized by War Is Not the Answer, one of several emerging New York City peace coalitions, attracted New Yorkers of varying races and nationalities, but the 1960s generation was heavily represented. Protester Curtis Mack of Crown Heights avoided the draft during the Vietnam War, even though his seven brothers fought. He said, "We need a peaceful solution to this mess. Why can't we all just get along?" Smiling sheepishly at his reference to Rodney King's famously naïve plea, he explained, "I don't have all the answers, but this is what I feel in my heart."

Still, performers and speakers were hardly limited to the usual left suspects. The Rev. Al Sharpton eloquently drove home the point that war is "not patriotism," a refrain now echoed by peace activists nationwide. Punk-rock icon Patti Smith--who cut a sexy, stringy-haired spectacle, wearing a blue wool cap, a white T-shirt and non-ironic crucifix--gruffly urged the assembled to "wrestle the world from fools!" Smith saved the gathering from turning into a 1960s flashback (other performers had perpetrated folk songs, including the dead-tired "I Ain't Gonna Study War No More").

Speakers were just as passionate as Curtis Mack, but unfortunately, equally short on answers. All did their best to avoid the thorny question of how to fight terrorism without bombs. Physicist Michio Kaku gave a witty speech about the ineffectuality and wastefulness of Star Wars; he said little about Afghanistan. Others engaged in more elaborate avoidance strategies, evoking well-worn left paradigms that seemed at best peripheral, if not completely irrelevant. Some talked about corporations that would profit from war, attempting to conjure the Gulf War with the slogan "No War for Oil"-which has been making a comeback nationwide. Though oil is crucial to the US relationship to the Middle East, and military contractors do benefit from war, it strains credibility to suggest that the Bush Administration's assault on the Taliban, a response to a brutal massacre on US soil, is driven by corporate greed. Many speakers blamed the ideologically biased media for public support of the war; rally emcee and Democracy Now! radio host Amy Goodman repeatedly invoked the concept of "manufactured consent." (Apropos of that, she ended the rally with an appeal to support her crusade against Pacifica, while some of her acolytes handed out fliers referring to the "Pacifica Board Hijackers.") Of course much of the mainstream media coverage amounts to a twenty-four-hour war infomercial. But when people are afraid of terrorist attacks, consent to an aggressive solution hardly needs to be "manufactured."

Some of Washington Square's assembled seemed frustrated with the event's muddled message. "It's so irresponsible," a woman sighed in exasperation as Al Sharpton concluded his rousing antiwar polemic. "He doesn't say what we should do." The left is accustomed to refusal. But there may be aspects of Bush's "war on terrorism" that peace activists should support, if they are to persuasively oppose its murderous violence. The current bombing campaign is killing innocent people, creating a relief crisis in a destitute country and further destabilizing an already-perilous region. It is dangerously limitless in its scope and military insiders are expressing serious concerns about whether it will even accomplish its goals. Yet given that terrorism is an immediate and continuing threat, protesters must be able to discuss alternative approaches to national security. "We'd like to see a united international effort to bring [the terrorists] to justice," rally organizer Reecha Upadhyay said, admitting that the movement was finding it difficult to figure out how this would work. "We know what we shouldn't do."

But there's no reason to give up on the possibility of informed, credible resistance to the bombing of innocents. Another international wave of demonstrations is planned for November 11, including one in Washington Square Park that's likely to be much bigger than last Saturday's. On US campuses, from CUNY's Hunter College to Kansas State, antiwar protests, fasts and walkouts occur daily. Nearly as important are activists' attempts to develop reasonable analyses of the situation; many groups are focusing heavily on teach-ins and internal discussion. Says Upadhyay, whose coalition held a free-form public debate in Union Square after Saturday's rally, "Coming together and talking about it is a first step."

Source: http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=featherstone20011018

10/19/01
10:03:23 PM

AlterNet Headlines

http://www.alternet.org

10 REASONS TO STOP BOMBING AFGHANISTAN

Don Hazen, AlterNet

From killing civilians to creating future "blowback," our bombing campaign against Afghanistan increasingly looks like a bad idea. Here's why.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11764

HIGH ANTHRAX DRUG PRICES BRING PATENT ISSUE HOME

Liz Highleyman, AlterNet

Is the U.S. government willing to put American lives at risk to protect pharmaceutical company profits?

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11760

OPERATION ENDURING PROTEST

Liza Featherstone, The Nation

Demonstrators gathered at points across the globe to protest the bombing of Afghanistan. 20,000 in London, 15,000 in Berlin, 10,000 in San Francisco...

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11759

HEARTS AND MINDS: AVOIDING A NEW COLD WAR

Rahul Mahajan and Robert Jensen, AlterNet

The single most common question antiwar activists are confronted with is, "What's your solution?" Here are some very practical, very attainable ones.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11755

FLAGGING INTEREST

Bob Woodiwiss, CityBeat (Cincinnati)

Why do I not raise the flag? 1. Stripes make my house look fat; 2. My flagpole is only rated for 48 stars; 3. I burned my flag protesting something ... I forget what.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11756

DON'T USE THE SEPT. 11 TRAGEDY TO LOOT SOCIAL SECURITY

Alan Benjamin, AlterNet

A story that is buried in the financial pages should have every working family up in arms.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11750

NOBEL LAUREATE ENCOURAGES GLOBAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT

Tim Shorrock, Inter Press Service

Joseph Stiglitz, whose critiques of free market fundamentalism cost him a senior job at the World Bank, has succinct advice for the global justice movement: Keep it up.

*In Globalization: http://www.alternet.org/?IssueAreaID=21

BUSH SHOULD RETHINK WALTERS

Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet

For the first time in nearly three decades, the number of people imprisoned has slowed down due to a gradual shift in drug policy. But one man could slam shut that window of policy enlightenment.

*In DrugReporter: http://www.alternet.org/?IssueAreaID=17

THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE: A GUIDE TO WHAT SPECIAL INTERESTS WANT AND MAY GET

Center for Responsive Politics

Washington's special interest lobbyists view the stimulus plan as an irresistible way to finally get some tax breaks and handouts.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11763

REICH: SACRIFICE OR SPEND?

Robert B. Reich, AlterNet

Despite being asked in the name of patriotism to spend, consumers are holding back. Perhaps Americans are realizing the economy exists to support us and the standard of living we choose, not the other way around.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11758

SOLOMON: THE TELEVISED GREATNESS OF GEORGE W. BUSH

Norman Solomon, AlterNet

Today's television environment is, more than ever, warmly hospitable to simple -- and simplistic -- declarative statements. That's good news for President Bush.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11752

HUFFINGTON: THE UNBEARABLE LUDICROUSNESS OF POLLING

Arianna Huffington, AlterNet

As polls are proving to be less reliable, our political leaders' continued reliance on them as their primary means of making policy decisions seems more and more ludicrous.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11753

10/19/01
9:47:26 PM

WorldWatch Paper 158

HUMAN ACTIONS WORSEN NATURAL DISASTERS

More people worldwide are now displaced by natural disasters than by conflict. In the 1990s, natural catastrophes like hurricanes, floods, and fires affected more than two billion people and caused in excess of $608 billion in economic losses worldwide-a loss greater than during the previous four decades combined. But more and more of the devastation wrought by such natural disasters is "unnatural" in origin, caused by ecologically destructive practices and an increasing number of people living in harm's way, finds a new study by the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington D.C.-based environmental research organization.

"By degrading forests, engineering rivers, filling in wetlands, and destabilizing the climate, we are unraveling the strands of a complex ecological safety net," said Senior Researcher and author of Unnatural Disasters Janet Abramovitz. "We have altered so many natural systems so dramatically, their ability to protect us from disturbances is greatly diminished."

Also contributing to the rising toll of disasters is the enormous expansion of the human population and the built environment, which put more people and more economic activities in harm's way. One in three people-some 2 billion-now live within 100 kilometers of a coastline. Thirteen of the world's 19 megacities (with over 10 million inhabitants) are in coastal zones. The projected effects of global warming, such as more extreme weather events and sea level rise, will only magnify potential losses.

Although "unnatural disasters" occur everywhere, their impact falls disproportionately on poor people as they are more likely to be living in vulnerable areas and they have fewer resources to prepare for or recover from disasters. Between 1985 and 1999, 96 percent of recorded disaster fatalities were in developing countries.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that future impacts of climate extremes will affect the poor disproportionately. Viet Nam and Bangladesh, for example, are projected to lose more than 70,000 square kilometers of land, affecting some 32 million people. Rich countries will not be spared either. The entire Mediterranean coast is especially vulnerable to sea level rise, as are the U.S.'s Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

Economic losses from "unnatural disasters" are greater in the developed world-the earthquake that rocked Kobe, Japan in 1995, for example, cost more than $100 billion, making it the most expensive natural disaster in history. Smaller losses often hit poor countries harder, where they represent a larger share of the national economy. The damage from 1998's Hurricane Mitch in Central America was $8.5 billion-higher than the combined gross domestic product of Honduras and Nicaragua, the two nations hardest hit.

Few of the losses in poor countries are insured. In the period 1985-99, the vast majority of insured losses-some 92 percent-were in industrial nations.

"Expanding the financial safety net for poor countries is essential," said Abramovitz. "So too is maintaining and restoring nature's ecological safety net in all countries. Dunes, barrier islands, mangrove forests and coastal wetlands are natural 'shock absorbers' that protect against coastal storms. Forests, floodplains, and wetlands, are 'sponges' that absorb floodwaters. Nature provides these services for free, and we should take advantage of them rather than undermining them."

For example, China now recognizes that forests are ten times more valuable for flood control and water supply than they are for timber, and has halted logging in the Yangtze River watershed. The loss of 85 percent of the forests in the upper Yangtze River worsened the 1998 flood that affected 223 million people. Viet Nam has restored 2,000 hectares of mangroves in a successful effort to provide a buffer from coastal storms as well as much-needed jobs in fisheries. The U.S. could prevent a repeat of the devastating 1993 Mississippi flood by restoring just half of the wetlands lost in the upper Mississippi Basin-a move that would affect no more than three percent of surrounding agricultural, forest, and urban land.

To date, much of the response to disasters has focused on improving weather predictions before the events and providing humanitarian relief afterwards-both of which have saved countless lives. "Yet, too often long-term mitigation efforts are overlooked by the public and politicians alike," says Abramovitz. "Money invested in disaster mitigation yields several fold returns in recovery cost savings. Considering the social and ecological losses that are also prevented, it's clear that mitigation is a great investment."

Unnatural Disasters also suggests several other specific mitigative measures: Community-based disaster preparedness is essential in preventing and responding to the full array of disasters that societies now face. Rather than subsidizing environmentally unsound settlement and development practices, governments need to direct new construction and settlement out of harm's way. Infrastructure in vulnerable locations can be built or reinforced to withstand hazards. Debt relief for developing nations can free up resources for desperately needed disaster prevention efforts. Better hazard mapping can further improve early warning and disaster preparedness schemes, keeping human and economic losses as low as possible.

Source: http://www.WorldWatch.org

10/19/01
9:37:11 PM

Letter From Ground Zero

by Jonathan Schell

Seven Million At Risk

he horrors that have been sprung upon the world since September 11 have come with a rapidity that threatens to overwhelm the capacity of the imagination to respond, not to speak of the capacity of governments to frame policies that make sense.

No sooner had the Trade Center fallen and the Pentagon been attacked than the United States was declaring war; no sooner had the United States declared war than it was at war; no sooner was the United States at war than someone was attacking the United States with "weapons-grade" anthrax. The fifth week of the crisis has proceeded likewise. No sooner was anthrax arriving in mailboxes around the nation than still another horror--one that may yet prove the greatest of the entire story--was upon us: the prospect that millions of Afghans could starve to death this winter. On October 12 Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and now the United Nations commissioner for human rights, sounded a sharp, clear warning. She called for a halt to the bombing of Afghanistan in order to permit humanitarian aid--above all, food--to be sent into Afghanistan before the winter snows cut off access to the population. "It is a very, very urgent situation," she noted. "It is very hard to get convoys of food in when there is a military campaign.... You have millions of people, they say up to 7 million, at risk." And she asked, "Are we going to preside over deaths from starvation of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people this winter because we did not use the window of opportunity?" Her words, though widely quoted around the world, went almost entirely unreported in the United States. The next day, among the thirty or so newspapers that the Lexis/Nexis database of newspapers calls major, only one--the San Francisco Chronicle--saw fit to mention it, and none of the major television networks did. (The day after that, Steven Erlanger briefly mentioned her comments in the New York Times in a story about eroding support in Germany for the bombing.) Not until four days later, when an American bomb destroyed a Red Cross warehouse in Kabul and humanitarian groups joined Robinson's call for a bombing halt, did the appeal begin to get attention in this country.

That a catastrophe was developing was not news--or should not have been. The combination of a decade of war by Afghan fighters against the Soviet Union, the civil war that followed the Soviet defeat, the extreme misrule of the victors in that war, the Taliban, and four years of drought have destroyed Afghanistan's ability to feed and care for itself. Humanitarian groups whose aid was already keeping substantial numbers of people alive have been warning of the gathering disaster as it has unfolded. After September 11, foreign aid personnel, advised by the Taliban that it could no longer assure their safety, withdrew from the country. Soon, the nations surrounding Afghanistan closed their borders to refugees. On September 19, Dominic Nutt, the emergency officer for the relief group Christian Aid, told the Guardian, "It's as if a mass grave has been dug behind millions of people. We can drag them back from it or push them in." On September 24, two weeks before the military campaign began, the UN warned in a report that "a humanitarian crisis of stunning proportions is unfolding in Afghanistan," and Secretary General Kofi Annan appealed for assistance to head off "the world's worst humanitarian disaster." On October 5 twenty relief organizations again reminded the world that Afghanistan was on the "brink of disaster." "It must be remembered," the statement said, "that these potential refugees are currently trapped inside a closed country." Two days later, the bombing began, and the vast internal migration from the cities to inaccessible rural parts of Afghanistan began. The new element introduced by Robinson's appeal was her delineation of the terrible significance of the bombing campaign in view of the deadline for assistance imposed by approaching winter.

The principal reason for saving the lives of the Afghans must, of course, be those lives themselves. Avenging thousands of innocents in America cannot take precedence over saving millions of innocents in Afghanistan. To say this is to make a moral point, but it is also more than a moral point. The humanitarian crisis of course arrives in the middle of a global military crisis and a political crisis. These last two--and the relationship between them--have dominated public attention and policy in the United States. (I have to admit that this has also been true of this weekly "Letter from Ground Zero.") What, we have been asking, is the outlook for military success in the "war on terrorism"? Will overthrowing the Taliban reduce or increase the terrorist threat? If they are overthrown, who will follow them? Will military success in Afghanistan spell political defeat in Pakistan and/or Saudi Arabia, where brittle, repressive regimes face strong opposition from Muslim extremists? These questions, echoing issues that arose in the Vietnam War, are important, but the answers to every one of them, we can now suddenly see, will depend on whether mass starvation can be headed off in Afghanistan. The spectacle of US special forces roving through a land of the dead and the dying in search of Osama bin Laden is as absurd a prescription for policy as it is offensive to decency.

A reversal of American policy is necessary. At present, political goals have been treated as a footnote to military goals (George W. Bush did not drop his opposition to nation-building in Afghanistan until a week after he ordered the bombing campaign), and humanitarian goals have been treated as a footnote to political goals. (The piteously inadequate food drops from US planes is the embodiment of this footnote.) This policy must be stood precisely on its head. Whatever the operational details, the humanitarian crisis must dominate. The bombing should stop, and a new policy--perhaps one of armed humanitarian intervention on the ground--should be adopted. Such a policy would replace the current iron fist in a humanitarian velvet glove with a helping human hand in a glove of chain mail. Not nation-building but nation-saving--the physical salvation of Afghan lives--must be the controlling consideration. Only if this humanitarian effort is successful can a political policy succeed--whether in Afghanistan itself, in Islamic opinion or in world opinion. And only if these humanitarian and political goals are accomplished will the war on terrorism--whose importance, in our anthrax-menaced world, has become greater than ever--have any chance of going well.

Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011105&s=schell

10/19/01
9:28:54 PM

The Nation

Christopher Hitchens's October 8 Nation magazine column on the roots of September 11 provoked a spate of mail, both pro and con, which led to Hitchens's elaboration for the Nation website, in which he took many progressives to task, including Noam Chomsky, for being soft on what he calls "Islamic Fascism." Chomsky then replied, and a further exchange ensued. You can find all of this currently at:

http://www.thenation.com/special/20010911debate.mhtml

The torrent of reader mail we've received on this debate is virtually split down the middle on whose comments--Chomsky's or Hitchens's--are more relevant and resonant. There's also a dissenting minority clamoring for the combatants to stop their "ridiculous verbal duel" and, in the words of another writer, "start training their sights on the real enemies," and "stop bickering over points of emphasis."

Read a sampling of these letters, from Edward S. Herman and Michael Kazin, among many others, now at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=webletters20011017

We've also created a special page on The Nation website where we're collecting all of our September 11 material.

Updated regularly, this page highlights information, articles and resources on the September 11 attacks, the unfolding U.S. response and the continued threat of terrorism.

New features include articles by Dilip Hiro (on Uzbekistan and the U.S.) and Liza Featherstone (on antiwar protests); information and links to RAWA - the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan; an online map of the Muslim world; a 1998 Nation interview with Osama bin Laden conducted by Robert Fisk; a set of links to antiwar/peace groups; a frequently updated collection of media resources; a link to the South Asian Journalist's Association's Bias Report documenting the harassment of Arab-Americans since September 11; a 1996 essay by Fred Halliday examining the Taliban shortly after it took power; a 1978 mediation by Aryeh Neier on terrorism and justice; Nation web articles by Naomi Klein, Joel Rogers, Tariq Ali and David Corn and a review of an-at-that time new book on Afghanistan published in the October 11, 1906 issue of The Nation.

All this and more at:

http://www.thenation.com/special/wtc/index.mhtml

And don't miss these new articles, editorials, columns and comments from the November 5, 2001 issue of The Nation:

BRUCE SHAPIRO: Anthrax Anxiety

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011105&s=shapiro

KATHA POLLITT: War and Peace

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011105&s=pollitt

MARC SIEGAL: Profits of Fear

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011105&s=siegel

VICTOR NAVASKY: Profiles in Cowardice

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011105&s=navasky

JONATHAN SCHELL: Seven Million at Risk

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011105&s=schell

MARY KALDOR: Wanted: Global Politics

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011105&s=kaldor

MICHAEL MASSING: Press Watch

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011105&s=massing

You can also read John Nichols's account of the bitter debate that divided one of the most liberal cities in the United States, when members of the Berkeley City Council voted on Tuesday night to urge a quick halt to the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Available at:

http://www.thenation.com/thebeat

10/19/01
9:02:43 PM

The Russian Connection

by Christopher Ruddy

Unsettling was the report this week that Mikhail Gorbachev had canceled plans to travel to the United States.

I noted that he passed on a long-standing engagement to speak at a charity dinner in Palm Beach, among several other appearances.

No doubt such an event was long in planning. Couples had to cough up $5,000 to hear the former U.S.S.R president speak.

Arm-twisting to get Gorbachev to change his mind didn't work, I hear.

His office claims he was accepting President Putin's advice to him and other Russian officials: Under no circumstances travel to the U.S. over the next weeks, especially for an extended stay!

Putin's advisory has not gotten much publicity, so I'll discount any thinking that this is just Russian propaganda.

One wonders, then, what threat might exist that would cause someone like Gorbachev, who planned to travel to various U.S. cities, to suddenly cancel his plans.

Gorbachev must have taken the advice very seriously. After all, he has compared himself on many occasions to Jesus Christ. Such a divine figure wouldn't be given to many fears.

We can't exclude the possibility that the Russians know something -- or may be behind the "something" that will affect us.

It never ceases to amaze me how the media censor certain topics from discussion. It has been taboo, for instance, to talk about how the Clinton administration led us to the point of Sept. 11.

Equally, it has been radioactive to discuss the links between Russia and almost every nation that supports terrorism and terrorist networks such as al-Qaeda.

Russia is the main backer of nearly every terrorist-sponsoring regime identified by the U.S. State Department, regimes such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea and Cuba.

Almost all of these countries spent the '90s engaging in significant military buildups, with special emphasis on building strategic weapons: nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. In almost every case, Russia has been a helping hand to these efforts.

Such stories rarely, if ever, make it to the pages of the New York Times, or on CNN. Why?

Today, America is facing the serious threat of biological weapons.

Russia has a significant link here again.

This week I spoke with Dr. Sanford Kuvin, an American expert on infection diseases who founded and chairs the Center for Infection Diseases and Tropical Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Kuvin has little doubt that Russia, primarily through its unemployed scientists, shared the smallpox virus with rogue states.

Kuvin says the highly contagious smallpox could be devastating to us, far more than an anthrax attack.

He believes such countries as Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea have the smallpox virus, one they can easily incubate and turn into a biological weapon.

More Russian connections. After Sept. 11, there have been several press reports that Osama bin Laden was trying to acquire Russian nuclear suitcase bombs from Russian "mafia" sources.

But in 1998, the Times of London reported bin Laden had successfully acquired such weapons.

If he did, I agree with Col. Stanislav Lunev, a former Russian GRU officer, who claims such a transfer could only be done with the blessing of the Russian government and its intelligence agencies.

The old communist guard, whose members control almost every top position in Russia, including the presidency, have little love for America. They are envious and still despise us.

Almost overnight, Russia faded as a superpower. Perhaps Russia's leadership would like to see the same thing happen to the U.S.

In the light of Sept. 11, and the events yet to unfold, we need to continue asking:

Who is really backing these terrorists and who are the nations that harbor them?

Cui Bono (who benefits) from these attacks?

Who benefits from these transparent financial attacks, which are clearly intended to undermine our economy?

Who crafted the intricate terrorist plan against America -- one so sophisticated no terrorist group has ever employed it against a country before?

Who helped to provide the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons that these terrorists have or may get?

We must accept the fact that there is indeed a significant effort by one of more foreign powers to undermine America's financial standing in the world.

I believe we can, for the moment, rule out Chinese complicity. China is fast developing as a superpower itself, thanks to American capital. Why should it stop that process?

No doubt, China's rise is unsettling to Russia. In a few years, Russia will be left in the dustbin of history -- unless it puts the breaks on America and China's economic juggernaut.

Perhaps that is another good reason the trigger was pulled on Sept. 11.

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/18/235410.shtml

10/19/01
8:43:51 PM

The Last Moments Of Flight 11

BBC

Ms Sweeney's plane was the first to be crashed A flight attendant's desperate telephone call has provided new details of the last moments of Flight 11 before it hit the World Trade Center.

According to the FBI transcript, part of which was published in the Los Angeles Times, Madeline Amy Sweeney described how hijackers stabbed passengers and then diverted the plane.

A US official praised Ms Sweeney's ability to keep calm and describe the crisis as it unfolded but the mother-of-two's words ended in horror and disbelief.

When Ms Sweeney came on the phone to ground staff in Boston it was to report that a hijack was in progress.

Four attackers had cut the throat of a passenger in business class and stabbed two others, she said.

Three of the hijackers had been sitting in business class themselves and one spoke very good English.

Composure

As Ms Sweeney was giving their seat numbers, they reached the cockpit and it was then, as the plane suddenly changed course, that she spoke her last reported words:

"I see water and buildings. Oh my God! Oh my God!"

Officials at American Airlines have been asked not to discuss the telephone call with the press, but one unnamed member of staff praised the dead flight attendant.

"She was very, very composed, very detailed," he said.

"It was impressive that she could do that."

Ms Sweeney's account of the hijacking provides unique evidence of what took place but it also appears to conflict with previous information.

The FBI has named five hijackers on board Flight 11, whereas Ms Sweeney spotted only four.

Also, the seat numbers she gave were different from those registered in the hijackers' names.

10/19/01
1:42:30 PM

70,000 GRADUATES OF BIN LADEN UNIVERSITY

Gary North's REALITY CHECK

On October 11, Winston Churchill spoke to the National Press Club in Washington. Shirley MacLaine served as his channel.

Actually, it was Winston Churchill, the grandson, son of Randolph Churchill and Pamela Beryl Digby Churchill Hayward Harriman. His mother was the lady who, in 1992, introduced Washington Democrats socially to W. J. Clinton of Arkansas. She held one of her famous Party parties for him. For this, late in her maritally astounding career, Clinton appointed her the U.S. Ambassador to France.

Churchill gave a rousing speech on the war against terrorism. Midway in the speech, he got to the topic at hand: funding. I find it ominous.

It is impossible to guess how long it will take to apprehend bin Laden and his henchmen and to bring them to justice. That it will be done in time, I have no doubt. Meanwhile, the overthrow of the cruel, barbaric Taliban regime which harbors him is clearly the top priority. This is an alien regime, established only in the past five years with funding and arms from the Arab countries, by way of Pakistan, which acted as godfather to the creation of the Taliban. Their rule has been so brutal and so disastrous that an estimated one in four Afghans have fled as refugees to Iran or Pakistan, creating a massive humanitarian crisis in the region.

Once the Taliban have been overthrown, a high priority must be to cut off the funding --not only for the terrorists, but also for the fundamentalist madrassas, the theological schools established in numerous countries around the world where the gospel of Islamic purity and anti-Western hatred is preached. Unbelievable though it may seem, no country has been more responsible for this than Saudi Arabia, the West's principal ally in the Middle East. In order to appease and deflect criticism of their pro-Western leanings and opulent lifestyle, the Saudi ruling family, in an act of consummate folly, has poured vast resources into the establishment of these schools and religious universities in their own countries and overseas. They now find that they are riding a tiger of extreme fundamentalism, entirely of their own creation, which threatens the very foundations of their hold on power. As a result, today almost half the young Saudi males coming onto the jobs market have only religious qualifications, making them not only unemployed, but effectively unemployable. In consequence, barely one in four is able to find a job. The rest make a fertile field of disaffection, from which bin Laden is able to recruit new generations of suicide bombers, hijackers and terrorists. And it is no coincidence that many of last month's hijackers were Saudi citizens.

More horrifying yet, if that were possible, if estimates attributed to the CIA are to be believed, in recent years some 70,000 militants have passed through bin Laden's terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and are currently dispersed across no fewer than 55 countries around the world, including our own. New attacks are inevitable, and some undoubtedly will succeeded before this hydra-headed monster of international terrorism is destroyed.

While it will be difficult for the Saudi government to bring its extremist theological schools under control and integrate them as they must within the state education system, if it fails to do so it is inevitable that the Saudi ruling family will sooner or later -- and probably sooner than later -- forfeit its hold on power and be drowned in a tidal wave of fundamentalism.

What is the likelihood that the Saudis will shut down these schools? Not high, surely. The Saudis are already distancing themselves from the United States. This article appeared the day after we began bombing Kabul.

RIYADH: The US ally Saudi Arabia said on Monday that it was unhappy about the bombing of Afghanistan, sending the clearest signal yet that its relations with Washington are being tested by the war on terrorism.

Interior Minister Prince Naif broke Saudi silence on the bombing late on Sunday, telling reporters that the kingdom opposed terrorism but did not approve of the US response. "We wish the United States had been able to flush out the terrorists in Afghanistan without resorting to the current action ... because this is killing innocent people," he said. . . .

"It's unbelievable the way the feeling here has changed from sympathy to anger in such a short time," a Western analyst based in Riyadh said. "More sensitive and astute decision-making on both sides is required to handle a relationship which has become extremely difficult to manage. Every aspect of it is under pressure." . . .

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2001-daily/16-10-2001/main/main14.htm

Churchill argued that money to the Taliban has come from Arab states through Pakistan. I don't know about the Arab states, although I suspect that this is the case. With respect to Pakistan, it's becoming ever clearer: big money came from our new-found ally.

From day one, Pakistan has backed the Taliban. The American press will not touch this story. Now this aspect of the war is getting juicy.

The head of Pakistan's version of the CIA, called the ISI, recently retired. It is pretty clear that he was quietly forced out because of pressure from the United States. Here's why it had to be so quiet. The following information comes from the INDIA TIMES, which, regarding Pakistan, is not what I would call an unbiased source. But the American press will not follow this lead. It's a "not worth pursuing" story.

[Note: the TIMES does not publish dates on its news reports. This is a very peculiar policy.]

While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking.

Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahumd.

Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh's mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.

http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1454238160

Can this story be true? Is there evidence? Not as much as there was two weeks ago. According to INDIAREACTS,

. . . we reported in our Intelligence section on Saturday (Intelligence, "Pak GHQ fire could be sabotage," 13 October 2001) that the five-hour fire that raged through a section of the Pakistan army headquarters in Rawalpindi on 10 October could have been staged. The fire entirely destroyed cell 320 containing files of Afghan operations and dossiers on the Taliban leadership since 1995.

General Musharraf had created a new Afghan division after he took over. But all files on the Taliban prior to that were lost in the cell 320 fire. Firemen were prevented from dousing it from the inside and ordered to see that it did not spread to other parts of the building. . . .

But how is it that the fire raged for five hours despite the presence of modern fire-fighting equipment from Belgium that was ordered not to be used? Who ordered that? Why? . . .

Again, this is an Indian publication. But the following information is bothersome.

Second, we are now told that Musharraf had stalled a US-Pakistani army plan to grab Osama Bin Laden in October 1999. The plan approved by deposed Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharief and former US president Bill Clinton entailed training Pakistani commandos to make the grab. The commandos were trained but Musharraf deposed Sharief in a coup and cancelled the plan.

http://www.indiareacts.com/home.asp

What we have today is an anti-Taliban alliance that is not what I would call rock-solid.

10/19/01
1:35:21 PM

UTNE WEB WATCH

The Best of the Alternative Web

SHOPPING WITH YOUR VALUES

by Cliff Feigenbaum, Green Money Journal

-- Green Money Journal offers strategies to reduce your environmental impact and be a socially responsible consumer.

TOY STORY

by Sean Daly, Washington City Paper

-- "One robot is intended to help disabled children. The other is designed to fight a war. Guess which one gets more funding."

THE GREAT LITERARY LOTTERY

by James Campbell, The Guardian

-- A look at the life of Alfred Nobel, founder of the Nobel Prizes and inventor of dynamite, reveals a man discontented with himself and with life.

Links to the above articles: http://www.utne.com/webwatch

10/19/01
1:33:47 PM

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE

http://ens-news.com

ANTHRAX ANXIETY AT TOP UN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY

NAIROBI, Kenya, October 18, 2001 (ENS) - A letter suspected of anthrax contamination was received at the Headquarters of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the agency has confirmed. The letter came to the UNEP headquarters in Gigiri, a Nairobi neighborhood.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-18-02.html

PESTICIDES SENT AS AID TO NEPAL NOW TOXIC WASTE

KATHMANDU, Nepal, October 18, 2001 (ENS) - Greenpeace efforts to contain a stockpile of obsolete pesticides on the outskirts of Kathmandu, have been successful and are nearing completion, the environmental organization said Wednesday.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-18-03.html

SMALL GRANTS AIM TO SOLVE GLOBAL SIZED PROBLEMS

By Diane Jukofsky

SAN JOSE, Costa Rica, October 18, 2001 (ENS) - Alarmed by growing contamination of their rivers and streams, residents of Hojancha, Costa Rica, got together a few years ago to see how they might make their village more ecologically sound. They formed the Monte Alto Foundation and with a $20,000 grant from Costa Rica's Small Grants Program of the Global Environmental Facility (SGP-GEF), established an environmental education center and an inn for ecotourists.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-18-01.html

MEXICAN MAIZE CONTAMINATED WITH ENGINEERED GENES

WASHINGTON, DC, October 18, 2001 (ENS) - Testing of maize varieties from 22 communities in the Oaxaca, Mexico areas have revealed genetic contamination in 15 of them. The findings raise questions about the potential for genetic pollution in a region considered the world's best repository of maize genetic diversity, and about American policies of exporting engineered crops.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-18-06.html

U.S. EPA RENEWS APPROVAL FOR Bt CORN

WASHINGTON, DC, October 18, 2001 (ENS) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has extended approval for genetically modified Bt corn for an additional seven years, the agency said Tuesday. The decision was applauded by the biotechnology industry, but roundly criticized by environmental and consumer groups.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-18-07.html

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: OCTOBER 18, 2001

Terrorist Threat Raises Fears at Three Mile Island

Nation's Water Called Unlikely Terrorist Target

White House Backs Environmentally Friendlier Farm Bill

Groups Visit Las Vegas to Protest Nuclear Dump

Greens Criticize Fast Track Legislation

$55 Million Supports Study of Biocomplexity

Clean Coal Research Gets $110 Million Boost

Manatee Supporters Challenge Delisting Petition

New Database Promotes Earth Science Studies

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-18-09.html

10/19/01
1:25:16 PM

U.S. Government Knowledge and Complicity

From: David Feustel <dfeustel@mindspring.com>

Chicago Attorney David Schippers, head of the Clinton impeachment, asserted yesterday on the Alex Jones show that the Justice department had detailed information on 911 weeks before the attack was carried out.

Schippers says that he personally sent information about the impending 911 attack to AG Ashcroft asking for an investigation, but Ashcroft refused to do that.

Schippers got his information from FBI agents who had collected information about the impending attack and all the terrorists subsequently involved.

The FBI agents sent the information to Schippers after they were explicitly ordered to drop their investigation of signs of the impending attack.

Given the Government's extremely well documented prior knowledge of and complicity in the first WTC bombing and the OKC bombing, I find this report credible.

Only the government is benefiting from the fallout of 911 as a result of its assumption of drastically increased powers to 'fight terrorism'.

http://arc2.m2ktalk.com/alexam/101001.ram

10/19/01
1:17:12 PM

Say What You Want, But This War Is Illegal

by Michael Mandel

Professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto

Globe and Mail, Tuesday, October 9, 2001

A well-kept secret about the U.S.-U.K. attack on Afghanistan is that it is clearly illegal. It violates international law and the express words of the United Nations Charter.

Despite repeated reference to the right of self-defence under Article 51, the Charter simply does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure until the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international peace and security.

The Security Council has already passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and announcing a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. These include measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism. The Security Council has set up a committee to monitor progress on the measures in the resolution and has given all states 90 days to report back to it.

Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize the use of military force. True, both, in their preambles, abstractly "affirm" the inherent right of self-defence, but they do so "in accordance with the Charter." They do not say military action against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defence. Nor could they. That's because the right of unilateral self-defence does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped.

The right of self-defence in international law is like the right of self-defence in our own law: It allows you to defend yourself when the law is not around, but it does not allow you to take the law into your own hands.

Since the United States and Britain have undertaken this attack without the explicit authorization of the Security Council, those who die from it will be victims of a crime against humanity, just like the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Even the Security Council is only permitted to authorize the use of force where "necessary to maintain and restore international peace and security." Now it must be clear to everyone that the military attack on Afghanistan has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. This attack will be far more likely to provoke terrorism. Even the Bush administration concedes that the real war against terrorism is long term, a combination of improved security, intelligence and a rethinking of U.S. foreign alliances.

But, you might ask, does legality matter in a case like this? You bet it does. Without the law, there is no limit to international violence but the power, ruthlessness and cunning of the perpetrators. Without the international legality of the UN system, the people of the world are sidelined in matters of our most vital interests.

We are all at risk from what happens next. We must insist that Washington make the case for the necessity, rationality and proportionality of this attack in the light of day before the real international community.

The bombing of Afghanistan is the legal and moral equivalent of what was done to the Americans on Sept. 11. We may come to remember that day, not for its human tragedy, but for the beginning of a headlong plunge into a violent, lawless world.

10/19/01
1:04:36 PM

Taliban - Confidential

By Gordon Thomas

China has provided the Taliban with state-of-the-art electronic defence equipment. It was developed by military contractors in Britain, the United States and Germany and stolen by Chinas Secret Intelligence Service (CSIS).

The deal was cemented in Kabul on the day the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were hit.

In return for beefing-up Afghanistans defences, the Taliban have agreed to close Afghan-based camps used to train Muslim Fundamentalists currently terrorising Chinas northern provinces. Details of the deal leaked out of Beijing last week to the Sunday Express from anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. It was confirmed by Washington where the State Department was highly disturbed by the news the U.S. Embssy in Beijing had sent about the deal.

