10/28/01
3:32:17 PM
An Overview
by Michael Rivero, WhatReallyHappened.com
I want to start out by responding to that tiny percentage of negative email I receive that accuses me of being anti American. I'm not. I think America is a great place, and the American people by and large are to be admired.
What I am against is any government that lies to its people. This includes the government of the United States, which, contrary to Bill Clinton's comments on the matter, is not the same thing as the country. The country is the people. The country is the land. The country is those who build, teach, heal, grow, manufacture, and along the way raise a family. The United States is not found in the marble buildings along the Potomac. The United States is found in the homes and hearts of 266 million Americans.
The government, its self delusions of grandeur aside, is nothing but a custodian, and a temporary one, hired by the people to care for our nation, and if that custodian fails in that job, like any menial, they should be replaced. Our nation did just that once before, in 1776, and it must be remembered that those who were called "Patriot" were those who stood with the people of the nation, not with the corrupted government.
There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the government, as custodian of the nation, to lie to the people. It's just not in there. And yet the government of the United States has been caught repeatedly lying to the people of the nation in recent years, lying about Vince Foster , TWA 800 , Waco , Martin Luther King , John F. Kennedy , The Oklahoma City Bombing , and others too numerous to mention. Suffice it to say that if the government of the United States finds itself with a credibility problem, it has only itself to blame.
When the government of the United States lies to the people, it acts illegally and un-Constitutionally and by the strict interpretation of that document ceases to be the legal government of the land. But let us set that aside for the moment and look at why the US Government lies to the people and what such lies have accomplished in the past. Only then can we understand why the reasoning citizen must have serious doubt we are being told the truth by the government in the present case.
Some of the biggest lies told by the government of the United States are those used to initiate a war. Modern pundits keep equating the attacks of 9/11 to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This is a slippery, indeed dangerous analogy, since it has been proven in recent years, by way of recently declassified documents, that FDR deliberately maneuvered Japan into the attack on Pearl Harbor and kept the Hawaii commanders from knowing of the attack so that there would be plenty of dead bodies with which to enrage Americans into support of a war that as of December 6th, 1941, nobody wanted. American boys, shouting "Remember Pearl Harbor", marched off to war. Many did not come back.
The Spanish/American war was likewise started with deception. The Hearst Newspapers flooded the land with stories of Spanish abuses of the Cuban people; stories which turned out to be fictional and which were published solely to fan the flames of a war, not for the benefit of the Cuban people, but to enlarge American territory and influence. When USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor, the Captain of that ship insisted that the explosion was not the result of any attack. But he was shouted down by the press, and American boys, shouting "Remember The Maine", marched off to war. Many did not come back. And all because of a lie. In 1975, a review of the evidence by admiral Hyman Rickover, the father of the modern nuclear Navy, concluded that there hadn't been any Spanish mine at all, just as the Maine's Captain had reported. The ships had suffered a fire in a coal bunker, detonating the ship's magazine, imprudently located nearby.
The same with the Gulf of Tonkin. Even as Johnson exhorted the American people to respond to the torpedo attack on the Maddox, Johnson knew there hadn't really been any torpedoes, not had the USS Maddox been as innocent as claimed. American boys again marched off to war. Many did not come back.
Following the Bay of Pigs, which was by any definition an invasion of a foreign nation, the US Joint Chiefs proposed staging fake terrorist attacks that would be blamed on Cuba, to build support for a second invasion.
Of course, there is nothing new about politicians using terror on their own citizens to get what they want. The trick goes back to Roman times, and even Hitler found it useful.
So, let's take a moment to push aside those flags being held in front of our eyes like blindfold and take a close look at the current situation.
The United States government, despite nice sounding speeches about freedom and Democracy, has a record of overthrowing actual working Democracies and supporting outright dictatorships. The US, for example, backed Cuban Dictator Batista, Panama's Noriega, Chile's Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, and the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, to name just a few. The US backed these regimes because the dictators were willing to do favors for American multi-national corporations. Batista, for example, kept the prices of Cuban agricultural products below the prevailing market rate. This made American companies like United Fruit and PepsiCo more profitable, at the expense of the Cuban farmers, who eventually revolted, bringing Castro to power. Castro let the market set the price of Cuban produce, whereupon the United States declared an embargo and invaded at the Bay of Pigs. Then we wonder why the Cuban people may not like us.
Another classic example of US foreign policy as it really is was South America. Chile had a working democracy under Allende. But US corporate interests saw a greater chance for profits if the Democracy were to be replaced by a dictator friendly to US interests. This led to the US backed coup, complete with torture squads trained by US experts. Henry Kissenger flat out stated that the United States had a right to intervene in any Democracy that voted contrary to American interests, adding, "The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."
Same deal in Iran. The US Government backed the Shah of Iran. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer (same as in the United States) and the people of Iran revolted, bringing the Ayatollah Khomeini to power. Iran was our friend, now it's our enemy.
The same with Iraq, once our friend, and now our enemy. Indeed, the United States keeps switching sides so often, with the American people expected to follow along like lemmings, that one is reminded of George Orwell's "1984" in which the perpetually warring nations are always changing allegiance, and the war weary people wake up one morning to be told, "East Asia is our friend. East Asia has always been our friend. Eurasia is the enemy, and always has been."
This brings us to Osama Bin Laden.
Osama is the modern equivalent of Orwell's "Emmanual Goldstien", the boogie man on whom the government blames everything. Even though careful observers have long known the United States economy was poised for a major decline, the media is spinning the current economic woes as a direct result of the attacks on the World Trade Towers, in the hopes that the general public will be stupid enough to believe it.
If Orwell is not to your taste, then let's try L. Frank Baum and the "Wizard Of Oz", who used a paper mache' mask to scare Dorothy Gale into doing war with the Wicked Witch of the West, something farm girls would not normally be wise to do. After all, witches have air superiority!
Likewise, Osama appears to be a manufactured monster, designed to scare us into doing things we otherwise would not so, including support a war, cease criticizing the government, and surrender our freedoms. Contrary to the public media image of Osama, he is not a lifelong religious fanatic. At the time the United States covert intervention in Afghanistan triggered the Soviet invasion , Osama, like the rest of his family, was living a westernized lifestyle. One of Osama's brothers was a business partner with the son of the then vice-president and former head of the CIA, George H. W. Bush. The CIA needed a front man in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviets, since Vietnam was too fresh a memory for the American people to tolerate another war, especially since the lid had just been blown off of the COINTELPRO scandal , revealing the criminal actions the FBI had engaged in to silence opposition to that war. So, trained and financed by the CIA, Osama quit being a westernized Saudi and seemingly overnight became a fanatical Muslim and financier/leader of the fight against the Soviets, waging an indirect war on behalf of the United States. Osama was a creation of the CIA and we only have the CIA's word that Osama isn't still in their employ. However, as another CIA asset, David Ferrie, pointed out just prior to his own assassination, you don't leave the agency. Once you are in, you are in for life!
Afghanistan is an interesting place. It has natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semi precious stones, and more opium than the Burmese Golden Triangle. It is also one of the most deadly places on Earth, having destroyed every invading army since the time of Alexander the Great!