Secretary of State Colin Powell was told the deal involved two major Chinese companies, Huswei Technologies and ZTE. Both are major suppliers to Chinas Peoples Liberation Army. Chinas Ministry of State Security supplied missile-tracking equipment and a range of electronic counter-measures to the Taliban.

The equipment had been developed in Britain. Since last Sunday Chinese air force transporters have been flying into Kabuls airport with the equipment. It was immediately distributed to areas from where the Taliban fear a U.S. attack would come. And for the first time we can reveal the close contacts between CSIS and Osama bin-Laden. It has emerged that in the past year he has made several visits to Beijing, usually accompanied by Chinas ambassador to Pakistan who is Beijings most senior diplomat in the region. A high-ranking Chinese defector to America, with full access to the CSIS, has revealed the most comprehensive-ever details of Chinas spying operations against key economic and industrial targets in Britain.

State-of-the-art research and technology worth an estimated 14 billion has been stolen in the past three years since CSIS intensified its operations in Britain. The defector, Colonel Xu Junping, was Director of Strategy in Chinas Defence Ministry. For the past five years he oversaw all secret operations by CSIS against the West. Xu has told his CIA debriefers how:

CSIS has established bases in Londons Soho (Chinatown) and other cities. Some are above restaurants or in brothels. CSIS pays for Chinese students to have further education in Britain. Many attend university post-graduate courses at our leading universities including Oxford and Cambridge.

After qualifying usually in computer or science-related subjects those students are taught how to apply for jobs with British firms some of whom have sensitive defence contracts. Xu has provided a list of target firms. Most are in the high-tech industry.

CSIS trains those graduates to steal trade secrets from their employers and bring them to safe houses. Xu has provided a list of the houses in London, Glasgow and Manchester.

CSIS has twenty full-time agents working in Britain. Only two of them have diplomatic status. The others are attached to Chinese business organisation to provide them with cover for their secret activities. The number of CSIS agents is larger than any other foreign intelligence service operating in Britain. In the five months that Xu has been kept under wraps in a safe house deep in the countryside outside Washington its perimeter guarded by crack-shot agents the slim, good-looking 44-year old defector has also provided valuable insights about how much China knows.

Of MI6 operations in the Far East. How China secretly contravened sanctions against Saddam to re-arm Iraq with nuclear weapons. Iraq now has a capability to produce long-range nuclear missiles. How China secretly helped Slobodan Milosevic during the Balkans War and how a CSIS team flew to Belgrade, ready to whisk Milosevic to sanctuary in China - shortly before he was arrested and sent to The Hague War Crimes Tribunal. Even more alarming was Xus revelation that Osama bin-Laden to the U.S. the grandmaster of terrorism has close contacts with CSIS.

Our intelligence service operates on the principle that your enemies are our potential allies, Xu told his debriefers. So important were some of Xus revelations that U.S. National Security Adviser, Condolezza Rice, sat in on debriefings. She heard:

Xu confirm CSIS plans to stage an escalating series of crises to help China become the new Superpower of the new Millenium. How CSIS is working hard to exploit Europes growing problem with asylum seekers. Xus predictions have now been included into a CIA report entitled Global Trends Up To 2015. The report contains these chilling claims:

CSIS will provide biochemical and small nuclear devices to terrorist groups to attack the United States and Britain. CSIS will increasingly support rogue states like Iraq and Iran. On present calculations, with the help of China, both countries will have gone nuclear by the year 2005, says the report. The report is a grim precursor to the present economic slowdown.

CSIS will exploit the present economic stagnation that will reach its peak in the year 2015. All the indications are there could be a major war by then. The main protagonists will be China and America. But Britain and NATO will inevitably be drawn in. White House sources say a copy of the report is permanently on President Bushs desk in the Oval Office.

Xu, who speaks fluent English, was one of Chinas new breed of high fliers, a brilliant strategist according to one CIA source. He defected with nothing but the clothes he wore and a small overnight case. With his diplomatic passport he had no problem catching a China Air flight to Bangkok earlier this year. From there he flew to Washington. There he called a number a CIA agent had given him in Beijing.

An hour later he was installed in the CIA safe house. Last week his five months of intensive debriefing was over. During that time Xu was given the courtesies of a top-level defector. He had his own chef to cook his favourite Chinese meals. Videos of Manchester United, his favourite team, were obtained from Britain for him to watch. Then it was back to work..talking for hours into a microphone.

This coming week Xu enters Americas Witness Protection Programme. He will have plastic surgery to change his appearance. A language teacher will coach him in the latest buzz words. He will get used to his new name. A job will be found for him and he will receive a secret pension for life.

But he will have no physical protection against the ever present threat that a CSIS team will assassinate him. To give him a bodyguard would be to draw attention to him, said an FBI source. His best protection will be his ability to melt into his chosen background.

Chinese Spies

China now has the worlds largest intelligence-gathering apparatus. As well as CSIS (approx 4,000 staff), a third based overseas, the others are:

STD. Headquartered in the monolithic Ministry of Defence building in Beijing, the Science and Technology Department (4,000 members) has two prime functions. Collating all signals traffic from the Chinese Navy, overseas embassies and satellites. Targeting all foreign firms at the cutting edge of military and civilian technology.

MID. Reports to the Politburo and Army General Staff. Brief includes updating all foreign military capabilities. Members attached to every Chinese embassy and consulate. Number of staff estimated as 1,500. ILD. Small specialist unit (300 members). Conducts high-tech intelligence-gathering.

MSS. (3,500 staff). Equivalent to MI5 but three times larger. Targets all foreigners in China and spies on its own citizens. CLIP

Gordon Thomas

http://www.gordonthomas.ie

10/19/01
1:00:11 PM

Media Spin Revolves Around The Word "Terrorist"

by Norman Solomon

During the first two days of this month, CNN's website displayed an odd little announcement. "There have been false reports that CNN has not used the word 'terrorist' to refer to those who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon," the notice said. "In fact, CNN has consistently and repeatedly referred to the attackers and hijackers as terrorists, and it will continue to do so."

The CNN disclaimer was accurate -- and, by conventional media standards, reassuring. But it bypassed a basic question that festers beneath America's overwhelming media coverage of recent weeks: Exactly what qualifies as "terrorism"?

For this country's mainstream journalists, that's a non-question about a no-brainer. More than ever, the proper function of the "terrorist" label seems obvious. "A group of people commandeered airliners and used them as guided missiles against thousands of people," says NBC News executive Bill Wheatley. "If that doesn't fit the definition of terrorism, what does?"

True enough. At the same time, it's notable that American news outlets routinely define terrorism the same way that U.S. government officials do. Usually, editors assume that reporters don't need any formal directive because the appropriate usage is simply understood.

The Wall Street Journal does provide some guidelines, telling its staff that the word terrorist "should be used carefully, and specifically, to describe those people and nongovernmental organizations that plan and execute acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets." In newsrooms across the United States, media professionals would agree.

But -- in sharp contrast -- Reuters has stuck to a distinctive approach for decades. "As part of a policy to avoid the use of emotive words," the global news service says, "we do not use terms like 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' unless they are in a direct quote or are otherwise attributable to a third party. We do not characterize the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity and background so that readers can make their own decisions based on the facts."

Since mid-September, the Reuters management has taken a lot of heat for maintaining this policy -- and for reiterating it in an internal memo, which included the observation that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." In a clarifying statement, released on Oct. 2, the top execs at Reuters explained:

"Our policy is to avoid the use of emotional terms and not make value judgments concerning the facts we attempt to report accurately and fairly."

Reuters reports from 160 countries, and the "terrorist" label is highly contentious in quite a few of them. Behind the scenes, many governments have pressured Reuters to flatly describe their enemies as terrorists in news dispatches.

>From the vantage point of government leaders in Ankara or Jerusalem or Moscow, for example, journalists shouldn't hesitate to describe their violent foes as terrorists. But why should reporters oblige by pinning that tag on Kurdish combatants in Turkey, or Palestinian militants in occupied territories, or rebels in Chechnya?

Unless we buy into the absurd pretense that governments don't engage in "terrorism," the circumscribed use of the term by U.S. media makes no sense. Turkish military forces have certainly terrorized and killed many civilians; the same is true of Israeli forces and Russian troops. As a result, plenty of Kurds, Palestinians and Chechens are grieving.

American reporters could plausibly expand their working definition of terrorism to include all organized acts of terror and murder committed against civilians. But such consistency would meet with fierce opposition in high Washington places.

During the 1980s, with a non-evasive standard for terrorism, news accounts would have routinely referred to the Nicaraguan contra guerrillas -- in addition to the Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments -- as U.S.- backed "terrorists." Today, for instance, such a standard would require news coverage of terrorism in the Middle East to include the Israeli assaults with bullets and missiles that take the lives of Palestinian children and other civilians.

Evenhanded use of the "terrorist" label would mean sometimes affixing it directly on the U.S. government. During the past decade, from Iraq to Sudan to Yugoslavia, the Pentagon's missiles have destroyed the lives of civilians just as innocent as those who perished on Sept. 11. If journalists dare not call that "terrorism," then perhaps the word should be retired from the media lexicon.

It's entirely appropriate for news outlets to describe the Sept. 11 hijackers as "terrorists" -- if those outlets are willing to use the "terrorist" label with integrity across the board. But as long as news organizations are not willing to do so, the Reuters policy is the only principled journalistic alternative.

There is no credible reason to believe that mainstream U.S. media will jump off Uncle Sam's propaganda merry-go-round about "terrorism." And the problem goes far beyond the deeply hypocritical routine of condemning some murderously explosive actions against civilians while applauding or even implementing others.

More than five years have passed since Madeleine Albright, then secretary of state, appeared on the CBS program "60 Minutes" and explained her lack of concern about the deaths resulting from U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq. In a broadcast that aired on May 12, 1996, the CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Albright: "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died when -- in -- in Hiroshima. And -- and, you know, is the price worth it?"

"I think this is a very hard choice," Albright replied, "but the price- we think the price is worth it."

Since then, by continuing to impose sanctions on Iraq, the U.S. government has killed hundreds of thousands more children. Of course such present-day policies did not stop Albright's successor from immediately claiming the high moral ground on Sept. 11. Responding to the tragic events that day, Colin Powell denounced "people who feel that with the destruction of buildings, with the murder of people, they can somehow achieve a political purpose."

Obviously, top U.S. officials still believe that they can "somehow achieve a political purpose" with sanctions that are killing several thousand Iraqi children every month. While standing on that policy platform, the officials fervently deplore terrorism.

10/19/01
12:56:37 PM

HERE ARE SOME OF THE INTERESTING STORIES YOU WILL FIND AT

http://www.copvcia.com

Two years of groundbreaking coverage on the Vietnamization of Colombia

Three years of reporting on the channeling of drug profits through Wall Street

The first news entity to publish the entire deposition of Adm. Thomas Moorer admitting sarin gas use in SE Asia

Exclusive coverage on the contents of a CIA IG report (10/98) admitting direct CIA involvement in the drug trade

Expanded coverage of the CIA illegally transferring military aircraft to private companies that were later used to smuggle cocaine in the 1990s

The connection between the crack cocaine epidemic and massive foreclosures of HUD financed homes in South Central Los Angeles. (Ethnic Cleansing)

The first US news entity to report in detail on connections between the KLA and the heroin trade

An exclusive two-part series connecting Dominican drug lords to money laundering through the Democratic Party

The first US news agency to fully explore the massive looting of Russia through the Bank of New York and link it to the drug trade

Gov George Bush flying in a Texas state airplane once owned by Barry Seal (picked up by the AP)

Perjury committed by Deputy Attorneys General in the conviction of Edwin Wilson

The Democratic Party's Presidential Drug Money Pipeline

The 9th Circuit Court Affirming Contra Leaders Claims of CIA Sanction for Drug Trafficking

Promis Software (2000)

The Bush-Cheney Drug Empire

European Economic Conference on US Economy

Massive Holes in the U.S. Position on the Shootdown of Missionaries in Peru

10/19/01
12:54:20 PM

Bill Blum on the Hypocrisy Crusade

Keep Those Envelopes Coming!

The man illegally occupying the White House made the following announcement a few days ago:

"We are asking every child in America to earn or give a dollar that will be used to provide food and medical help for the children of Afghanistan. You can send your dollar in an envelope marked 'America's Fund for Afghan Children' right here to the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C."

I suggest that we send the envelopes, but not with any money; instead with a note saying something like "You could help the children of Afghanistan a great deal more if you'd stop bombing their country, killing them and their parents, and making it impossible for real charitable organizations to bring food, medical, and other aid into the country."

It would be better if you signed your name and address, but you must realize in the expanded police state that is now looming, this could likely get you put on a list, if not worse.

Bill Blum is the author of "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower"

Portions of the books can be read at:

http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm

10/19/01
12:50:26 PM

The longer this war continues, the more difficult it will become

Independent

This, we were told, was a different kind of war. But as the air strikes against Afghanistan settle into their second week, America's war on terrorism looks all too familiar, virtually indistinguishable from the Gulf War and Kosovo before it. Missiles and high-altitude bombers rain destruction on such worthwhile military targets as exist in that benighted land, an unspecified number of innocent civilians die in "collateral damage" – but with no convincing evidence that the will of the Taliban has been broken, or that the US is much closer to "taking out" its chief foes, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammad Omar.

And as the military campaign stagnates, the diplomatic landscape darkens.

All along, President Bush has assured that America's quarrel is not with the Afghan people and still less with Islam, but with the terrorists who organised the attacks of 11 September and those who shelter them. For the Muslim world, however, each new civilian casualty within Afghanistan gives the lie to that assertion – and makes more plausible the accusation that the US is fighting a "coward's war", killing innocents on the ground from the safety of the skies.

And each new casualty renders more precarious the position of President Pervez Musharraf, Washington's most pivotal but most uncomfortable ally in the region. Consider a poll released as Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, arrived in Pakistan yesterday: no less than four-fifths of President Musharraf's countrymen sympathise with the Taliban. Every sweetener that General Powell can offer – US support, financial aid and international acceptance – will count for nothing if these feelings boil over on the streets.

The Bush administration knows all the above full well. But it faces two dilemmas; one military and one political. Even before the bombing began, it was assumed that the war would quickly move to a second phase, whose focus was on operations on the ground inside Afghanistan, aimed directly at Mr bin Laden. Alas, every account suggests that the CIA has so far failed to deliver the essential precondition: intelligence data pinpointing the whereabouts of the leader of al-Qa'ida. Failing that, the choice is, to bomb or not to bomb, in the full knowledge that the latter would be hailed as victory by the Taliban.

So, in all likelihood, more bombing it will be. The political dilemma rides in tandem with the military dilemma. Like it or not, the US is now committed to "nation building" in Afghanistan. But just suppose the Taliban regime does disintegrate tomorrow. Washington's political campaign to construct an acceptable and stable successor is running far behind its military offensive .

So what next? The US is indeed fighting a different kind of war, the kind of war, alas, for which it is least equipped. In this war, hi-tech wizardry counts for less than down-and-dirty gathering of human intelligence. Victory is unlikely to be secured, blood-free, from the air. Almost certainly it will require risking American lives on the ground.

No less important, the home front must hold as well. Thus far American public opinion has been overwhelmingly behind the war, and vaunted "splits" within the administration have been conspicuous by their absence. But suppose there was another terrorist attack inside the US. Almost certainly, the public clamour to lash out indiscriminately in revenge would become irresistible. On every front – military, political, diplomatic and at home – America must display patience and unwavering commitment. President Bush, it must be acknowledged, has demanded such qualities from the first. But modern America is a country addicted to the quick fix, and one which is easily bored. The longer this war continues, the more difficult it will become.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=99640

10/19/01
12:47:09 PM

Government Had Prior Knowledge - Key Points

The FBI knows another terrorist attack is being planned now in Oklahoma City - attack site unknown. The FBI has and is prohibiting their agents or local police from taking known terrorists into custody. An Iraqi terrorist cell is involved and was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. Ashcroft and members of Congress aren't listening. CLIP

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bc4dfde166e.htm

The longer this war continues, the more difficult it will become

http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=99640

Anti-Terrorism Questions for Bush - and more articles

http://www.consortiumnews.com

10/19/01
12:30:48 PM

Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg Organization meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 said the following as transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates:

"Today American's would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."

"...the US (and particularly the Pentagon) has hitherto opposed the creation of any international criminal tribunal which could conceivably indict an American citizen." (Geoffrey Robertson). In fact there is a wide international support for, and ratification of, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Details at: http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html

10/19/01
12:25:29 PM

Planet Ark World Environment News

Serbian drug plants say waste may delay investment - YUGOSLAVIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12884/story.htm

US pipelines, nuclear plants, dams seen vulnerable - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12885/story.htm

US energy dept gives $51 mln for clean coal technology - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12880/story.htm

WRAPUP - Anthrax hits third US network, spreads to Kenya - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12892/story.htm

EPA says US air quality better, but smog still a problem - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12891/story.htm

UPDATE - Security alert dropped at Three Mile Island nuke - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12883/story.htm

EPA says anthrax risk to water systems small - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12894/story.htm

INTERVIEW - North Korea still stalls UN nuclear inspections - UNITED NATIONS

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12890/story.htm

Nickel cast superalloy demand seen to rise sharply - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12886/story.htm

European MTBE prices slump, following gasoline - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12899/story.htm

UPDATE - Britain says tests for BSE in sheep flawed - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12898/story.htm

Global GM crop area growing amid health debate - PHILIPPINES http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12900/story.htm

UPDATE - El Paso, Iberdrola in Arctic gas deal - NORWAY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12895/story.htm

INTERVIEW - Greens issue confidence warning to NZ govt on GMOs - NEW ZEALAND

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12897/story.htm

India frees two Russians arrested for catching bugs - INDIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12879/story.htm

INTERVIEW - Binani's lead plant to start in 2003 - INDIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12881/story.htm

German government demands Biblis nuclear report - GERMANY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12888/story.htm

Wartsila buys Finnish biomass power plant firm - FINLAND http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12889/story.htm

Austria threatens Czech EU talks over Temelin - CZECH REPUBLIC http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12887/story.htm

Damaged Petrobras' ship leaks naphtha in Brazil - BRAZIL http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12893/story.htm

Huge Amazon areas lost each year but forest stands - BRAZIL http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12882/story.htm

10/19/01
11:49:58 AM

Blairism Won't Win Us The War, Tony

Charlotte Raven, The Guardian

Of all the things Tony Blair dislikes about the dirty business he is now engaged in, the one that upsets him most is the fact that a war cannot be fought by people who agree with each other. The sine qua non of military conflict - a divergence of opinion so great that no common ground can be found - is inimical to the Blairite view of an argument as a breakdown of communication. In Blair's mind an enemy is a friend who hasn't read the relevant paragraph of the piece he wrote explaining why their views are wrongheaded. He doesn't accept the existence of real detractors. However firmly rooted their opinions might appear, the Arabs burning effigies of him are only behaving so strangely because they don't have access to the allied message. By this logic, the allies' most pressing job, apart from bombing shepherds and farm hands, must be the business of winning Arab hearts and minds to the cause of "enduring freedom".

At least Blair is now on familiar ground. Every detail of the strategy he is pursuing in the so-called propaganda war has been tried and tested on the domestic front. Dealing with Osama bin Laden as they would an errant leftwinger trying to get selected for a safe-as-houses northern seat, Blair and Campbell have set about trying to limit his access to the media. We don't yet know the result of Campbell's attempts to persuade broadcasters not to screen the al-Qaida videos, but there is no doubt how silly it looks. The suggestion that some of the statements might contain coded messages to terrorists in other countries has fallen as flat as the idea that repeated exposure to the terrorists' war cries is somehow bad for "public morale".

Everyone seems fairly clear that Campbell is only bothered about al-Qaida because they sound much saner than he thought they would. Disappointing as it must have been for the forces of truth and justice to be confronted with people speaking coherent sentences, there's no excuse for trying to censor their output. To do so is to misunderstand the reasons why their message has the resonance it does. The Arab world's disgust at the bombings is not in any way attributable to the effectiveness of the al-Qaida broadcasts or the grossly overstated efforts of the Taliban "lie machine". To date, all this has amounted to is a couple of hillside rants and the possible - but by no means certain - exaggeration of civilian casualties. Compared with the US's dumbass refusal to own up to any missed targets, it is pretty small beer. Yet Campbell and Blair are entranced by the possibility that this drip, drip of anti-US invective is stealing hearts that might otherwise have beaten to the allies' drum.

For them, Muslim fanaticism is the product of a PR triumph on the part of the forces of darkness. They cannot understand the nature of a belief that will not be swayed by a well-worded advert, nor begin to relate to the notion of a life lived outside that economy. As far as they are concerned, an Arab who has a problem with their policies is no different from a Birmingham housewife thinking of voting Lib Dem because she likes Charles Kennedy's manner. In both cases, they will try to alter their detractor's perceptions - a perfectly appropriate strategy for trying to win domestic votes which doesn't work with people whose beliefs aren't defined by marketing. The Muslims on the streets of Jacobabad are acting on instincts shaped by a complex web of circumstances. Their hatred of America is not a "position" like being anti-war in this country is a "position", since it lies at the very root of their identity. The reasons they relate to al-Qaida have nothing to do with Bin Laden's PR genius. They are pleased by him in the way that lifelong Tories were pleased by Margaret Thatcher, but that doesn't make him responsible for defining their frame of mind.

If he were, there would be some wisdom in the other part of Blair's strategy. All those pieces he has written for Arab papers might really sway the matter in his favour. There is something rather sweet about the way he shores up evidence for the contention that "good" Muslims should support the campaign. He is never seen anywhere these days without his Koran, a book he refers to often when he is trying to "prove" that there's no theological justification for mass murder. Having read it and re-read it several times, he has also failed to find a single sentence that commits Muslims to stamping on straw-filled approximations of either himself or George Bush.

Armed with this intelligence, he intends to confront the Arab world with the illogicality of its hatred for everything he stands for. Of the many ambitions of his premiership, that must count as one of the boldest.

Cool Britannia

I am proud of the way we Brits have kept our heads during the terrorist crisis. A recent poll suggests that we are no more concerned for our safety now than we were before September 11. Some have said this is because terrorism has been part of our lives for as long as anyone can remember. Others say it is because we survived the blitz. I don't think that is the reason why we haven't been buying quantities of anthrax vaccine or taking any of the other precautions Americans believe are vital to self-preservation. Unlike them, we have never laboured under a delusion of invulnerability. This has less to do with the fact that we have suffered our own small-scale atrocities than it does with our sense that, as individuals, we are subject to the whims of destiny.We don't believe, as they do, that we can shoot down anything that threatens our security.

Unarmed, we have always had a sense of our relative powerlessness in the face of events. The Americans have had just the opposite - an illusion that they are empowered to defend their loved ones and their right to a peaceful existence against criminals, monsters and aliens. The attacks unseated this sense that they are in charge. They wouldn't have had so far to fall if gun culture hadn't given them the wholly false conviction that they and their countrymen are beyond the reach of fate. The current run on gasmasks and other protective clothing is just one last-ditch effort to haul themselves back into the driving seat.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,574926,00.html

10/19/01
11:46:40 AM

A Shabby Excuse For Democracy

Alternatives to bombing were absent from the Commons debate

by Paul Foot, The Guardian

There is not a shred of a case for the military action in Afghanistan, yet in the "debate" in the House of Commons on October 8 not a single voice was raised against it. There was no motion and no vote. And although a few MPs are against the war, the only sign of dissidence last Monday was an isolated question from Alan Simpson (Nottingham North) warning that "bombing will produce more terrorists than it kills".

Clare Short, international development secretary (how far she has come from her humanitarian welfare work in Birmingham, where she started!) congratulated the on a "high quality debate" whose main feature was "a deep consensus". It didn't seem to occur to her or anyone else that deep consensus is the curse of high quality debate, or that a single evening's discussion, full of gushing praise for Blair and Bush, cut short so that MPs, in the middle of the crisis, could slink off to continue their grossly extended holidays, was a pathetic apology for parliamentary democracy. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park), who only a few days previously had drawn applause from delegates at the Liberal Democrat party conference for her advice to the government to bomb Afghanistan with bread not bombs, enthusiastically supported the bombs option. "The die has been cast," she said, drawing deeply on the well-worn Liberal thesaurus of cliches. "The decision has been taken, I am sure, with far better intelligence than I have. Therefore, I support that decision and that action."

No doubt the superior intelligence that convinced her was every bit as accurate as the intelligence that foresaw the New York atrocity and guarded against it. Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) said he believed in the "now widespread acceptance of the inevitable military action". Perhaps he should read his own journal, the New Statesman, which sets out clearly and almost unanimously the case against the inevitability of military action.

Opponents of the bombing were challenged to provide alternatives. David Winnick (Walsall North) said "the question for colleagues who oppose military action is simple. What alternative do they propose? The murderous network that we face can, like fascism, be appeased or fought. It is as simple as that." Stephen Pound (Ealing North) asked "if not this action, what action should be taken?"

There are plenty of answers to these questions, but very few got a decent airing in the debate. I cite a few:

Stop subsidising the government of Israel. Stop appeasing the war criminal Sharon. The continuous breaches by Israel of United Nations resolutions, the constant seizure of other peoples' territory, the apparently everlasting persecution of the Palestinian people have been sustained by more economic and military aid from the US and Britain than has been bestowed on any other country on earth. Appeasement of Israel has been the lynchpin of US and British policy in the Middle East, and is obviously connected, at whatever distance, to the terrorist attacks on September 11. Yet the crucial importance of Palestine to the issue was emphasised by only one MP in the debate - John Austin (Erith and Thamesmead)

Stop appeasing the Russian government over its murder and torture of the people of Chechnya. This subject got an honourable mention from Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton), who rejoiced that "not least because of the events in Chechnya, Moscow is very much on side in attempting to find a solution to what has been going on in Afghanistan".

Stop bombing Iraq - hardly mentioned in the debate.

Stop cuddling up to feudal and sexist dictatorships such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia which are every bit as foul as the Taliban. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) said: "One thinks with admiration of the bravery of General Musharraf of Pakistan." No one seemed to disagree, or even protest that the brave general came to power in a military coup against an elected government.

Above all, stop siding with the rich of the world against the poor. From the Tory front bench Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) complained that the events of September 11 "shattered the illusion of a safe and comfortable world". That world, including even North Essex, was neither safe nor comfortable. Its distinguishing characteristic was the vast wealth of the irresponsible and greedy few and the indescribable poverty, hunger and thirst of the many. That doesn't excuse the fanatical and suicidal terrorism of September 11. But it helps to explain it. And if the gap between rich and poor is allowed to grow, terrorism will grow too.

These alternatives do not require dropping a single bomb or killing a single innocent person. Every one of them would do more to combat terrorism than all the cruise missiles dropped on Kabul and Kandahar. Yet it was the bombing, not the alternatives to bombing, which last week secured the unanimous acclaim of the mother of parliaments.

comment@guardian.co.uk

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,574763,00.html

10/19/01
11:43:16 AM

A Message From Tony

by A L Kennedy, The Guardian

Kabul Drop Zone, Leaflet No 17

Hello to our Afghan friends. Or "Shalom", as you put it. Oh, no, that's the other lot, isn't? Mind you - one's as awkward as the other, when you think about it.

No, no. Only joking - British sense of humour, it's the envy of the free, crusading world. And it's just one of the many gifts we're dying (no pun intended) to give you. All of us over here remember very clearly how our sense of humour got us through the blitz. Our relatives may have been atomised by high explosives from above, but did we grumble? - not a bit of it. We sang songs, robbed sleeping strangers in the underground and jolly well got on with it. And you can do the same.

Yes indeed, even though we're killing you and your fellow non-combatants in difficult-to-confirm numbers, it's for your own good. It will be character-forming in the long run. We've never really been as happy as we were when Mr Hitler was maiming our mothers and pulverising our infants with searing shrapnel. And now, even the smallest sporting occasion is an excuse for us to roll out the flags and banners, the old songs and the wartime slogans.

Soon you'll doing the same, believe us. We know you currently tend to use your football pitches for mass executions, but eventually we know you'll see the error of your ways. I mean, don't get me wrong, the president of the United States is rarely happier than when he's offing a bad egg or two but, please, do it the Christian way - by lethal injection. We'll sell you all the necessary equipment at very reasonable rates.

Which brings me to our central aim - selling you necessary equipment. For goodness sake, you can't even shelter in an underground because we haven't built you one. How are we supposed to destroy your infrastructure when you've shown no interest in acquiring more than a few yards of road and half an airport? No taking out exorbitant loans, no exchanging backhanders with lobbyists and no handing over your independence to multinationals and the IMF. I mean, what's wrong with you people - don't you want to be civilised?

Once we've dropped the first few thousand 15,000lb bombs, believe me, your country's going to be a lot less mountainous and awkward than it was - ideal for a major development of motorway and rail networks. We can help you with that.

The people of Britain would be delighted to send you over executives, specialists, in fact, the whole damn staff of a wonderful organisation called Railtrack which will provide you with literally stunning railway lines and signalling in no time. And we guarantee that its services will kill far fewer innocent civilians than we ever will.

Look, I know the last time we asked you to stand shoulder to shoulder with us, we just sent over a few SAS men to research their novels and then rather dropped you in it with the Russians and the raging poverty and extremism and so forth, but things will be different this time. We will not walk away. No. We're going to stay - even though, frankly, a great deal of your countryside is going to be a tad radioactive with all the depleted uranium we'll have blasted into it.

Nevertheless, we will happily build you, for example, pricey hospitals to accept the deformed children of the wealthy new class of capitalist robber barons we'll create. Everyone else's children can choose to sell a kidney in exchange for treatment, or simply enjoy the benefits of random genetic mutation - that's the free market for you.

Meanwhile, you'll be offered a rich variety of satisfying new jobs -the kind of employment you goatherds and opium farmers have only dreamed of. You'll be able to stitch trainers, jeans, or even cheap, Gucci replicas. Or we'll help you get those clever, foreign fingers of yours busy assembling parts for mobile phones, personal organisers and other humanitarian devices. Some of you may earn up to £1 a month! I know it's difficult to believe, but this is the wonderland that our missiles and token food drops are bringing you.

And remember, no glumness and resentment and no thinking you'll slip off and become an economic refugee just because your village is covered in body parts and broken flour bags and your belongings have gone up in smoke. That's no reason to leave. Between you and me, turning up in Dover as a refugee, just because we made you one, wouldn't be wise. We do have Muslims here, almost all of them Good Muslims, but we don't particularly want any more - all that inter-racial understanding and international social responsibility, it's not really British.

So, Ally-Akbar, as Cherie and I often say, and Al-humpty-lee-lah.

Best wishes,

Tony Blair,

US ambassador to the world

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,574799,00.html

10/19/01
11:34:57 AM

U.S. Rep. Steve Buyer Discusses U.S. Use Of Nuclear Device

Staff Report, October 18, 2001

U.S. Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., said Wednesday that he would support limited use of a nuclear device under certain specific circumstances.

Speaking to reporters for WTHR (Channel 13) at Indianapolis International Airport, Buyer said that if the United States canprove a causal link between the anthrax and bin Laden's organization, "I would support the use of a limited precision tactical nuclear device. What does that mean? When there are hardened caves that go back a half a mile . . . don't send in Special Forces to sweep. We'd be naive to think biotoxins are not in there. Put in tactical nuclear devices and close these caves for a thousand years."

He added: "I am not a warmonger. I am not someone who says use offensive nuclear weapons. We're the ones attacked. This is a bio-attack. It's also important to figure out who is doing it. But I want you to know . . . if he (Bush) has to make difficult decisions -- like Truman did to save lives -- that he'd have support here."

Buyer added that he has yet to speak with anyone in the administration about the topic.

Source: http://www.indystar.com

10/18/01
8:16:06 PM

NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX VULNERABLE TO TERRORIST ATTACK

DOE's Longstanding Indifference to Lax Security Cited

The Project on Government Oversight investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests.

The following is a release from the Project On Government Oversight.

Washington DC, October 15, 2001 -- A new report by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) has revealed serious security flaws at nuclear weapons facilities around the country. These flaws, which leave U.S. weapons-grade nuclear material vulnerable to sabotage and detonation by terrorists, put the entire country at risk.

The Department of Energy (DOE) analyzes and tests the security of nuclear weapons facilities by conducting simulations and mock force-on-force exercises, often using U.S. military forces as adversaries. According to experts who have conducted these tests in the past, the government fails to protect against these attacks more than 50 percent of the time -- although the exact figure is classified.

"When our security efforts do not protect our weapons-grade nuclear materials against over half of the mock terrorist attacks, it is well past time for a reassessment of our security tactics," stated Danielle Brian, POGO Executive Director.

For example, in mock attacks on the nuclear weapons complex, the "terrorists" have been able to successfully "steal" enough material to make multiple nuclear weapons, "kill" enough protective force members to throw the remaining force into disarray, and had enough time to construct and "detonate" an Improvised Nuclear Device.

Furthermore, POGO has uncovered a disturbing trend of cheating and dumbed-down mock attacks favoring DOE’s protective force. For example, several times the protective forces have been warned by DOE Headquarters against the indiscriminate "killing" of scientists, lab employees, and each other during mock attacks, in the hopes of hitting their targets as well. These instances are regularly counted as wins for the protective force.

DOE’s disregard for proven threats to nuclear security and its institutional bull-headedness have thwarted the efforts of reformers, time and time again. DOE employees and others who have raised security concerns have largely been ignored and subjected to retaliation over many years.

In recent weeks, POGO has been working with policymakers in an attempt to remedy these problems. Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT), the Chairman of the House National Security Subcommittee, has announced the initiation of a Congressional investigation in response to POGO’s findings: "In this critical environment, it is important for the Department of Energy to assure the integrity of basic security measures for the protection of nuclear weapon facilities and the nuclear materials they contain against both internal and external threats."

"Our report shows a long standing pattern of DOE’s indifference to and even contempt for security reforms. Particularly in light of the recent terrorist attacks, we believe it is time for outside oversight to correct these problems," said Brian. The POGO report outlines a number of possible long term solutions. Brian added, "We have been recommending to the National Security Counsel and other policymakers two near-term security measures. Military units with SWAT capabilities should be brought in immediately to protect nuclear weapons and material at selected fixed sites. In addition, nuclear materials and weapons should not be transported on public highways until security is upgraded."

Source: http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/17/index.html

10/18/01
6:18:57 PM

Energy After September 11:

A Commentary

by Seth Dunn, Research Associate Worldwatch Institute

The tragic terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and the subsequent military response, have raised thorny questions about U.S. energy policy. How does oil import dependence factor into the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia-a major grievance of radical Islamic fundamentalists? How might continued heavy reliance on imported Middle Eastern petroleum complicate American efforts to eradicate terrorism from the region? Are nuclear power plants potential targets of future terrorist attacks?

While there are no easy answers to questions such as these, it is clear that the existing energy and power infrastructure in the United States exhibits several vulnerabilities. These include the risk of disruption of oil supply from politically volatile regions, the danger of electricity outages if power plants are targeted, and the risk of exposure to nuclear plant accidents.

The good news is that two long-term trends underway in the world's electricity and energy systems-toward micropower and hydrogen-can help to lessen these vulnerabilities.

Micropower, or distributed generation, limits the risk of disrupted power supplies. Terrorists would have great difficulty targeting hundreds of dispersed fuel cells or solar panels in office basements and backyards and on rooftops. Hydrogen, the lightest and most abundant element in the universe, is increasingly viewed by industry as the ultimate energy carrier.

The enabling technology for hydrogen is the fuel cell, which combines hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity and water. Fuel cells are now being vigorously developed as successors to batteries, power plants, and the internal combustion engine. Derived first from natural gas and later from renewable energy, hydrogen promises a clean, domestic source of energy that can lessen oil dependence.

Although the trend toward micropower and hydrogen was underway prior to September 11, these events-and the difficulties encountered in responding to them-illustrate the consequences of not engaging in a more concerted public policy effort to accelerate the introduction of these promising energy solutions. Indeed, they strengthen the case for an Apollo-scale effort to develop an infrastructure for producing, delivering, and using hydrogen. While there are costs in building a hydrogen economy, they must be weighed against the risk of continuing to rely on oil imports from the Middle East-which holds more than 65 percent of the world's proven petroleum reserves.

In addition to improving energy security, a micropower-hydrogen energy system could bring energy services to the 1.8 billion poor people around the world who lack access to modern energy-a common source of social unrest in many parts. It could also alleviate urban air pollution problems and lay the groundwork for a low-carbon, climate-benign energy economy. And a micropower-hydrogen energy system presents enormous economic opportunities for forward-looking companies and countries that see the strategic advantage of switching to new energy sources-as did Winston Churchill, when he switched the British navy from coal to oil during the First World War.

For further information, please contact Niki Clark, 202-452-1992 x 517, nclark@worldwatch.org

The Worldwatch Institute web site is at http://www.worldwatch.org

10/18/01
6:13:35 PM

WorldWatch

A New Marshall Plan

We would like to thank everyone who responded to the article we sent out recently, "A New Marshall Plan? Advancing Human Security and Controlling Terrorism." Rich countries need to approach the appalling inequities of the world with the same boldness and determination that the United States brought to bear in Europe under the Marshall Plan. The response to this piece was very strong and very positive. If you would like to read the article, click here:

http://www.worldwatch.org/alerts/011009.html

10/18/01
6:11:39 PM

Easing The Way For Efficient Combined Heat And Power Generators

By Environmental News Network

Part of the cogeneration system at Texas A&M University

Combined generation of heat and electricity, known as cogeneration, is more energy efficient than the separate generation of electricity and thermal energy. But there are regulatory barriers to cogeneration plants in the United States that need to be overcome before Americans can reap the benefits of better energy efficiency from cogeneration. At the National Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Roadmap Workshop in Baltimore, Md. on Oct. 16, a new partnership was announced between the United States Combined Heat & Power Association (USCHPA) and the federal government.

Neal Elliott, USCHPA policy director, said, "We are looking forward to continued cooperation with EPA as we encourage the public, industry, and other levels of government to see CHP as a solution to air quality problems as well as problems of energy supply, reliability, and cost."

A new report on leveling the playing field for cogeneration from the nonprofit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE, pronounced aye-cee-triple-ee) was released at the workshop, which continues Wednesday.

The report, "Certification of Combined Heat and Power Systems: Establishing Emissions Standards," outlines specific recommendations for establishing a combined heat and power certification system and appropriate methods for establishing emissions standards for CHP systems.

CHP systems generate electricity and thermal energy in a single, efficient, integrated system, with an overall efficiency normally exceeding 70 percent. Increased fuel efficiency translates directly into reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

Combined heat and power systems can be used in many commercial and industrial facilities, where there is a relatively constant demand for hot water, steam, space heating, cooling, or refrigeration.

The ACEEE report is an attempt to bridge the gap in understanding between the regulatory agencies and the efficient cogeneration technology.

Anna Monis Shipley, research associate at the ACEEE, has found that, "One of the greatest barriers to the installation of CHP is the complicated and lengthy plant siting and permitting process." Cogeneration plants run into other problems too, such as nonuniform interconnection standards and unfair utility tariffs.

To encourage the market to recognize the benefits of combined heat and power, the ACEEE recommends calculating compliance of a combined heat and power generating plant with electric emissions rates by subtracting the emissions that would have occurred at a stand-alone boiler.

Under government regulations, new power generation sources in areas where the air is highly polluted must meet strict emissions guidelines. Cogeneration plants can meet those guidelines, said Shipley, but today emissions are measured in a manner that does not take into account the way CHP technologies attain their efficiency.

Current air regulations do not take into account the increased efficiency benefits that occur when heat is recovered in a generation system. Creating output-based standards for pollutants (in pounds-per-megawatt-hour output) for emissions would allow CHP to take credit for this increased fuel utilization.

"Current emissions standards are generally based on fuel input, an approach that does not recognize the fuel efficiency of CHP technologies," according to Shipley. But the creation of output-based standards is "absolutely key in encouraging the adoption of the cleanest and most efficient electricity generation technologies," she writes in the ACEEE report.

The ACEEE report describes methods for establishing combined heat and power emissions standards in output-based regulation scenarios.

Several states have already prepared rules for the adoption of output-based standards. The Massachusetts electricity restructuring legislation directs its Department of Environmental Protection to develop an output-based standard for any pollutant determined to be of concern to public health and also to implement at least one such standard by May 2003.

In a related effort, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management has devised a model Emission Performance Standard rule on an output basis for its member states.

Internationally, cogeneration accounts for around 7 percent of total global power production and more than 40 percent in some European countries. Both the United States and the European Union have targets to double the share of cogeneration by 2010.

Source: http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/10/10182001/s_45301.asp

10/18/01
6:06:49 PM

Unique Hybrid Car In The Works

By Environmental News Network

Analyst at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL)

Ford Motor Company and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are working together to develop a unique hybrid, high-efficiency vehicle that uses hydraulic fluid to store and provide energy to power the car. The technology could be used to dramatically improve the fuel economy of sport utility vehicles and light trucks. "This is the first-ever cooperative agreement with an automobile company targeted to develop EPA patented automotive technology," said Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Whitman. "I am very excited about the potential for this technology to make a major and cost-effective contribution toward achieving the president's long-term energy and environmental goals."

The basic technology was originally developed and patented by the EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Mich., and refined under a cooperative agreement with Ford. The advanced power train features a high-efficiency engine and a new hydraulic hybrid propulsion system.

The hybrid system uses hydraulic pumps and hydraulic storage tanks to store energy in the place of electric motors and batteries used in electrical hybrid vehicles. As with other hybrid systems, energy saved when applying the brakes is used to help power the vehicle. This hydraulic power system could have cost and power advantages over electric hybrid systems, the developers believe.

"The hydraulic hybrid research project complements Ford Motor Company's commitment to develop and implement technologies providing high volume solutions to address societal concerns," said William Clay Ford Jr., Ford Motor Company chair.

The technology to be developed and tested under this agreement has the potential to boost the fuel economy of light-duty trucks and sport utility vehicles, which could reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and save consumers money at the pump.

While it will take time for this technology to be introduced into the marketplace, Ford is committed to spending significant resources to further develop this technology for commercial production. Ford will aim toward putting a pilot fleet of vehicles on the road by the end of the decade.

Ford and the EPA will be working with FEV Engine Technology Inc., an advanced automotive engine and power train research and development firm, and Eaton, a major supplier to the worldwide auto industry, to build and test the new technology.

"Recognizing that significant hurdles remain in development and prove out, hydraulic hybrid technology holds great promise for our customers and for our society," said Gerhard Schmidt, Ford Motor Company vice president for research.

Ford said, "While we are working hard to implement proven technologies on our vehicles today, we must at the same time push forward with advanced research that holds a bright promise for tomorrow."

The National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory was established in 1971, shortly after the creation of the EPA. The lab assists in the development of automotive technology to reduce pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, produce a cleaner diesel engine, and explore alternative fuel technologies.

Source: http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/10/10182001/s_45279.asp

10/18/01
5:46:43 PM

Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE

<http://www.gristmagazine.com>

WHOOP-DE-DO

Folks who happened to be scanning the skies in central Wisconsin yesterday were witness to a strange sight, as people in bird costumes flying ultra-light aircraft led a flock of nine whooping cranes on the first leg of a 1,250-mile migration. The flight was part of an experiment to teach the extremely rare birds to migrate from the state's Necedah Wildlife Preserve to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida. A similar experiment conducted last year with sandhill cranes was successful, with the birds returning from Florida to Wisconsin on their own this spring. Whooping cranes, which stand five feet tall and can fly 35 miles per hour, were nearly driven extinct by hunting and habitat loss. Thanks to conservation efforts, their numbers have risen from just 15 in 1940 to around 400 today.

straight to the source: Planet Ark, Reuters, 18 Oct 2001 <http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12852/story.htm>

LAND SAKES!

The Bush administration yesterday endorsed an $82 billion overhaul of farming legislation that would phase out subsidies and double conservation spending. The plan, proposed by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), would shift federal benefits away from big grain and cotton growers and toward fruit, vegetable, and livestock farms, as well as land-preservation efforts. Earlier this month, the House voted against an amendment to its farm bill that also would have reduced subsidies and dramatically increased conservation spending. In other, less auspicious news from the White House yesterday, Bush again called on the Senate to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The plea, made during a speech to a gathering of Sacramento business groups, marked the second time this month Bush asked the Senate to open the Arctic Refuge in the name of national security.

straight to the source: Washington Post, Associated Press, 18 Oct 2001 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12450-2001Oct18.html>

straight to the source: Planet Ark, Reuters, 18 Oct 2001 <http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12864/story.htm>

STEELING HOME

Anglers in north-central Washington state could be allowed to fish for endangered steelhead for the first time in four years if the state Department of Fish and Wildlife has its way. More than 32,000 steelhead are expected to swim up the Columbia River this year, the largest run since 1986. State wildlife officials would like to permit fishing to reduce the number of hatchery steelhead, which they fear will out-compete the wild fish for spawning areas. Both hatchery and wild steelhead were listed as endangered in 1997, but the former are making a stronger comeback. The National Marine Fisheries Service is currently considering the state's request.

straight to the source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Associated Press, 18 Oct 2001 <http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/43271_steelhead18.shtml>

10/18/01
5:19:44 PM

Terror and Teachers, and Excuses and Explanations

by Richard Rothstein

When Judith Rizzo, deputy chancellor of the New York City schools, said the terrorist attacks demonstrated the importance of teaching about Muslim cultures, she was denounced by Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice president. Ms. Cheney, former chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, charged Dr. Rizzo with implying that terrorism was America's fault, a result of our failure to understand Islam.

And when some professors at a City College teach- in claimed that American foreign policy was responsible for the attacks, Matthew Goldstein, chancellor of the City University, denounced "those who seek to justify or make lame excuses" with arguments "based on ideological or historical circumstances."

Still, Dr. Goldstein and Ms. Cheney would surely agree that scholars should explore the ideological or historical context of the attacks. That is what we want our professors and teachers to do, especially in the heat of crisis. Not all scholars will be careful in their analyses, and some may be downright stupid. But that's the price paid for open debate.

If Dr. Goldstein's reaction, and that of Ms. Cheney, are interpreted (perhaps wrongly) as discouraging inquiry into the attackers' motivation, they will be of no help to our security, which ultimately depends on understanding terrorism's causes so we can know how to reduce its likelihood. Teachers and those who monitor them need to distinguish between excusing horrific acts and explaining them. That is not always easy, but we manage it in other contexts.

For example, history teachers explain that mistakes of America and its allies contributed to Nazism's rise after World War I, when the victorious powers insisted on reparations so onerous that Germany was left in ruins.

"American History" by Donald A. Ritchie, a textbook used by many eighth graders nationwide, says that "heavy war debts and rising unemployment caused great discontent among the German people and led directly to the rapid growth of two antidemocratic parties — the Communist Party and the Nazi Party."

Nobody thinks such explanations excuse or justify Nazism. Indeed, analyses of earlier policy mistakes shaped American actions after World War II: the Marshall Plan for European economic recovery was intended to avoid repeating errors that contributed to, but did not excuse, Hitler's rise.

Teachers distinguish explanation from excuse in addressing domestic policy as well. In studying urban race riots of the 1960's, children learn that police brutality, unemployment and discrimination created conditions from which violence erupted. The "American History" text recalls that President Lyndon B. Johnson commissioned a report on urban violence that "laid responsibility for the ghettos at the feet of white society."

Having given that explanation, no teacher should be accused of suggesting that rioting ought to be tolerated or perpetrators left unpunished.

Young people have to learn to distinguish explanation from excuse in criminal justice policy, too. Experts know that victims of child abuse, for example, are more likely to abuse their own children. For most Americans, this implies not that child abusers should be treated with leniency, only that addressing the causes of abuse is needed to prevent it.

In the case of Hitler, or Osama bin Laden, the line between explaining and excusing should be apparent to all. So the last thing we should want is to inhibit professors and teachers from exploring Islamic fundamentalism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the politics of oil, the role of authoritarianism in the Persian Gulf region, how American mass culture is marketed internationally or anything else that might help to understand and prevent recurring terrorism.

Ms. Cheney may be right in suggesting that there is no sense in which terrorism is "our fault." Perhaps there are no policies the nation has followed that we would want, upon reflection, to change. If, as some have said, the attackers reacted only to our culture and freedoms, then policy makers can get little help from academic inquiry into the motivation. But teachers should be encouraged to explore whether there are specific policies that may give rise to terrorism, without being accused of undermining patriotism and national unity. Students who are not taught to question our polices will be ill prepared as adults to improve on them.

In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair had a campaign slogan: "Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime." He meant that his government would be as determined to correct the social policy failures that contribute to crime as it would be to punish offenders.

That is a good model for discussing terrorism. The government should be tough on terrorism, but professors should explore how we can be equally tough on its causes. If they don't, it is unlikely that others will.

email: mailto:rrothstein@nytimes.com.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/17/national/17LESS.html

10/18/01
1:18:34 PM

China Enters The WTO

Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman on Progress in China’s WTO Accession Talks

September 17, 2001

“We are very pleased that the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) members have endorsed China’s entry into the WTO. For American farmers and ranchers, China’s entry into the rules-based WTO trading system means significantly increased access to the world’s most populous market.

“China has committed to specific market-opening measures that will benefit U.S. producers, including reduced tariffs and an end to import bans. When fully implemented, China’s commitments could add approximately $2 billion a year to U.S. agricultural exports. In addition, China has agreed to eliminate agricultural export subsidies. This paves the way for the text of the agreement to be adopted formally at the WTO Ministerial Conference.”

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2001/09/0175.htm

10/18/01
12:32:57 PM

TomPaine.com

http://www.TomPaine.com

NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX VULNERABLE TO TERRORIST ATTACK

DOE's Longstanding Indifference to Lax Security Cited by The Project on Government Oversight

"When our security efforts do not protect our weapons-grade nuclear materials against over half of the mock terrorist attacks, it is well past time for a reassessment of our security tactics."

http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/17/index.html

RIBBONS AND FLAGS OR COVERAGE AND COMMENTARY

Journalists Think About Patriotism and the Role of the Press

by Joe Davidson

"The true measure of journalism's worth to our democracy will be measured not by our outward displays of patriotism, but by the work we produce."

http://www.tompaine.com/news/2001/10/17/index.html

WHY NOT A REAL WAR ON TERRORISM?

by Elijah Wald

Bush and his advisors are, first and foremost, businessmen, and their definition of terrorism is a businessman's definition: terrorists are people whose violence makes the world messy and gets in the way of trade.

AUDIO and TEXT produced by Sharon Basco

http://www.tompaine.com/history/2001/10/12/index.html

TRADING ON TRAGEDY

Taking Free Speech Out of Free Trade

by Mark Weisbrot

"Free trade" advocates are asking the majority of Americans to make more economic sacrifices while others get richer -- but they don't want any public debate on this issue.

http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/09/3.html

10/18/01
11:58:15 AM

'Threat' at Three Mile Island, Airport Shut Down

By REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Harrisburg International Airport in Pennsylvania was shut down for four hours on Wednesday night because of a security alert at the nearby Three Mile Island nuclear plant, police and local media reported.

A Harrisburg airport police spokesman said all flights in and out of the airport were stopped for about four hours until about 1 a.m. EDT on Thursday morning.

``We were closed because of security concerns for four hours, but we reopened at around 1 a.m.,'' the spokesman said.

Local television stations said that Three Mile Island had received ``a credible threat,'' causing temporary flight restrictions to be put into effect for a 20-mile radius around the airport.

The Federal Aviation Administration and the FBI could not be reached for comment.

The United States has been on a high state of alert since the FBI issued a warning last week about additional terrorist acts following the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington by hijacked commercial airliners.

xoxox

Three Mile Island Placed on High Alert After Receiving Threat

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- The Three Mile Island nuclear power plant received a ``credible threat'' on Wednesday, prompting officials to shut down two nearby airports and dispatch military aircraft to protect the facility.

The plant was placed on a high state of alert as the FBI, state police and military planes scrambled to protect the facility.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokeswoman Diane Screnci declined to discuss the type of threat, or how the agency received it. The commission told Three Mile Island about the threat between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., and the airports were shut down about 9 p.m., she said.

Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Laura Brown said a ``temporary flight restriction'' extended to a 20-mile radius around the Harrisburg airport after the threat.

Three Mile Island is located just outside Harrisburg, which is 35 miles northwest of Lancaster.

Ralph DeSantis, a spokesman for Three Mile Island, confirmed the plant's high state of alert, but also declined to discuss the type of threat or the additional security measures.

He said Three Mile Island was the only nuclear power plant threatened.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the power plant had already taken additional security measures, but Wednesday's alert tightened security further, DeSantis and Screnci said.

10/18/01
11:53:31 AM

Planet Ark World Environment News

Bush again urges Senate to pass broad energy bill - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12864/story.htm

US energy dept gives $51 mln for clean coal technology - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12877/story.htm

UPDATE - US renews biotech corn registration for 7 years - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12872/story.htm

Regulators back part of Wisconsin Energy power plan - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12867/story.htm

US Germ expert says panicky people can iron mail - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12878/story.htm

UPDATE - Anthrax exposure found in congressional workers - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12865/story.htm

Flock of whooping cranes takes off from Wisconsin - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12852/story.htm

UPDATE - White House wants scale-back in farm law costs - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12863/story.htm

New York stations troops at nuclear power plants - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12862/story.htm

Xcel adds more wind power for Colorado customers - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12861/story.htm

US EPA to favor summer gasoline phase-in for refiners - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12854/story.htm

South Pole ozone hole same size again in 2001 - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12855/story.htm

Cousteau Society asks UN to help safeguard Earth - UNITED NATIONS http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12866/story.htm

GM protesters wins legal challenge - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12874/story.htm

UK recognises renewable energy problems from NETA - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12858/story.htm

Ozone-depleting chemical may get reprieve - SRI LANKA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12871/story.htm

Brain drain costs Africa $4 bln a year - report - KENYA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12868/story.htm

UPDATE - GM, Suzuki to cooperate on fuel-cell cars - JAPAN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12860/story.htm

Cyclone kills 31 in India, thousands homeless - INDIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12870/story.htm

FEATURE - Hungary to develop Tisza as "Eastern Danube" - HUNGARY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12853/story.htm

Solar could meet 26 pct energy demand by 2040 - report - GERMANY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12857/story.htm

German power mkt has reserves if N-plants shut - VDEW - GERMANY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12875/story.htm

France shuts 2 nuclear reactors for work Oct 14 week - FRANCE http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12856/story.htm

French judge probes TotalFinaElf on Erika oil spill - FRANCE http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12876/story.htm

UPDATE - EU states seek stricter GM labelling - EU http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12873/story.htm

EU delay on climate change package angers greens - EU http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12869/story.htm

Australia energy group warns of renewables slide - AUSTRALIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12859/story.htm

10/18/01
11:51:31 AM

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE

http://ens-news.com

ANTHRAX SCARE SHUTS DOWN U.S. HOUSE

By Cat Lazaroff

WASHINGTON, DC, October 17, 2001 (ENS) - Anthrax fears spread across the U.S. Capitol today as more than 30 people tested positive for exposure to the disease causing spores. The House of Representatives announced that it will shut down its offices later today for five days of intensive screening to ensure that anthrax has not contaminated the House buildings.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-17-06.html

ABORIGINAL SEA RIGHTS CONFIRMED IN AUSTRALIA'S HIGH COURT

By Bob Burton

CANBERRA, Australia, October 17, 2001 (ENS) - A landmark ruling handed down by the High Court of Australia late last week has confirmed the validity of limited Aboriginal rights over 2,000 square kilometres of the seas adjoining traditional lands off the north coast. The decision has been cautiously welcomed by Aboriginal and environmental groups.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-17-02.html

WORSENING WATER SHORTAGES THREATEN CHINA'S FOOD SECURITY

By Lester R. Brown

WASHINGTON, DC, October 17, 2001 (ENS) - A little noticed survey released in Beijing in mid-August reveals that China's water situation is far more serious than realized. The water table under the North China Plain, which produces over half of China's wheat and a third of its corn, is falling faster than thought.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-17-03.html

INDEX LAUNCHED FOR EUROPE'S GREENEST FIRMS

ZURICH, Switzerland, October 17, 2001 (ENS) - An index of Europe's most sustainable firms has been launched by global market index maker Dow Jones with partners Stoxx and sustainability assessment specialist Sam. The "Dow Jones Stoxx Sustainability Indexes" family includes the leading 20 percent of companies in a general index of 600 top European firms, also produced by Dow Jones and Stoxx.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-17-04.html

EUROPE SPENDS MILLIONS ON ANIMALS DISEASE TESTING

BRUSSELS, Belgium, October 17, 2001 (ENS) - The European Commission has approved a multi-million euro financial package to fight transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) such as mad cow disease and other animal diseases next year across the 15 nation European Union.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-17-01.html

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: OCTOBER 17, 2001

World's Largest Meatpacker to Resolve Environmental Problems

Sterilizers Could Kill Anthrax in Mailrooms

Coral Reef Act Passed in the House

Ozone Hole Still Big, But Stabilizing

EPA Urges Smokers to Take it Outside

Soy Products Could Cause Health Problems

Forest Certifiers Not Created Equal

Yucca Mountain Comment Period Ends Friday

Whooping Cranes Begin Historic Migration

Stressed? Take a Hike!

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-17-09.html

10/18/01
11:46:50 AM

GOP Blocks | Arline Security - Worker Protection and More

http://www.truthout.com/0687.GOP.Blocks.htm

Daschle Briefing | 22 of His Staff Are Positive for Exposure to Anthrax

http://www.truthout.com/0688.Daschle.PC.10.17.htm

Afghanistan Day 11 | Congress Shutdown as Anthrax Spreads | Land-Based Fighter Bombers Join Airstrikes in Afghanistan

http://www.truthout.com/0689.Afghan.Day.11.htm

10/18/01
11:37:21 AM

Pakistan, Our Fragile Ally

by James Ridgeway, Village Voice

As U.S. and British bombers flew into Afghanistan Sunday, Pakistan placed Maulana Fazlur Rehman, a leading fundamentalist Muslim, under house arrest to prevent him from agitating against the U.S.-led "war against terrorism."

In doing so, the government is taking a real risk. Even as Pakistani officials try to convince an uneasy public that this new campaign isn't about religion, they've essentially locked down a prominent figure of the hard-line religious movement. Fazlur Rehman and his supporters are not to be underestimated. Far from a fringe element, this fundamentalist corps is strong enough and organized enough to destabilize the government, grab control of the military, and plunge the nation into civil war.

American pols would like to present the international coalition they've cobbled together as a tapestry of many colors, but it's really a tapestry that could be unraveled by a few loose threads—starting, potentially, with Pakistan. U.S. discomfort with the situation in Pakistan is evident in everything from the White House's continued talk of economic backing to the way President Bush reminds us again and again that a stable Pakistan is good for the world. One senior U.S. official told The Baltimore Sun of cautionary notes from Arab leaders: "Everybody says, 'I'm stable, but the other guy isn't.' "

Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, has presented his administration as wholly allied with the U.S. against terrorists, when in fact many top officials remain dependent on a little-known but powerful fundamentalist party called Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam. Known more simply as JUI, this group has in many ways served to incubate Afghanistan's ruling Taliban—and it may yet spark civil war in its home country.

JUI runs hundreds of religious schools in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan, where Taliban leaders were raised in special training schools called madrassas. During the war against the Soviet Union, Afghan and Pakistani refugees were offered food, shelter, free education, and military training by JUI. "In 1971 there were only 900 madrassas in Pakistan, but by. . . 1988, there were 8000 madrassas and 25,000 unregistered ones, educating over half a million students," Ahmed Rashid writes in his book Taliban.

Not only does JUI strongly support the Taliban, but it crafted close relations with the Pakistani government while Benazir Bhutto was prime minister, thereby providing access for Maulana Fazlur Rehman, to top political powers. More important, JUI fostered relationships within the army and the intelligence service, which helped the Taliban rise to power in Afghanistan amid warring factions. The party was included in Bhutto's coalition, and her Interior Ministry welcomed close ties with it as part of an effort to open up southern Afghanistan to Pakistani traders heading into Central Asia. Shortly after the Taliban captured the city of Kandahar and opened the roads through Afghanistan in the mid 1990s, reports Ahmed Rashid, some 5000 students from the JUI schools rushed to join the new regime.

The surge of JUI led to the creation of numerous splinter groups, some more extremist than others. The most important was run by former Pakistani legislator—widely held to be the movement's éminence grise—Maulana Samiul Haq. Eight Taliban ministers and numerous other high officials graduated from Haq's educational apparatus, which included a boarding school for 1500 students, a day school for another 1000, and numerous affiliated academies. By 1999, this school had 15,000 applicants for some 400 places—no surprise, since the education, housing, and care were offered free.

Haq respects the Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar, who is surrounded by graduates from his school. He keeps in close touch with Omar, advising him on international relations and other decisions. In 1997, Omar called Haq and asked for help, and Haq responded by shutting down the school and sending all the students to fight with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance. In addition, he has organized reinforcements for the Taliban.

He's a big problem for Pakistani rulers, but they'd be loath to try reining him in. Instead, the government has been removing military commanders viewed as too closely linked to the Taliban, a strategy that does little to quell dissension on the streets.

Another JUI spawn, Jamiat-ul Uloomi Islamiyyah, is located in a Karachi suburb. It gets donations from 45 Muslim countries and, through its graduates, has close ties with the Taliban. As tension in the region has heightened, this group staged Taliban-style street revolts inside Karachi.

In recent days, Taliban supporters have clashed with police over Pakistani support for U.S. strikes, with riots ending in several deaths, the burning of cinemas and a UNICEF building, and cops opening fire with live ammunition. In a country where control of the military is an open question, the line between that kind of conflict and civil war is thin.

Financed by Bin Laden and the Taliban, thousands more students have trained at camps in Khost, Afghanistan, and gone on to fight for the Taliban. These camps were hit by U.S. cruise missiles in 1998, and reportedly were targets in American bombing raids Sunday. By increments, this ad hoc army has become a kind of secondary nation—invisible, fluid, and dangerous.

JUI, in particular, is so powerful that places like Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states have had to take notice of them. The party gives the otherwise isolated Taliban tentacles throughout Central Asia, creating a series of religious militias ready to fling themselves into jihad. As the U.S. attacks the Taliban in Afghanistan, the bombing has been perceived as a war on Muslim fundamentalism. As an ideological matter, this means America and the rest of NATO can't help being hauled into a war over religion, no matter how much they protest otherwise. As a military matter, it means American troops will be exposed to attacks in places like Uzbekistan or Tajikistan, as they chase an enemy that seems to replicate at will.

"We will attack Uzbekistan if any attack is launched from their borders," Taliban radio announced. With a standing militia of followers scattered throughout the region—including many inside the former Soviet states—the Taliban might not need troops from Kabul to do it. The Taliban has threatened to foment another round of civil war in Uzbekistan, and has announced the dispatch of 2000 soldiers to help defend the gateway to Kabul and arrest followers of the old king. Now, Osama bin Laden has challenged the whole Muslim world to take up the cause. No one believes he's really talking about formal governments.

Still, the end seems near for the Taliban, which has long acted as Bin Laden's primary protector. Some of the leadership already has defected from Supreme Leader Mullah Omar. The Taliban's supposed ferocious fighting abilities may yet turn out to be so much hot air. By stupidly opening up on a U.S. drone plane circling over Kabul, the Taliban revealed the position of all their major weapons, which suddenly became very easily identifiable targets for U.S. pilots. If the U.S. knocks out defenses in and around Kabul, then it may just be able to jack up the cutthroats in the Northern Alliance enough that they can make the 30-mile run into the capital. The fall of Kabul will mean curtains for the Taliban.

At that point, the Taliban will head for the mountains—impassible during winter—where they can try to foster small-time revolts around the region over the next 10 years. Osama bin Laden himself is believed to already have headed for the caves of the Pamirs at the eastern edge of the Hindu Kush.

As strikes began again Monday, the Bush administration warned that the war on terrorism might not be limited to actions in Afghanistan. Presumably, he means Iraq could be a target, but he could quickly find himself flying sorties over Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and the rest of the former Soviet republics in Central Asia—not to mention the sheer horror of being dragged into Kashmir, where the Taliban clones have been assiduously at work smashing television sets, harassing the populace, and otherwise trying to introduce a Taliban-like regime.

At the nexus of this conflict, of course, is Pakistan, where on Monday Islamabad and other major cities were placed under the control of the police and army. The government banned the display of arms and ordered the arrest of any religious fundamentalists carrying weapons. Yet further clashing between the administration and the people seems inevitable. One Taliban spokesman told a Pakistan newspaper that groups prepared for jihad would unite after any military action, with the common ethic of sparing no American in Muslim lands and the shared goal of countering U.S. designs. "We will call for jihad not only against the U.S. but the Pakistani government, if bases or airspace are used by the Americans for launching any attack against Afghanistan," a spokesman said.

Additional research and translation by Ed Korasani, Ariston-Lisabeth Anderson, Sarah Park, and Meritxell Mir.

Source: http://www.VillageVoice.com

10/18/01
11:18:10 AM

AlterNet Headlines

http://www.alternet.org

KABUL'S POOREST HAVE NO ESCAPE FROM U.S. BOMBS

Islam Online

Only the poorest of the poor in the desperately impoverished Afghan capital remain in the city as constant U.S. air raids spread fear and panic among a normally stoic people.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11734

A RATIONAL ALTERNATIVE TO THOUGHTLESS BOMBING

Ted Rall, AlterNet

An intelligent middle ground between mindless war and mindless pacifism can be found through simple common sense -- hunt down bin Laden, pump up Afghanistan and stop bombing.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11741

PAKISTAN, OUR FRAGILE ALLY

James Ridgeway, Village Voice

Already precarious from years of internal conflict, Pakistan's alliance with the U.S. could push the country into civil war.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11723

DICK ARMEY AND THE PUSSYCAT: THE ILLOGIC OF INTERNET FILTERS

Christine Triano, AlterNet

A new report documents just how spectacularly most Internet filters fail, screening out sites like Dick Armey's homepage and www.greens.org and missing others like xxx.hardcore.com.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11731

U.S. BUYS UP ALL SATELLITE WAR IMAGES

Duncan Campbell, Guardian (UK)

The Pentagon has spent millions of dollars to prevent western media from seeing highly accurate civilian satellite pictures of the effects of bombing in Afghanistan.

* In Media Culture: http://www.alternet.org/?IssueAreaID=19

SUSAN SONTAG, "THE TRAITOR," FIRES BACK

David Talbot, Salon

Denounced as an "America-hater," after penning a controversial article, Susan Sontag blasts back at America's cowlike media and scaremongering leaders.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11742

BLACK AND BUSH

Lee Hubbard, AlterNet

Why Black political leadership -- even Louis Farrakahn -- has been supportive of Bush after 9-11, despite aggressively opposing him beforehand.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11743

THANK$ A MILLION

Charles Rappleye, LA Weekly

Where are all those disaster donations going? Who's getting rich and who's getting ripped off? It's time to ask some uncomfortable questions about post 9-11 charity.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11735

SELLING THE PAINTER OF LIGHTT

Christina Waters, Metro Santa Cruz

Thomas Kinkade, the "most collected artist in America," says his work isn't about making money, it's about hope. Then why such a vast corporate structure devoted to hustling his art?

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11730

RACIAL JUSTICE -- BEHIND TODAY'S CAMPUS ANTI-WAR ACTIVISM

Russell Morse, Pacific News Service

One UC Berkeley student comments on the racial and political that divide even the most "conscious" students on his campus.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11720

COUNTER-CAPITALISM GETS A $5 MILLION UNILVER GRANT

James Harding, FT.com

The Ruckus Society and other anti-globalization activist groups are enjoying increased cash flow this year, thanks to funding from Unilever -- the consumer goods multinational.

* In Globalization: http://www.alternet.org/?IssueAreaID=21

RIDGE'S RECORD ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Angus Love, TomPaine.com

Homeland Security chief, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge's record in the Keystone State should concern anyone who cares about privacy rights, civil liberties and the conduct of the criminal justice system.

* In Human Rights USA: http://www.alternet.org/?IssueAreaID=22

GARCIA: LATINO CANDIDATES RECAST BIG CITY ELECTIONS

James E. Garcia, AlterNet

While race has always been a potent force in American politics, the role it plays is evolving as Latinos overtake blacks as the nation's largest minority.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11727

TECHSPLOITATION: A GEEK'S NIGHT ON THE TOWN

Annalee Newitz, AlterNet

Late last week, some friends and I plunged headlong into the digital social scene and found a major schism between political hackers and dot-com bubbleheads.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11728

HIGHTOWER: WAVE OUR FLAG!

Jim Hightower, AlterNet

I'll be double-damned to hell before I allow our flag to be usurped by political opportunists, corporatists and war-mongerers who confuse conformity with patriotism.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11732

10/17/01
10:05:03 PM

Israel Accuses Arafat Over Killing

by BBC

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has blamed Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for the assassination of far-right cabinet minister Rehavam Zeevi, who was killed on Wednesday.

In a first retaliatory step, Israel has banned Mr Arafat from using the international airport in Gaza.

But aides to Mr Arafat have denied that the Palestinian Authority is responsible for the death of the Israeli hardliner, and the US has backed their point of view.

In apparently related incident, a suicide bomber blew himself up near Israel's border with the Gaza Strip on Wednesday evening, injuring two Israeli soldiers.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) said it carried out both the killing of Zeevi and the suicide bombing near kibbutz Nahal Oz.

It is the first time the secular leftist PFLP has said it carried out a suicide bombing. The technique is more commonly associated with militant Islamic groups.

Memorial session

Israel's inner security cabinet met on Wednesday night to discuss further responses amid intense international diplomatic pressure to show restraint.

Mr Sharon earlier told a special memorial session of parliament: "I hold Arafat fully responsible, as he set the terrorism in motion, even though he knew very well what the consequences would be."

Aides to Mr Arafat have denied responsibility for the killing and say the Palestinian leader has ordered the arrest of the people who carried it out.

Separately, Israel's internal security agency, the Shin Bet -which seldom makes public statements -has said it will "work night and day to find the murderers of Israeli minister Rehavam Zeevi and bring them to justice".

US President George W Bush has condemned the killing "in the strongest terms", White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

"This despicable act is further evidence of the need to fight terrorism," Mr Fleischer said in a statement released during a stop in California as Mr Bush headed to China for a summit.

An unnamed senior US official told Reuters that the killing must not be allowed to derail the shaky Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire agreed on 26 September.

The official added that it was "clear" that Zeevi killing had been "carried out in defiance of Palestinian leaders, who have called for a ceasefire".

Hotel shooting

Zeevi, a 75-year-old former general, was the head of the right-wing National Union Party and resigned from the government on Monday in protest at Israel's military pull-out from Hebron.

He was shot in a Jerusalem hotel on the day that his resignation from cabinet was due to come into effect.

The PFLP said it carried out the assassination in revenge for the killing of its leader, Abu Ali Mustafa, by Israeli forces in August.

Israel Radio reported that Mr Arafat phoned Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to express his condolences and promised to make every effort to find the killers.

No bodyguards

Zeevi had been having breakfast in the dining-room of Jerusalem's Hyatt hotel with his wife before he made his way up to their room on the eighth floor, police said.

Once there he was approached by two gunmen who shot him at close range, including twice in the head.

Zeevi had no bodyguards with him at the time and the gunmen were able to escape.

When his wife followed him up to their room 10 minutes later she found him lying in a critical condition in front of the door, police said.

An American tourist, David Hocking, who was also staying in the hotel, ran into the corridor after hearing Zeevi's wife screaming.

Mr Hocking said that he had not heard any shots fired and the police are investigating whether a silencer was used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1604000/1604633.stm

10/17/01
8:52:37 PM

Berkeley Becomes First City In The United States To Pass Anti-war Measure

by Hil Anderson

BERKELEY, Calif., Oct. 17 (UPI) -- The left-wing bastion of Berkeley, Calif., narrowly voted Tuesday night to condemn U.S. military action in Afghanistan and not before the addition of an amendment denouncing the terrorist "mass murder" of thousands of Americans on Sept. 11.