Afghanistan also sits on the proposed route for an oil pipeline which would allow the vast oil reserves sitting under the Caspian Sea to be brought to market, and it is no secret that a consortium of American oil companies want to build that pipeline. However, as John J. Maresca, vice president of international relations, Unocal Corporation, flat out told Congress in 1998, the pipeline would not be built until the Taliban was removed as the government in Afghanistan, even though the United States had installed the Taliban as part of the anti-Soviet strategy.
When one considers the size of the Caspian oil fields, estimated at about 500 years' worth at present rates of consumption, one finds ample motive to start a war of conquest for that wealth. Compared to the trillions of dollars in oil profits which will flow from that pipeline stretching across Afghanistan, the cost of new World Trade Towers and a few thousand lives is a small price to pay to those who lust for wealth beyond dreams of avarice.
Long before the attacks on the World Trade Towers, the United States was already announcing that there would be a war. While the American people were kept distracted by "All Condit All The Time" in the American press, the foreign press was reporting as early as March 2001 that the United States was planning to invade Afghanistan in October. and here it is, October. and here the United States is invading. and just like with FDR, a provocation occurred just when the government of the United States most needed one to anger the people into support of a war for oil.
No sooner had the planes crashed into the World Trade Towers than the media was reporting official statements of suspicion that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks. The FBI issued names of suspected hijackers, none of which appeared on the actual passenger lists, and all based on what the FBI admits were forged IDs using stolen identities. Moreover, the men used those stolen identities the night before the attacks to visit strip bars, making so much noise that they would have to be noticed, ensuring that the credit card slips using the stolen names would be turned over to police. When Flight Attendant Madeline Sweeney phoned the ground from her hijacked plane, she gave the seat numbers of the hijackers. The passengers assigned to those seats do not appear on the FBI's list of suspects. Then there was that suitcase, appearing out of nowhere and assumed to have been left off of one of the crashed planes by accident, containing a flight manual, a Koran, and a handwritten letter which any scholar of Islam would recognize was written by someone ignorant of the religion.
In short, the evidence that purports to link the attacks on the World Trade Towers with Osama appears to be planted, with the scene of the crime looking like the set of a cheap detective movie, with a vital clue always carefully positioned within camera view.
Because of the phony IDs, we do not really know who was on those airplanes, or whom they worked for.
But it is very obvious whom we are all supposed to blame; the people sitting on that oil pipeline right of way! So great is the rush to war in Afghanistan that Osama has himself almost become secondary in the media campaign to sell us all on hatred of the Afghani people. Indeed it isn't Osama who terrorizes Americans, it is the American media, waving fear all over the place. Yes, Anthrax is nasty, but would a real Anthrax attack harm so few people? More people have been gunned down in Washington DC in the last 6 weeks than have died by Anthrax. More people are sick with Dengue fever on Maui than are sick with Anthrax. Yet Anthrax, and the fear it is designed to cause, get the headlines, to keep the public scared, so scared that they cannot think.
Because once the people stop being terrorized by the media and start to think, they'll realize that it makes no more moral sense to bomb the Afghani people over what crimes Osama has done than it makes to bomb people of Chicago over the crimes the Mafia does. And once the American people realize this, they'll start to wonder what the real reason for bombing the Afghani people might be. The they'll start paying attention to John J. Maresca's comments before congress about that oil pipeline. Then the American people will notice those foreign news articles that announced the US invasion of Afghanistan last spring. Then the American people will realize that the timing of the attacks on the World Trade Towers is just a little too convenient to the already scheduled invasion.
And that is when the American people will realize that, once again, they are being lied to swindle them out of their support for a war, a war not fought for moral principle but for profit, profit from oil paid for in the blood of our children.
Source: http://whatreallyhappened.com/overview.html
10/28/01
3:23:35 PM
India Joins Anti-Taliban Coalition
By Rahul Bedi, 15 March 2001
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.
Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries' collaborative effort.
The 13 February fall of Bamiyan, after several days of heavy fighting, threatened to cut off the only land route from Kabul to Taliban troops in northern Afghanistan. However, media reports indicate that Taliban forces recaptured the town on 17 February.
India is believed to have supplied the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, with high-altitude warfare equipment. Indian defence advisors, including air force helicopter technicians, are reportedly providing tactical advice in operations against the Taliban.
Twenty-five Indian army doctors and male nurses are also believed to be treating Northern Alliance troops at a 20-bed hospital at Farkhor, close to the Afghan-Tajik border. The Statesman newspaper quoting Indian officials said the medical contingent is being financed from Delhi.
Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban.
Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. Oleg Chervov, deputy head of Russia's security council, recently described Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a base of international terrorism attempting to expand into Central Asia. Radical Islamic groups are also trying to increase their influence across Pakistan, he said at a meeting of Indian and Russian security officials in Moscow. "All this dictates a pressing need for close co-operation between Russia and India in opposing terrorism," he said.
Military sources indicated that Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are being used as bases to launch anti-Taliban operations by India and Russia. They also hinted at the presence of a small Russian force actively assisting Massoud in the Panjsher Valley. "The situation in Afghanistan cannot be ignored as it impinges directly on the 12-year old Kashmir insurgency," an Indian military official said, adding that the Northern Alliance's elimination by the Taliban would be "disastrous" for India.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml
10/28/01
3:16:00 PM
India In Anti-Taliban Military Plan
India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban. By Our Correspondent
26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime.
The Taliban controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward along the Salang highway and preparing for a rear attack on the opposition Northern Alliance from Tajikistan-Afghanistan border positions.
Indian foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of the second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in Moscow amidst increase of Taliban's military activity near the Tajikistan border. And, Russia's Federal Security Bureau (the former KGB) chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this week in connection with Taliban's military build-up.
Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.
Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban-controlled areas. The UN which adopted various means in the last four years to resolve the Afghan problem is now being suspected by the Taliban and refused entry into Taliban areas of the war-ravaged nation through a decree issued by Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month.
Diplomats say that the anti-Taliban move followed a meeting between US Secretary of State Collin Powel and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and later between Powell and Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh in Washington. Russia, Iran and India have also held a series of discussions and more diplomatic activity is expected.
The Northern Alliance led by ousted Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani and his military commander Ahmed Shah Masood have mustered Western support during a May 2001 visit to Dusseldorf, Germany.
The Taliban is using high-intensity rockets and Soviet-made tanks to attack Northern Alliance fighters in the Hindukush range with alleged Pakistani aid. But Northern Alliance fighters have acquired anti-tank missiles from a third country that was used in the fight near Bagram Air Base in early June. The Taliban lost 20 fighters and fled under intense attack.
Officials say that the Northern Alliance requires a "clean up" operation to reduce Taliban's war-fighting machinery to launch an attack against the Taliban advance to the Tajik-Afghan border. This "clean up" action is being planned by the US and Russia since the Taliban shows no "sign of reconciliation".
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will lead the ground attack with a strong military back up of the US and Russia. Vital Taliban installations and military assets will be targeted. India and Iran will provide logistic support. Russian President Vladimir Putin has already hinted of military action against the Taliban to CIS nation heads during a meeting in Moscow in early June.
India and Iran have been assisting the Northern Alliance and the Afghan people under their humanitarian programme since Taliban's ouster of the Rabbani government in 1996. The US needs Russian assistance because of Soviet knowledge of the Afghan terrain. The former Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan in 1979 and withdrew in 1989.
Masood's strategic stronghold of Panjsher valley has been threatened by the advancing Taliban militia for the last three months. The Northern Alliance has stepped up its attack on Taliban troops who have brought the valley within artillery fire range.
Military planners say that if Taliban were not given a blow now it would slowly make inroads into the Panjsher valley. The fall of Panjsher will enable Taliban to control the remaining 10 per cent of Afghanistan in possession of the Northern Alliance.
Russia says it has evidence that the Taliban aims to create "liberated zones" all across Central Asia and Russia and links its Chechnya problem to the rise of Taliban fundamentalism. The US is directly hit by the anti-US thrust of Islamic groups who use Afghanistan as their base for terrorism and is demanding extradition of Osama Bin Laden to face trial in the embassy bombing case.
Such Central Asian countries as Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are threatened by the Taliban that is aiming to control their vast oil, gas and other resources by bringing Islamic fundamentalists into power. Now all the CIS nations are seeking assistance of Russia's Federal Border Guard Service to overcome the Taliban threat.
General Konstantin Trotsky, director of the border force, said in a newspaper interview, "We are watching the opposition of the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in Afghanistan very closely."
For its part, Shia Iran is reluctant to tolerate a Sunni militia regime on its border that gives Pakistan, a Sunni country and a sponsor of the Taliban, a "strategic sway" on considerable parts of the Iranian border. Iran is also affected by a Taliban-sponsored movement in Ispahan province where Sunnis have a sizable population.
Iran is also worried over the unending war effort of the Taliban to get supremacy in Afghanistan that is harming Iran's economic interests. India, Iran and Russia, for example, are working on a broad plan to supply oil and gas to south Asia and southeast Asian nations through India but instability in Afghanistan is posing a great threat to this effort.
Similarly, India is apprehensive about the increasing infiltration of Afghan-trained foreign mercenaries into Kashmir. Security agencies have reported that as many as 15,000 hardcore militants have received training in such places in Afghanistan as Khost, Jalalabad, Kabul and Kandahar since 1995. There are 55 terrorist training camps located in Afghanistan that are funded and aided by Islamic fundamentalists to carry out attacks against non-Islamic nations.
The UN had sent a 12-member delegation to India in the first week of May to assess the feasibility of tough economic sanctions against Taliban. The same delegation met General Pervez Musharraf to convince him about the importance of Pakistani cooperation. The UN believes that the sanctions can be only as tough as Pakistan desires.
India's official position is for a "peaceful and lasting solution" to the Afghan problem. But it strongly advocates strict economic sanctions against Taliban and is also not averse to a "limited military action" to weaken it.
India plans to raise the Afghanistan issue in the forthcoming G-8 summit in Geneva in mid-July.
http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10∓ctg=policy
10/28/01
3:11:38 PM
United States 'Planned Attack On Taleban'
The wider objective was to oust the Taleban
by George Arney, BBC
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.
He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.
And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
10/28/01
3:02:00 PM
Beware Of Sunshine Patriots
by Steve Kubby
Patriotism is suddenly in fashion across American. Flag-waving has become so popular that the Chinese are actually working overtime to manufacture enough American flags to meet demand. Everywhere, citizens are demonstrating their patriotic support for their country and their President. Across our great nation, there is new pride in America and a new sense of community. There's just one problem – in our rush to defend America, our most basic liberties are under attack as never before.
Back in 1778, Thomas Paine warned Americans about false patriots who wave the flag on sunny days, but fail to uphold liberty in stormy weather: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."
Americans want those responsible for the WTC tragedy caught and punished. However, that doesn't mean that Americans must lose any of their Constitutional rights. To the contrary, any infringement on the Bill of Rights not only violates America's heritage of freedom, it violates the Constitution and dishonors the brave American patriots who sacrificed their lives for our freedom.
Waving the flag and singing patriotic songs may help unite us as a nation, but let's not forget that America's Constitution and Bill of Rights must always come first. As Thomas Jefferson so wisely advised his fellow Americans: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences."
The real tragedy of September 11th is that the public's fear of terrorism is being used to fraudulently barter away rights that are supposed to be guaranteed, without exceptions, to all Americans. Cowed by public hysteria, Congress has turned its back on the Constitution and passed anti-terrorism bills (H.R. 2975 and S. 1510) that authorize completely unconstitutional activities such as the "delayed notice" provision, Section 213, allowing the government to conduct covert searches. This means that law enforcement agencies can enter a person's home or office, search through the person's possessions, in some cases seize physical objects or electronic information, without the person knowing that law enforcement agents were there.
America, once admired for its freedom and democratic ideals, suddenly finds itself in a secret war, with secret courts, sealed warrants and secret searches. Like deer caught in the headlights, we are too paralyzed by fear and denial to take proper evasive actions. Waving flags and promoting false patriotism, this new and highly secretive oligarchy is shamelessly using our fear of terrorism to suspend our rights and the media's access to the truth. Even the Freedom of Information Act is under attack with Attorney General John Ashcroft issuing a new statement of policy that encourages federal agencies to "resist Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, whenever they have legal grounds to do so."
Speaking of summer soldiers and sunshine patriots, how is it that the Congress abrogated its responsibility to exert checks and balances on this power grab by the Bush Administration?
The Congressional oath is to uphold the Constitution, and the rights guaranteed by that document, against all enemies foreign and domestic. There is nothing there about selling out our Constitutional rights because of a war or "national security." No, each member of Congress took an oath to defend our rights. Now Congress has betrayed its oath, sold out our rights, and is guilty of aiding and abetting a slow-motion coup d'etat.
Showing solidarity with the President may seem patriotic, but no one has the right to barter away our inalienable rights, especially the Congress, since their oath requires them to defend the Constitution and the rights it guarantees. Yes it's terrible that 5,000 innocent people were so brutally slaughtered on 9/11, but we must remember that hundreds of thousands of brave American patriots also paid the ultimate price to preserve our heritage of freedom.
Patriotism is more than waving a flag or supporting the government. Real patriotism demands an unwavering commitment to upholding and defending all of our rights, regardless of any argument of necessity or "national security."
Steve Kubby was 1998 Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of California.
Source: http://www.AntiWar.com
10/27/01
2:48:04 PM
Pakistani Held In Attack Probe Dies In Unites States Jail
by Christine Gardner
NEWARK, N.J. (Reuters) - A Pakistani man detained on immigration charges in the U.S. probe of last month's plane attacks died in his jail cell in New Jersey apparently of a heart condition, officials said on Wednesday.
Muhammed Butt, 55, was found lying on his back on his bed early on Tuesday in his cell at the Hudson County jail in Kearny, New Jersey, officials said.
Terrence Hull, a first assistant prosecutor in Hudson County, said Butt's death ``was related to a heart condition.''
An official also said between Oct. 1 and Oct. 6, the man was treated with an antibiotic after he complained of gum pain and showed signs of gingivitis.
Although officials initially administered a nasal swab on the body to test for anthrax, a test for the potential germ warfare bacteria would not be part of toxicological examinations, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey state medical examiner said. The result of the swab test was negative.