The resolution, which passed on a 5-4 vote, was believed to be the first official statement by a U.S. city critical of the U.S. military response to the destruction of the World Trade Center and the damage to the Pentagon.

Although public opinion polls show the American public in favor of the military response by an unprecedented margin, former city council member Ying Lee Kelley urged the panel to "continue to honor Berkeley's tradition of opposition to brute force to solve profoundly difficult social problems."

Berkeley, home of the University of California at Berkeley campus, was the birthplace of the free speech movement in the 1960s with Mario Salvo and has been a hotbed of peace protests since the Vietnam War.

The San Francisco Chronicle said a recent poll of Berkeley students showed 65 percent were opposed to the U.S.-led bombing of Afghanistan.

While the Chronicle Wednesday described the council's makeup as split between leftist and centrists, there were a number of residents at Tuesday's meeting urging the resolution be defeated.

"War does solve something," said Kelso Barnett, the head of a conservative student group at the university. "Ask the people of Europe who were liberated after World War II."

The council passed the measure, however not before changing the wording to call for the bombing to end "as quickly as possible" rather than immediately.

At an Afghan restaurant in the "Little Kabul" district of nearby Fremont, home to the largest U.S. population of Afghan people, a couple who appeared to be in their 70s and had attended Berkeley, told United Press International that they had organized a group of 10-20 -- similar to the much larger group of 300 or so anti-war types in nearby Palo Alto -- that hold daily protests against the bombings and were gaining support from passersby.

"We get a lot of car horns honking and only an occasional call of 'traitor,'" said the woman, who declined to give her name, noting that the reception was encouraging given Fremont's overall conservative attitudes. "Smart bombs are not smart," she said, echoing the sentiment on the sign she holds up for Fremont traffic.

Source: http://www.unitedstates.com/news/farticle/610338?20011017151113

10/17/01
8:27:06 PM

Something "Evil" This Way Comes

by Scott Morschhauser

October 17, 2001—I once heard General Electric's CEO Jack Welch comment that the key to success was to pick one consistent message and repeat it ad infinitum. I also learned through years of studying history and the media that in a propaganda campaign one should divert the attention of the masses with a simple, yet passionately inflammatory message. These two concepts keep repeating in my mind after viewing George W. Bush's state of the war address on Thursday Oct. 11.

The entire press event on Oct. 11 lasted approximately 45 minutes. Bush delivered a prepared address for 6 minutes followed by a 38-minute question and answer session with the press corps. During the 6-minute address the word evil was used twice, 10 more times during the Q&A session. George W. Bush used the word evil in the answer to almost every single question, sometimes using the word twice in a single answer. He was obviously well prepped to deliver the message. The goal was to hammer the message home. We, the U.S., are good and the enemy, still not entirely defined, is evil. The extrapolated message is that since we are good, all of our actions are good. Since the enemy is evil, all of their actions are evil. If we, the good citizens of the United States, receive this message that he has been hammering into our brains, we will not question the actions of our government.

Before I receive another influx of hate mail, let me say that obviously the attacks on Sept. 11 were evil in the sense that innocent civilians were targeted and indiscriminate murder is easily defined or labeled as evil. I think that's a given. But the U.S. response to the attacks, including some of the peripheral subplots that I'll get into shortly, are not so easily slotted into good vs. evil. It is childish to look at the world as black and white.

Let's start by taking a look at all of the statements from the Thursday address by George W. Bush using the word evil:

1. "We're angry at the evil that was done to us, yet patient and just in our response."

2. "Our war on terrorism has nothing to do with differences in faith. It has everything to do with people of all faiths coming together to condemn hate and evil and murder and prejudice."

3. "Today, the Justice Department did issue a blanket alert. It was in recognition of a general threat we received. This is not the first time the Justice Department have acted like this. I hope it's the last, but given the attitude of the evildoers, it may not be."

4. "And—but the truth of the matter is, in order to fully defend America, we must defeat the evildoers where they hide."

5. "There's no question that the leader of Iraq is an evil man."

6. "We learned a good lesson on September the 11th, that there is evil in this world."

7. "I know there's a lot of children in America wondering what took place. I think it's essential that all moms and dads and citizens tell their children we love them and there is love in the world, but also remind them there are evil people."

8. "After all, on our TV screens the other day, we saw the evil one threatening, calling for more destruction and death in America."

9. "Moms and dads are not only reassessing their marriage and the importance of their marriage, but of the necessity of loving their children like never before. I think that's one of the positives that have come from the evildoers."

10. "The evil ones have sparked an interesting change in America, I think, a compassion in our country that is overflowing."

11. "We don't hold any religion accountable. We're fighting evil."

12. "And these murderers have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their evil deeds."

As I watched the address, the word evil kept jumping out, looming large over every answer, and I wondered if anyone else was thinking how absurd this was. The message was clear. We are good, so therefore all of our actions are good. They are evil and therefore all of their actions are evil.

International conflicts, such as the one with which the U.S. is now embroiled, are always complex matters that require intense scrutiny and discussion not only by our government, but also by the average citizen. We are the United States, the government should represent us, and we have the right to understand what is going on and weigh in on the issues. To dumb down the conversation to a simplistic good vs. evil melodrama is an insult to the intelligence of the American people as well as a disservice to the memory of the victims of the terrible attacks of Sept. 11.

With the good vs. evil message successfully driven home, one must now address the second part of my hypothesis. What are we being diverted from focusing our attention on? Here are a few items that I believe deserve further investigation and discussion, by all Americans. I only mention each briefly and there are many more questions that need to be addressed.

1. Humanitarian Aid - The current administration realizes that citizens have been quite critical of past military actions because of collateral damage and other humanitarian issues. We are told by our government that we are doing a wonderful job shipping humanitarian aid to the Afghan people, but the international experts in humanitarian aid are jumping up and down screaming that we aren't. In fact, the Afghan citizens were getting much more aid before we started bombing. There have been many complaints that we are dropping food into land mine fields, tempting children to their death. The international organization Doctors Without Borders has condemned our humanitarian program as military propaganda. It's wonderful to involve our children in the cause (George W. Bush asked the children of America to send money to help the children of Afghanistan, which is a great lesson in social responsibility), but it is no substitute for a true and serious humanitarian aid program by our government.

2. The Carlyle Group - Follow the money. Who will profit from this war? A private investment organization known as the Carlyle Group that invests heavily in military contracting. Members include Republican strong-arm lawyer James Baker III (seen often during the Florida vote counting), former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's college roommate), Fred Malek (George H.W. Bush's campaign manager, better known as Nixon's "Jew counter") and other wealthy Republican government families, probably the Bushes and most frighteningly the bin Ladens of Saudi Arabia. You can search the web on the Carlyle Group for information. A recent article in the Baltimore Chronicle is a good place to start. I think that this blatant conflict of interest should send the collective spider sense tingling for all of the world's inhabitants. Tompaine.com has an article titled "Missing the Oil Story" that relates the Carlyle Group to my next item.

3. Oil - Gee, didn't see this one coming. I found several articles on September 12 discussing the U.S. oil interests that seem to be in the forefront of the administration's agenda. Here's a quick quote from an article at the Frontier Post, "The US Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, paid a courtesy call on the Federal Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources, Usman Aminuddin, here Tuesday (Oct. 9, 2001) and discussed with him matters pertaining to Pak-US cooperation in the oil and gas sector." You should check out articles at the BostonGlobe.com, Tompaine.com, and the article "US companies to invest in Pakoil, gas sectors" from frontierpost.com.

4. Previous Lies - It's a well known fact that CNN was a puppet mouthpiece for the George H. W. Bush administration during the Persian Gulf War. The other networks marched right along. Investigative reporting was out the door. Who can forget that old chestnut, "The Patriot Missile has a 90 percent success rate." In fact, the Patriot was a horrible failure. We even sold bubble gum cards to children with false statements about our weapons and their accuracy. The truth is that we bombed the hell out of innocent civilians. And innocent civilians are innocent civilians, whether they work in a poor village in Iraq or the Twin Towers in New York. This is just one of a myriad of lies that were reported as truth during that war. Why would we assume that we are being told the truth this time? For the most part, it's the same bunch of guys running the show.

5. Liberties - Keep us pumped full of fear (state of alert warnings without reasons why or what to do) and maybe we won't notice that the Bill of Rights has been tossed out the door. Continually criticize senators and congressmen as partisan or unpatriotic whenever they disagree or question the Bush administration on any issue (whether it relates to the fight on terrorism or not) and eventually they'll shut up, agree to everything, and stop representing those who elected them to office.

6. U.S. Terrorist Training Camps - George W. Bush emphatically stated that we were going to comb the globe to stamp out terrorism wherever we find it. Well, we've been training terrorists at the School of the Americas (SOA) in Ft. Benning Georgia, for decades—now known as Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC). Many famous human rights violators, such as Manuel Noriega, were trained there before signing on to the U.S. payroll to help with CIA operations in Latin America. It has also been reported that we are now picking and choosing which terrorist organizations we'll go after based on who we need in our coalition against Osama bin Laden. In other words, U.S. sanctioned terrorists are okay and, therefore, not evil. We should clean up our own closets while we're combing the globe. Just track down Sister Gwen Hennesey, an elderly nun from Dubuque, Iowa, who is still sitting in a prison cell for protesting the actions of the School of the Americas. I'm sure she'll tell you all about it. You can write to her in prison at: Sister Hennesey, #90288–020 FPC Pekin, PO Box 6000, Pekin, IL 61555. You can also search for the web site, School of the Americas Watch.

These are just a few of the actions taking place that will affect every American citizen, and we would be wise to keep our eye on the ball. I don't have all of the answers, but I sure have a lot of questions. A childlike fairy tale of good vs. evil is just not cutting it for me.

Supporting our government in time of crisis? Sure. Give us information, let us scrutinize the information, and as long as the government's actions are legit it will get our support. A nation united? Sure, as long as we are standing together for justice. United as long as we demand and receive the truth so that we can end a 60-some year stretch of military-related lies. Blind faith when we have been lied to continually for decades, lies which have created the situation that we now face? Our answer should be simple, passionate, and we should repeat it ad infinitum. No.

If my message has not been repeated enough I'll take one more shot at it. We, the average citizens of the United States, need to demand the facts from our government so that we can decide if the are actions being taken are ones we can support. We need to decide if the actions are justified and appropriate, because to accept what we know to be morally wrong would be, well . . . evil.

Source: http://www.onlinejournal.com

10/17/01
7:09:37 PM

Guess Who Owns BioPort -The Only US Anthrax Vaccine Producer?

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence, clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" H.L. Mencken

THE GREAT ANTHRAX STOCK SWINDLE!

Where, oh where to begin!

Well, let's begin with Adm. William J. Crowe Jr. It seems that back when Goerge H. W. Bush was setting up Osama Bin Laden as a Freedom fighter (A "freedom fighter" is the same thing as a terrorist, only aimed at someone you don't like) , the good Admiral (seen right) and his buddies on the Joint Chiefs were selling American made weapons-grade Anthrax to Saddam Hussein in the hopes that he would use it on Iran (and then we wonder why the Iranian people don't much like Americans). Who knows who else got these American-made weapons of mass destruction either from Admiral Crowe or Saddam.

But that was then and this is now. Admiral Crowe is retired. Admiral Crowe is quite wealthy, far beyond what one might expect on even an Admiral's salary. In fact, Admiral Crowe sits on the Board of Directors and owns 13% of BioPort Corporation.

What is the BioPort Corporation, I hear you ask? Well, it's the only corporation in the United States with a license to make Anthrax Vaccine. Except that BioPOrt doesn't actually make the vaccine, BioPOrt simply bought the lab that does make the vaccine, Michigan Biologic Products Institute, from the State of Michigan in 1998, oddly enough at the same time John J. Maresca, Vice President of International Relations, UNOCAL Corporation, was telling congress that access to the oil reserves under the Caspian Sea required a new government in Afghanistan.

Along with the actual Anthrax Vaccine, BioPort acquired Michigan Biologic Products Institute's sole and exclusive customer for the vaccine, the U.S. Department of defense. And here is the kicker. Since acquiring Michigan Biologic Products Institute, BioPort has not delivered a drop of the stuff! Only 4% of the vaccine contracted for has been delivered. FDA audits have uncovered suspicious record keeping and contamination problems, causing the FDA to ban delivery of the product. Despite this ban, the U.S. Government has continued to front BioPort millions of dollars to kep the operation going. And, given the "State of Emergency", it is likely that FDA concerns for the product will soon be set aside and the vaccine delivered, not to the citizens whose taxes paid for it all, but to the military and to the government.

So, good old Admiral Crowe and his fellow investors in BioPort are set to make a bundle off of the Anthrax scare. Especially when market demand pushes the price of the product high up above the contracted for $3.50 an ounce. And who are those fellow investors? Well, another part of BioPort is owned by the Carlyse Group. That's George H. W. Bush's current occupation. Yet another portion is owned by (you had better sit down), the Bin Laden family!

That's right. Just as the Bin Laden family made a fortune with the contract to rebuild the Khobar Towers supposedly blown up by Osama, the Bin Ladens will again make a fortune from their part ownership of the only company able to make an Anthrax Vaccine in the United States, because Osama might have some of that Anthrax that the United States sold to Saddam.

In fact, the shortage created by the FDA bans will make all the players instant billionaires as market forces drive the price of the vaccine up to thousands of dollars per ounce. (The same amount of Anthrax treatment Cipro that sells for $20 in India now costs $690 in the US).

A very cozy arrangement. The Bushes and Bin Ladens (and the occasional complicit Admiral) are all making money off of the fear and death of Americans and Afghanis.

It's called "profiteering".

It's called conspiracy with a foreign power against the interests of the people of the nation.

This sort of thing is what got Charles the First into trouble!

Original article at http://www.rense.com/general15/mediarant.htm

ed comment:

Whilst not every claim in the above article can be verified at present (anthrax to Saddam awaiting confirmation), the article has been posted because most of the content is indeed verifiable. The more discerning amongst us will immediately recognise that the current anthrax headline scares have grubby, big-business fingerprints all over them. It is the classic scenario. A relatively innocuous spore in most instances and of little use as a weapon of mass terrorism, is now being used as a very effective weapon - that of mass psychological terrorism.

The state orchestrates the problem (little white envelopes containing the suspicious-looking powder): the sheeple look to the state to rescue them: the state wonderfully comes to the rescue with a vaccine, making its manufacturers $millions: and the establishment rulers further their own ends by implementing even more restrictive legislation under the patriotic banner of "making our nation safer, y'all." And ayone who complains "is obviously a danger to the state."

Yes folks, anthrax is looking all set to become the latest psychco-plague Death from anthrax vaccines.

"...the young NCO "went from a healthy woman just four weeks prior to her death - June 14, 2000 - to having no bone marrow, platelets and an extremely low count of red and white blood cells. It was as if there was something in her that was killing her immune system, shutting her down." more

"This is information we absolutely need to look into and don't take lightly. We're puzzled and stunned. We're going to do everything we can to find out what's going on here." BioPort spokeswoman Kelly Rossman McKinney yeah, yeah.

Source: http://www.whatareweswallowing.com

10/17/01
6:57:47 PM

All M-1 Garands Must Be Destroyed

Government Orders From Illinois State Rifle Association

Posted By S. Jackson 10-11-1

This week, the U.S. Senate passed S. 1438, the Department of Defense (DoD) annual authorization bill, which contains a provision that is of grave concern to hunters and sport shooters.

Section 1062 of this bill provides the Secretary of Defense with the authority to require "demilitarization" of any "significant military equipment" that has ever been owned by the DoD. This would include all firearms (such as the venerable M1, M1 Carbine, and Model 1911, as well as all Civilian Marksmanship Program rifles, even "sporterized" surplus bolt-action Springfields!); firearm parts such as barrels, bolts, triggers, firing pins, sights, etc.; ammunition and ammunition components; and firearm accessories such as cleaning rods, oilers, and even cleaning brushes.

"Demilitarization" is the term for rendering such items permanently inoperable, and Sec. 1062 allows for this action to be carried out either by the owner or a third party, with the owner paying the cost, or by the DoD.

However, if the DoD determines it should perform the demilitarization, it can also determine that the cost of returning the demilled item is prohibitive, then simply keep the item, and reimburse the owner only for the fair market scrap value of the item.

Furthermore, this new authority would require private citizens to determine for themselves if an item they own is subject to demilitarization, and face criminal penalties for non-compliance. The DoD would be under no obligation to notify law-abiding citizens that items they have lawfully owned for years, and perhaps that their families have owned for generations, are suddenly subject to forced demilitarization.

This becomes extremely significant when one considers that U.S. military surplus has been "regularly and legally" bought, sold, and traded for centuries. Countless Americans own items that could be subject to Sec. 1062. It is likely millions of law-abiding Americans would be affected, and could unknowingly become criminals overnight without having done anything or having ever been informed.

The DoD already has the authority and responsibility to demilitarize any item it sells as surplus, so there is absolutely no reason to seek new authority to confiscate and destroy lawfully sold and lawfully owned items that are now the property of private citizens.

Be sure to contact your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge them to strike Sec. 1062 from S. 1438, the "National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2002." the "National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2002." Act Today - Or Lose Your Heritage

10/17/01
6:53:19 PM

Bush's economic plan: a wartime gift to corporate America

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/bush-o12.shtml

US Supreme Court Justice O'Connor says "personal freedom" will be curbed

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/ocon-o10.shtml

Why we oppose the war in Afghanistan

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/war-o09.shtml

Nearly 600 detained - Widespread violations of civil liberties in US dragnet

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/civ-o06.shtml

10/17/01
6:43:44 PM

Bush’s War At Home: Government Censorship, Secrecy, And Lies

by Patrick Martin

The month since the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington has seen dramatic changes in the day-to-day functioning of the US government and the open emergence of powerful tendencies toward antidemocratic and dictatorial methods of rule.

The Bush administration has sought to impose greater secrecy than that which prevailed during World War II, pressured the media to censor coverage of opponents and targets of the war drive in Central Asia, and engaged in arbitrary arrests and detentions without trial on a scale not seen in America for more than 80 years.

The Democratic Party has been a willing partner in this onslaught on democratic rights. Last week the House Judiciary Committee voted 36-0 for a package of repressive measures sought by the Bush administration in the name of combating terrorism. The Senate approved a similar bill by 96-1 on October 11, and final passage by both houses is expected in the coming week.

The House bill significantly expands the power of the FBI to spy on wireless telephone calls and the Internet, to circulate the information obtained to other government agencies, and to detain immigrants on the orders of the attorney general, all without court review.

The Senate approved its version of the anti-terrorism bill after a series of overwhelming votes to defeat amendments introduced by Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, the lone dissenter on the legislation. Feingold said the measure would authorize FBI surveillance of vast areas of American life that have no conceivable relation to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

One provision authorizes FBI surveillance of Internet usage by anyone who accesses a computer “without authorization.” The language is so broad that it would apply to any employee who uses a company or government computer to make an Internet purchase, or a teenager who uses a library computer to visit an unapproved site.

The Senate bill represents the effective militarization of the FBI and other federal police agencies. As Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, declared, “If there is a single goal of the intelligence components of this anti-terrorism bill, it is to change the focus from responding to acts that have already occurred to preventing acts that threaten the lives of American citizens. We cannot continue to use critical information only in a criminal trial.” In practice, this means these agencies will no longer be engaged in “law enforcement,” as conventionally defined, but will act as arms of the Pentagon in the “war on terrorism.”

Both pieces of legislation bear Orwellian titles. The Senate bill is the “Uniting and Strengthening America Act” (USA), while the House bill, named the “Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” was so labeled because the acronym is “PATRIOT.”

Both bills define terrorism so broadly that those engaging in many forms of peaceful political activity, including picketing and civil disobedience, could be targeted for electronic surveillance, Internet spying, indefinite detention and secret court proceedings.

Repression and cover-up

What the new anti-terror powers of the federal government will look like in practice can be judged by the experience of thousands of Arab-Americans and Muslim people over the past month. More than 600 people have been arrested or detained by the FBI and other police agencies, under conditions of a systematic denial of civil liberties.

Only a handful of those arrested or detained have obtained legal counsel, an indication that these prisoners have either not been informed they have the right to a lawyer or have simply been denied the exercise of this right. One lawyer, Mitchell Gray, described to the Washington Post a Catch-22 situation in which federal jailers demanded that he present an authorization form, signed by his client.

“I talked to the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] several times, and nobody would tell me where he was,” said Gray. “They said, ‘Do you have a G-28 signed by this man? We can’t let you see him with without a G-28.’ Well, how can I get a G-28 signed unless I see him?”

Police officials have kept virtually all information about those arrested under seal. Only a few names have been released, and families are not being told where the prisoners are being held or what charges have been lodged against them, if any. One fact is clear: not a single one of the more than 600 has been charged with any offense tied to the September 11 suicide hijackings. Most are being held on technical violations of immigration law or traffic charges that would never have led to jail time before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

With a series of vague and ominous warnings about further terrorist attacks, the Bush administration is seeking to create a popular hysteria to support, not only short-term repressive measures, but the creation of an entirely new institutional framework for targeting domestic political opponents of American military intervention in Central Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere.

The newly established White House Office of Homeland Security is to be one focal point of this police-state buildup. By installing Governor Ridge as a White House aide, Bush bypassed Congress entirely—there will be no Senate confirmation of the appointment and no congressional oversight of his activities.

At the same time, the Pentagon has been instructed to create, for the first time in US history, an office of Commander-in-Chief USA, a headquarters for controlling all military operations in the western hemisphere, focusing on the continental United States. This would integrate four existing military commands, including the Southern Command, responsible for Latin American operations and notorious for fomenting of military coups, and the Strategic Command, which controls US nuclear forces.

The political implications of this military reorganization were spelled out by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who told a congressional committee last week that he favors reexamination of the legal doctrine of posse comitatus, adopted after the American Civil War, which bars the use of the armed forces for domestic policing.

Already the Bush administration has approved the stationing of National Guard troops at airports—a measure that does little to increase the security of air travel, but accustoms the general public to armed soldiers as an everyday sight. The next step will be the deployment of regular military forces in domestic operations for the first time in more than a century.

These moves are not merely in response to the September 11 attack. They were worked out as part of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, a long-term planning effort on which Wolfowitz and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have focused since they took office early this year. This underscores the fact that the Bush administration has seized on the terrorist attack to bring forward an anti-democratic political agenda of long standing.

Whipping the press into line

An integral part of the buildup of repressive forces is the curbing and disciplining of the press. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer gave the signal with his well-publicized declaration that Americans should “watch what they say” about US military, intelligence and police operations. The White House campaign to whip the press into line has met little or no resistance from the giant corporations that control the television networks and daily newspapers.

In comments reported by the New York Times October 7, Fleischer claimed that the public was up in arms, not over excessive government secrecy, but over undue inquisitiveness by the press. “It’s not what government officials are saying that’s the issue,” he said. “It’s the type of questions that reporters are asking that’s the issue. The press is asking a lot of questions that I suspect the American people would prefer not to be asked, or answered.”

On October 10 National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice held a conference call with executives of the five networks to urge them not to broadcast taped statements produced by Osama bin Laden, or to air them only in heavily censored form. Rice told them that airing propaganda by bin Laden would undermine the US war effort, while other White House officials claimed that the tapes might contain coded messages to terrorist cells.

Both the political and the military arguments for this act of self-censorship are absurd. No one can claim that the tape-recorded comments of bin Laden, hailing the destruction of the World Trade Center and the killing of more than 5,000 innocent people, will arouse any significant political support in the American viewing audience. As for the suggestion of coded messages, US television censorship would have no effect. Anyone interested in receiving such messages can get bin Laden’s statements on the Internet and through the broadcasts of Arabic-language and other overseas media.

When a member of the White House press corps asked Fleischer if there was any evidence to back up the claim that the tapes might contain coded messages, Bush’s press spokesman admitted that the supposed threat was based on mere “suspicions.”

On Thursday morning, October 11, executives of the five networks issued a joint decision essentially capitulating to the government demand. One network executive told the New York Times that the action, the first time in the history of the television medium that all the networks agreed to a common limit on news coverage, was a “patriotic” decision. A CNN official said the all-news network would “consider guidance from appropriate authorities” in deciding what news to broadcast about the war.

There have been a number of previous acts of self-censorship:

* Knight-Ridder refused to publish a report—later made public by USA Today —that US special forces were on the ground in Afghanistan well before the start of the bombing campaign. The newspaper chain acceded to a Pentagon request to withhold the information from the American people, even though it was no secret to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

* In response to phone calls from Fleischer, officials at all five television networks, as well as the wire services, agreed to stop reporting in advance on the schedule and appointments of Bush and Cheney, on security grounds.

* Some 17 US news organizations had advance knowledge of the beginning of bombing raids on October 7, and all agreed to withhold any reports until after the strikes began.

* The entire US media has agreed not to use the names of military personnel engaged in combat missions, including sailors on board ships in the Arabian Sea, 2,000 miles from Afghanistan. This has nothing to do with preserving operational secrecy or protecting soldiers from terrorist retaliation, since commanding officers are named and freely quoted. Rather it serves to distance the American public from the ordinary soldiers, sailors and airmen, to lessen the effect of the expected battlefield casualties.

* The media has for the most part placidly accepted the refusal of the Pentagon to provide any description of bomb damage or casualties in Afghanistan. This follows the precedent of the Persian Gulf War, where the US never made an estimate of Iraqi losses, believed to have numbered in the tens of thousands.

These measures add up to a systematic effort to block any expression of opposition to the US military intervention, and to accustom the media and the American public to more overt measures of government censorship.

Bush censors Congress

The Bush administration is seeking to withhold information, not only from the public at large, but also from Congress. On October 5, Bush instructed the entire national security apparatus to limit classified briefings to only eight of the 535 members of Congress—the Senate majority and minority leaders, the House speaker and minority leader, and the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.

White House aides said congressmen were guilty of leaking classified information from a briefing by Attorney General John Ashcroft, who told them there was “100 percent likelihood” of further terrorist attacks on US targets. Ashcroft had made similar statements in television interviews during the week, but that did not stop the administration from using the reports on the congressional briefing as a pretext to halt further disclosures. Bush virtually accused congressmen of treason, declaring, “I want Congress to hear loud and clear, it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk.”

The Bush administration only agreed to less sweeping restrictions on the dissemination of classified information after Republican members joined Democrats in opposition, citing the legal obligation of the executive branch to be accountable to the legislature for its administration of laws and handling of appropriated funds.

A secret government

One of the most sinister features of the new regime is the virtual disappearance from public view of Vice President Dick Cheney, who was said to have been removed to “a secure location” on October 7, when US bombing raids on Afghanistan began.

The following day Cheney did not appear at the ceremony swearing in Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge as the director of the new Office of Homeland Security, held in the White House East Room. Cheney had been scheduled to officiate, but Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas substituted for him.

The vice president was evacuated from his official residence, and he reportedly participates in daily meetings of the National Security Council by secure videoconference, rather than in person. By Friday, October 12, Cheney had not been seen in Washington for six days.

This is especially significant given Cheney’s prominence in the Bush administration. The vice president has been described as playing the role of CEO to Bush’s chairman of the board. He is the man in charge of day-to-day operations, and a particularly influential figure in national security issues, given his history as secretary of defense during the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91.

When Cheney was absent from the usual vice presidential position, seated behind the president on the speaker’s rostrum, during Bush’s nationally televised speech to Congress September 20, White House officials declared that he had been sent elsewhere because of the security threat facing the government.

Some press reports have suggested that Bush political aides sought to lower Cheney’s profile out of concern that his greater experience in foreign policy, and more serious demeanor, might prove an embarrassing contrast to Bush. But much more than symbolism or petty jealousy are involved in Cheney’s disappearance. By removing him from view, the Bush administration is shielding its chief decision-maker from any public scrutiny or accountability. Cheney heads what is, in effect, a secret branch of government.

In attacking Afghanistan, the United States is positioning itself in one of the most strategically critical and resource-rich regions of the world, Central Asia. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, American imperialism had virtually no access to this region. In the decade since the dissolution of the USSR, the Pentagon, CIA and State Department, and the giant oil companies whose interests they protect, have moved in aggressively. The mass murder at the World Trade Center became the pretext for the unfolding of a long-planned and long-prepared military intervention in the region.

In a similar fashion, the domestic side of the Bush administration’s war represents the culmination of a protracted assault on constitutional principles and democratic procedures in America. Throughout the 1990s, the Republican Party, increasingly dominated by extreme right-wing elements, laid siege to the Clinton administration, using fabricated charges and bogus investigations in an attempt to bring down his administration.

This campaign produced the impeachment of an elected president for the first time in American history, and though it ultimately failed to remove Clinton from office, it revealed the impotence and paralysis of the Democratic Party. The impeachment drive created the conditions for a fundamental breach with democratic processes in the theft of the 2000 presidential election, in which the US Supreme Court intervened to halt vote-counting in Florida and installed George W. Bush in the White House.

A man who was elevated to the presidency despite losing the popular vote is now leading the American people into a war of unknown dimensions and duration, and claiming that this war, allegedly for “freedom and democracy,” requires the suppression of basic democratic rights at home.

Source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/demo-o13.shtml

10/17/01
6:33:15 PM

Oxfam Calls For Pause In Bombing

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 17, 2001

Contacts: Adrienne Smith 617-728-2406

by Sam Barratt in Islamamabad

BOSTON - Aid agency Oxfam America today called for the bombing of Afghanistan to be suspended to allow food to be delivered in safety and in sufficient quantities to sustain people through winter.

The call by Oxfam International, and several other leading agencies*, comes 24 hours after a missile exploded a few hundred meters from a UN World Food Program depot in Kabul. A convoy of 250 tons of food being loaded at the time was to have gone to an Oxfam distribution site in Hazarajat. This would have been the first food into the Oxfam Hazarajat project since September 11.

The agencies said that laborers and truckers were becoming increasingly afraid to load or unload food, to drive deep into Afghanistan, or to stay overnight in Afghan towns and cities. This series of events has significantly affected the ability of agencies to carry out their work.

"It is now evident that we cannot, in reasonable safety, get food to hungry Afghan people," said Oxfam America President Raymond C. Offenheiser, "We've reached the point where it is simply unrealistic for us to do our job in Afghanistan. We've run out of food, the borders are closed, we can't reach our staff and time is running out."

The aid agencies need public guarantees from all parties that military forces will not target or impede aid convoys. The call extends to the Northern Alliance, the US and UK-led alliance, and the Taliban, which must drop additional charges on aid convoys, and allow aid workers to monitor the aid effort and resume communications.

The agencies say that a pause in the bombing now gives the best hope of averting a humanitarian crisis on a large scale:

400,000 people are already thought to be surviving on wild vegetation and essential livestock; Two million people do not have enough food aid to last the winter, and of those, half-a-million people will be cut off by snow by mid November; Millions more are on the move and we just do not know the scale of their need. The UN says 5.5 million people are short of food; UN food stocks within Afghanistan are now down to just two weeksí supply (9,000 tons).

"We just don't know how many people may die if the bombing is not suspended and the aid effort assured. We do know that the Afghans are an extremely resilient people who will do all that it takes to survive. But if nothing changes, we fear there will be huge loss of life and unspeakable suffering this winter," Offenheiser said.

* Islamic Relief, Christian Aid, CAFOD, ActionAid and Tear Fund

Source: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/911response/index.html

10/17/01
5:16:50 PM

Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE

<http://www.gristmagazine.com>

HELP US SAVE THE WORLD, ONE EMAIL ADDRESS AT A TIME. Send a warm, cheery message recommending that your family and friends sign up to get Grist by Email at

<http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/signup/tell_pal.asp?source=daily>

GREEN OLD PARTY

Environmentalism isn't just for donkeys. Grist's diarist of the week, Jim DiPeso of Republicans for Environmental Protection, talks about the latest REP America conference, why conservatives should care about conservation, and energy security after Sept. 11. Read about all this and more on the Grist Magazine website.

only in Grist Magazine: A week in the life of Jim DiPeso, Republicans for Environmental Protection

<http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/week/dipeso101501.asp?source=daily>

THE BT GOES ON

The U.S. EPA yesterday approved for another seven years the use of a controversial bio-engineered corn that produces its own pesticide. Researchers concluded that Bt corn poses no environmental or human health risks, but environmentalists and consumer-advocacy groups have expressed fears that the long-term health effects are unknown and that the crop will lead to a new strain of resistant pests. Farmers are required to plant at least 20 percent of their corn fields with conventional varieties to discourage genetic mutations that could lead to resistance, but studies showed that nearly a third of all farmers using the corn violated that restriction last year. Elsewhere on the Frankenfood front, India is expected to approve commercial production of genetically modified foods by March.

straight to the source: Washington Post, Associated Press, 17 Oct 2001

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5627-2001Oct16.html>

PARKNOST

Dormant plans for an international park spanning the Bering Strait have been revived, thanks to a gung-ho new governor in the Russian Far East. Under the last governor of Chukotka, western tourists and researchers got the cold shoulder, but Gov. Roman Abramovich is welcoming joint programs with Alaska, including research, conservation, tourism, and economic ventures. U.S. National Park Service reps plan to discuss the idea of the park during a conference in Anchorage tomorrow and Friday, and local officials say improved Alaska-Russia relations could be good news for whales and polar bears. Four existing federal conservation units in Western Alaska could be included in the park: Bering Land Bridge Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Kobuk Valley National Park, and Noatak National Preserve. It is not yet clear which Russian lands would be included.

straight to the source: Anchorage Daily News, Elizabeth Manning, 16 Oct 2001 <http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/724939p-764300c.html>

NINTH CIRCUIT OF HELL

Environmentalists asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday to lift an injunction against a rule that seeks to ban logging and road-building on one-third of national forest lands. The rule, which was enacted by former President Clinton and would apply to 58.5 million acres of federal forests, was appealed by the state of Idaho and special interest groups, and subsequently blocked by a U.S. district judge. Opponents of the rule say it would make forests vulnerable to disease, bugs, and fire, as well as limit use by Native American tribes. Environmentalists are pessimistic about the decision, and concerned that the Bush administration would change the rule even if the court lifted the injunction. Still, they say, the fight will go on.

straight to the source: Anchorage Daily News, Associated Press, Mia Penta, 16 Oct 2001 <http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/724923p-764286c.html>

PUT A RADIOACTIVE FORK IN IT

A proposal by the U.S. Department of Energy to recycle radioactive steel did not go over well with environmentalists and other concerned citizens in Minneapolis yesterday. The DOE is considering a plan to recycle slightly contaminated scrap metal from its research and weapons facilities. The recycled steel would then be used in consumer goods from snow shovels and automobiles to eyeglasses and tableware. The Minneapolis meeting was one of the last of 10 that the DOE is holding to hear public opinion on the plan. The comments will be considered during an environmental study for the proposal, to be completed next year.

straight to the source: Minneapolis Star Tribune, Tom Meersman, 17 Oct 2001 <http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/763565.html>

10/17/01
5:11:54 PM

US Buys Up All Satellite War Images

by Duncan Campbell. Guardian

Wednesday October 17, 2001

The Pentagon has spent millions of dollars to prevent western media from seeing highly accurate civilian satellite pictures of the effects of bombing in Afghanistan, it was revealed yesterday.

The images, which are taken from Ikonos, an advanced civilian satellite launched in 1999, are better than the spy satellite pictures available to the military during most of the cold war.

The extraordinary detail of the images already taken by the satellite includes a line of terrorist trainees marching between training camps at Jalalabad. At the same resolution, it would be possible to see bodies lying on the ground after last week's bombing attacks.

Under American law, the US defence department has legal power to exercise "shutter control" over civilian satellites launched from the US in order to prevent enemies using the images while America is at war. But no order for shutter control was given, even after the bombing raids began 10 days ago.

The decision to shut down access to satellite images was taken last Thursday, after reports of heavy civilian casualties from the overnight bombing of training camps near Darunta, north-west of Jalalabad. Instead of invoking its legal powers, the Pentagon bought exclusive rights to all Ikonos satellite pictures of Afghanistan off Space Imaging, the company which runs the satellite. The agreement was made retrospectively to the start of the bombing raids.

The US military does not need the pictures for its own purposes because it already has six imaging satellites in orbit, augmented by a seventh launched last weekend. Four of the satellites, called Keyholes, take photographic images estimated to be six to 10 times better than the 1 metre resolution available from Ikonos.