``There is no anthrax involved,'' said Emily Hornaday, spokeswoman for the New Jersey division of criminal justice, which oversees the medical examiner's office. ``He died of natural causes.''
Anthrax has killed at least three people in the United States this month and the government fears its spread may be the work of Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network, which it blames for the Sept. 11 plane attacks.
Newark, New Jersey, FBI (news - web sites) spokeswoman Sandra Carroll said Butt was questioned by the agency on being detained on Sept. 19 for an immigration violation after the hijack attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania that killed more than 5,000 people. She said Butt had lived in the New York borough of Queens and the FBI knew of no local family or his occupation.
Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman Kerry Gill said Butt's visa had expired and an immigration judge issued a deportation order for him. In the nation's largest ever probe, Butt was one of 165 people detained on immigration charges across the United States after the attacks, Gill said.
Butt was awaiting travel documents to return to Pakistan when he died, Gill added.
The Pakistani was found lying on his bed after his cellmate called for help, Hull said, adding the inmate was not a suspect in the death.
10/27/01
2:25:04 PM
"You Are Either With Us Or You Are With The Terrorists."
by Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler
With that post-September 11th statement, George W. Bush sought to suppress debate in our nation. And yet I, for one, am not with the President, his war, or mindless patriotism, and -- hear me well -- I am not with the terrorists!
I have spoken out for peace, and against the war efforts and U.S. foreign policy that helped bring these events upon us. Since then, I have received dozens of hate calls and some death threats. But I choose not to be silenced because a true democracy needs voices that test and challenge.
Democracy is not tested or proven in times of ease; it is tested and proven in times of crisis. Judging from the irate and threatening calls I have received, democracy in the United States is failing the test!
Let me address what I perceive as quite divergent worldviews from within white mainstream America and that of black Americans. I have preached in numerous black churches since the events of September 11th, saying that the Christian faith calls for us to seek alternative and less violent ways to solve crises. I have emphasized the basic Christian message, calling for us to "love your enemies, and do good to those who hate you," "blessed are the peacemakers," and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Black audiences have reacted with enthusiasm, while mainstream white audiences with great hostility. And I must ask: why?
Could it be because blacks are more familiar with the historical dirty deeds of the United States at home and abroad? We know about Cointelpro, U.S. involvement in the assassinations of Patrice Lumumba and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to name two. We have seen U.S. foreign policy favor colonial and neo-colonial powers.
Blacks know what it is to be insecure. We know too well cross burnings and church burnings. We know racial profiling and have never lived with the same degree of safety and well being most white Americans take for granted. Now, in this current crisis, our insecurity is largely unchanged.
Black Americans have reason to believe their government does abroad just as it has done at home -- many of its actions are neither fair, just, nor righteous.
I in no way wish to justify the crimes of September the 11th. But to give some perspective I point to U.S. support of anti-democratic and even fascist regimes around the world. The U.S. never addresses the genuine and legitimate grievances of poor and oppressed peoples in the world unless those grievances fit into the selfish political schemes of American capitalism.
And, yet for everything we do there is an impact, and a consequence. When American-manufactured arms oppress Palestinians, we help create a physical and mental environment where extremism can be born. When we prop up shahs in Iran, we help to create extremism. When we bomb poor civilians in Iraq, we help create a context for extremism. When the so-called "first world" treats the rest of the world as vassal states, we help create a context for extremism.
To make Americans feel safe and secure, the U.S. must address the grievances of the world's struggling, poor and oppressed populations. When we fail to do that, extreme and charismatic voices find fertile ground to organize.
The culprits of the crimes committed on September 11th should be prosecuted and brought to justice. But the U.S. must bring forth evidence before an international tribunal, and lawfully present its case.
What happened at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon is a crime, but it should not have been a cry for war. War only leads to war. Violence contributes to more violence. If our objective is to make people safe and secure, we need to pursue means that will bring safety and security. I believe that can only come through peaceful solutions developed in sane and reasoned ways.
Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler is Senior Pastor at the Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, D.C.
Source: http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/10/25/index.html
10/27/01
2:17:36 PM
BUD GALLAGHER'S NIGHTMARE The Threat of Biological Terrorism
by Ted Gup
Bud Gallagher was not a man to scare easily. He had been a prisoner of the Gestapo. He had flown through the mushroom clouds of a dozen nuclear and thermonuclear tests as a human guinea pig, collecting data on how much radiation the human body -- his body -- could absorb. Later, he became one of those shadowy figures paid to think about what the rest of us wistfully call "the unthinkable." It was Bud Gallagher who, for twenty-seven years, managed Mount Weather, the once Top Secret mountain redoubt where the president and his cabinet were to go in the event of nuclear war. When I last saw him he was facing his own imminent death with characteristic grace.
Only one thing kept Bud Gallagher awake at night. That was the specter of a biological attack. Coming from him it was hardly an idle fear. He was once the Air Force’s chief expert on defending against chemical and biological assaults. He literally wrote the Air Force’s bible on the subject, Manual 355-1. Last year he shared with me his nightmare vision. It contradicted much of what the U.S. government had told the public about its preparedness to deal with biological terrorism, the likelihood of its occurrence, and the so-called sophistication needed by those who would launch such an attack.
Bud was a man who knew only candor and there was little in what he had to say that offered comfort. "Biologicals are the answer," he said soberly. The question: where are we most vulnerable? Indeed he presented a case study in how government had implicitly chosen a policy of hollow assurances over the more unsettling options associated with readiness. Gallagher believed the only way to face a threat was head on.
For years he scoffed at the idea that terrorists lacked the capacity to effectively disseminate a lethal biological agent. He backed up his concerns with experiments he supervised from the Pentagon that were carried out undetected in the midst of ordinary American life. What he called "the scariest of all" such tests was conducted in the heart of Manhattan. He had someone on his staff fill a three hundred watt light bulb with an anthrax simulant, a harmless agent whose dissemination could be tracked. The bulb was sealed. It was carried onto the New York subway system at 42nd Street, hidden in a brown paper bag. A military officer in civilian clothes then casually walked between cars and let it drop onto the tracks below. "Within twenty-four hours it had saturated the entire New York subway system," remembered Gallagher. "Trains going both ways swept it up."
That experiment was conducted more than thirty years ago.
There are those in government who still argue that to speak of such things is to give terrorists ideas, as if recent events were not evidence enough of their inventiveness. Bud Gallagher understood only too well how little imagination or resources were needed to wage bacteriological warfare – not to mention the disabling panic that would ensue.
"On the Gulf coast off Biloxi," he recalled, "we set up a row boat with an outboard motor and a generator that spewed out biological agents. Of course they were benign. It was an anthrax simulant and they cruised up and down off Biloxi and Gulfport with this smoke pouring out of what appeared to be a messed up outboard motor."
Within hours the entire coastal region was contaminated. The results of these and other experiments were never shared with the public. They were part of the firewall of secrecy that allowed Americans to blithely go about their business, and dismiss those who fretted about such matters as Hennypennies.
But for four decades Gallagher worried about U.S. vulnerability and why it was that nothing more was done to shore up our defenses or to prepare for such an attack. Even Gallagher’s own facility, Mount Weather, where the president, the cabinet and Supreme Court were to go in the event of a catastrophic attack, was not impervious to such an assault. The installation boasted a massive steel door that weighed some twenty-nine tons and was designed to withstand a near-direct nuclear hit.
But, said Gallagher, its air filters may not have been able to keep out the unseen perils of biological agents. Bud envisioned terrorists positioned at the west side of nearby Route 601 with two simple portable biological generators spreading contagion across his mountain, trusting to the winds to carry their deadly agents eastward. The vast bunker inside would have been turned into a mass grave.
He also spoke of bioterrorism directed against America’s capacity to feed itself. He was convinced that a widespread wheat failure thirty years earlier was the result of a Soviet submarine off shore spewing forth a disease known as stem rust of wheat. On a map, he traced the crop failure across the northwestern United States and into the provinces of Canada. He had no hard evidence to back up his suspicions and they were not shared by others. "You will never convince me it was an accident," he said. "If there was a study, they covered it up."
In Bud’s world, and that of other doomsday planners, it was often a thin line between paranoia and prescience. They walked that line so the rest of us wouldn’t have to.
On August 22, 2000, three days after our last meeting, Bud Gallagher died of emphysema. He was 78 and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery. His nightmare outlived him.
Ted Gup is professor of journalism at Case Western Reserve University and is the author of The Book of Honor: Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives.
Source: http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/25/1.html
10/27/01
2:13:49 PM
New at TomPaine.com
BUD GALLAGHER'S NIGHTMARE
The Threat of Biological Terrorism
by Ted Gup
Do you think the government has the threat of biological terror under control? You're wrong.
http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/25/1.html
A WORLDVIEW ON PEACE AND RESTRAINT
by Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler
To make Americans feel safe and secure, the U.S. must address the grievances of the world's struggling, poor and oppressed populations. When we fail to do that, extreme and charismatic voices find fertile ground to organize.
AUDIO and TEXT produced by Sharon Basco
http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/10/25/index.html
The Loyal Opposition
WAR WITHOUT SACRIFICE
Can Average Citizens Participate in the War on Terrorism?
by David Corn
Congress is going about business as usual -- passing tax cuts for the wealthy -- and Bush is calling on patriotic Americans to do the same -- by shopping at the mall and watching TV news. Whither heroism in the war on terrorism?
http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/10/26/index.html
HEED NOT THE CALLS OF THE CONSUMERS-IN-CHIEF
by Betsy Taylor
On 9/11, in one stunning instant, our priorities snapped into focus. Now our leaders are urging us to buy something, anything, to aid the economic recovery. Is this a step towards security -- or just more debt?
AUDIO and TEXT produced by Sharon Basco
http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/10/24/1.html
THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNEW IT
by M. W. Guzy
"When survival itself is called into question, priorities tend to get reorganized."
AUDIO and TEXT produced by Sharon Basco
http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/10/24/index.html
The Fast-Track Assault on Democracy
http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/24/index.html
10/27/01
2:09:52 PM
Sabotage At Three Mile Island?
Investigators Suspected Sabotage At Three Mile Island
There is evidence to suggest that sabotage played a role in the "accident" at Three Mile Island. (This publication details only the evidence that has been documented by official government or NRC investigations.) Several days before the emergency, an unannounced NRC inspection of the plant's physical protection discovered access control infractions. Previous announced inspections found TMI to be in compliance with regulations. At the time of the accident, Three Mile Island was not required to enforce the then new "two-man rule." The two-man rule was designed to prevent a worker from being alone in vital areas. Additionally, TMI had not met the deadline for other newly required security upgrades.
In the first moments of the accident, emergency feedwater was prevented from entering the system because the "emergency feedwater valves" were closed. Indicator lights on a control room panel should have alerted the operators that these valves were closed. The two lights were hidden from view by a maintenance tag that was covering them. The valves are supposed to stay open so that emergency pumps can deliver water to the steam generators if the normal circulation is interrupted. The steam generators remove enormous amounts of heat from the reactor. Without feedwater, the steam generators boiled dry within two minutes. The temperature and pressure soared inside the reactor vessel.
The licensee's internal investigation did not consider intentional closure. The NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement reasoned that it would take a monumental effort to interview each of the more than 750 people who had access to the emergency feedwater valves. The NRC claimed its investigators from the Office of Inspection and Enforcement were sensitive to any evidence of sabotage. But there is some disturbing and eye-opening evidence that wasn't criminally investigated. In fact, the NRC never even discovered the initiating event.
THE INITIAL PROBLEM
The accident started at exactly 4:00:37am on March 28, 1979. This was precisely to the minute of the one year anniversary of start-up or what is known as criticality. This aroused suspicions of worker celebrations involving drinking. The workers testified that they had their normal coffee and doughnuts only.
The trouble started somewhere in the condensate polisher system. Some unknown event caused the polisher outlet valves to close. There are several ways that a saboteur could have made this happen without being detected by plant telemetry or subsequent investigations.
The NRC Office of Investigation and Enforcement hypothesized that the initial failure was a result of a stuck-open check valve allowing water to pass into an instrument control air line and thereby cause the condensate polisher outlet valves to close. The investigators tried to duplicate this condition to test their theory. Despite pouring 15 gallons of water into this line, they could not cause the valves to shut. But, this remained the best guess as to what the first failure might have been. Because the NRC believed that the accident could have been averted at several points if human errors weren't committed, they were satisfied with not knowing the initiating event. Still, the investigators did conclude, "The problems encountered with the condensate system and condenser vacuum significantly detracted the operator's attention from the accident."
Then in the first seconds of the accident, a condensate polisher pump failure was followed by the immediate shutdown of its paired pump. The NRC investigators reported that a "wiring error" caused this second pump to quit when the first one had. A criminal investigator never assumes that an error is "only an error."
A broken air line in the condensate polisher system was ignored by NRC investigators who believed that air was prevented from leaking out by the actuation of another automatic valve. But, at least one worker testified that he had heard the broken line blowing air during the emergency. The licensee claimed that the air line was broken by a water hammer which caused equipment to shift two or three feet. (A water hammer is a sudden pressure change or a slug of water like the one that can rattle your household pipes when turning off a water faucet.) The NRC investigators reported that based on their visual inspection, the air line movement was not as great as the licensee claimed. The cause was never determined or considered necessary.
An hour into the accident, workers needed to re-establish water circulation by opening a bypass valve. The handwheel was missing from this important valve. A search for the handwheel delayed bypassing the condensate polisher system where the failed pumps were located.
The radiological releases began when a safety valve on top of the reactor failed to close. This valve opened to relieve the rapidly increasing pressure. Control room operators did not know that the Pilot Operated Relief Valve (PORV) was still open because the telemetry system was improperly engineered. The operators were fooled by a panel light which only indicated that an electrical signal had been sent to close the valve and not its actual status. Thousands of gallons of water in the form of steam spilled out of the reactor in what is known as a loss of coolant accident. For a short while the contamination was contained inside the reactor building. Although these valves had failed before at other plants, the PORV at Three Mile Island has yet to be inspected. A TMI engineer who believes that the valve simply failed said that sabotage could not be dismissed.