The decision to use commercial rather than legal powers to bar access to satellite images was heavily criticised by US intelligence specialists last night. Since images of the bombed Afghan bases would not have shown the position of US forces or compromised US military security, the ban could have been challenged by news media as being a breach of the First Amendment, which guarantees press freedom.

"If they had imposed shutter control, it is entirely possible that news organisations would have filed a lawsuit against the government arguing prior restraint censorship," said Dr John Pike, of Globalsecurity, a US website which publishes satellite images of military and alleged terrorist facilities around the world.

The only alternative source of accurate satellite images would be the Russian Cosmos system. But Russia has not yet decided to step into the information void created by the Pentagon deal with Space Imaging.

· Duncan Campbell is a writer on intelligence matters, and is not the Guardian's Los Angeles correspondent of the same name.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4278871,00.html

10/17/01
4:59:27 PM

Thoughts In The Presence Of Fear

by Peter Montague

We interrupt our series on the environmental movement to reprint a short essay written by Wendell Berry in response to the atrocities in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania September 11.

Wendell Berry is a farmer, writer, conservationist and teacher who lives in Henry County, Kentucky. His books include (among others) HOME ECONOMICS (1987; ISBN 0865472750); THE UNSETTLING OF AMERICA: CULTURE & AGRICULTURE (1996; ISBN 0871568772); ANOTHER TURN OF THE CRANK (1996; ISBN 1887178287); and THE GIFT OF GOOD LAND (1983; ISBN 0865470529).

This article first appeared on OrionOnline.org, the web magazine of ORION and ORION AFIELD, in a feature called "Thoughts on America: Writers Respond to Crisis." The number of contributing writers continues to grow. See http://www.oriononline.org.

Thoughts in the Presence of Fear

by Wendell Berry

I. The time will soon come when we will not be able to remember the horrors of September 11 without remembering also the unquestioning technological and economic optimism that ended on that day.

II. This optimism rested on the proposition that we were living in a "new world order" and a "new economy" that would "grow" on and on, bringing a prosperity of which every new increment would be "unprecedented."

III. The dominant politicians, corporate officers, and investors who believed this proposition did not acknowledge that the prosperity was limited to a tiny percent of the world's people, and to an ever smaller number of people even in the United States; that it was founded upon the oppressive labor of poor people all over the world; and that its ecological costs increasingly threatened all life, including the lives of the supposedly prosperous.

IV. The "developed" nations had given to the "free market" the status of a god, and were sacrificing to it their farmers, farmlands, and communities, their forests, wetlands, and prairies, their ecosystems and watersheds. They had accepted universal pollution and global warming as normal costs of doing business.

V. There was, as a consequence, a growing worldwide effort on behalf of economic decentralization, economic justice, and ecological responsibility. We must recognize that the events of September 11 make this effort more necessary than ever. We citizens of the industrial countries must continue the labor of self-criticism and self-correction. We must recognize our mistakes.

VI. The paramount doctrine of the economic and technological euphoria of recent decades has been that everything depends on innovation. It was understood as desirable, and even necessary, that we should go on and on from one technological innovation to the next, which would cause the economy to "grow" and make everything better and better. This of course implied at every point a hatred of the past, of all [past] innovations [which] , whatever their value might have been, were discounted as of no value at all.

VII. We did not anticipate anything like what has now happened. We did not foresee that all our sequence of innovations might be at once overridden by a greater one: the invention of a new kind of war that would turn our previous innovations against us, discovering and exploiting the debits and the dangers that we had ignored. We never considered the possibility that we might be trapped in the webwork of communication and transport that was supposed to make us free.

VIII. Nor did we foresee that the weaponry and the war science that we marketed and taught to the world would become available, not just to recognized national governments, which possess so uncannily the power to legitimate large-scale violence, but also to "rogue nations," dissident or fanatical groups and individuals whose violence, though never worse than that of nations, is judged by the nations to be illegitimate.

IX. We had accepted uncritically the belief that technology is only good; that it cannot serve evil as well as good; that it cannot serve our enemies as well as ourselves; that it cannot be used to destroy what is good, including our homelands and our lives.

X. We had accepted too the corollary belief that an economy (either as a money economy or as a life-support system) that is global in extent, technologically complex, and centralized is invulnerable to terrorism, sabotage, or war, and that it is protectable by "national defense."

XI. We now have a clear, inescapable choice that we must make. We can continue to promote a global economic system of unlimited "free trade" among corporations, held together by long and highly vulnerable lines of communication and supply, but now recognizing that such a system will have to be protected by a hugely expensive police force that will be worldwide, whether maintained by one nation or several or all, and that such a police force will be effective precisely to the extent that it oversways the freedom and privacy of the citizens of every nation.

XII. Or we can promote a decentralized world economy which would have the aim of assuring to every nation and region a local self-sufficiency in life-supporting goods. This would not eliminate international trade, but it would tend toward a trade in surpluses after local needs had been met.

XIII. One of the gravest dangers to us now, second only to further terrorist attacks against our people, is that we will attempt to go on as before with the corporate program of global "free trade," whatever the cost in freedom and civil rights, without self-questioning or self-criticism or public debate.

XIV. This is why the substitution of rhetoric for thought, always a temptation in a national crisis, must be resisted by officials and citizens alike. It is hard for ordinary citizens to know what is actually happening in Washington in a time of such great trouble; for all we know, serious and difficult thought may be taking place there. But the talk that we are hearing from politicians, bureaucrats, and commentators has so far tended to reduce the complex problems now facing us to issues of unity, security, normality, and retaliation.

XV. National self-righteousness, like personal self-righteousness, is a mistake. It is misleading. It is a sign of weakness. Any war that we may make now against terrorism will come as a new installment in a history of war in which we have fully participated. We are not innocent of making war against civilian populations. The modern doctrine of such warfare was set forth and enacted by General William Tecumseh Sherman, who held that a civilian population could be declared guilty and rightly subjected to military punishment. We have never repudiated that doctrine.

XVI. It is a mistake also -- as events since September 11 have shown -- to suppose that a government can promote and participate in a global economy and at the same time act exclusively in its own interest by abrogating its international treaties and standing apart from international cooperation on moral issues.

XVII. And surely, in our country, under our Constitution, it is a fundamental error to suppose that any crisis or emergency can justify any form of political oppression. Since September 11, far too many public voices have presumed to "speak for us" in saying that Americans will gladly accept a reduction of freedom in exchange for greater "security." Some would, maybe. But some others would accept a reduction in security (and in global trade) far more willingly than they would accept any abridgement of our Constitutional rights.

XVIII. In a time such as this, when we have been seriously and most cruelly hurt by those who hate us, and when we must consider ourselves to be gravely threatened by those same people, it is hard to speak of the ways of peace and to remember that Christ enjoined us to love our enemies, but this is no less necessary for being difficult.

XIX. Even now we dare not forget that since the attack on Pearl Harbor -- to which the present attack has been often and not usefully compared -- we humans have suffered an almost uninterrupted sequence of wars, none of which has brought peace or made us more peaceable.

XX. The aim and result of war necessarily is not peace but victory, and any victory won by violence necessarily justifies the violence that won it and leads to further violence. If we are serious about innovation, must we not conclude that we need something new to replace our perpetual "war to end war"?

XXI. What leads to peace is not violence but peaceableness, which is not passivity, but an alert, informed, practiced, and active state of being. We should recognize that while we have extravagantly subsidized the means of war, we have almost totally neglected the ways of peaceableness. We have, for example, several national military academies, but not one peace academy. We have ignored the teachings and the examples of Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and other peaceable leaders. And here we have an inescapable duty to notice also that war is profitable, whereas the means of peaceableness, being cheap or free, make no money.

XXII. The key to peaceableness is continuous practice. It is wrong to suppose that we can exploit and impoverish the poorer countries, while arming them and instructing them in the newest means of war, and then reasonably expect them to be peaceable.

XXIII. We must not again allow public emotion or the public media to caricature our enemies. If our enemies are now to be some nations of Islam, then we should undertake to know those enemies. Our schools should begin to teach the histories, cultures, arts, and language of the Islamic nations. And our leaders should have the humility and the wisdom to ask the reasons some of those people have for hating us.

XXIV. Starting with the economies of food and farming, we should promote at home, and encourage abroad, the ideal of local self-sufficiency. We should recognize that this is the surest, the safest, and the cheapest way for the world to live. We should not countenance the loss or destruction of any local capacity to produce necessary goods.

XXV. We should reconsider and renew and extend our efforts to protect the natural foundations of the human economy: soil, water, and air. We should protect every intact ecosystem and watershed that we have left, and begin restoration of those that have been damaged.

XXVI. The complexity of our present trouble suggests as never before that we need to change our present concept of education. Education is not properly an industry, and its proper use is not to serve industries, neither by job-training nor by industry-subsidized research. It's proper use is to enable citizens to live lives that are economically, politically, socially, and culturally responsible. This cannot be done by gathering or "accessing" what we now call "information" -- which is to say facts without context and therefore without priority. A proper education enables young people to put their lives in order, which means knowing what things are more important than other things; it means putting first things first.

XXVII. The first thing we must begin to teach our children (and learn ourselves) is that we cannot spend and consume endlessly. We have got to learn to save and conserve. We do need a "new economy," but one that is founded on thrift and care, on saving and conserving, not on excess and waste. An economy based on waste is inherently and hopelessly violent, and war is its inevitable by-product. We need a peaceable economy.

Source: http://www.Rachel.org

10/17/01
4:55:52 PM

MediaChannel.org

DAILY MEDIA NEWS

Breaking news stories about the international media, from mainstream and alternative sources.

http://www.mediachannel.org/news/today/

Global conflict coverage exclusively from Globalvision News Network.

http://208.251.133.165/html/USUnderAttack

THE TELEVISION ARCHIVE: MEDIA FOR MONITORS

Researchers will swoon at this new archive of on-demand TV news broadcasts from around the world. (From The Internet Archive)

http://www.mediachannel.org/front.shtml#archive

MEDIA READER *new edition!*

The best media about the media. MediaChannel's international, biweekly, multimedia magazine * Info-Tech In Uganda * Hip Hop & The Era Of Terror * Colombia's PR Queen And much, much more... Plus: Streaming audio and video

http://www.mediachannel.org/news/mediareader

HAVE ISRAELI MEDIA SHIFTED RIGHT?

With "neo-patriotic reflex" the media have stopped helping Israelis see the humanity of their "enemies." (From The Christian Science Monitor)

http://www.mediachannel.org/front.shtml#israel

UNWRITTEN RULES: JOURNALISTS' CONFESSIONS

An anonymous TV producer admits self-censorship at her prime-time news show. What goes on where you work?

http://www.mediachannel.org/front.shtml#whistleblowers

MEDIACULTURE

A collaboration between MediaChannel and Alternet exploring the currents, crises and cultures of American media. Recently featured: * Afghanistan's Soap Opera * Why Newspapers Matter * America's Expanding News Borders And much, much more...

http://www.mediachannel.org/front.shtml#mediaculture

10/17/01
4:47:56 PM

The Nation

Every member of the United States Senate swears upon taking office to defend the Constitution. Many fashion themselves as champions of that cherished document's Bill of Rights. And even after the many assaults on the American Civil Liberties Union, many senators still proudly identify as civil libertarians.

But in this era's greatest test of Congressional commitment to defend the Constitution's most vital protections, only one senator passed the test.

For the full story on Senator Russell Feingold and the fight for civil liberties read the two most recent installments of John Nichols' Online Beat. Currently available at:

http://www.thenation.com/thebeat

And see Mark Crispin Miller's special web report for an examination of the way critical discussion of terrorism and civil liberties is being shut out of the media's coverage of events. Available at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=20011011miller

We've also created a special page on The Nation website, where we're collecting all of our September 11 resources and material. So check it out at:

http://www.thenation.com/special/wtc/index.mhtml

10/17/01
4:43:46 PM

National Missile Offense

by Eric Umansky

The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times lead with the increasingly intensive bombing campaign over Afghanistan. Nearly 100 planes struck targets yesterday. By comparison, roughly 30 planes were used each day last week. The New York Times, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal's world-wide news box all lead with the discovery that the letter sent to Senator Tom Daschle contained premium anthrax. The NYT goes high with a government official's observation that the particles were "so tiny that they could spread through the air without detection," and cause pulmonary anthrax. USAT goes a step farther, headlining, "Anthrax May Be Weapons Grade." It cites a former UN weapons inspector who said (on Nightline) that only a handful of the world's scientists are capable of creating what was in the letter.

The papers focus on the similarities between the letter sent to Senator Daschle and the one sent to NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. Both packages contained the same New Jersey postmark, as well as similar writing and messages, including "Allah is great." Investigators urged people not to read too much into that.

Citing a congressional official, the NYT says that the government received "some intelligence warnings last week that packages would be sent to important places and people."

Capital police closed a wing of the Senate office while they swept for evidence of anthrax. Officials emphasized that, so far, nobody in the capital has tested positive for anthrax.

The manufacturer of Cipro, the main antibiotic used to treat the disease of the day, says it is tripling production of the drug. But it also acknowledged that even with the increase it might not be able to meet the new panic-driven demand. The NYT, meanwhile, emphasizes that though Cipro is the only drug approved to treat anthrax, scientists believe that some other antibiotics, including penicillin, work just as well.

Many of yesterday's air attacks aimed to help the Northern Alliance's advance on the strategically located city of Mazar-e Sharif. Northern Alliance troops are close to taking the city's airport. The papers note that U.S. commandos could use the airport as a base.

The WSJ's story on the strikes focuses on a tid-bit that the other majors reported yesterday: the U.S. is now using slow-moving AC-130 gunships over Afghanistan. Many media outlets -- including today's WSJ -- have reported that the AC-130s are often used in conjunction with special operations soldiers and thus signal the arrival of ground troops. But the WP cites Pentagon officials saying that hasn't happened yet. (The WP doesn't mention that defense officials have said they won't necessarily reveal -- and could even fib - when special operation soldiers are on the ground.)

The WSJ reports that Germany is preparing to send its military into Afghanistan. "I believe that we will soon have to give more extensive help in fighting terrorism, with our military capabilities as well," said Germany's President Schroeder.

The papers highlight the increasing difficulty of delivering aid to Afghans, especially worrisome since winter is approaching. Yesterday a bomb hit a Red Cross food depot, slightly injuring one worker. "It is now evident that we cannot, in reasonable safety, get food to hungry Afghan people," said the president of one aid organization.

On the diplomatic front, the WSJ reports that the Bush administration is getting anxious about the lack of an appropriate coalition to take over Afghanistan. "The reality is that after all this bombing no senior Taliban leaders are defecting. And the reason is that there is at present no entity to which the Taliban can defect to," one diplomat said.

The WSJ and NYT observe -- a date late -- that Secretary of State Powell has said the U.S. wouldn't object to having some moderate Taliban joining a future Afghan government. In a potential rift, the Northern Alliance's foreign minister said his group won't work with any such members.

The WP stuffs word that investigators are considering the possibility that only a handful of the highjackers actually knew they were on a suicide mission. One source told the Post that that some of the terrorists were carrying possessions that suggested they were preparing for jail, not death. Many terrorism experts say they don't buy the theory.

The WSJ goes inside (meaning no reefer on the front page) with a report on the problem of keeping nukes out of terrorists' hands: "Efforts to make nuclear materials more secure have been hampered by tight budgets, geopolitical squabbling and inertia." The article quotes one senior former Department of Energy consultant who says that Army units posing as terrorists successfully infiltrated U.S. nuclear weapons plants "well over 50 percent" of the time. In one case, the mock terrorists used a garden cart to haul away nuclear material.

The NYT reefers a piece about a missed opportunity to catch the hijackers before they attacked. Last year, two of the terrorists stalled a small plane on the runway at Miami International Airport, left the plane on the tarmac, and then walked away. One fact the Times doesn't mention: this incident has already been widely covered, including in the WSJ a month ago.

Source: http://www.Slate.com

10/17/01
4:37:24 PM

UTNE WEB WATCH

The Best of the Alternative Web

SHADOW WOLVES: TRACKING THE DRUG WAR

by Shane DuBow, Tucson Weekly

-- A unit of the U.S. Customs Service, staffed by American Indians skilled in tracking, fight the influx of drugs from Mexico on their reservation.

WAYS TO IMPROVE MONOPOLY

by Erik Arneson, Boardgames on About.com

-- Our guide to Boardgames on About.com argues that Monopoly is great fun -- the key is to play by the rules, the real rules.

INTERVIEW WITH JANEANE GAROFALO

by Tasha Robinson, The Onion

-- Actor and comic Janeane Garofalo recently spoke to The Onion "about her reputation, her image, her films, and her perceived irrelevance."

Links to the above articles: http://www.utne.com/webwatch

10/17/01
4:34:57 PM

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE

http://ens-news.com

WORLD FOOD SUMMIT POLITICAL POT BOILS OVER

ROME, Italy, October 16, 2001 (ENS) - World Food Day activities took place in more than 150 countries today, but at the headquarters of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome, Director-General Jacques Diouf said he is seeking postponement of the World Food Summit scheduled for next month. Over 100 Heads of State were expected to participate.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-16-02.html

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF DOJRAN LAKE

By Natasha Dokovska

SKOPJE, Macedonia, October 16, 2001 (ENS) - Dojran Lake is dying. Situated in the southeastern part of the Republic of Macedonia, the lake is shared in almost equal parts between Macedonia and the Greece. Today with a serious drought in the region, Dojran Lake is evaporating.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-16-03.html

GREEN BACKLASH FEARED FROM WORLD SLOWDOWN

BRUSSELS, Belgium, October 16, 2001 (ENS) - European Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström has voiced fears that economic gloom in the wake of last month's terrorist attacks on the United States could crowd environmental issues off the global agenda.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-16-04.html

NORTHERN EUROPEAN MARINE ENVIRONMENT GETS OFFICIAL ATTENTION

GOTHENBORG, Sweden, October 16, 2001 (ENS) - To reduce the effects of radioactive contamination, marine litter, and oil pollution from shipping on coastal communities in northern Europe, Swedish Environment Minister Kjell Larsson has offered to host an intergovernmental ministerial meeting as early as 2003.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-16-01.html

BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LAB MEETS INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD

UPTON, New York, October 16, 2001 (ENS) - The U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory has achieved ISO 14001 registration for the entire site, becoming the first national laboratory to obtain third party registration to this globally recognized environmental standard.

For full text and graphics visit: http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-16-06.html

***********************************************************************

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: OCTOBER 16, 2001

Infant Contracts Anthrax After Visit to ABC

FFTF Restart Review Troubled by Conflicts of Interest

Public Private Partnership Promotes Cogeneration

Plant Health Scientists Support Biotechnology

Grant Supports Development of Efficient Insulation

Scientists Developing Germ Killing Surface Coatings

Pennsylvania Releases Green Plan

Public Meetings Address Proposal to Boost Goose Hunts

EPA Says Change a Light, Change the World

Resistance Genes Key to Protecting Chocolate Supply

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-16-09.html

10/17/01
4:15:19 PM

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER SENATOR TOM DASCHLE (D-SD) OHIO CLOCK CORRIDOR OF THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16,2001 2:45 PM

Q Hello, Senator.

SEN. DASCHLE: Hello, everybody.

Q How are you?

SEN. DASCHLE: I have noted on the Senate floor, along with many of my colleagues, how disappointed we are that we haven't been able to move the foreign operations bill. I just want to go through a couple of the ramifications of inaction on the foreign operations bill. Because of the Republican filibuster, $42 million that would be available to help countries strengthen their borders is not being provided. A hundred-seventy- five million dollars to fight infectious diseases, as we fight the war in Afghanistan, is not being provided. Five billion dollars in direct military assistance to those allies in the region is not being provided. And $255 million to assist Afghan refugees is not being provided. There are many other provisions in that bill that of course are not being provided as a result of the intransigence of some of our colleagues on the other side. I'm disappointed. We will have another vote on cloture tomorrow, and we will continue to have votes on cloture for whatever length of time it may take to get the job done. I don't know that there's much that can be said about the matter relating to judiciary appointments, except this: So far this year, Democrats have confirmed twice as many judges for this administration as has been confirmed in the past two administrations -- twice as many as in the first Bush administration, twice as many as in the Clinton administration. Now I don't think we ought to be guided by any standard relating to past Congresses. We ought to do all we can to address the issue as successfully as we can. I believe we're doing that. I think there is a very strong likelihood that five more judges will be confirmed this week -- one circuit court judge, four district court judges. So that will then make it maybe three times as many judges as were confirmed by this date in the past two administrations. The point is that I think we're doing all that we can. The point is that as much as our Republican colleagues have complained, their tactic is counterproductive.

They want to bring up energy; we want to bring up energy. You can't bring up the energy bill if we're filibustering appropriations bills that have to be addressed prior to the expiration of the continuing resolution, as you all know. So we'll continue to file cloture motions and try to keep the comity and the spirit that we've had over the last five weeks in place.

Q Senator, there are a dozen Senate offices closed today. There's no mail, people are being tested for anthrax. How is the Senate functioning?

SEN. DASCHLE: I think the Senate is functioning as we could hope it would. I -- obviously, these are difficult times. And we are going to have logistic and administrative challenges that we're going to have to face. But I think under the circumstances the Senate is functioning quite well. We'll be back in business in all respects within the next several days. But clearly these are precautions that are required and I think are widely supported.

Q Senator, the House Ways and Means Committee passed an economic stimulus bill last Friday, it was about a hundred billion dollars next year and about 150 (billion dollars) over 10 years. Does that bill have any chance in the Senate, and if not, then what kind of a bill would you like to see --

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I was pleased with the admonition of the White House yesterday with regard to the actions taken in the House of Representatives. It exceeds the budget. It isn't stimulative. It doesn't provide the kind of immediate relief in the economy that we're all looking for. In other words, it doesn't meet any of the criteria that were agreed upon by the bipartisan budget committee. I think we've got to go back to the drawing board. I'm hopeful that we can do that here in the Senate. Linda?

Q Senator Daschle, are there any results yet in terms of the testing of your staff? Have you gotten any conclusions yet?

SEN. DASCHLE: All of the conclusions are very encouraging. All of the tests have been negative. There have been no indication that there is a health or a medical problem among any of my staff, and I'm quite confident that will remain the case.

Q (Off mike.)

SEN. DASCHLE: Yes, it does.

Q What do you see about tours and mail? How much longer are they going to be suspended, senator?

SEN. DASCHLE: I can't answer how much longer they will be suspended. I think it is important for us to carefully screen the mail and to make very careful decisions about access to the Capitol. Ultimately my goal is to completely open the Capitol once again and to provide for the regular flow of the mail just as soon as we can accommodate all of the concerns and safety precautions that are going to be put in place.

Q Senator, is there pressure --

Q So, if today it was so important to close the Hart building partially as a precaution, why wasn't it important to do that yesterday? And do you think that people might have been put at risk by that?

SEN. DASCHLE: I am confident that there was really no risk involved. This is simply an effort to determine whether there is even a modicum of anthrax that could be found in one of the vents or one of the air ducts, that would give us some indication that there was dissemination. Keep in mind that even if there is some trace, it wouldn't be of sufficient force or strength to be of health risk to those who are exposed. There has to be a level of strength that we are quite confident would not be met in any of the auxiliary areas that are now being investigated.

Q What were you told about the strength or the kind of anthrax that came in the letter? Was it a highly either potent or something with small particles, that apparently is stronger than other forms of anthrax?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, we were told that it was a very strong form of anthrax, a very potent form of anthrax that clearly was produced by somebody who knew what he or she was doing.

Q Can it be spread through the air?

SEN. DASCHLE: Yes, it can.

Q Senator, is there any sense among your colleagues that because of the anthrax occurrence, the anthrax scare, if you want to call it that, threats to security here at the Capitol, the atmosphere is such that Congress should hurry up and pass its bills and then, frankly, get out of town because it's getting dangerous here? What do you think about that?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, that assumes that it's less dangerous somewhere else. (Laughter.) I don't know that anyone can make that assumption. Leaving town is no longer the panacea. I think what we have to do is not run away from these problems, but address them, confront them, try to live our lives, do our work and carry out our responsibilities, and that's what we're trying to do.

Q (Off mike.) Is anything going to happen with energy before you guys adjourn?

SEN. DASCHLE: I guess I'm most amused by the questions relating to schedule on energy, given the current tactics by our Republicans on appropriations. As soon as they tell me when they will halt this counterproductive effort to stop consideration of appropriations bills, I might be able to tell you when we will schedule an energy bill.

Q Senator Daschle, the 11 senators whose offices have been closed today, are any of them, to your knowledge, getting tested? Were they in their offices?

SEN. DASCHLE: Testing has been made available on a voluntary basis. If people feel more comfortable having been tested, those tests are going to be made available to anybody who seeks a test. I think it is the feeling of most of those who have been involved in this cleanup effort and this investigation that tests are not necessary, but certainly we would not deny anybody a test.

Q But to your knowledge, have any of the senators asked for tests or not?

SEN. DASCHLE: To my knowledge, no senator has asked for a test, but I can't say that with any authority.

Q You said --

Q How would you specifically like to work this out in the Senate -- (off mike)? Would you like to sit down with Senator Lott, perhaps Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and work this out --(off mike)?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, of course, stimulus is very importantly a tax bill as well as a spending bill. And we would want all of those senators who have jurisdictional responsibility to work out a draft that could be taken to the floor. It seems to me that's the approach that has worked in the past. It's what we did with the airport security bill. It's what we did with the counterterrorism bill. It's easily what we could do with the economic stimulus bill.

Q You said this is a very --

Q Have you been tested?

SEN. DASCHLE: I have not been -- oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I was tested. I -- such a memorable experience that I -- (laughter). It was -- we were advised that because we were in contact with some staff who may have had spores on their clothing that we be tested as well, and I'm happy to report that my test was negative.

Q You said this is a very potent form of anthrax. Apparently, though, nobody has been made ill by it. So what should people make of the risk here?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think the most important thing we can say about the risk is that it's almost negligible -- it is negligible. It's almost non-existent as a result of the antibiotics that we have available today. The antibiotics are so effective that there is virtually no risk if we can treat those who are exposed quickly enough. That's what happened yesterday, and that's why our level of confidence is so high.

Q So are we making too much of this?

SEN. DASCHLE: Oh, not at all. You can't make too much of a bacteria as harmful as this could be. We are treating it as cautiously and as organizationally as we possibly can to minimize the risk. We've been successful; that certainly doesn't minimize the problem.

Q Senator, you said that whomever sent this knew what they were doing. Do you -- have you been told that there was a connection between the person or people who sent you the letter and those that sent it to NBC, and who do you think sent it? Do you think there was some kind of connection with September 11th?

SEN. DASCHLE: I think it'd be highly premature to make any conclusions about who sent it. The investigation is ongoing. There are suspicious similarities between the two incidences, but I think it's too early to draw any connection as well.

Q What kind of similarities?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, postmark for one thing.

Q And beyond that, in terms of the content or the way it was written, any similarities?

SEN. DASCHLE: I think postmark is probably the primary similarity.

Q Senator Daschle, how quickly do you see an economic stimulus package coming together here?

SEN. DASCHLE: I really can't say when the economic stimulus package is going to come together. In my view, they took at least one giant step backward in the House in the last few days. That doesn't help our efforts to reach some bipartisan consensus. Again, as I said, I'm very pleased with the administration's admonition to the House. I'm hopeful that we can turn it around and do something constructive.

Q Senator Daschle, when you say that the form of the anthrax was a pure or sophisticated form produced by somebody who knew what they were doing, could that be, for example, a country?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, again, Linda, I don't think it's appropriate for me to go beyond what I've said. I'll leave that to the investigators. I'm simply passing on what they have shared with us. But, of course, it could be just about anybody. I mean, that doesn't exclude anybody, but it doesn't include anybody either, necessarily.

Q (Off mike) -- this is still believed to be -- from what you've been told, this is a very pure and powerful one, but one that would respond to drugs?

SEN. DASCHLE: Correct. Absolutely.

Q Senator, if the House sends you a trade promotion authority bill, how quickly will you schedule that? And do you see it as a matter of economic importance? That's how the Republicans on the House view the TPA.

SEN. DASCHLE: I will put the trade promotion authority in the same category as energy legislation. You tell me when we will complete our work on appropriations and emergency-related legislation, and I'll give you a lot better idea of when we can take up other important pieces of legislation. It's no secret that generally I support trade promotion authority, but not any trade promotion authority. I will not support any bill; I think it has to be addressed in a way that recognizes the environment, recognizes serious questions we have with regard to our workforce. But certainly I'm open to ways with which to do that.

Q So you disagree with the House version of TPA? That version would not appear in the Senate?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, "not appear" is not something I can commit to either. We'll take a look at ways with which to bring up the legislation, but I've not come to any conclusions at this point.

Q The bipartisan atmosphere of the last month or so sort of gave way last Friday when the Ways and Means Committee passed the economic stimulus bill on a straight party-line vote. House Democrats this week are going to unveil their own version of a stimulus plan. Do you anticipate that you'll have to do the same thing over here, have Republican and Democratic positions, or do you think that the stimulus package will be, in fact, a bipartisan bill?

SEN. DASCHLE: I haven't given up hope on bipartisanship. I'm still hopeful that we can find a way to address this issue in a bipartisan way. That has been what we've done for the last five weeks. That's what I continue to hope to do in the next five weeks or more. And we have a lot of work to do.

Q Senator, you said the anthrax -- (Off mike) -- with the White House?

SEN. DASCHLE: What time is the meeting? Tomorrow morning.

Q Senator, you said the anthrax here is not going to impact the adjournment of the Congress. But can you talk about just how it is impacting maybe how senators do their work on a day-to-day basis, the atmosphere around here. Is it helping bipartisanship? Is it hurting bipartisanship?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, we had a very good bipartisan meeting this morning. Just about all senators were present to hear briefings from the sergeant-at-arms, the secretary of the Senate, the Capitol physician, a number of other experts who are very familiar with anthrax. I thought it was an extraordinary briefing, and the array of questions and the quality of the answers was one indication, I think, of the degree to which senators want to acquire the best information they can and be sure that they are able to deal with whatever circumstances we're confronting successfully.

So we will have additional meetings and briefings and meetings of that sort. At least at this point, I think that the caucuses are working well together as we consider all of the threats that we're facing as a result of yesterday.

Q Senator, a clarification. Was the decision to close down a section of Hart for ventilation checks based on the findings that this was -- (off mike) -- possibly airborne varieties -- (off mike)?

SEN. DASCHLE: The decision to close down a portion of the Hart Building was based on the view that we ought to be extra cautious with regard to what, if any, aerosolization occurred as a result of the incident yesterday. To my knowledge, it had nothing to do with the potency and everything to do with the possibility that perhaps some of the spores could have been transmitted through the ventilation system into other areas. They are quite confident that they are going an extra mile here to assure that if it has taken place, they are able to find these small traces, even though I think there is a high degree of confidence that those small traces would be insufficient to present serious health problems in other parts of the building.

Q What should --

Q (Off mike) -- do you have that information?

SEN. DASCHLE: I have not. It's still ongoing.

Q But do you know when you'll have even a preliminary?

SEN. DASCHLE: I think we will have something no later that tomorrow, midday.

Q What should we fear most -- Senator Daschle, do you believe -- What should we fear most or what do you fear most right now, with so many threats in the air?

SEN. DASCHLE: Mary, I'm not sure I'm -- I don't know that I necessarily fear anything most. I mean, I think we've got an array of challenges out there, and I don't think my job is to pronounce fears as much as it is to pronounce confidence, and I'm going to try to do that. I want to soothe the fears, not exacerbate them. So I'm not going to answer that question directly. I think it's important for those of us in leadership to be realistic, to use caution, but also to calm the fears that are so evident as we walk the halls and listen to our constituents.

Q Well, don't you think that some unknown fears were raised by the fact that the vice president had to be sequestered in a hidden, undisclosed location? Didn't that suggest some great threat or fear that we didn't even know about?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I suppose one could make that assumption, but I think it would be in inaccurate assumption at this point. I think the -- there are those in the administration who feel that the continuity in government question ought to be one that we address seriously, whether or not there is sufficient threat at any moment to warrant the vice president's specific location. I think that excessive caution is what you're seeing today as we address anthrax. I think, if anything, we ought to be guilty of excessive caution, but if that excessive caution generates greater fear, we need to take that into account. I'm hopeful that we can take whatever cautionary measures without generating excessive fear. Thank you all.

Q Senator Daschle, what's the state of --

Q (Off mike) -- on the potency question, you've addressed, what is it about this that makes it --my understanding is, it's been -- it's the fineness of the grains, how finely chopped up the powder is. Is that what the issue is here?

SEN. DASCHLE: There's a number of -- I'm no -- I'm not the one to answer the question, but as I understand it, it's also the concentration of spores in a particular sample of anthrax. There is a greater degree of concentration in some samples than there is in others, and this particular sample had a fairly significant degree of concentration of spores.

Q It doesn't suggest anything in terms of source, or does it make it easier to track down the source?

SEN. DASCHLE: I can't answer that question. I really have no idea.

Q Senator Daschle, what's the state of play, please, on the anti-terrorism bill? And do you sense the House Republican leadership is trying to kill the money-laundering provision by trying to push that separately?

SEN. DASCHLE: I'm not sure what the Republican motivation may be in not including money laundering. We're prepared to go to conference tomorrow. We're prepared to go today, for that matter. But we are insisting that money laundering be part of it. You've heard me talk about this before. I just don't think you can seriously address counterterrorism without addressing the way it's financed. That's really what this issue is all about. If you don't address money laundering, you completely negate the financing of counter -- of terrorism, and I think that's just not something we can accept.

Q The House is talking about passing a money-laundering bill tonight and sending it your way. So you would still insist that be included in the anti-terrorism bill before --

SEN. DASCHLE: Absolutely. We will not agree to any legislation on the Senate floor having to do with counterterrorism that does not include money laundering. Thank you all.

Source: http://www.truthout.com/0685.Daschle.PC.10.16.htm

10/17/01
3:49:54 PM

For smart commentary on the war, please see the musical Flash movie at:

http://www.bonkworld.org/wtc/wtc.html

We need more of this kind of thing, and less hate.

10/17/01
3:21:29 PM

Planet Ark World Environment News

UPDATE - EPA to give views on utility pollution by year-end - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12839/story.htm

Infant is youngest anthrax victim in US so far - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12850/story.htm

Anthrax scares world, but only Americans infected - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12851/story.htm

Sweden says wants to delay close of B2 reactor - SWEDEN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12843/story.htm

Philippines inaugurates huge natural gas project - PHILIPPINES http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12848/story.htm

Aker wins NOK 700 mln UK deconstruction deal - NORWAY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12849/story.htm

Ozone hole smaller but radiation risk seen higher - NEW ZEALAND http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12840/story.htm

Malaysia's Tenaga signs two power purchase deals - MALAYSIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12842/story.htm

Eight elephants found dead in India's Assam - INDIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12841/story.htm

INTERVIEW - India may allow GM crop production by March - INDIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12845/story.htm

UPDATE - Cyclone crosses India's southeast coast - INDIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12847/story.htm

EU govts in talks over resuming GM crop approvals - EU http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12844/story.htm

BHP Billiton eyes Ok Tedi environment funds - AUSTRALIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12846/story.htm

10/17/01
2:58:50 PM

TomPaine.com

RIDGE'S PENNSYLVANIA RECORD ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

by Angus Love

Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge is now our Homeland Security chief. His record in the Keystone State should concern anyone who cares about privacy rights, civil liberties and the conduct of the criminal justice system.

AUDIO and TEXT produced by Steven Rosenfeld

http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/15/1.html

WORDS THAT MOVE THE WEST OFFEND IN MUSLIM LANDS

How the Islamic World Hears Us

by Dr. Mohamed Khodr

"Save us the eloquent words and passages. Save us the 'mission impossible' of your new world order. Save us your hypocrisy and save the world from the historical double standard of the 'civilized' West."

http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/12/index.html

PBS SHUTS OUT INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS

What Happened to Greater Innovation and Diversity?

by Jerold M. Starr

PBS has turned away countless independent filmmakers with the explanation that their work is "too controversial," their support comes from the wrong sources, or their production quality does not meet standards.