(Eighteen months before the TMI accident, the reactor at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio started going out of control in what was actually a precursor to the Three Mile Island emergency. The PORV stuck open and operators struggled to understand the situation. Another design problem caused confusion about the water level inside the reactor. This problem reoccurred at TMI since both reactors were designed by Babcock & Wilcox. Davis-Besse was operating at only 9 percent compared to 97 percent at TMI when the troubles began. The Davis-Besse operators were able to return the plant to a safe condition. Afterwards, an investigation of the reactor revealed that an electrical relay had been removed from the PORV. Someone suggested sabotage. The reactor manufacturer finally decided that the relay was probably "borrowed" for usage in another part of the plant since it was compatible with several systems.)
The highly radioactive water steaming out of the TMI reactor would normally be pumped into an immense holding tank inside the reactor building. For some unknown reason the valve for this sump pump had been switched so that the contaminated water was transferred into the auxiliary building. >From here the radioactivity was released to the environs through open vents.
INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION
In June 1979, an NRC special review group conceded that the NRC investigators of the TMI accident had "no training in investigative techniques or knowledge of the laws of evidence or criminal procedures." The NRC investigators did not have the authority to administer oaths and felt that the quality of the information they had obtained would have been enhanced if oaths were given. The NRC actually did have the authority to administer oaths and didn't appear to know this until after the interviews were conducted.
The report also said:
".... a trained investigator should have been dispatched with the initial response team to organize and retain portions of the supportive evidence (notes, logs, etc.) which were lost during the initial days of the accident."
Additionally, the review group found that the NRC investigation was hindered by the delay of receiving transcripts of worker interviews
(Also noteworthy is that the control room alarm printer fell behind by almost two hours. The printer was designed to store alarms in its memory until they can be printed. So many alarms were going off in the early stages of the emergency that the control room operators had to dump the stored alarms to get to the current ones. The information was forever lost.)
A technical investigator for the President's Commission on the accident questioned the adequacy and efforts of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigators had not even arrived at the plant until two weeks had passed. He also questioned the licensee's internal investigation.
The President's Commission obtained an internal TMI memo which had been written ten months before the accident. It said, "It's time to really do something on this problem before a very serious accident occurs. If the polishers take themselves off line at any high power level the resulting damage could be very significant."
The Chief Counsel for the President's Commission requested the licensee to examine its personnel files for "any person who might have long-standing grievances against the company." This was requested specifically as an attempt to discover workers who might have had incentive to close the emergency feedwater valves. Interrogation of the five workers who were identified by the company was considered.
On August 7, 1979 the President's Commission requested the FBI to determine the feasibility of an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the closed valves. The President's Commission had the authority to ask for assistance from any Executive agency and by vote had decided that the FBI was needed. But, the FBI went right back to the NRC which informed them that human errors and equipment failures were to blame for the accident; therefore, an investigation was not necessary.
An encrypted telegram sent by the FBI to the White House Situation Room around April 6, 1979 informed the President that sabotage was not responsible for the accident according to the NRC's Harold Denton. There was no reasonable way for Denton to have drawn this conclusion. The telegram which is now in the National Archives is labeled "encrypted for transmission purposes only." Portions of it are blacked-out even though it has been unclassified.
On August 15, 1979 the President's Commission asked NASA to perform an inspection of the condensate polisher system. Three Mile Island did not even have the "as built" technical drawings needed for a proper inspection. How could the NRC inspectors have done a thorough job without these? The fact was that they didn't. Investigators from NASA's Office of Flight Assurance found wires that were disconnected at five of the eight polisher panels. Operating and engineering personnel didn't know when or why they were disconnected. They also noted that an instrument air valve on the back of the polishing system control panel permits the air to be shut off and thus cause the outlet valves to close. Paul Leventhal, co-director of the US Senate investigation of the Three Mile Island accident (now director of The Nuclear Control Institute), wanted to perform a special sabotage investigation. "The initiating event was always so mysterious in that so little was known about it," Leventhal divulged in an interview. "I wanted to hire someone like a former FBI agent to do an investigation but the Minority co-director objected."
Just four days into the accident, the FBI had already announced that sabotage was ruled out and the investigation was closed. Maybe they were trying to quiet the fears of the public which had just seen the new film "The China Syndrome." (Some people actually wrote to the NRC accusing Hollywood of a sick publicity stunt.) In actuality, the FBI was planning to meet with confidential sources who believed that sabotage was to blame. An openly public source was Pennsylvania State Representative Joseph Zeller.
Both the Senate and President's Commission investigations were called off the hunt and instructed that a criminal investigation was not their responsibility. It is not entirely unusual for a valve or switch to be in the wrong position, but this many "errors" should have been investigated for criminal activity.
Soon after the emergency, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory concluded:
"There was very little protection against insider sabotage. ...There was very little or no control of the whereabouts of people inside the vital area; so it cannot be said that sabotage to the auxiliary feedwater system was impossible." and
"...some vital area doors that should have been locked or guarded were found to be open and unguarded. Actually, there was very poor protection against the sabotage actions of the insider." and
"The conclusion can be drawn that the protection against the activities of an insider is still inadequate at TMI..." And an embarrassing incident did happen several months after the TMI accident when a newspaper reporter was hired as a security guard. He told of entering the control room unchallenged (only armed guards were permitted access). There was no lock on the door and a piece of clothesline hung where the doorknob should have been. A college textbook used this incident as an example of poor security. The book cited the reporter's headline -- "Three Mile Island: It's a Paradise Island for the Saboteur." General Public Utilities sought an injunction to block publication of the article on the grounds that it could compromise national security.
Source: http://www.tmia.com/tmisab.html
10/27/01
2:03:22 PM
Say One Thing, Do Another
by Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D.
"We've embarked on the beginning of the last days of the age of oil. ... Embrace the future and recognize the growing demand for a wide range of fuels, or ignore reality and slowly but surely be left behind." -- Michael Bowlin, CEO, ARCO (now BP), Houston, Texas, February 9, 1999
"No matter how advanced our economy might be, no matter how sophisticated our equipment becomes, for the foreseeable future we will still depend on fossil fuels." -- Presidential candidate George W. Bush, Pontiac, Michigan, October 13, 2000
"Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Political and industrial leaders are fond of telling us that environmental issues can be considered only if there is enough time and money and only if the economy is not affected. Yet time and time again, environmental issues prove to be the fundamental basis for major policy decisions.
The decision to colonize North America was heavily influenced by the vast resources that were present. The European colonists began a relentless drive to capture those resources, and most fundamental U.S. doctrines, laws, and values were born out of the need to use those resources.
Very quickly, environmental issues surfaced as forests were denuded, streams diverted, and minerals mined. But no single resource may have changed the face of the world as much as fossil fuels have since their discovery.
With a seemingly endless supply of relatively cheap gasoline and natural gas for our homes and businesses, it is easy to believe that we can never run out. Yet this has never been the case and even oil industry analysts are discussing the inevitable end to this finite, non-renewable resource.
Now scholars and analysts are agreeing that we WILL run out of oil and other resources. As prices increase, the gap between those who have and those who don't will widen. Many of us who are those who have today will be the have-nots of tomorrow.
Oil industry investors, however, will not go down without a fight. Fossil fuels are now being searched out in places once deemed too costly to explore, and markets are being sought that would have once been considered out of the question.
All major oil companies are now working on alternative energy sources, but rather than encouraging their introduction more widely today, they are trickling out the technology. I suspect that when the last drop of oil is gone, the oil companies will miraculously unveil their new energy producing plants that run on hydrogen, wind, and solar power.
"For over 150 years, mankind has been used to an ever growing supply of cheap and abundant energy," said Colin J. Campbell at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Toronto in 1998. Campbell is the co-author of an article in the March 1998 "Scientific American" magazine entitled "The End of Cheap Oil." A former exploration geologist, he believes that oil production will peak within the decade.
"The implication of this on industry, world politics, and economics seems to me to be enormous," Campbell said. Others feel the peak may be two decades from now, but it will come.
When the quantity of oil already burned since oil extraction began equals the amount yet to be extracted, the peak will have been reached. More costly methods will be used for a while to extract oil from tar, heavy oil and hydrocarbons locked in shales.
The International Energy Agency in Paris thinks that oil production could peak before the year 2015. By 2020, the demand for oil could exceed the supply by 17 million barrels per day.
The end of oil production is a much harder date to predict and is not really as important as when production peaks. The peak will be a time of crisis if world dependence on oil continues unchecked since demand will exceed the supply. This is the time when the rich will become very much richer while the gap between economic classes widens.
Imagine paying five, 10, or even 20 dollars for a gallon of gas. It could happen in our lifetime.
These stark realities that jeopardize the profits of the world's biggest companies have affected the modern day foreign policy of the United States and nearly every nation on the planet. Countries will gladly go to war to insure that cheap oil is available.
The United States' dependence on fossil fuels has shaped its Middle East policies dramatically. Even today's war on Afghanistan has fossil fuel undertones that have not been revealed at press briefings.
Afghanistan is one of the world's most impoverished nations and many of its nearly 26 million people suffer daily from the effects of a decimated political, physical, and institutional infrastructure. But under that country's devastated landscape are significant fossil fuel resources. And the only route to get Asian and Russian oil to the Arabian Sea for transport to the West is through Afghanistan.
The Soviets estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at up to five trillion cubic feet. Soviet estimates from the late 1970s said Afghanistan's proven and probable oil reserves are around 95 million barrels. All oil exploration and development work as well as plans to build a 10,000 barrel per day refinery were halted after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
U.S. oil interests have already begun planning to extract oil and natural gas from Afghanistan. In January 1998, Unocal, the U.S. based oil giant formerly known as the Union Oil Company, signed an agreement with the Taliban to proceed with an 890 mile, US$2 billion, two billion cubic foot per day natural gas pipeline project, led by Unocal.
The Internet data service CountryWatch.com, in its description of the energy resources of Afghanistan, says, "the proposed $2-billion pipeline tentatively would run from Dauletabad south to the Afghan border and through Herat and Kandahar in Afghanistan, to Quetta, Pakistan. The line would then link with Pakistan's gas grid at Sui."
The gas pipeline project consortium headed by Unocal is known as the Central Asian Gas Pipeline Ltd., or Centgas, which was formed in August 1996.
CountryWatch.com goes on to say, "Unocal and Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil hold a combined 85 percent stake in the consortium, while Turkmenrusgas owns five percent. Other participants in the project include Hyundai Engineering & Construction Company of South Korea, Itochu Corporation of Japan, and Indonesia Petroleum Ltd."
In August 1998, Unocal announced that it was suspending its role in the Afghanistan gas pipeline project in light of the U.S. military action in Afghanistan that year. The U.S. had launched cruise missiles against sites in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden was suspected of training terrorists. The strikes were launched about two weeks after bombings, linked to bin Laden, of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
Unocal has stressed that the gas pipeline project will not proceed until an internationally recognized government is in place. Putting such a government in place has been a stated objective of the current war effort.
Besides the gas pipeline, Unocal has proposed building a 1,000-mile, one million barrel per day capacity oil pipeline that would link Chardzou, Turkmenistan to Pakistan's Arabian Sea Coast through Afghanistan.
Since the Chardzou refinery is already linked to Russia's Western Siberian oil fields, this line could provide a possible alternative export route for regional oil production from the Caspian Sea. The $2.5 billion pipeline is known as the Central Asian Oil Pipeline Project.
Afghanistan also has significant coal reserves, estimated to be in excess of 400 million tons. Most of the coal is located in the region between Herat and Badashkan in the northern part of the country.
While few would suggest that Afghanistan's fossil fuel resources instigated the current war, it is difficult to believe that these facts about Afghanistan's energy potential are not on the minds of our business and political leaders.
Once again, the environment is playing a pivotal role in the shaping of world policy.
It is time for our leaders to stop telling us that the condition of our environment is yet one of many optional factors to be considered in decision making. Let's get them to admit that resource extraction, energy generation, and their subsequent impact on our precious life support systems are really the foundational elements that shape our interactions in the world.
It is time to stop saying one thing, and doing another.
RESOURCES
1. Visit the Alternative Energy Institute for their view on fossil fuel depletion at:
http://www.altenergy.org/2/nonrenewables/fossil_fuel/depletion/depletion.html
2. Visit Witness for Peace at:
http://www.witnessforpeace.org/
3. See details on the condition of Afghanistan's environment at:
http://www.countrywatch.com/files/001/cw_topic.asp?vCOUNTRY=001&TP=ENV
4. Learn more about the Afghan people from The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies at:
http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/News/01/100902/
5. More about the peak of oil production can be found at:
6. The Peacemakers Speak website has Nobel Peace Prize winners' views on the current crisis at:
http://www.thecommunity.com/crisis/
7. See the Rainforest Action Network's case against continued fossil fuel exploration at:
8. CARE has been quietly helping the people of Afghanistan for years. Find out how to help them at:
http://www.thecommunity.com/afghan.html
9. The International of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is instrumental in getting aid directly to the Afghan people. Visit them at:
10. The Non-Violence Web Page will give you many links to peace organizations at:
http://www.nonviolence.org/links.htm
11. Find out who your Congressional representatives are and e-mail them. Tell them that you want them to take acknowledge that the environment affects everything. If you know your Zip code, you can find them at:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ziptoit.html
Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D. is a writer and teacher in Seattle. Please send your thoughts, comments, and visions to him at:
MailTo:jackie@healingourworld.com
http://www.HealingOurwWorld.com
10/27/01
1:57:16 PM
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE
ALL ANTHRAX TESTED POINTS TO SINGLE SOURCE
By Cat Lazaroff
WASHINGTON, DC, October 26, 2001 (ENS) - The anthrax sent to Florida, New York and Washington, DC is highly concentrated and from the same strain, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge told reporters at a White House briefing Thursday. The news came as officials announced that a State Department contract worker in Sterling, Virginia has been diagnosed with inhalation anthrax - the region's fifth such case.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-26-06.html
BABOONS CAN THINK ABSTRACTLY
WASHINGTON, DC, October 26, 2001 (ENS) - An international team of psychologists has demonstrated that baboons are capable of abstract thought - making them the first non-human, non-ape animal shown to share a central aspect of human intelligence. The findings have profound implications for the evolution of human intelligence and the stuff that separates homo sapiens from other animals.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-26-07.html
HEALING OUR WORLD: WEEKLY COMMENT
By Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D.