This is the second essay in a five-part series.

http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/10/2.html

NUCLEAR WASTE, TERROR and INTRIGUE

The Industry That Promised Energy

by Colin Woodard

Since September 11, a great deal of attention has been paid to nuclear power plants, which are vulnerable to a World Trade Center type of attack. A greater threat to our collective future, however, involves what we're doing with nuclear waste.

http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/04/1.html

CHECK IT OUT!

Tips, Leads and Links

by The TomPaine.com Staff

Support for Sprawl... Human Rights in Central Asia... Smoke, Mirrors and "Free Trade"... Coulter: Hung By the Tongue... and More!

http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/15/2.html

10/16/01
9:58:12 PM

'We Have Some Planes,' Hijacker Told Controller

By Matthew L. Wald with Kevin Sack, The New York Times

Transcripts of the communications between pilots and controllers capture the dawning awareness of the terror in cockpits and control centers.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 American Airlines Flight 11 had fallen mysteriously silent. The air traffic controller called over and over for a response. None came. Then he heard an unidentified voice from the cockpit: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be O.K. We are returning to the airport."

The controller, confused, asked, "Who's trying to call me?"

No response. Then he heard the voice again: "Nobody move please; we are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves."

The man was transmitting on the frequency monitored by pilots and air traffic controllers, either because he thought he was talking to the passengers or because one of the crew had activated the radio microphone, and his voice was the first hint of the horror of Sept. 11.

Transcripts of the communications between pilots and controllers, obtained by The New York Times, reveal the dawning awareness of the terror in cockpits and control centers. Together with interviews and other documents, they offer a previously unseen view of how, moment by moment, a bell-clear and routine morning turned to confusion and then to horror.

In the cool, clipped jargon of aviation, signals of unprecedented disaster bounced between the ground and air as airline and military personnel struggled to understand and then control the chaos.

The first sure sign of a hijacking was picked up by United Airlines Flight 175, which left Boston for Los Angeles at 8:14 a.m. Just after it took off, the air traffic controller had asked for help from other pilots in finding Flight 11, which was already missing.

"We heard a suspicious transmission on our departure from BOS," the pilot reported at 8:41 a.m., just after takeoff. "Sounds like someone keyed the mike and said everyone stay in your seats."

Within 90 seconds, his plane became the next piece of the unspooling disaster. Flight 175 took an errant turn off its scheduled course to Los Angeles and ceased communication with the ground. "There's no transponder, no nothing, and no one's talking to him," the controller said.

And at 8:50 a.m., an unidentified pilot said over the common frequency: "Anybody know what that smoke is in Lower Manhattan?"

Flight 11 had struck the north tower of the World Trade Center just minutes before, and the air traffic controller's repeated calls for Flight 175 were met with another awful silence.

At 8:53, after Flight 175 had screamed south over the Hudson Valley at about 500 miles per hour more than double the legal speed the reality was becoming clear to the controller on the ground on Long Island. "We may have a hijack," he said. "We have some problems over here right now."

He knew just half of it.

Moments after the first jet hit the World Trade Center, a controller in Indianapolis was trying to make contact with American Flight 77, which was flying from Dulles International Airport outside Washington to Los Angeles. The pilot had confirmed receiving directions to fly towards a navigation beacon at Falmouth, Ky., but then failed to respond to calls from the ground.

"American 77, Indy," the controller said, over and over. "American 77, Indy, radio check. How do you read?"

By 8:56 a.m., it was evident that Flight 77 was lost. The Federal Aviation Administration, already in contact with the Pentagon about the hijackings out of Boston, notified the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or Norad, of American 77 at 9:24, 28 minutes later. Fighters scrambled immediately.

The F.A.A. controller called American's dispatch office in Dallas, and the dispatcher there to try to raise Flight 77 on another radio, but failed.

At 9:09 a.m., the American dispatcher said he could not reach Flight 77, but said the company had "an unconfirmed report the second airplane hit the World Trade Center and exploded." He seemed to suggest that American 77 might be that plane, but in fact American 77 was racing back over Pittsburgh, toward Washington.

At 9:33 a.m., the same air traffic controller at Dulles who had handled the perfectly normal departure of American 77 about 70 minutes earlier, spotted an unidentified blip on the radar screen. The Dulles controllers called their counterparts at Reagan National Airport to report that a "fast moving primary target," meaning an airplane with no transponder, was moving east, headed toward the forbidden airspace over the White House, the Capitol and the Washington Monument.

A Dulles supervisor picked up a hot line to tell the Secret Service at the White House. The president was in Florida, but Vice President Dick Cheney was in the White House; Secret Service agents hustled him into an underground bunker there.

At 9:36 a.m., National Airport, which was on American 77's flight path, asked a military C-130 cargo plane, taking off on a scheduled flight from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, on the other side of the District of Columbia to intercept and identify the fast-moving target. The crew of the C-130 said it was a Boeing 757, moving low and fast.

The airplane was headed for the heart of Washington. But as it crossed the Pentagon at perhaps 7,000 feet the exact altitude is uncertain because its transponder had been turned off it began a 360- degree turn to the right that brought nearly to ground level. It crashed into the west side of the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m.

At impact, it was moving at well over 500 m.p.h., which both maximized the destruction and made the plane easier to handle. Investigators later determined that it had been flying on autopilot on its path over the Pentagon. Pilots use autopilot to minimize their workload on long days and to assure a precise course and smooth ride.

Just minutes before the crash at the Pentagon, United Airlines Flight 93, flying from Newark to San Francisco, went off course near Cleveland. It now appears that Flight 93 received a warning of the hijackings.

Cutting through the background noise in the cockpit of Flight 93, the crew would have heard the sound of an electronic "ping" like one that might announce the arrival of e-mail message on a home computer. It was a text message coming by radio, from a flight dispatcher near Chicago. In green letters on a black background, it said, "Beware, cockpit intrusion."

The message was sent by a dispatcher, sitting at the "transcontinental" desk at United's operations center near O'Hare International Airport, who had been assigned to follow both 175 and 93, as well as 14 other airplanes that morning. After United 175 was confirmed to have been hijacked, he sent the message to all the planes he was monitoring.

In the cockpit of Flight 93, Capt. Jason Dahl and his first officer, Leroy Homer, continued westbound. In the last few moments of the pre- attack world, there was no particular reason for them to react radically.

"Getting a message like that on any day in the U.S.A., well, I'd think, `Those poor bastards,' " one aviation official said. "Then I'd think, `It's already happened; it's probably not going to happen again.' "

Since Sept. 11, details have emerged of a struggle between hijackers and passengers on Flight 93. People involved in air traffic control said the F.B.I. seized the air traffic tapes of the conversations with that airplane, and no transcript was made available of air-to-ground communications for the flight. But according to a person who heard the tape, "a very noisy sound of a confrontation was heard on the frequency, very garbled, but with some discernible phrase like, `Hey, get out of here!' "

There was the sound of a foreign language on the frequency; controllers thought it was Arabic.

Flight 93 crashed in a field western Pennsylvania at 10:10 a.m. But before the final cockpit intrusion of the morning, one of the pilots apparently turned to the e-mail unit that carried the warning from Chicago, touched a button that made the screen display a keyboard and typed a one-word reply: "Confirmed."

By the time the F-16's from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Va., arrived, the damage was done.

At both Langley and at Otis Air National Guard Base at Falmouth, Mass., on Cape Cod, two sets of fighter pilots were spending the morning as usual: sitting, waiting, and wondering whether they would escape the day without hearing the shrill klaxon blast that occasionally sent them racing to the cockpits of their supersonic jets.

For years, the threat of an incoming aerial attack on the American homeland had been considered so minor that on the morning of Sept. 11, the entire country was being defended by 14 Air National Guard planes dispersed among seven bases.

The first call came to Otis about the hijacking of Flight 11 came at 8:46 a.m., six minutes after the F.A.A. had first notified the North East Air Defense Sector in Rome, N.Y., a division of Norad. Six minutes later two vintage F-15's, built in 1977 and equipped with heat-seeking and radar-guided missiles, had been scrambled, according to a Norad timeline.

One pilot was a part-time Guardsman who flew a commercial plane as his day job; the other jet was flown by a full-time member of the Air National Guard.

But the orders came too late. The first plane was plunging into the World Trade Center when the Otis pilots were racing to their jets. United Flight 175 hit the second tower at 9:02 a.m., 10 minutes after the fighters were airborne, when the F-15's were about 71 miles and eight minutes away. When they arrived, the helpless pilots got the first aerial views of the devastation.

The three F16's at Langley, all of them assigned to the North Dakota Air National Guard's 119th Fighter Wing, nicknamed the Happy Hooligans, were also scrambled too late to intercept American Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon.

But if United Airlines Flight 93 had not crashed in Pennsylvania, the three pilots from Langley two of them commercial airline pilots themselves may have faced the nightmarish decision of whether to shoot down the commercial airliner, along with its 38 passengers and crew of seven.

"It kept us from having to do the unthinkable," said Maj. Gen. Mike J. Haugen, adjutant general of the North Dakota National Guard, "and that is to use your own weapons and own training against your own citizens."

The military has not allowed the pilots to be interviewed, and The Times has agreed not to print their names because of security concerns. But details of their activities on Sept. 11 have emerged through interviews with other Guard officials.

At Langley, the pilot designated as the flight lead, a 33-year-old pilot for Northwest Airlines, was getting a cup of coffee when someone yelled from the television room: "Hey, an airplane just hit the World Trade Center!"

"All of a sudden," said Col. Lyle Andvik, a member and former commander of the unit, "something happens that none of us can believe. They get an order from Northeast Air Defense Sector, the pilots get a scramble horn, and they're down the stairs, out the door, in the jets and off they go. At the time, they didn't realize why they were being scrambled. They didn't realize that other planes had been hijacked."

At 9:30 a.m., six minutes after receiving their orders from the defense sector, code-named Huntress, three F-16's were airborne, according to the Norad timeline. At first, the planes were directed toward New York at top speed, and probably reached 600 m.p.h. within two minutes, General Haugen said. Then, flying in formation, they were vectored toward the west and given a new flight target: Reagan National Airport.

The planes, each loaded with six missiles, had slowed slightly to just under supersonic speed, flying at about 25,000 feet, when they heard over their radio headsets that the F.A.A. had ordered all civilian aircraft to land. The next sign of how serious the situation had become arrived in the form of a squawk over the plane's transponder, a code that suggests almost an emergency wartime situation.

"They get the squawk and they've heard that planes are supposed to land and then Huntress says, `Hooligan flight, can you confirm that the Pentagon is on fire?' " General Haugen said, adding that the lead flier looked down and confirmed that the Pentagon was on fire.

Then the pilots received the most surreal order of the awful morning. "A person came on the radio," General Haugen said, "and identified themselves as being with the Secret Service, and he said, `I want you to protect the White House at all costs.' "

Source: http://www.NYTimes.com

10/16/01
6:38:08 PM

Learn About What Is Really Happening

http://www.AttackOnAmerica.net

10/16/01
5:51:55 PM

Indian Point

To all those who live in the Tri-State area, do you realize that you LIVE IN THE NUCLEAR "DEAD ZONE?" The Nuclear Control Institute has warned that a terrorist attack on Indian Point in Buchanan "WOULD CAUSE LETHAL CONTAMINATION OF EVERYTHING WITHIN 50 MILES," and Tom Bevan from the Center for Emergency Response noted that there would be "several hundred square miles that you could NEVER USE AGAIN." This plant is located on the Hudson River in Buchanan, New York, approximately 35 miles from New York City. You have likely heard that nuclear power plants are considered terrorist targets, but do you know how that affects you?

This is an urgent message to all those who live in New York City, the counties of Westchester, Putnam, Orange, Sullivan, Ulster, Dutchess, Bergen, Passaic, Sussex, Hudson, Essex, Fairfield, parts of New Haven counties and in eastern Pennsylvania , or who know someone who lives in these areas.

The Westchester/Putnam Journal News reported the following on October 1, 2001:

"All nuclear power plants (have) to be considered potential terrorist targets. That's especially true of Indian Point, which has two nuclear power plants and a fuel storage site, all within 50 miles of more than 20 million people. MORE PEOPLE ARE AT RISK FROM CONTAMINATION FROM INDIAN POINT THAN FROM ANY OTHER NUCLEAR SITE IN THE NATION." Remarkably, Indian Point also enjoys the very singular distinction of being at the very top of the Nuclear Regulartory Commission's list of the "most trouble-plagued nuclear plants in the nation."

It's scary. It's nearly overwhelming. But it is true. President Bush and many others have spoken repeatedly about the awakening of the "sleeping giant." This giant - and that is us - is not awake if it refuses to rationally deal with the reality of the security threat that Indian Point poses to the tri-state area and beyond.

We cannot afford not to contemplate the unthinkable. The unthinkable is here. It arrived on September 11. The plans of a maniacal terrorist converged with a remarkably unprepared national security apparatus and resulted in the attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon as well as the implosion of our confidence in the security of our nation. We, as citizens, are left to grieve and to contemplate the ever-widening effects on our nation and psyches. We are also left to wonder where our experts were, and how this could have happened without any warning, or at least without any action taken on any warning.

Don't let the terrorists find us asleep again. If you are interested in saving your life or that of someone you love, here's WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1. Make your voices heard. Here are some suggestions: -spread this email far and wide -write letters to any and all governmental agencies (a list of addresses is provided at the end of this email, -make the candidates for the mayoral race in New York City address the issue -call into radio talk shows and raise the issue -email the news shows - Geraldo, Prime Time, etc. -wake up the New York Times

2. Join the Citizens Awareness Network and get yourself informed and keep yourself informed. Their website is www.nukebusters.org. There you can also find a list of measures CAN proposes as a starting point to ensure the public's safety and confidence. Also, join the local listserve and chapter of CAN by emailing mark@longviewschool.org.

3. Get yourself active. Petitions can be circulated and sent to our politicians, information must be dessiminated to the public, and we need help doing it. People of influence must be made aware of the danger and must use their powers to further the cause of ensuring nuclear safety.

SUGGESTED TOPICS FOR LETTERS, CALLS, CONTACTS, ETC. The installation of anti-aircraft weapons and a permanent military presence at all nuclear power plants (as recommended by the Nuclear Control Institute - which specializes in nuclear security issues)

The need to close Indian Point and remove all radio-active materials from the area.

The holding of public meetings to determine if there is a way to provide REAL security for Indian Point.

Open and in-depth discussions of the plans for security at Indian Point along with an evaluation of the remaining risk.

Evacuation plans

ADDRESSES, EMAIL ADDRESSES, PHONE NUMBERS, ETC.

If your representative or senator is not listed below, or if you do not know who they are, you can call the phone numbers or go to the website which appear at the end of this list.

President George Bush The White House Washington DC 20500 202 456 1111 fax: 202 456 2461 president@whitehouse.gov

Tom Ridge Office of Homeland Security The White House Washington DC 20500 202 456 1111

State Senator Goodman Chairman of the temporary state committee on ways to protect New Yorkers

Governor George E. Pataki Executive Chamber Albany, NY 12224 518 474 8390 fax 518 473 7669 gov.pataki@chamber.state.ny.us

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton United States Senate 476 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 202.224.4451 Westchester Contact: Geri Shapiro gerishapiro@aol.com senator@clinton.senate.gov

Senator Charles Schumer United States Senator 313 Hart Senate Building Washington, DC 20510 202.224.6542 Senator@schumer.senate.gov

Senator Joseph Lieberman 313 Hart Senate Building Washington, DC 20510 202.224.4041 (voice) 202.224.9399 TDD www.senate.gov/-lieberman/newsite/contact.cfm

Congresswoman Sue Kelly House of Representatives 116 Radio Circle Mt. Kisco, NY 10549 914.241.6340 dearsue@mail.house.gov

Andrew J. Spano Westchester County Executive 148 Martine Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 914.995.2900 CEO@westchestergov.com

Assemblywoman Sandra Galef 2 Church Street Ossining, NY 10562 914.941.1111 galefs@assembly.state.ny.us

State Legislature Operator (Assembly and Senate) 518.474.2121

George Oros Legislator, District 1 Phone: 285 2828 Goo6@westchestergov.com

State Senator Vincent L. Leibell Southeast Business Center, Suite 301 Brewster, NY 10509 914 279 3773 fax 279 7156 room 802 LOB, Albany 12247 leibell@senate.state.ny.us

U.S. House of Representatives Switchboard 202.224.3121

10/16/01
5:37:07 PM

Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE

<http://www.gristmagazine.com>

LOG-GONNIT

A coalition of 13 environmental groups kicked off a campaign yesterday to halt all old-growth logging on federal lands, reinvigorating an often bitter battle between environmentalists and loggers in the Pacific Northwest. Logging on federal lands has declined substantially in the last decade, and now accounts for less than 2 percent of the Northwest's economy. But according to the coalition, more than 1 million acres of old growth could still be logged. The coalition promised to work with rural communities to make sure new logging restrictions would not adversely affect timber-dependent towns. The group has the support of some key congressional leaders from the Northwest, including Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

straight to the source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Robert McClure, 15 Oct 2001 <http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/42793_oldgrowth15.shtml>

HOLLAND DAZE

An effort to make Dutch farms friendly to native plants and animals has failed, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature. Fields managed according to an environmental protection agreement were no richer in plant and bird species than those farmed conventionally. David Gibbons, of the U.K.'s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said he wasn't surprised by the study's conclusion, but added that it was a warning, not a death knell, for green farming: "You have to monitor agri-environment schemes closely and adapt the details to make sure they're working." That's sound advice for the European Union, which is set to double its spending on eco-friendly farming in the near future.

straight to the source: BBC News, Alex Kirby, 16 Oct 2001 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1600000/1600684.stm>

THE YELLOW HAZE OF TEXAS

A plan to cut air pollution dramatically in Houston by 2007 was approved by the U.S. EPA yesterday. If successful, the plan will bring the city into compliance with the federal Clean Air Act for the first time. The plan lowers speed limits, mandates stricter vehicle exhaust testing, and calls for a 90 percent decrease in industrial nitrogen oxide emissions, among other measures. Regional EPA Administrator Gregg Cooke praised it as "the most innovative and technically advanced air plan ever devised," but some environmental groups expressed doubt that the plan would succeed in cleaning up the city's notoriously icky air. Houston surpassed Los Angeles as the smoggiest city in the U.S. in 1999 and 2000, and will probably come in a close second this year.

straight to the source: Houston Chronicle, Tony Freemantle, 16 Oct 2001 <http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/front/1090584>

10/16/01
5:31:03 PM

9-11 changes:

ALREADY

Unemployment

Resistant strains of bacteria due to over user of antibiotics

Shortages of antibiotics

Increased crime (anxiety, poverty, anger, redeployment of police)

Fear of flying

No door-to-door canvassing

No service mail

No shopping in large stores

No travel

No major purchasing

Reluctance to be hospitalized (fear of bacteria)

Difficulty going in or out of the country

Hassles in airports discourage flying

Snitching rampages

Purchases of gas masks, medications

Closing off of some government buildings to public

Increased surveillance of public, diminished privacy

Vigilante attacks on "foreigners"

Difficulty contacting Members of Congress

Reluctance to criticize the government

Government secrecy

Congressional attention distracted from important issues

Decreases in charity giving (giving instead to victims)

US viewed as terrorist by large numbers of people in Mideast

LIKELY

Congressional logjam

Media censorship

US viewed as terrorist by European, Asian, South American, and African countries

Less friendly relations between US and neighbors (Mexico and Canada)

Military draft

Increases in domestic terrorist crime (harming random civilians)

Epidemics combined with shortages of medical facilities

Additional major destruction of domestic targets in US and Europe

Mideast internal wars

Use of atomic weapons by another country (India, Pakistan, other)

Widespread attacks on Israel

Money drained from social programs (e.g., Social Security)

Closing off of all government buildings to public

Loss of privacy

Inability to contacting Members of Congress

Greatly increased vigilante attacks on "foreigners"

Increased political partisanship

More terror (let me count the ways)

POSSIBLE

Damage to nuclear plants causing massive loss of lifedue to meltdown and radiation spread

Use of nuclear weapons by United States

Suspected citizens rounded up and incarcerated

GOOD THINGS

De-emphasis on government support of faith-based organizations

G W Bush learns that there is a world beyond US borders that he cannot completely control

Temporary bi-partisanship by Members of Congress

Increased knowledge of geography by general public and Congress

10/16/01
5:28:17 PM

TCGreens.org

Carolyn Peterson

http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20010726143731755.html

Dooley Kiefer

http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20010809115244427.html

Tony Del Plato's keynote speech from the Ithaca Progressive Festival

http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011016103352836.html

Greens increase registration by 15%

http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011016102632410.html

Empowering the Earth

http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011015065044232.html

Land of the High Flags

http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011015060326504.html

Price Anderson Act: Billion-dollar subsidy for nuclear power

http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011015054231376.html

The Ithaca Health Fund

http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011012080347115.html

Green Party replaces Democrats for Progressives

http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011011090753735.html

Ignorant and Offensive

http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011011090322197.html

Organizing To Win

http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011010083255405.html

10/16/01
5:24:48 PM

British scientist Stephen Hawking is warning that the human race is likely to be erased by a doomsday virus before this millennium is out unless it sets up space colonies.

"I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space," Hawking told Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper. "There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."

He told the paper that biological advances present even greater challenges in fighting terrorism: "In the long term, I am more worried about biology. Nuclear weapons need large facilities, but genetic engineering can be done in a small lab. You can't regulate every lab in the world. The danger is that either by accident or design, we create a virus that destroys us."

10/16/01
5:13:07 PM

Good Guys v Bad Guys

by Daniel Solnit, Dissident Voice

Confused? Having difficulty telling the good guys from the bad guys? Use this handy Guide to differences between Terrorists and the U.S. Government

TERRORISTS: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family

US GOVERNMENT: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family

TERRORISTS: Leader has declared a holy war ('Jihad') against his enemies'; believes any nation not with him is against him; believes god is on his side, and that any means are justified

US GOVERNMENT: Leader has declared a holy war ('Crusade') against his 'enemies'; believes any nation not with him is against him; believes god is on his side, and that any means are justified

TERRORISTS: Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred, intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers

US GOVERNMENT: Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred, intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers

TERRORISTS: Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election

US GOVERNMENT: Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election

TERRORISTS: Kills thousands of innocent civilians, some of them children, in cold blooded bombings

US GOVERNMENT: Kills (tens of) thousands of innocent civilians, some of them children, in cold blooded bombings

TERRORISTS: Operates through clandestine organization (al Qaeda) with agents in many countries; uses bombing, assassination, other terrorist tactics

US GOVERNMENT: Operates through clandestine organization (CIA) with agents in many countries; uses bombing, assassination, other terrorist tactics

TERRORISTS: Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties

US GOVERNMENT: Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties

TERRORISTS: Weapon of choice: a three-dollar box cutter

US GOVERNMENT: Weapon of choice: a billion-dollar B1 bomber

Source: http://www.residentbush.com/American-Survival-Manual.html

10/16/01
5:09:18 PM

The Algebra Of Infinite Justice

As the US prepares to wage a new kind of war, Arundhati Roy challenges the instinct for vengeance

Arundhati Roy, Guardian

In the aftermath of the unconscionable September 11 suicide attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre, an American newscaster said: "Good and evil rarely manifest themselves as clearly as they did last Tuesday. People who we don't know massacred people who we do. And they did so with contemptuous glee." Then he broke down and wept.

Here's the rub: America is at war against people it doesn't know, because they don't appear much on TV. Before it has properly identified or even begun to comprehend the nature of its enemy, the US government has, in a rush of publicity and embarrassing rhetoric, cobbled together an "international coalition against terror", mobilised its army, its air force, its navy and its media, and committed them to battle.

The trouble is that once Amer ica goes off to war, it can't very well return without having fought one. If it doesn't find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged folks back home, it will have to manufacture one. Once war begins, it will develop a momentum, a logic and a justification of its own, and we'll lose sight of why it's being fought in the first place.

What we're witnessing here is the spectacle of the world's most powerful country reaching reflexively, angrily, for an old instinct to fight a new kind of war. Suddenly, when it comes to defending itself, America's streamlined warships, cruise missiles and F-16 jets look like obsolete, lumbering things. As deterrence, its arsenal of nuclear bombs is no longer worth its weight in scrap. Box-cutters, penknives, and cold anger are the weapons with which the wars of the new century will be waged. Anger is the lock pick. It slips through customs unnoticed. Doesn't show up in baggage checks.

Who is America fighting? On September 20, the FBI said that it had doubts about the identities of some of the hijackers. On the same day President George Bush said, "We know exactly who these people are and which governments are supporting them." It sounds as though the president knows something that the FBI and the American public don't.

In his September 20 address to the US Congress, President Bush called the enemies of America "enemies of freedom". "Americans are asking, 'Why do they hate us?' " he said. "They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." People are being asked to make two leaps of faith here. First, to assume that The Enemy is who the US government says it is, even though it has no substantial evidence to support that claim. And second, to assume that The Enemy's motives are what the US government says they are, and there's nothing to support that either.

For strategic, military and economic reasons, it is vital for the US government to persuade its public that their commitment to freedom and democracy and the American Way of Life is under attack. In the current atmosphere of grief, outrage and anger, it's an easy notion to peddle. However, if that were true, it's reasonable to wonder why the symbols of America's economic and military dominance - the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon - were chosen as the targets of the attacks. Why not the Statue of Liberty? Could it be that the stygian anger that led to the attacks has its taproot not in American freedom and democracy, but in the US government's record of commitment and support to exactly the opposite things - to military and economic terrorism, insurgency, military dictatorship, religious bigotry and unimaginable genocide (outside America)? It must be hard for ordinary Americans, so recently bereaved, to look up at the world with their eyes full of tears and encounter what might appear to them to be indifference. It isn't indifference. It's just augury. An absence of surprise. The tired wisdom of knowing that what goes around eventually comes around. American people ought to know that it is not them but their government's policies that are so hated. They can't possibly doubt that they themselves, their extraordinary musicians, their writers, their actors, their spectacular sportsmen and their cinema, are universally welcomed. All of us have been moved by the courage and grace shown by firefighters, rescue workers and ordinary office staff in the days since the attacks.

America's grief at what happened has been immense and immensely public. It would be grotesque to expect it to calibrate or modulate its anguish. However, it will be a pity if, instead of using this as an opportunity to try to understand why September 11 happened, Americans use it as an opportunity to usurp the whole world's sorrow to mourn and avenge only their own. Because then it falls to the rest of us to ask the hard questions and say the harsh things. And for our pains, for our bad timing, we will be disliked, ignored and perhaps eventually silenced.

The world will probably never know what motivated those particular hijackers who flew planes into those particular American buildings. They were not glory boys. They left no suicide notes, no political messages; no organisation has claimed credit for the attacks. All we know is that their belief in what they were doing outstripped the natural human instinct for survival, or any desire to be remembered. It's almost as though they could not scale down the enormity of their rage to anything smaller than their deeds. And what they did has blown a hole in the world as we knew it. In the absence of information, politicians, political commentators and writers (like myself) will invest the act with their own politics, with their own interpretations. This speculation, this analysis of the political climate in which the attacks took place, can only be a good thing.

But war is looming large. Whatever remains to be said must be said quickly. Before America places itself at the helm of the "international coalition against terror", before it invites (and coerces) countries to actively participate in its almost godlike mission - called Operation Infinite Justice until it was pointed out that this could be seen as an insult to Muslims, who believe that only Allah can mete out infinite justice, and was renamed Operation Enduring Freedom- it would help if some small clarifications are made. For example, Infinite Justice/Enduring Freedom for whom? Is this America's war against terror in America or against terror in general? What exactly is being avenged here? Is it the tragic loss of almost 7,000 lives, the gutting of five million square feet of office space in Manhattan, the destruction of a section of the Pentagon, the loss of several hundreds of thousands of jobs, the bankruptcy of some airline companies and the dip in the New York Stock Exchange? Or is it more than that? In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is worth it". Albright never lost her job for saying this. She continued to travel the world representing the views and aspirations of the US government. More pertinently, the sanctions against Iraq remain in place. Children continue to die.

So here we have it. The equivocating distinction between civilisation and savagery, between the "massacre of innocent people" or, if you like, "a clash of civilisations" and "collateral damage". The sophistry and fastidious algebra of infinite justice. How many dead Iraqis will it take to make the world a better place? How many dead Afghans for every dead American? How many dead women and children for every dead man? How many dead mojahedin for each dead investment banker? As we watch mesmerised, Operation Enduring Freedom unfolds on TV monitors across the world. A coalition of the world's superpowers is closing in on Afghanistan, one of the poorest, most ravaged, war-torn countries in the world, whose ruling Taliban government is sheltering Osama bin Laden, the man being held responsible for the September 11 attacks.

The only thing in Afghanistan that could possibly count as collateral value is its citizenry. (Among them, half a million maimed orphans.There are accounts of hobbling stampedes that occur when artificial limbs are airdropped into remote, inaccessible villages.) Afghanistan's economy is in a shambles. In fact, the problem for an invading army is that Afghanistan has no conventional coordinates or signposts to plot on a military map - no big cities, no highways, no industrial complexes, no water treatment plants. Farms have been turned into mass graves. The countryside is littered with land mines - 10 million is the most recent estimate. The American army would first have to clear the mines and build roads in order to take its soldiers in.

Fearing an attack from America, one million citizens have fled from their homes and arrived at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The UN estimates that there are eight million Afghan citizens who need emergency aid. As supplies run out -food and aid agencies have been asked to leave - the BBC reports that one of the worst humanitarian disasters of recent times has begun to unfold. Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving to death while they're waiting to be killed.

In America there has been rough talk of "bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age". Someone please break the news that Afghanistan is already there. And if it's any consolation, America played no small part in helping it on its way. The American people may be a little fuzzy about where exactly Afghanistan is (we hear reports that there's a run on maps of the country), but the US government and Afghanistan are old friends.

In 1979, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA and Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) launched the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA. Their purpose was to harness the energy of Afghan resistance to the Soviets and expand it into a holy war, an Islamic jihad, which would turn Muslim countries within the Soviet Union against the communist regime and eventually destabilise it. When it began, it was meant to be the Soviet Union's Vietnam. It turned out to be much more than that. Over the years, through the ISI, the CIA funded and recruited almost 100,000 radical mojahedin from 40 Islamic countries as soldiers for America's proxy war. The rank and file of the mojahedin were unaware that their jihad was actually being fought on behalf of Uncle Sam. (The irony is that America was equally unaware that it was financing a future war against itself.)

In 1989, after being bloodied by 10 years of relentless conflict, the Russians withdrew, leaving behind a civilisation reduced to rubble.

Civil war in Afghanistan raged on. The jihad spread to Chechnya, Kosovo and eventually to Kashmir. The CIA continued to pour in money and military equipment, but the overheads had become immense, and more money was needed. The mojahedin ordered farmers to plant opium as a "revolutionary tax". The ISI set up hundreds of heroin laboratories across Afghanistan. Within two years of the CIA's arrival, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland had become the biggest producer of heroin in the world, and the single biggest source of the heroin on American streets. The annual profits, said to be between $100bn and $200bn, were ploughed back into training and arming militants.

In 1995, the Taliban - then a marginal sect of dangerous, hardline fundamentalists - fought its way to power in Afghanistan. It was funded by the ISI, that old cohort of the CIA, and supported by many political parties in Pakistan. The Taliban unleashed a regime of terror. Its first victims were its own people, particularly women. It closed down girls' schools, dismissed women from government jobs, and enforced sharia laws under which women deemed to be "immoral" are stoned to death, and widows guilty of being adulterous are buried alive. Given the Taliban government's human rights track record, it seems unlikely that it will in any way be intimidated or swerved from its purpose by the prospect of war, or the threat to the lives of its civilians.

After all that has happened, can there be anything more ironic than Russia and America joining hands to re-destroy Afghanistan? The question is, can you destroy destruction? Dropping more bombs on Afghanistan will only shuffle the rubble, scramble some old graves and disturb the dead.

The desolate landscape of Afghanistan was the burial ground of Soviet communism and the springboard of a unipolar world dominated by America. It made the space for neocapitalism and corporate globalisation, again dominated by America. And now Afghanistan is poised to become the graveyard for the unlikely soldiers who fought and won this war for America.

And what of America's trusted ally? Pakistan too has suffered enormously. The US government has not been shy of supporting military dictators who have blocked the idea of democracy from taking root in the country. Before the CIA arrived, there was a small rural market for opium in Pakistan. Between 1979 and 1985, the number of heroin addicts grew from zero to one-and-a-half million. Even before September 11, there were three million Afghan refugees living in tented camps along the border. Pakistan's economy is crumbling. Sectarian violence, globalisation's structural adjustment programmes and drug lords are tearing the country to pieces. Set up to fight the Soviets, the terrorist training centres and madrasahs, sown like dragon's teeth across the country, produced fundamentalists with tremendous popular appeal within Pakistan itself. The Taliban, which the Pakistan government has sup ported, funded and propped up for years, has material and strategic alliances with Pakistan's own political parties.

Now the US government is asking (asking?) Pakistan to garotte the pet it has hand-reared in its backyard for so many years. President Musharraf, having pledged his support to the US, could well find he has something resembling civil war on his hands.

India, thanks in part to its geography, and in part to the vision of its former leaders, has so far been fortunate enough to be left out of this Great Game. Had it been drawn in, it's more than likely that our democracy, such as it is, would not have survived. Today, as some of us watch in horror, the Indian government is furiously gyrating its hips, begging the US to set up its base in India rather than Pakistan. Having had this ringside view of Pakistan's sordid fate, it isn't just odd, it's unthinkable, that India should want to do this. Any third world country with a fragile economy and a complex social base should know by now that to invite a superpower such as America in (whether it says it's staying or just passing through) would be like inviting a brick to drop through your windscreen.

Operation Enduring Freedom is ostensibly being fought to uphold the American Way of Life. It'll probably end up undermining it completely. It will spawn more anger and more terror across the world. For ordinary people in America, it will mean lives lived in a climate of sickening uncertainty: will my child be safe in school? Will there be nerve gas in the subway? A bomb in the cinema hall? Will my love come home tonight? There have been warnings about the possibility of biological warfare - smallpox, bubonic plague, anthrax - the deadly payload of innocuous crop-duster aircraft. Being picked off a few at a time may end up being worse than being annihilated all at once by a nuclear bomb.

The US government, and no doubt governments all over the world, will use the climate of war as an excuse to curtail civil liberties, deny free speech, lay off workers, harass ethnic and religious minorities, cut back on public spending and divert huge amounts of money to the defence industry. To what purpose? President Bush can no more "rid the world of evil-doers" than he can stock it with saints. It's absurd for the US government to even toy with the notion that it can stamp out terrorism with more violence and oppression. Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease. Terrorism has no country. It's transnational, as global an enterprise as Coke or Pepsi or Nike. At the first sign of trouble, terrorists can pull up stakes and move their "factories" from country to country in search of a better deal. Just like the multi-nationals.

Terrorism as a phenomenon may never go away. But if it is to be contained, the first step is for America to at least acknowledge that it shares the planet with other nations, with other human beings who, even if they are not on TV, have loves and griefs and stories and songs and sorrows and, for heaven's sake, rights. Instead, when Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, was asked what he would call a victory in America's new war, he said that if he could convince the world that Americans must be allowed to continue with their way of life, he would consider it a victory.

The September 11 attacks were a monstrous calling card from a world gone horribly wrong. The message may have been written by Bin Laden (who knows?) and delivered by his couriers, but it could well have been signed by the ghosts of the victims of America's old wars. The millions killed in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia, the 17,500 killed when Israel - backed by the US -invaded Lebanon in 1982, the 200,000 Iraqis killed in Operation Desert Storm, the thousands of Palestinians who have died fighting Israel's occupation of the West Bank. And the millions who died, in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Panama, at the hands of all the terrorists, dictators and genocidists whom the American government supported, trained, bankrolled and supplied with arms. And this is far from being a comprehensive list.

For a country involved in so much warfare and conflict, the American people have been extremely fortunate. The strikes on September 11 were only the second on American soil in over a century. The first was Pearl Harbour. The reprisal for this took a long route, but ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This time the world waits with bated breath for the horrors to come.

Someone recently said that if Osama bin Laden didn't exist, America would have had to invent him. But, in a way, America did invent him. He was among the jihadis who moved to Afghanistan in 1979 when the CIA commenced its operations there. Bin Laden has the distinction of being created by the CIA and wanted by the FBI. In the course of a fortnight he has been promoted from suspect to prime suspect and then, despite the lack of any real evidence, straight up the charts to being "wanted dead or alive".

From all accounts, it will be impossible to produce evidence (of the sort that would stand scrutiny in a court of law) to link Bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. So far, it appears that the most incriminating piece of evidence against him is the fact that he has not condemned them.

From what is known about the location of Bin Laden and the living conditions in which he operates, it's entirely possible that he did not personally plan and carry out the attacks - that he is the inspirational figure, "the CEO of the holding company". The Taliban's response to US demands for the extradition of Bin Laden has been uncharacteristically reasonable: produce the evidence, then we'll hand him over. President Bush's response is that the demand is "non-negotiable".

(While talks are on for the extradition of CEOs - can India put in a side request for the extradition of Warren Anderson of the US? He was the chairman of Union Carbide, responsible for the Bhopal gas leak that killed 16,000 people in 1984. We have collated the necessary evidence. It's all in the files. Could we have him, please?)

But who is Osama bin Laden really? Let me rephrase that. What is Osama bin Laden? He's America's family secret. He is the American president's dark doppelg&auml;nger. The savage twin of all that purports to be beautiful and civilised. He has been sculpted from the spare rib of a world laid to waste by America's foreign policy: its gunboat diplomacy, its nuclear arsenal, its vulgarly stated policy of "full-spectrum dominance", its chilling disregard for non-American lives, its barbarous military interventions, its support for despotic and dictatorial regimes, its merciless economic agenda that has munched through the economies of poor countries like a cloud of locusts. Its marauding multinationals who are taking over the air we breathe, the ground we stand on, the water we drink, the thoughts we think. Now that the family secret has been spilled, the twins are blurring into one another and gradually becoming interchangeable. Their guns, bombs, money and drugs have been going around in the loop for a while. (The Stinger missiles that will greet US helicopters were supplied by the CIA. The heroin used by America's drug addicts comes from Afghanistan. The Bush administration recently gave Afghanistan a $43m subsidy for a "war on drugs"....)

Now Bush and Bin Laden have even begun to borrow each other's rhetoric. Each refers to the other as "the head of the snake". Both invoke God and use the loose millenarian currency of good and evil as their terms of reference. Both are engaged in unequivocal political crimes. Both are dangerously armed - one with the nuclear arsenal of the obscenely powerful, the other with the incandescent, destructive power of the utterly hopeless. The fireball and the ice pick. The bludgeon and the axe. The important thing to keep in mind is that neither is an acceptable alternative to the other.

President Bush's ultimatum to the people of the world - "If you're not with us, you're against us" - is a piece of presumptuous arrogance. It's not a choice that people want to, need to, or should have to make.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4266289,00.html

10/16/01
5:00:22 PM

Suppresed Details Of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly Into The CIA's Highest Ranks

CIA Executive Director “Buzzy” Krongard Managed Firm That Handled "Put" Options On UAL

by Michael C. Ruppert

FTW, October 9, 2001 – Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations.” In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.

Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.

THE SCOPE OF KNOWN INSIDER TRADING

Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media. It is well documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades – in real time – as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests. Previous stories in FTW have specifically highlighted the use of Promis software to monitor such trades.

It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to understand the significance of these trades, “selling short” and “put options”.

“Selling Short” is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current market prices, but not being required to actually produce the stock for some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short contract is entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by buying the stock after the price has fallen and complete the contract at the pre-crash price. These contracts often have a window of as long as four months.

“Put Options,” are contracts giving the buyer the option to sell stocks at a later date. Purchased at nominal prices of, for example, $1.00 per share, they are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised, they give the holder the option of selling selected stocks at a future date at a price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an investment of $10,000 it might be possible to tie up 10,000 shares of United or American Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the option is then obligated to buy them if the option is executed. If the stock has fallen to $50 when the contract matures, the holder of the option can purchase the shares for $50 and immediately sell them for $100 – regardless of where the market then stands. A call option is the reverse of a put option, which is, in effect, a derivatives bet that the stock price will go up.

A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled “Black Tuesday: The World’s Largest Insider Trading Scam?” documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:

- Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options… Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these “insiders” would have profited by almost $5 million.

- On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;… Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent “insiders,” they would represent a gain of about $4 million.

- [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]

- No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.

- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.

- Merrill Lynch & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill’s shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by “insiders,” their profit would have been about $5.5 million. - European regulators are examining trades in Germany’s Munich Re, Switzerland’s Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a “double whammy” for them.]

On September 29, 2001 – in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media – the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.

“The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors – whose identities and nationalities have not been made public – had advance knowledge of the strikes.” They don’t dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.

“… October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called “put” options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp.”

“…The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options…” This was the operation managed by Krongard until as recently as 1998.

As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks.

CIA, THE BANKS AND THE BROKERS

Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and brokerage world is critical to grasping the already frightening implications of the above revelations. Let’s look at the history of CIA, Wall Street and the big banks by looking at some of the key players in CIA’s history.

Clark Clifford – The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of First American Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.

John Foster and Allen Dulles – These two brothers “designed” the CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U.S. investments in Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most powerful - to this day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.

Bill Casey – Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.

David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.

George Herbert Walker Bush – President from 1989 to January 1993, also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation, which also shares joint investments with the bin Laden family.

A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard – The current Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust.

John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation’s second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented laundering of drug money. This includes Citigroup’s 2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.

Nora Slatkin – This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on Citibank’s board.

Maurice “Hank” Greenburg – The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg’s and AIG’s long connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11. AIG’s stock has bounced back remarkably well since the attacks. To read that story, please go to http://www.copvcia.com/stories/part_2.html.

One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests of the American people, especially those who died on September 11.

Source: http://www.copvcia.com/stories/oct_2001/krongard.html

10/16/01
4:38:10 PM

Missing The Oil Story

by Nina Burleigh

Nina Burleigh has written for The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, and New York magazine. As a reporter for TIME, she was among the first American journalists to enter Iraq after the Gulf War.

Recently I attended one of those legendary Washington dinner parties, attended by British cosmopolites and Americans in the know. A few courses in, people were gossiping about the Bush family's close and enduring friendship with the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, dean of the diplomatic corps in Washington. By the end of the evening, everyone was talking about how the unfolding events were going to affect the flow of oil out of Central Asia.

I left wondering whether 6,000 Americans might prove to have died in New York for the royal family of Saud, or oil, or both. But I didn't have much more than insider dinner gossip to go on. I get my analysis from the standard all-American news outlets. And they've been too focused on a) anthrax and smallpox, or b) the intricacies of Muslim fanaticism, to throw any reporters at the murky ways in which international oil politics and its big players have a stake in what's unfolding.

A quick Nexis search brought up a raft of interesting leads that would keep me busy for 10 years if the economics of this war was my beat. But only two articles in the American media since September 11 have tried to describe how Big Oil might benefit from a cleanup of terrorists and other anti-American elements in the Central Asia region. One was by James Ridgeway of the Village Voice. The other was by a Hearst writer based in Paris and it was picked up only in the San Francisco Chronicle.

In other words, only the Left is connecting the dots of what the Russians have called "The Great Game" -- how oil underneath the 'stans' fits into the new world order. Here's just a small slice of what ought to provoke deeper research by American reporters with resources and talent.

Start with father Bush. The former president and ex-CIA director is not unemployed these days. He's been globetrotting as a member of Washington's Carlyle Group, a $12 billion private equity firm which employs a motorcade of former ranking Republicans, including Frank Carlucci, Jim Baker and Richard Darman. George Bush senior and colleagues open doors overseas for The Carlyle Group's "access capitalists."

Bush specializes in Asia and has been in and out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (countries that revere him thanks to the Gulf War) often on business since his presidency. Baker, the pin-striped midwife of 'Election 2000' was working his network in the 'stans' before the ink was dry on Clinton's first inaugural address. The Bin Laden family (presumably the friendly wing) is also invested in Carlyle. Carlyle's portfolio is heavy in defense and telecommunications firms, although it has other holdings including food and bottling companies.

The Carlyle connection means that George Bush Senior is on the payroll from private interests that have defense business before the government, while his son is president. Hmmm. As Charles Lewis of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, has put it, "in a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. And that to me is a jaw-dropper."

Why can we assume that global businessmen like Bush Senior and Jim Baker care about who runs Afghanistan and NOT just because it's home base for lethal anti- Americans? Because it also happens to be situated in the middle of that perennial vital national interest -- a region with abundant oil. By 2050, Central Asia will account for more than 80 percent of our oil. On September 10, an industry publication, Oil and Gas Journal, reported that Central Asia represents one of the world's last great frontiers for geological survey and analysis, "offering opportunities for investment in the discovery, production, transportation, and refining of enormous quantities of oil and gas resources."

It's assumed we need unimpeded access in the 'stans' for our geologists, construction workers and pipelines if we are going to realize the conservation-free, fossil-fueled future outlined recently by Vice President Cheney. A number of pipeline projects to carry Central Asia's resources west are already under way or have been proposed. They would go through Russia, through the Caucasus or via Turkey and Iran. Each route will be within easy reach of the Taliban's thugs and could be made much safer by an American vanquishment of Muslim terrorism.

There's also lots of oil beneath the turf of our politically precarious newest best friend, Pakistan. "Massive untapped gas reserves are believed to be lying beneath Pakistan's remotest deserts, but they are being held hostage by armed tribal groups demanding a better deal from the central government," reported Agence France Presse just days before September 11.

So many business deals, so much oil, all those big players with powerful connections to the Bush administration. It doesn't add up to a conspiracy theory. But it does mean there is a significant MONEY subtext that the American public ought to know about as "Operation Enduring Freedom" blasts new holes where pipelines might someday be buried.

See also:

Peace in Afghanistan could open door for regional gas pipelines

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/11861

THE DAY THE WORLD CAME TO ITS SENSES?

http://evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=245

This week, Phil Watts, chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, gave a remarkable speech in New York during which he said that Shell was preparing for the "End of the Hydrocarbon Age."

Source: http://www.tompaine.com/news/2001/10/11/index.html

10/16/01
4:32:36 PM

A Handy Chart Showing the AntiTerrorism Act

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has done a splendid job of organizing the differences among the PATRIOT and USA Acts, along with Bush/Ashcroft's original wish-list called the Anti-terrorism Act (ATA), in simple tabular form for easy comparison.

From: http://www.aclu.org/congress/patriot_chart.html

"The definition of "terrorism" is too broad, permitting the special surveillance powers granted in this legislation to be applied far beyond what is commonly thought of by the term. Under the definition proposed by the Administration, even acts of simple civil disobedience could lead organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to become targets of "terrorist" investigations."

10/16/01
4:25:50 PM

Between The Shoulder Blades

by James Higdon

May you live in interesting times. ~Ancient Chinese curse

October 6, 2001—Somewhere along the line, the good ol' US of A must have really done something to piss off the Chinese, because they have certainly leveled on us the mother of all curses. Interesting is to say the least.

While we are told that we have suffered an "attack against freedom," everything that is humanly possible is being done by our own government to eliminate our freedoms. "We will not let these evildoers take away our freedom," is Bush's battle cry, as he submits another request to Congress to eliminate habeas corpus, and to abolish reasonable search and seizure requirements.

A supposedly politically impartial free press is practicing censorship of every sort—banning songs, banning television shows, black listing comedians who criticize the way we use our military while calling others "cowardly," and demanding that radio personalities vocalize support for a White House resident that the radio hosts may totally disagree with. Broadcast news continuously supports the notion that any criticism of the worst White House resident in our history is tantamount to treason.

After a consortium of newspapers paid somewhere between five hundred thousand and one million dollars to count the 200,000 unaccounted for votes in Florida, to test the legitimacy of last December's Supreme Court selection, the results are being hidden away, perhaps for all time. The consortium claims to lack the manpower necessary to analyze the compiled information after the attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. But behind the scenes they admit that they don't want to shade Bush in a legitimacy question as he's marching us to war. Hello! Is there anybody home? This may be a question the consortium just hasn't considered, but wouldn't it be a good idea for the American people to know, before being led into an open ended and undefined war, whether the little general has earned the right to his commission?

Because of the unprecedented propaganda that the mainstream news media provides the emperor in chief, the White House has continued the policy of lies to protect the image of a man who has earned nothing in his life. The White House can get away with the lie that Bush only hid under a bed during the attack because evil Osama had named him as a target. They can get away with it because the press will only reveal the truth on the back pages once the original claim has gone down the memory hole. If the news media even allows an opportunity for Bush to be compared to some far greater politician, such as NBC's September 18 interview with Bill Clinton, where Clinton took great pains to tell Americans to support Bush, Karl Rove will slap them down. If a talk show host, such as Bill Maher, attempts to criticize the use of patriotic buzzwords, Ari Fleischer will warn all Americans not to get too comfortable in their belief that the First Amendment is here to stay. "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

Meanwhile, on the campus at the University of California at Berkeley, where the anti war movement during the Vietnam war was founded, war protesters are again on the move. Only this time they are protesting against peace! And I must say, hearing John Lennon's Imagine being played to marshal support for violent conflict is nothing short of surreal.

Our local "men of God," Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell explain the morality of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden acted as the right hand of God to punish us for our failure to lock up gays, for having public interest groups defend our civil liberties, for practicing many different religions, and for allowing our minds to think progressive thoughts, by wiping away over 6,500 lives on a sunny day in New York.

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. ~ Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar

On September 11, 2001, terrorists easily penetrated airport security systems, designed, apparently, so that they wouldn't inconvenience the terrorists too much. They carried small knives and box cutters aboard to be used to intimidate flight personnel and passengers into allowing the terrorists to take control of the aircraft. While the loss of life is the most important factor that rightfully draws most of the public's attention at the moment, the damage inflicted goes far deeper. We have lost whatever remained of an already sorely depleted surplus, Social Security is no longer protected and will likely go to pay our yet to be determined war debt, and we are expecting to see the loss of at least a half million jobs, bringing the total job loss since January to well over a million. That's quite a swath to cut for small blades. It doesn't compare, however, with the hatchet that Congress buries between the shoulder blades of its constituents.

Airline CEOs, who make on an average of several million dollars annually, when including pensions and stock options, figured it would be best for business to completely reject the many commission reports that prioritized consumer safety in the face of an almost certain terrorist attack of exactly the sort that happened on September 11. They continued to employ untrained "security personnel," paying them less than the average Starbucks checker, while funneling millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of both Democrats and Republicans, and millions of dollars more for lobbyists hired to convince Congress that it was folly to worry about the loss of a few consumers here and there. And Congress, doing what it always does best, reacted to their bulging wallets, and not to the need to provide safety for American citizens.

After the speech to Congress, that the little general read very well by the way (all this reading to children is apparently paying off), Trent Lott and Tom Dacshel hugged each other on national television, and proclaimed proudly that there is now only one political party. (Great! After defending the Democratic Party for nearly a year, I now feel like I've been kneed in the groin by Ralph Nader.) To show off their ballyhooed bipartisanship, Congress approved a $15 billion welfare package for corporate airlines that includes a doubling of CEO pensions should the CEOs retire in the next three years. For the thousands of employees who have lost their jobs through the gross malfeasance of airline CEOs and Congress, Congress has offered those laid off workers, and those workers expected to be laid off, an extra week of unemployment and medical benefits. It should provide the jobless with great comfort to know that, thanks to their taxes while they were working, airline CEOs will now be able to take a comfy early retirement. Those former employees, of course, can kiss Social Security goodbye. But at least they have extended medical benefits—providing they had medical benefits in the first place. And, hey, that $300 loan on next years tax return will come in real handy.

Wrapping themselves in the American flag (presumably to protect themselves against hurled tomatoes), the members of Congress scurried back under the refrigerator to plan more outrages, and to avoid, in the name of a change of focus brought on by a national crisis, addressing the issues that we sent them there to resolve in the first place.

Despite broad support for campaign finance reform by the American electorate—in fact, it was identified by several pollsters during the last election as the top priority among voters—Congress has shelved the idea time and again. But the time has now passed for the pabulum of McCain/Feingold. Now is the time for publicly financed elections that remove any need for candidates to seek corporate donations. Now is the time for broadcasting corporations, made fat by the selling of air time to political parties over airwaves owned by the people, and which broadcasters use at no expense to themselves, to cough up a prescribed amount of free time to every qualified political candidate for public office. Any member of Congress who opposes extensive campaign finance reform, at this juncture, should be tarred and feathered, and barred from any profession that requires honesty.

If Americans have shown anything over the last couple of weeks, it is that they are far better people than the politicians who represent them. On September 11, while politicians, from the president to Congress, were running for cover, Americans were sucking it up, risking their lives to save lives, and showing incomparable compassion. Grunt firemen and beat police officers ran into crumbling buildings, losing hundreds of their lives while saving thousands of others. Union construction workers showed up in massive force to clear away rubble in search of survivors. Dishwashers and secretaries showed up at hospitals to give their own blood. The whole world stood as witness to what Americans are all about. And the world knows what we should know—we need elected officials who represent Americans and not money.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Higdon100601/higdon100601.html

10/16/01
4:16:05 PM

Freedoms Curtailed In Defense Of Liberty

WASHINGTON, DC - Responding to the threats facing America's free democratic system, White House officials called upon Americans to stop exercising their democratic freedoms Monday.

Above: Ari Fleischer urges Americans to keep their mouths shut.

"In this time of national crisis, a time when our most cherished freedoms are threatened, all Americans-not just outspoken talk-show hosts like Bill Maher-must watch what they say," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters. "Now more than ever, if we want to protect democracy for future generations, it is vital that nobody speak out about the issues of the day."

"We must all do our patriotic duty to protect our country's great ideals," Fleischer continued, "and we have to be careful about what opinions we express if we are to defend our Constitution, a sacred document behind which all Americans must stand united as one."

Fleischer's sentiments echoed those of many executive-branch officials, who, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have called for broad-based limitations on civil liberties-and urged all patriotic, freedom-loving citizens to support those restrictions-in defense of the American way of life.

"We live in a land governed by plurality of opinion in an open electorate, but we are now under siege by adherents of a fundamentalist, totalitarian belief system that tolerates no dissent," Attorney General John Ashcroft said. "Our most basic American values are threatened by an enemy opposed to everything for which our flag stands. That is why I call upon all Americans to submit to wiretaps, e-mail monitoring, and racial profiling. Now is not the time to allow simplistic, romantic notions of 'civil liberties' and 'equal protection under the law' to get in the way of our battle with the enemies of freedom."

In the past, Ashcroft said, efforts by federal agencies to restrict personal freedoms were "severely hampered" by such factors as the judicial system, the Bill Of Rights, and "government by the people." Since the attacks, however, some such limitations have been waived, finally giving the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, and White House the greater powers they need to defend freedom.

U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who advocated permitting the CIA to engage in various illegal activities during a recent Tonight Show With Jay Leno appearance, stressed the importance of not merely submitting to freedom-curtailment policies, but also blindly agreeing with them.

"Now is not the time for such divisive, destructive things as dialogue and debate," McCain said. "Now is not the time for, 'My opinion is just as valid as yours,' and 'What are my country's leaders doing and why?' and 'I have a question, Mr. President.' Now is the time for one thing and one thing only: The defense of the American democratic ideal. Any and all who disagree with this directive, or who have different ideas about how it should be accomplished, should learn to shut their mouths."

As the U.S. prepares to mobilize forces against Afghanistan, the military is seeking strong limitations on the press. According to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, such a Constitution-flouting move would not be unprecedented, citing the suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War and the order to round up 110,000 Japanese-Americans in detention camps after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

"Remember, under the oppressive Taliban regime, people live in constant fear of an oppressive order to which all must submit," Rumsfeld said. "Under their system, it is illegal to practice a different religion or support a different political system. It is against the law for women to work or leave their homes without their faces covered. There is no freedom of speech, press, or assembly, as dissent of any kind is not tolerated. It is even forbidden to smile or laugh in public, and all who fail to unquestioningly obey are punished with reprisals of brutal violence. We must not allow such a regime to threaten our great democracy. We must stand for something better than that."

"It is therefore urgent," Rumsfeld continued, "that all Americans be quiet, stop asking questions, accept the orders of authorities, and let us get on with the important work of defending liberty, so that America can continue to be a beacon of freedom to all the world."

http://www.TheOnion.com

10/16/01
4:13:21 PM

ERNESTO CIENFUEGOS: ZIONIST TERRORISTS ARRESTED INSIDE MEXICAN CONGRESS

Los Angeles - October 12, 2001 - (ACN) We were alerted this morning by a subscriber from Mexico that two Israelis were arrested Wednesday inside the Palacio Legislativo de San Lazaro (Mexican Congress) in Mexico City. Both were armed with 9 mm automatics and one was carrying a military hand grenade, electrical wiring and other bomb related materials. The Israeli Embassy at Sierra Madre 2155, colonia Lomas de Chapultepec has close its doors to the Mexican Press and are refusing to talk. The incident has been independently verified by La Voz de Aztlan through Mexican diplomatic, press and other sources in Mexico City.

The Chief of Legislative Security, Salvador Alarcan, has also confirmed the arrest of the two Israeli terrorists. One of them Saur Ben Zvi is a confirmed citizen of Israel and the other, Salvador Guersson, recently immigrated to Mexico from Israel. It is has been determined by the Procuradur?a General de la Republica (Mexican Department of Justice) that Guersson is a retired Colonel of the Israeli Defense Forces and that he may now be operating as a MOSSAD agent. It is not known how they were able to penetrate the extensive security system of the Mexican Legislative Palace.

This is a very grave incident with many serious international implications. Many have questioned who may be really behind many of the recent terrorist acts around the world including the ones against the WTC and the Pentagon. The Mexican public and congress has been reticent about declaring war against Islam along with the U.S. It is possible that an act of terrorism against the Mexican Congress was planned in order to "terrorize" Mexico into towing the line against Islam.

YOU **MUST** read the next article on this by La Voz de Aztlan at http://aztlan.net/blowup.htm

10/16/01
3:48:21 PM

There Were No Hijackers

By Anonymous

The attack on September 11, 2000, was highly professional. The primary target was the World Trade Center (WTC), with the Pentagon [probably] only a decoy. There were NO hijackers on board on any of the four aircraft, or cell phone calls to anxious relatives. This is pure hysterical media hype.

Aircraft systems were functioning perfectly, including the IFF transponders, which were providing ATC with correct aircraft idents and telemetry. There were no mayday calls or "hijack" codes transmitted, despite the fact that the latter can be activated from four discrete locations on all of the aircraft involved. Once activated, a transponder "hijack" signal cannot be canceled inside the aircraft and can only be deactivated by ground engineers after landing.

The FAA knew this, and because there were no warnings at all, was compelled to immediately ground all four hundred aircraft in US airspace, all of which were potential flying bombs. At the same time the trigger-happy USAF was faced with an identical problem. How could it tell which potential "bombs" full of Americans it might have to shoot down next?

I don't think the USAF shot down the aircraft in Pennsylvania. Most probably it was a back-up aircraft, destroyed when it was confirmed primary and decoy targets accomplished. That said, shoot-downs could happen in the future. Your 50,000 reservists being called up include a large chunk of Air National Guard aircrew tasked with "Defending American Cities from the terrorists." Freudian slip from the White House there. How can you use Air Guard F-15 and F-16 interceptors to defend the cities from the "terrorists," if the "terrorists" are more "hijackers" already on your own airliners and already airborne en-route to their next targets.

The National Guard versions of F-15 and F-16 interceptors are both air superiority fighters designed to shoot down other aircraft. Cheney announced on TV that orders have now been issued for these aircraft to shoot down American or other airliners deviating from their flight paths. Travelling Amtrak will be a lot safer than flying.

Though I personally participated in UK in classified autoland (automatic landing) projects during the sixties, I cannot comment specifically on that because of the Official Secrets Act. However, I suggest you read the fictional story at the link cited below. Believe me when I say that what the author writes about is entirely possible, and far more beyond that. Think of radio controlled model planes and you might get close to the nature of the technology used.

Autoland is a system designed to completely control an aircraft from middle altitudes to precise touchdown on runway at a distant airport, with zero intellectual or physical input from pilots. Nowadays entire integrated aircraft systems are controlled by computers 1,000+ times more powerful than we had then.

It is 100% possible to take over the flight control computers of the 747, 757 and 767 if you have the right access codes and op frequency. The computers can also lock out radio communications including IFF transponders. Under these circumstances the pilots would be completely powerless, able only to look out of the window to see where they were being taken.

While I cannot disclose sources, I can say it was disclosed that the Pentagon [Boeing 757] CVR was "blank". CVR is in the tail section and cannot be "disabled" by a physical hijacker on board.

In the mid-nineties Lufthansa, appreciating the potentially catastrophic effect of "boffins" hijacking their Jumbos by remote control, and assisted by the Luftwaffe, stripped out the American computers and replaced them with classified German equipment. At the time I thought Lufthansa's investment extravagant and slightly paranoid. Now as I look at the video of those planes crashing into the World Trade Center, I marvel at the foresight of a few clever Germans. They at least are safe from a repeat performance of this sort, but alas, the remaining 2,000 American heavies are not.

MINI NUKES

After the strikes on the north and south World Trade Center towers, both could be seen to be completely stable. Then without warning the south WTC tower imploded vertically downwards, almost impossible after the massive west-east sheer forces imposed by the strike. Then the north tower imploded vertically as well, a scientific impossibility with the massive north-south sheer stress imposed by the strike.

Plus/minus five seconds after the first tower collapse, all cellphone contact in New York ceased, though that in Washington remained unaffected. On this, research for yourself of the web, "Source Region Electromagnetic Pulse (SREMP)." The worst effect is on extremely high frequency equipment [including cellphones]. SREMP decays over time, in simple terms like the ripples on a pond. The risk of SREMPs in war is the reason you have a nationwide very low frequency (150 KHz) emergency communications network. The cellphones don't melt. Sub-surface micro nukes of the W54 (etc) class do not produce a flash. Forget Hiroshima. It is the cellphone operating frequency that is temporarily disrupted, not the handset.

THE FALLOUT

Within minutes of this event, Air Force One diverted to Offutt AFB, Nebraska, where George W. was secured in an underground bunker for more than two hours. Offutt is also home to the special "war room" Jumbos equipped to allow the US President to control WWIII from international airspace.

As for who the responsible parties may be, remember the occupants of the WTC have over the last two decades destroyed the currencies and lives of at least a dozen different nations, so the queue of "suspects" would probably stretch for miles, including a few Russians, British, French etc. Need I go on? Much more likely targets for Muslim nations would have been the UN & US State Department. The list of suspect nations with very serious grudges against occupants of WTC should [realistically] be extremely long. Why focus idiotically on a single deeply religious Arab, sitting in a tent reading the Koran and drinking a cup of mint tea?

I cannot confirm or deny US involvement. Were the factions within the US responsible for the WTC bombings, I don't believe George W. was involved. While I appreciate George W. may have a slightly higher IQ than Dan Quayle, he would never be advised of a forthcoming strike of this magnitude. When Air Force One diverted to Offutt it did so to protect and preserve the integrity of the Presidency itself, not George W. Bush personally, who is of absolutely no strategic or tactical importance to anyone.

If your political masters and lobbies had been directly involved in [or behind] the attack, a shower of punitive Tomahawk missiles and other assorted junk would have hit Kabul and Baghdad within hours of the WTC. They did not, and the former bullies in the school yard are now running round the world trying to get the weaklings to join them in "crushing terrorism". An extraordinary sight.

They have much to worry about. How long and how much do you think it takes to strip the computer flight control gear out of every modern heavy in the USA? One hiccup in the wrong direction with punitive strikes on the wrong people, and next "terrorist" targets could be Hollywood and Los Angeles, for example. Despite the tough talk, the US military and government are already being extraordinarily careful. After all, Afghanistan and Iraq are still on the map after the WTC bombing.

Source: http://www.konformist.com/911/no-highjackers.htm

10/16/01
3:36:48 PM

Afghanistan's humanitarian crisis could become a disaster on a scale not seen since Rwanda in the mid-1990s, the UN human rights chief warns.

Concern grows over media 'censorship' - Wartime censorship is still censorship

http://media.guardian.co.uk/attack/story/0,1301,574427,00.html

An enemy. At last

http://www.en.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/10/01leader

"You enjoyed anti-communism? You're going to love anti-Islamism."

There were NO hijackers (A shocking theory!)

http://www.konformist.com/911/no-highjackers.htm>

10/16/01
3:30:44 PM

Intense U.S. Bombing Shakes Kabul

by Kathy Gannon and Amir Shah, Associated Press Writers

KABUL, Afghanistan (news - web sites) (AP) - U.S. strikes set Red Cross warehouses afire near Afghanistan's capital Tuesday, sending workers scrambling to salvage desperately needed relief goods during a bombardment that could be heard 30 miles away.

To the south, a U.S. special forces gunship entered the air war for the first time, raking the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar with cannon and heavy machine gun fire in a pre-dawn raid.

Heavy, round-the-clock attacks and the first use of the lumbering, low-flying AC-130 gunship signaled U.S. confidence that 10 days of attacks by cruise missiles and high-flying jets have crippled the air defenses of the Taliban, the Muslim militia that rules most of Afghanistan.

Tuesday's strikes were mostly against military installations and airports around Kabul, Kandahar and the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif, on which the Afghan opposition claims its forces are closing in.

Afternoon raids in the Kabul area were so strong that the detonations could be heard 30 miles north of the city, where Taliban forces are battling Afghan fighters for the opposition northern alliance.

During the afternoon raids, at least one bomb exploded in the compound of the International Committee of the Red Cross at Khair Khana near Kabul, injuring one security guard and setting two of the seven buildings on fire.

Afghan staffers ran through thick smoke and flames to try to salvage blankets, tents and plastic tarps meant to help Afghans through the winter. The other warehouse, which was also damaged by fire, contained wheat, Red Cross workers said.

``There are huge needs for the civilian population, and definitely it will hamper our operations,'' Robert Monin, head of the International Red Cross' Afghanistan delegation, said in Islamabad, Pakistan.

The damaged Red Cross complex had been clearly marked with two red crosses, Monin said. Likely targets for airstrikes surrounded it, however: four Taliban military bases and transport and fuel depots are in the area.

In other developments:

- Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) visited India and key ally Pakistan. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf said his country will cooperate with U.S.-led military efforts for as long as the operation lasts. Musharraf and Powell agreed a new Afghan government could include some moderate members of the Taliban.

- Russia's first aid shipment arrived in Afghanistan's opposition-controlled north and the U.N. World Food Program said it expects the Uzbek government to open a vital supply route for aid into Afghanistan.

- Four American C-17 cargo planes dropped 70,000 packets of food over Afghanistan overnight, bringing the total number or packets containing barley stew, rice, shortbread cookies and peanut butter delivered to 350,000.

The damage to the Red Cross buildings was the second incident in which U.S. jets apparently struck offices of an international agency. Last week, four Afghans were killed when a missile went astray and hit the offices of a U.N.-funded mine clearing company.

In Washington, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said the Pentagon (news - web sites) was trying to confirm Tuesday's incident and determine whose weapons were involved. He raised the possibility that anti-aircraft fire from the ground could have been responsible.

The Taliban, however, are not known to have fired surface-to-air missiles in Kabul since the first nights of the air campaign, which began Oct. 7.

Taliban officials said 13 people were killed in attacks Tuesday in Kandahar and two others in Mazar-e-Sharif. In Kabul, residents of the area around the ICRC compound said Taliban soldiers were no longer sleeping in their barracks but had moved into mosques to avoid attacks.

A U.S. Defense Department official confirmed the overnight attack on Kandahar was led by an AC-130, a propeller-driven transport plane outfitted with cannon and heavy machine guns. It marked the first acknowledged use of special forces aircraft during the air campaign.

President Bush (news - web sites) ordered airstrikes on Afghanistan after Taliban leaders repeatedly refused to surrender Osama bin Laden (news -web sites) - chief suspect in the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the United States.

In Islamabad, Powell and Musharraf renewed calls for a broad-based, multiethnic government to succeed the Taliban regime, which is dominated by ethnic Pashtuns.

The Taliban are battling a coalition of opposition forces in northern Afghanistan made up mostly of ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks. Pakistan, which had been the Taliban's closest ally, opposes allowing the northern alliance to take power in Kabul because it would not be accepted by Pashtuns.

During a press conference with Powell, Musharraf warned of a ``political vacuum'' if Kabul falls before a multiethnic administration is ready to take over.

Aid officials in Islamabad reported some looting at relief operations in Afghanistan, including cars and computers stolen from offices in Kandahar and Mazar-e-Sharif.

``The law and order situation in Kandahar appears to be breaking down,'' U.N. spokesman Stephanie Bunker said.

Kathy Gannon contributed to this report from Islamabad, Pakistan.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011016/ts/attacks_afghanistan.html

10/16/01
2:54:07 PM

The Nation

Bruce Shapiro on capital punishment:

Dead Reckoning, August 6, 2001

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010806&s=shapiro

McVeigh: Done to Death, July 2, 2001

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010702&s=shapiro

'Moral' Execution, June 6, 2001 - WEB ONLY

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=shapiro20010606

McVeigh's Last Message, June 4, 2001

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010604&s=shapiro

A Talk with Governor George Ryan, January 8, 2001

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010108&s=shapiro

Finally, don't miss this seminal essay by Robert Sherrill making the case for the abolition of the death penalty. Originally published in the January 8, 2001 issue of The Nation but currently available at the web address below:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010108&s=sherrill

10/16/01
2:34:59 PM

Planet Ark World Environment News

US Senate farm bill puzzle - The shades of 'green' - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12817/story.htm

UPDATE - Continental says substance on aircraft not dangerous - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12824/story.htm

UPDATE - Anthrax found at Florida post office - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12823/story.htm

California places $2.6 bln parks bond on March ballot - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12821/story.htm

Long Island, NY plans 10 new power plants - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12818/story.htm

US Senator seeks to aim farm funds at conservation - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12816/story.htm

US to keep pressuring China on soybean trade - USDA - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12815/story.htm

Judges grill Seattle green lawyers on road ban - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12813/story.htm

Scientists urge more US use of renewable energy - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12811/story.htm

Gas & Oil Technologies files $60 mln IPO - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12819/story.htm

US EPA proposes rules to encourage cogeneration - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12809/story.htm

EPA OKs plan to cut Houston pollution by 75 pct - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12808/story.htm

Humans doomed without space colonies, says Hawking - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12814/story.htm

FEATURE - Rich harvest of mines near Turkey's Iraqi border - TURKEY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12812/story.htm

Philippine rebels suspected of water "poisoning" - PHILIPPINES http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12807/story.htm

Muslim militants planned poison attack in Europe - ITALY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12828/story.htm

France creates organic food agency - FRANCE http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12820/story.htm

France to ban use of sodium arsenite in farming - FRANCE http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12827/story.htm

UPDATE - Police probe four Paris anthrax scares - FRANCE http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12826/story.htm

Clinton urges end to global inequalities after war - CZECH REPUBLIC http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12822/story.htm

UPDATE - Canada Parliament partly closed in chemical scare - CANADA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12825/story.htm

Fuel cell cars face obstacles, but said viable in California - CANADA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12810/story.htm

Australia updates Olympics germ-attack plan - AUSTRALIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12829/story.htm

10/16/01
2:32:24 PM

UN Says US 'Feeding Taleban'

BBC

The drops scatter packets over a wide area A United Nations official has harshly condemned the United States policy of dropping food aid to Afghanistan while bombing the country.

Jean Ziegler, whose job is to defend the right to food, described the US actions as "totally catastrophic for humanitarian aid".

He said that because the food drops were not targeted, "the man with the gun picks it up. So Americans are feeding the Taleban every night."

Separately, the UN children's agency Unicef warned on Monday that 100,000 Afghan children could die this winter unless food reaches them before the end of the year.

Mr Ziegler criticised the aid distribution strategy known as "snowdropping" because it involves scattering food over a wide area.

Condemnation

"I must condemn with the last ounce of energy this operation called snowdropping," he said in Geneva on Monday.

He warned that dropping food over wide areas could send hungry children into mine fields.

He also said combining military and humanitarian missions could endanger the lives of aid workers, the BBC's Emma Jane Kirby says.

"If you do not separate very clearly military operations and humanitarian operations, you destroy totally the credibility of the humanitarian operations," Mr Ziegler said.

He called on the US to end its military campaign against Afghan targets.

'Food imperialism'

There have also been reports that Afghans picking up the packets are unable to read the instructions printed in English which explain they contain enough food for 24 hours.

The locals select the few items that interest them and leave the remainder to rot.

There are also reports that not all Afghans appreciate the taste of peanut butter - included in the packs along with strawberry jam.

"Yuk! A local man will never eat that!" an Afghan soldier in Khoja Bahawuddin is quoted as saying by Le Monde newspaper.

US Republican congressman Jim Colby, who chairs the House of Representatives' committee which approves the funds for aid, has said that the aid drops are at best a gesture.

WFP support

But another UN official, Christiane Berthiaume of the World Food Programme, said the problem of Afghan hunger was so severe that any means of easing it must be welcomed.

"Food at this time, from wherever it comes - it's food for hungry people."

The people of Afghanistan were already facing famine long before the US and UK began military operations against the country in the wake of the suicide attacks on New York and Washington.

Sanctions against the Taleban regime, combined with drought and limited UN resources to combat hunger, led to warnings a year ago that millions of people in South Asia could starve.

Some aid convoys have reached Afghanistan by road from Pakistan and Iran since the air strikes began on 7 October.

Source: http://www.truthout.com/0681.Afghan.Day.9.htm

10/16/01
2:27:06 PM

Powell's Pakistan Challenge

This could be Powell's most challenging mission to date

by Jon Leyne, BBC

There is something ruthlessly systematic about the American campaign in and around Afghanistan.

It's not so much the military operation, which has yet to face a real test. It's the diplomacy, which is beginning to look like a well paced marathon run.

It was last Friday - five days after the start of the bombing campaign - that Washington announced the last key element in Afghanistan's military encirclement.

Uzbekistan joined Pakistan and Tajikistan in allowing American combat forces to be stationed on its soil.

Now the United States is already looking closely at the future shape of an Afghan government if and when the Taleban regime collapses.

It will be the main topic of discussion in talks being held in India and Pakistan by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

Officially the Americans do not want to be seen assembling what could get a reputation as a puppet government in Afghanistan.

"We have said we don't want to run it, it's not ours," said the deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage last week.

In practice, the issue is racing to the top of the agenda. Washington's fear is that a Taleban collapse could produce an even more anarchic situation in the country.

New government

One Indian official just smiled when asked if the Americans were involved in building a new government. "The Afghans have to put the government together themselves," he said, "but there will have to be a lot of hand-holding and toes to the fire."

Mr Powell will probably repeat, in India and Pakistan, what's become a mantra in Washington.

The US wants the next government to be "broad based and representative of all Afghans", he will say. Beneath that bland statement lies a web of intrigue.

Two ideas dominate the Afghan political landscape. First there is the involvement of the former king, Mohammad Zahir Shah.

Exiled since 1973, he has been receiving an increasing stream of visitors at his mansion in Rome. He could be a unifying figure if he does not overplay his hand.

The other element is the convening of a "loya jirga" or grand council. Under this plan, hundreds of Afghan tribal and factional chiefs would assemble, following a custom thousands of years old, in order to re-order their government.

The problem, put quite simply, is to stop them plotting to kill each other.

Fresh start

Then there is the part to be played by Afghanistan's neighbours. Here is where Mr Powell's trip could be crucial.

Pakistan needs to be reassured that a sympathetic government would replace the Taleban it helped to install.

India - and the rest of the world - need to know that there is not to be a repeat of the disasterous experiences of the last few years.

All of these ideas need to be assembled, while Mr Powell reassures the Indian and Pakistani governments of their role in his grand coalition.

He will also have to talk to them both about keeping the temperature down in Kashmir.

Meanwhile on the streets of Pakistan, his arrival is being marked by a general strike - called in protest by Islamic religious parties.

It could well be his most challenging diplomatic mission to date.

Source: http://www.truthout.com/0681.Afghan.Day.9.htm

10/16/01
2:19:55 PM

Al-Qaeda, A New Day And New Threats

The following is a translation from Arabic of the pre-recorded Al-Qaeda message delivered by Osama bin Laden aide Suleiman Abu Ghaith and broadcast by the Qatar-based al-Jazeera satellite television station early Sunday:

"In the name of the forgiving and merciful God. That the peace and blessing of God be on our prophet Mohammad, his family, his companions and his disciples.

In response to questions and queries which were addressed to us concerning the events of the last five days, we say that the crusade being conducted by (US President George W.) Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair against the Muslim land of Afghanistan and its people continues, which proves day after day their desire to conquer.

We ask the all-powerful God to give them strength and permit them to conquer the infidels.

We declare our total support for the Afghan people against this savage attack with all the material and moral force we possess, for as long as the war lasts, under the direction of (Taliban leader) Mullah (Mohammad) Omar, who God keeps, and as long as the war lasts. The cause is that of an entire nation which refuses to live the humiliation of the American and Jewish arrogance.

Secondly: We say to Bush the father, son, (former president) Clinton, Blair and (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon, who are at the head of the Zionist criminals and crusaders, who have committed the worst crimes against millions of Muslims, men, women, and innocent children that their blood (of the Muslims) was not spilled in vain and that we will avenge them.

Bush must not forget Mohammad al-Durra and his Muslim brothers in Palestine and Iraq. If he forgot, we will not as long as we live.

He must know that 'Enduring Freedom' has devastated entire villages near Kandahar and Jalalabad...

Those who support this crusade must know the truth which is clear: it is a crusade against Islam and Muslims...

We support the fatwa (religious decree) issued by the grand imams of Saudi Arabia, notably Hmud bin Ukla al-Chouaibi, who banned all cooperation with the Jews and the Christians. Those who cooperate with them have neither their faith nor God.

Al-Qaeda orders Americans, the English and their Arab accomplices to leave the Arabian peninsula because the ground will burn beneath their feet.

We salute the young fighters who have pushed back the aggression of the oppressors, and killed them. We also salute the Muslim crowds who have protested against this aggression and we call on them to maintain the pressure, especially after the foreign affairs ministers of Muslim countries expressed their support for this unjust campaign.

These people do not represent in any case the (Muslim) nation and do not have the legitimacy to decide this kind of things.

Concerning the warning by Bush and the American administration to the satellite chains and global press agencies against the spreading of our voice to the world, that is a concrete proof of the fear of this administration that the truth not be revealed over the events of Tuesday (September 11).

This truth is that Bush is an agent of Israel, he sacrifices his people and his economy for them (the Israelis) and helps them occupy the land of Muslims.

I lastly address my statement to the American minister of foreign affairs Colin Powell who doubted our last statement and our promise that thousands of young Muslims want to die (as martyrs) and the storm of airplanes will not stop.

Powell and other members of the US administration know that when Al-Qaeda promises, it delivers, and the information is what we see not what we hear.

The storm of airplanes will not be calmed, if it is God's will.

The storm will not calm, especially as long as you (the United States and Britain) do not end your support for the Jews in Palestine, lift your embargo from around the Iraqi people, and have left the Arabian peninsula, and stop your support of the Hindus against the Muslims in Kashmir.

We tell and recommend Muslims in the United States and Britain, and those who reject the American policies, not to take airplanes and not to live in towers and high buildings.

May the peace of God, his forgiveness and his blessing be on you."

Source: http://www.truthout.com/0682.AlQueda.10.15.htm

10/16/01
2:15:00 PM

AlterNet Headlines

http://www.alternet.org

Concerned with how the mainstream press is behaving these days? Want the straight scoop on the business and culture of media?

Starting tomorrow, AlterNet will launch a weekly e-newsletter to highlight the stories on our Media Culture page, including our very own Media Mash column, which has been relaunched (see below).

To sign up for the newsletter, go to: http://lists.alternet.org/mediaculture

THE SUV-TERRORISM CONNECTION

Dara Colwell, AlterNet

As the Middle East becomes more unstable, it makes sense to increase our "energy security" by reducing dependence of foreign oil. But how to do it? Simple -- crack down on SUVs.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11715

THE REAL PRICE OF OIL

Mark Hertsgaard, MotherJones.com

Congressional Republicans are using terrorism fears to advance the Bush administration's energy policy, ignoring the plan's enormous long-term cost.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11714

GIMME A COMMERCIAL BREAK

Al Krulick, Orlando Weekly

Feeling sad for America after Sept. 11? Buy a new car! Feeling vulnerable? Get a ThighMaster! How Madison Avenue is exploiting our patriotism in a sickening new spate of ads.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11709

AMERICA'S EXPANDING NEWS BORDERS

Eriq Gardner, AlterNet

After Sept. 11 Americans' news consumption patterns began to change. People may have been glued to CNN, but they also were surfing afar -- to sites like DebkaFile and Pakistan's The Daily Jang, in a pattern that might be permanent.

* In Media Culture: http://www.alternet.org/?IssueAreaID=19

NOT MY WAR -- A BLACK MUSLIM VIEW

Askia Muhammad, Pacific News Service

To Osama bin Laden, Muhammad responds, "I'm not unfaithful because I won't fight the infidel." To President Bush, "I'm not unpatriotic because I don't want war."

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11710

MEDIA MASH: THE MASHER RETURNS

The Masher, AlterNet

The long-awaited return of The Masher! This week: Some good war coverage, some bad, and not nearly enough written by women.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11719

MORE COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN THE TERRORISM WAR

Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet

A drug explosion in American cities -- particularly inner cities -- is a new and unexpected danger of the war on terrorism.

* In Drug Reporter: http://www.alternet.org/?IssueAreaID=17

DEAD END AMERICA

Knute Berger, AlterNet

America once welcomed the tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free; now we are accelerating the process of becoming the world's premier gated community.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11713

LIVING MY BELIEFS, FOR MY CHILDREN AND THE CHILDREN OF AFGHANISTAN

Elizabeth Sawin, AlterNet

Beyond sensing injustice, I can respond to the war by trying to live my own life in a way that is more true to my deepest beliefs.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11712

10/16/01
2:03:32 PM

Nader Blasts Bush's War At San Francisco Rally

By Jonathan Nack

SAN FRANCISCO - Former Green Party Presidential candidate Ralph Nader roundly criticized the Bush Administration's war on terrorism in a speech before an enthusiastic paying audience of approximately 2,500 at the San Francisco Masonic Center last night. Nader called for a democratic debate over the Administration's policies saying, "the mindless bombing of Afghanistan's infrastructure will not end well for Afghanistan and, I fear, it will not end well for us." We are entitled to ask what this war will cost: what it will cost Afghans, what it will cost our rights and democracy here, and what the huge shift of money into the military and corporate bailouts will cost our domestic programs?"

Nader called for, "sobriety in these moments of impetuousness, restraint, and to move forward under international law to apprehend the criminals." "This is an international crime and we've got to find ways to bring these criminals to justice."

Nader said that, "grief and mourning for the victims must eventually give way to honoring their memory," and quoted a statement by President George W. Bush that the terrorists, "hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom to assemble, our freedom of speech, and our freedom to disagree," in justifying the appropriateness of his own remarks.

Nader said that the best way to honor the memories of those lost on September 11th was to exercise and defend our democratic freedoms and to, "make sure our government doesn't slaughter the lives of hundreds of innocent people."

Nader charged that, "thought police in Washington dismiss all critical analysis a as justifying the terrorist attack," calling for a rejection of that notion while describing the terrorists' act as, "criminal butchery, a massacre more than an attack, and with no justification". He urged the audience to, "never allow Washington to tell you to shut up, get in line, and waive the flag." "Never let them take your flag away from you."

Nader urged the audience to think for themselves, to not inhibit what they have to say, and asked, "how many times have we been told that they were dropping bombs only on military targets?" Nader concluded that there was no such thing as limiting bombing to only military targets and that, "we are not going to be able to bomb our way to a solution of this problem."

Nader described the Administration's rationale for the bombing as "cheap propaganda, which is, "going to get more rancid and grim." "U.S. attacks on Afghanistan will spread more hatred of our country and our allies." He also worried that 7.5 million Afghans face starvation this winter, which he said was only four weeks away in Afghanistan, while the U.S. has dropped only "135,000 snacks."

Quoting approvingly Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's assertion that, "poverty, disease, and illiteracy are breeding grounds for tolerance of terrorism," Nader proposed a profound reorientation of U.S. foreign policy to support democratic forces and to, "side with the millions and millions of workers and peasants rather than with dictators and oligarches." He proposed a, "balanced approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," and an end to economic sanctions against Iraq which he said was taking the lives of 5,000 Iraqi children a month.

"You do not destabilize a dictator by destroying the lives of innocent children and adults," said Nader"

Nader also called for a renewed defense of civil liberties, opposition to unwarranted curtailment of them, and reform of intelligence agencies, including making them "leaner and more efficient" by reducing their bloated budgets and bureaucracies.

The focus of speech was a major departure from the usual agenda of the longtime consumer activist who usually sticks closely to themes concerning how corporations have gained too much power and are subverting democracy. Nader did draw a connection to those themes, noting that corporations are taking advantage of the tragedy of September 11 for their own greedy purposes. He pointed to corporate lobbying for government bailouts, even by industries in trouble long before the terrorist attacks, for the limiting of regulations, including the opening up of the Alaskan Arctic reserve, and opposing benefits for workers who are losing their jobs.

The event was billed as a "People Have the Power" rally in support of San Francisco ballot initiatives for a Municipal Utility District, which would create public control of power in response to California's failed electricity deregulation. Nader, and numerous speakers before him, called for volunteers for a grassroots campaign which could overwhelm the big money being spent by Pacific Gas & Electric to defeat the initiatives. However, Nader and other speakers clearly felt compelled to address the war. The event was also organized as part of a series of "super rallies" being held around the country by Nader's new Democracy Rising Campaign.

http://www.DemocracyRising.org

10/16/01
1:59:09 PM

Green Tags

Green tags are a kind of currency used in the energy trade to represent the environmental and social benefits -- the so-called "non-energy attributes" -- of renewable generation. (Note: Green tags are also sometimes called tradable renewable energy certificates or renewable energy credits.)

Green tags are not conceptual; they are already being bought and sold in the United States.

Green tags offer consumers, businesses and government offices a way to support forms of renewable generation that aren't provided by their local utility.

Green tags are priced in different ways by different sellers, depending on the types of renewable energy offered, but at present the cost for a 100 percent renewable package generally works out to between 1/5 to 1/3 of a residential customer's existing electric bill. (Wholesale prices paid by large businesses are sometimes considerably cheaper.) Green tag purchases are tax-deductible when purchased through the Bonneville Environment Foundation.

Green tags are not electricity and do not represent electricity generated from renewables. Rather, green tags represent added benefits and costs of renewable generation:

Why Are Green Tags Useful?

Green tags provide a way to buy and sell the environmental attributes of renewable generation separately from the electricity generated. This is useful because the availability of the electricity is constrained by the location of the generating facility. But since green tags are a currency, they can easily be traded over hundreds of miles. Think of wiring money: it is much easier to send currency across the country than to send large amounts of electricity. Green tags make it possible for anyone, anywhere to purchase the benefits of renewable energy.

Purchasing green tags doesn't affect the customer's relationship with his or her local utility at all -- the relationship between the customer and the green tag provider is a separate, new relationship.

When electricity has been separated from the environmental benefits or impacts of generation, it is called "commodity electricity" or "null electricity," in the parlance of the energy trade.

When renewably generated electricity is rendered "null" because the associated green tags have been sold off: 1.the electricity itself can be sold locally at the same rate as electricity generated from fossil fuels; and 2.the electricty itself can not be marketed as a premium renewable energy product, because the green tag customer has purchased and "owns" the environmental attirbutes. The concept of ownership is important because it prevents a finite amount of renewable generation from being marketed over and over to different customers, which prevents fraud and keeps intact the economic incentive to expand renewable generation.

How Do Green Tags Benefit the Environment?

When people hear about green tags, they want to know how green tags can be good for the environment if they don't change how the customer's electricity is generated. The scenario presented below shows how green tags are beneficial:

Bob does not buy green tags and lives near a wind farm. Jill buys green tags -- her local utility does not offer renewably generated electricity. She maintains two relationships: one with her utility and one with a separate company that deals in green tags. By purchasing green tags, Jill eliminates the price premium for a specific amount of renewable generation from the wind farm. This enables the wind power company to provide electricity to Bob -- without his knowledge -- via his local utility at the normal rate for electricity. Note that though there are two boxes for "electricity" in the figure, there is only one box for "environmental and social impacts," since Jill has eliminated Bob's impacts. Thus, Jill has achieved the same environmental benefit by cancelling Bob's impacts as if she were cancelling her own.

Note: This is a simplified illustration of how green tags work. In reality, Jill's green tags do not eliminate the impacts of generating electricity for one specific customer (Bob). Rather, the benefits of Jill's green tags are spread throughout the energy pool in the area where Bob lives. Furthermore, the renewable energy is not always generated far from the purchaser of the green tags; in some cases the renewable energy may be generated in the region where the green tag customer lives.

Green Tags are a Legitimate Economic Instrument

Nonprofit organizations and businesses are working to further improve the efficacy of green tags and to ensure they aren't used fraudulently.

One of the first green tag purchases was made by an EPA office in Seattle in 2000. To offset emissions from its Seattle-based regional headquarters, EPA purchased green tags associated with a wind energy project in Oregon. (Source: Solar Today and Bonneville Power Administration)

The purchaser of a green tag is the sole "owner" of the environmental attributes of a specific megawatt hour (MWh) added to the grid. Accounting mechanisms are in place to ensure that no two green tags represent the same MWh of energy.

According to the Center for Resource Solutions, some European countries are looking at the purchase of green tags associated with renewable energy projects in developing countries not only as a means of earning credits for carbon emissions reductions but also as a mechanism for delivering economic development aid.

According to the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, "buying green tags has the same effect as buying green power. Both replace fossil fuel generators with clean renewables, and both have exactly the same environmental benefits."

Source: http://ems.org/renewables/green_tags.html

10/16/01
1:53:20 PM

New Oxfam America Report Reveals Poverty, Health Problems Worse in Developing Countries Dependent on Oil And Mining Findings released as World Bank launches major review of extractive resource projects

Washington, D.C.--Developing countries that rely heavily on oil or mineral exports suffer higher rates of poverty and child mortality, and spend more on their militaries than similar countries with more diverse economies, according to a study released today by Oxfam America.

"Extractive Sectors and the Poor" comes on the eve of a new yearlong World Bank review of its oil, gas, and mining investments. The report contests the conventional economic wisdom that developing nations prosper by extracting and exporting their oil and mineral wealth.

"Oil and mining investments are highly profitable for the World Bank, but our research shows they do little to help the poor," said Keith Slack, policy advisor for Oxfam America. "This report should encourage the World Bank and other development institutions to re-think their approach to oil extraction and mining as poverty reduction tools."

Michael Ross, University of California, Los Angeles, professor and former Visiting Scholar at the World Bank, authored the study. The study reveals that oil- and mineral- dependent countries have significantly worse records on poverty indicators than states with similar levels of income but little or no oil and mineral wealth. For example:

The more that developing countries rely on exporting minerals, the worse their standard of living is likely to be, according to a United Nations measure that factors per capita income, health, and education; Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Kazakhstan showed marked declines in the 1990s.

Oil- and mineral- dependent developing countries have higher infant and child mortality rates, than other countries with similar income levels. In these cases, oil dependency is linked to malnutrition. Worldwide, an average of 26.5 children per thousand are malnourished. In oil-rich Nigeria, the rate is 37.7 per thousand, and in oil-rich Yemen it is 51.7, one of the highest rates in the world.

Developing countries that are dependent on oil and mineral wealth face a much higher danger of civil war than resource-poor nations in any given five-year period. They spend a far higher percentage of their budgets on their militaries, diverting funds from programs that directly address the needs of the poor.

"These findings are especially worrisome for countries like Chad and Kazakhstan, which are almost certain to become more oil dependent in the next decade, in part with encouragement and financing from the World Bank," Slack said.

Oxfam America recommends that international financial institutions such as the World Bank take a number of measures to address these problems, including:

Helping poor countries diversify their economies to make them less dependent on oil and mining;

Only supporting oil and mining projects in countries that are democratic and committed to using revenues for poverty reduction purposes;

Supporting the creation of mechanisms for transparent monitoring and controlling of revenues.

Recent protests against the World Bank have focused on that institution's support for large-scale oil and mining projects, which critics see as environmentally and socially destructive. As a result, the Bank will begin a review of its involvement in these sectors, consulting with industry representatives, governments, and nongovernmental organizations. The Bank launches the review in Brussels on Oct. 29.

"The Bank should begin its review by questioning whether these sectors really do contribute to sustainable poverty reduction," Slack said. "To find out, the Bank must speak to people in areas most directly affected by oil and mining projects."

Oxfam America is committed to searching for lasting solutions to hunger, poverty, and social injustice, and to educating the public worldwide on the realities of poverty and the need to establish a future that is equitable, environmentally sustainable, and respectful of the rights of all peoples.

The complete report can be found online.

Contact: Keith Slack or Andy Izquierdo, Oxfam America 202/496-1197

Prof. Michael Ross, UCLA 310/710-7115

Deborah Rephan, Fenton Communications 202/822-5200

http://www.oxfamamerica.org,

http://www.eireview.org

10/15/01
6:54:30 PM

UTNE WEB WATCH

The Best of the Alternative Web

UNILEVER'S MERCURY FEVER

by Nityanand Jayaraman, Corpwatch

-- Community leaders in Southern India uncover the truth about a multinational company's environmental record after a local thermometer subsidiary indiscriminately dumps toxic waste at a scrap yard and then lies about it.

THE OCEAN'S FUTURE SPIES

PlanetSave.com

-- It's no joke: A Norwegian scientist is putting remote-controlled backpacks on fish, rendering them "fishbots" capable of doing humankind's errands underwater.

THERAPY DOGS LIFT SPIRITS AT GROUND ZERO

by Cynthia Long, American Red Cross

-- People bringing therapy dogs to workers and survivors of the September 11th attacks are finding animals can reach people in a way counselors and therapists can't.

Links to the above articles: http://www.utne.com/webwatch

10/15/01
6:47:32 PM

Censorship Of News In Wartime Is Still Censorship

The US administration began hacking at the foundations of the first amendment while the dust was still settling on the ruins of the World Trade Centre, writes Veronica Forwood, chairwoman of the British branch of Reporters Sans Frontieres.

The threat of censorship is never greater than in wartime when governments exploit the pull of patriotism to suppress unwelcome news.

The notion that "coded messages" to terrorists in Osama Bin Laden's videos could be beamed into America by Arabic TV is the latest spectre raised by the US administration as it tussles for the high ground in the propaganda war.

One might think that experienced journalists and their hard-nosed bosses would be too streetwise to fall for that.

But no. In a bizarre and unprecedented move, the five major networks - CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox News Channel - have rolled over and acquiesced to the call for censorship from the US president's security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.

They agreed to stop airing broadcasts live and to suppress any that included calls to violence against Americans by Osama Bin Laden or his al-Qaida cohorts on Arab satellite channel al-Jazeera.

"We'll do whatever is our patriotric duty," said Australian-born US citizen Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News and News International.

In fact, a certain hacking at the foundations of the first amendment - which guarantees freedom of expression and opinion - was embarked on by the US administration while the dust was still settling on the ruins of the World Trade Centre.

And doubts soon surfaced about the capacity of the US media to hold steady and defend its objectivity and independence as the shock waves from the September 11 attacks still echoed.

In a report just released into the reaction of the US media to the attacks, press freedom watchdog Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) points out that several disquieting attempts at government censorship have already been made, both inside and outside the country and that self-censorship by the media was evident.

The clumsiest involved the US secretary of state Colin Powell's urging of the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa el-Thani, to bring al-Jazeera to heel and stop "encouraging anti-American feelings".

The Emir, the main shareholder in the Qatar-based station, refused.

Tony Blair has perhaps showed more savvy than Powell by giving interviews on the channel.

The US state department, which has a seat on the board of the Congress-financed Voice of America, tried to ban an interview on VoA with the spiritual leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar, scheduled for September 28.

The journalists protested - 150 of them signed a petition - and they were backed in their struggle by the Washington Post. The interview went ahead.

In incidents of corporate censorship two journalists have been sacked from American newspapers so far, one in Texas and one in Oregon, both for writing disparaging comments about George Bush's behaviour on September 11.

One said the president had "skedaddled" after the attacks and another portrayed him as "hiding in a hole in Nebraska".

Not flattering words to use about a president who should have been steadying his nation's nerves, but they constitute an argument that can be defended in a democracy.

The truth is that any censorship of the news is unacceptable and even more so now.

It is arrogant and hugely misguided to imagine that the jitters of a people, whose government has taken upon itself to go to war against a nebulous enemy, can be calmed by seeking to protect them from the truth, however terrifying that truth may be.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,574465,00.html

10/15/01
6:35:21 PM

The Biggest Secret

by David Icke

What they are doing is very, very dangerous

I'm a retired Special Forces Master Sergeant. That doesn't cut much for those who will only accept the opinions of former officers on military matters, since we enlisted swine are assumed to be incapable of grasping the nuances of doctrine.

But I wasn't just in the army, I studied and taught military science and doctrine. I was a tactics instructor at the Jungle Operations Training Center in Panama, and I taught Military Science at West Point. And contrary to the popular image of what Special Forces does, SF's mission is to teach. We offer advice and assistance to foreign forces. That's everything from teaching marksmanship to a private to instructing a Battalion staff on how to coordinate effective air operations with a sister service.

Based on that experience, and operations in eight designated conflict areas from Vietnam to Haiti, I have to say that the story we hear on the news and read in the newspapers is simply not believable. The most cursory glance at the verifiable facts, before, during, and after September 11th, does not support the official line or conform to the current actions of the United States government.

But the official line only works if they can get everyone to accept its underlying premises. I'm not at all surprised about the Republican and Democratic Parties repeating these premises. They are simply two factions within a single dominant political class, and both are financed by the same economic powerhouses. My biggest disappointment, as someone who identifies himself with the left, has been the tacit acceptance of those premises by others on the left, sometimes naively, and sometimes to score some morality points. Those premises are twofold. One, there is the premise that what this de facto administration is doing now is a "response" to September 11th. Two, there is the premise that this attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was done by people based in Afghanistan. In my opinion, neither of these is sound.

To put this in perspective we have to go back not to September 11th, but to last year or further.

A man of limited intelligence, George W. Bush, with nothing more than his name and the behind-the-scenes pressure of his powerful father-a former President, ex-director of Central Intelligence, and an oil man-is systematically constructed as a candidate, at tremendous cost. Across the country, subtle and not-so-subtle mechanisms are put into place to disfranchise a significant fraction of the Democrat's African-American voter base. This doesn't come out until Florida becomes a battleground for Electoral College votes, and the magnitude of the story has been suppressed by the corporate media to this day. In a decision so lacking in legitimacy, the Supreme Court will neither by-line the author of the decision nor allow the decision to ever be used as a precedent, Bush v. Gore awards the presidency of the United States to a man who loses the popular vote in Florida and loses the national popular vote by over 600,000.

This de facto regime then organizes a very interesting cabinet. The Vice President is an oil executive and the former Secretary of Defense. The National Security Advisor is a director on the board of a transnational oil corporation and a Russia scholar. The Secretary of State is a man with no diplomatic experience whatsoever, and the former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The other interesting appointment is Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld is the former CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals. He and Cheney were featured as speakers at the May, 2000, Russian-American Business Leaders Forum. So the consistent currents in this cabinet are petroleum, the former Soviet Union, and the military.

Based on the record of Daddy Bush, in all his guises, and the general trajectory of US foreign policy as far back as the Carter Administration, I feel I can reasonably conclude that Middle Eastern and South Asian fossil fuels are one of their major preoccupations. Not just because this klavern has some very direct financial interests in fossil fuel, but because they surely know that worldwide oil production is peaking as we speak, and will soon begin a permanent and precipitous decline that will completely change the character of civilization as we know it within 20 years. Even the left seems to be in deep denial about this, but the math is available. And, no, alternative energies and energy technologies will not save us. All the alternatives in the world can not begin to provide more than a tiny fraction of the energy base now provided by oil. This makes it more than a resource, and the drive to control what's left more than an economic competition.

I further conclude that the economic colonization of the former Soviet Union is probably high on that agenda, and in fact has a powerful synergy with the issue of petroleum. Russia not only holds vast untapped resources that beckon to imperialism in crisis, it remains a credible military and nuclear challenger in the region.

We have not one, but three members of the Bush de facto cabinet with military credentials, which makes the cabinet look quite a lot like a military General Staff. All this way before September 11th.

Then there's the subject of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO might have expected consignment to the dustbin of the Cold War after the Eastern Bloc shattered in 1991. Peace dividend and all that. But it didn't. It expanded directly into the former states of the Eastern Bloc toward the former Soviet Union, and contributed significant forces to the devastation of Iraq-a key country in the world oil market, over which control translates into the ability to manipulate oil prices.

NATO is a military formation, and the United States exerts the controlling interest in it. It seemed like a form without a function, but it remedied that pretty quickly.

Then when Yugoslavia refused to play ball with the International Monetary Fund, the US and Germany began a systematic campaign of destabilization there, even using some of the veterans of Afghanistan in that campaign. NATO became the military arm of that agenda-the break-up of Yugoslavia into compliant statelets, the further containment of the former Soviet Union, and the future pipeline easement for Caspain Sea oil to Western European markets through Kosovo.

You see, this is important to understand, and people-even those against the war talk-are tending to overlook the significance of it. NATO is not a guarantor of international law, and it is not a humanitarian organization. It is a military alliance with one very dominant partner. And it can no longer claim to be a defensive alliance against European socialists. It is an instrument of military aggression.

NATO is the organization that is now going to thrust further along the 40th parallel from the Balkans through the Southern Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union. The US military has already taken control of a base in Uzbekistan. No one is talking about how what we are doing seems to be a very logical extension of a strategy that was already in motion, and has been in motion for two decades. Once we recognize the pattern of activity designed to simultaneously consolidate control over Middle Eastern and South Asian oil, and contain and colonize the former Soviet Union, Afghanistan is exactly where they need to go to pursue that agenda.

Afghanistan borders Iran, India, and even China but, more importantly, the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. These border Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan borders Russia. Turkmenistan sits on the Southeastern quadrant of the Caspian Sea, whose oil the Bush Administration dearly covets. Afghanistan is necessary for two things: as a base of operations to begin the process of destabilizing, breaking off, and establishing control over the South Asian Republics, which will begin within the next 18-24 months in my opinion, and constructing a pipeline through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to deliver petroleum to the Asian market.

The BBC was recently told by Niaz Naik, a Pakistani Foreign Secretary, that senior American officials were warning them as early as mid-July that military action for mid-October was being planned for Afghanistan. In 1996, the Department of Energy was issuing reports on the desirability of a pipeline through Afghanistan, and in 1998, Unocal testified before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that this pipeline was crucial to transport Caspian Basin oil to the Indian Ocean.

Given this evidence that a military operation to secure at least a portion of Afghanistan has been on the table, possibly as early as five years ago, I can't help but conclude that the actions we are seeing put into motion now are part of a pre-September 11th agenda. I'm absolutely sure of that, in fact. The planning alone for operations, of this scale, that are now taking shape, would take many months. And we are seeing them take shape in mere weeks.

It defies common sense. This administration is lying about this whole thing being a "reaction" to September 11th. That leads me, in short order, to be very suspicious of their yet-to-be-provided evidence that someone in Afghanistan is responsible. It's just too damn convenient. Which also leads me to wonder-just for the sake of knowing-what actually did happen on September 11th, and who actually is responsible.

The so-called evidence is a farce. The US presented Tony Blair's puppet government with the evidence, and of the 70 so-called points of evidence, only nine even referred to the attacks on the World Trade Center, and those points were conjectural. This is a bullshit story from beginning to end. Presented with the available facts, any 16-year old with a liking for courtroom dramas could tear this story apart like a two-dollar shirt. But our corporate press regurgitates it uncritically. But then, as we should know by now, their role is to legitimize.

This cartoon heavy they've turned bin Laden into makes no sense, when you begin to appreciate the complexity and synchronicity of the attacks. As a former military person who's been involved in the development of countless operations orders over the years, I can tell you that this was a very sophisticated and costly enterprise that would have left what we call a huge "signature".

In other words, it would be very hard to effectively conceal.

So there's a real question about why there was no warning of this. That can be a question about the efficacy of the government's intelligence apparatus. That can be a question about various policies in the various agencies that had to be duped to orchestrate this action. And it can also be a question about whether or not there was foreknowledge of the event, and that foreknowledge is being covered up. To dismiss this concern out of hand as the rantings of conspiracy nuts is premature. And there is a history of this kind of thing being done by national political bosses, including the darling of liberals, Franklin Roosevelt. The evidence is very compelling that the Roosevelt Administration deliberately failed to act to stop Pearl Harbor in order to mobilize enough national anger to enter the World War II.

I have no idea why people aren't asking some very specific questions about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks. Follow along:

Four planes get hijacked and deviate from their flight plans, all the while on FAA radar. The planes are all hijacked between 7:45 and 8:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time.

Who is notified?

This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the President is not notified and going to a Florida elementary school to hear children read.

By around 8:15 AM, it should be very apparent that something is terribly wrong. The President is glad-handing teachers.

By 8:45, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the World Trade Center, Bush is settling in with children for his photo ops at Booker Elementary. Four planes have obviously been hijacked simultaneously, an event never before seen in history, and one has just dived into the worlds best know twin towers, and still no one notifies the nominal Commander in Chief.

No one has apparently scrambled any Air Force interceptors either.

At 9:03, United Flight 175 crashes into the remaining World Trade Center building. At 9:05, Andrew Card, the Presidential Chief of Staff whispers to George W. Bush. Bush "briefly turns somber" according to reporters.

Does he cancel the school visit and convene an emergency meeting? No.

He resumes listening to second graders read about a little girl's pet fucking goat, and continues this banality even as American Airlines Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point turn over Ohio and heads in the direction of Washington DC.

Has he instructed Chief of Staff Card to scramble the Air Force? No.

An excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a public statement telling the United States what they already have figured out; that there's been an attack by hijacked planes on the World Trade Center.

There's a hijacked plane bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air Force been scrambled to defend anything yet? No.

At 9:30, when he makes his announcement, American Flight 77 is still ten minutes from its target, the Pentagon.

The Administration will later claim they had no way of knowing that the Pentagon might be a target, and that they thought Flight 77 was headed to the White House, but the fact is that the plane has already flown South and past the White House no-fly zone, and is in fact tearing through the sky at over 400 nauts.

At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 degrees over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air Force in the sky over Alexandria and DC.

Now, the real kicker. A pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 nauts.

When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator.

This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on I-40 at rush hour by buying her a video driving game. It's horse shit!

There is a story being constructed about these events. My crystal ball is not working today, so I can't say why. But at the least, this so-called Commander-in-Chief and his staff that we are all supposed to follow blindly into some ill-defined war on terrorism is criminally negligent or unspeakably stupid. And at the worst, if more is known or was known, and there is an effort to conceal the facts, there is a criminal conspiracy going on.

Certainly, the Bush de facto administration was facing a confluence of crises from which they were temporarily rescued by this event. Whether they played a sinister role or not, there is little doubt that they have at the very least opportunistically pounced on this attack to overcome their lack of legitimacy, to shift the blame for the encroaching recession from capitalism to the September 11th terror attack, to legitimize their pre-existing foreign policy agenda, and to establish and consolidate repressive measures domestically and silence dissent. In many ways, September 11th pulled the Bush cookies out of the fire.

And given them the green light to begin constructing a long-term scenario within which to establish fascistic control measures at home and abroad as a citadel for the ruling class in the catastrophic conjuncture that we are entering based on the end of oil.

This elephant in the living room is being studiously ignored. In fact, the domestic repression