Say One Thing, Do Another
"We've embarked on the beginning of the last days of the age of oil. Embrace the future and recognize the growing demand for a wide range of fuels, or ignore reality and slowly-but surely-be left behind."
-- Michael Bowlin, CEO, ARCO (now BP), Houston, Texas, February 9, 1999
"No matter how advanced our economy might be, no matter how sophisticated our equipment becomes, for the foreseeable future we will still depend on fossil fuels."
Presidential candidate George W. Bush, Pontiac, Michigan, October 13, 2000
"Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Political and industrial leaders are fond of telling us that environmental issues can be considered only if there is enough time and money and only if the economy is not affected. Yet time and time again, environmental issues prove to be the fundamental basis for major policy decisions.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-26g.html
SUSTAINABLE TEQUILA: PROTECTING THE WILD AGAVE
By Diane Jukofsky
MEXICO CITY, Mexico, October 26, 2001 (ENS) - Too much tequila is causing headaches for biologists concerned about the survival of wild species of agave, a plant native to the dry forests of southern Mexico. Tequila is made by baking the heart, or pia, of Agave tequilana, a succulent plant grown to produce the potent spirit. During the 1990s, tequila's popularity unexpectedly soared, leaving producers without sufficient supplies of cultivated A. tequilana to meet demand.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-26-01.html
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: OCTOBER 26, 2001
Bird Stem Cells Could Aid Endangered Species
Bush Nominates EPA R&D Administrator
Lawsuit Challenges Utah's Right of Way Claims
NFMS Appoints National Seabird Coordinator
Salmonella Could Help Deliver Anthrax Vaccine
Eco-Label Identifies Green Products
MacArthur Fellowships Go to Environmental Scientists
Conservation Group Files Lawsuit Against Timber Sale
California School District Converts to Clean Fueled Buses
World's Largest Polar Bear Exhibit Opens
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-26-09.html
10/27/01
1:50:17 PM
Dalai Lama Critics United States Foreign Policy
by Chris White
STRASBOURG, France, Oct. 24 (UPI) -- Tibet's Nobel Prize winning, exiled spiritual leader on Wednesday criticized the Western response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
"You can eliminate people but you cannot eliminate human thought," the Dalai Lama said at a news conference. "The way to defeat terrorism in the long run is through thought, argument and reasoning. Once you commit violence it is unpredictable and it causes side effects."
His comments came after he spoke before the European Parliament.
Tibet's spiritual leader refused to condemn the U.S.-led bombing of Afghanistan, however.
"They (the Americans and the British) know more about these things than I do," he said. He compared the joint action with the two World Wars and said, "This is a sign of civilization."
He said the day after the Sept. 11 "unthinkable" attacks on New York and Washington, he wrote to President George W. Bush.
"On the 12th, I wrote a letter, which expressed my sadness and my sympathy, and I told President Bush that the best way to counter terrorism is the non-violent way," he said.
But the Dalai Lama criticized what he described as the United States' lack of concern for "democratic principles" in its foreign policy.
"As far as domestic policy is concerned, they think democracy, democracy, democracy," he said. "But American foreign policy is not much concerned for democratic principles."
Tibet's spiritual leader has lived in exile in India since 1959 when he fled his homeland. China had invaded Tibet nine years earlier.
Since then, he has campaigned for greater freedom in Tibet; Beijing regards him as a troublemaker, however, and criticized the European Parliament for inviting him to address them Wednesday.
Dialogue remained "the only sensible and intelligent way of resolving differences and clashes of interest," the Dalai Lama said.
The parliament gave the Dalai Lama four standing ovations for his speech in Tibetan on the virtues of non-violence.
While he called for a conference of non-governmental organizations, writers and thinkers together with religious leaders to consider the next stages of the war on terrorism, European Parliament President Nicole Fontaine said the parliament had called for a solution to the Middle East peace process and for "positive non-violent measures to be put in place once the military action in Afghanistan is over."
Her comments came when Britain, a member of the European Union, and the United States were conducting airstrikes on Afghanistan in retaliation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that killed some 6,000 people.
Source: http://www.unitedstates.com/news/article/617907
10/27/01
12:50:07 PM
Humanitarian Crisis Will Jeopardize U.S. Military Goals
Summary
International relief agencies have launched a volley of complaints against the United States and Pakistan for impeding humanitarian efforts along Afghanistan's borders. The United Nations will likely voice similar criticisms as winter sets in and member states seek a culprit for ensuing starvation in Afghanistan. Within months, U.N. Security Council members will lose consensus for the U.S.-led military campaign.
Analysis
Humanitarian relief agencies have about three weeks to deliver aid before harsh winter conditions take hold in Afghanistan.
Anticipating this, agencies are asking the United States to halt its bombing campaign against the Taliban regime and Pakistan to free up its borders to refugees. Disagreement over who is to blame for the starvation of thousands of Afghans will likely turn U.N. Security Council members against one another in coming months, constraining U.S. military objectives in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
By spring, the United Nations will reverse its stance on U.S. bombing operations, prioritizing humanitarian goals such as protecting civilians over U.S. military objectives in Afghanistan. This will serve as a nucleus for mainstream opposition that could fracture the U.S.-led coalition in the Middle East.
Criticism of U.S. and Pakistani policies has come from all sides of the relief sector. Speaking in Brussels Oct. 16, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Ruud Lubbers cautioned the United States against waging war against Afghans in its bid to eliminate al Qaeda. He then issued a formal plea Oct. 17 for the United States and Britain to withdraw forces from the area, Deutsche-Presse Agentur reported. Oxfam International, Christian Aid, Action Aid and Islamic Relief called Oct. 18 for a suspension of the bombing campaign.
Some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have not limited themselves to blaming the United States and Pakistan for complicating the humanitarian mission -- accusing them instead of complicity in the mission's potential failure.
For example, Morten Rostrup, president of the International Council of Doctors Without Borders, wrote in the International Herald Tribune on Oct. 18 that U.S. military "food drops are a superficial and misleading gesture." He argued that by taking on humanitarian operations as part of its military campaign, the United States creates the impression among Afghans that non-allied or independent relief agencies have military agendas.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch appealed to Pakistan and other U.N. member states to permit freer movement of refugees along their borders. The groups assert that Pakistan's move to restrict refugee camps to border regions largely inhabited by Pushtun tribes -- which are sympathetic to the Taliban -- will generate resentment and could aggravate ethnic tensions.
U.S. officials show no signs of softening the blows against Afghan targets. Concerning requests to suspend the bombing campaign, Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem, deputy director of operations for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, says the Taliban is to blame for the humanitarian crisis, according to media reports.
The United States and relief agencies are playing a shell game of finding fault for the imminent humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan. The United States will lose.
International media are the relief sector's secret weapon against Washington. As winter deepens, bringing temperatures of minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 20 degrees Celsius) thousands of civilians could starve, and impassable roads will compromise relief efforts -- both military and NGO. The United States must halt its military campaign -- at least temporarily -- before Ramadan in order to head off a disaster, according to the agencies. Unless the U.S. shifts its military strategy in Afghanistan away from civilian concentrations and toward more focused, coordinated, ground and tactical air operations, media characterizations of the U.S. bombing campaign will soon turn extremely negative.
In forums hosted by the International Center for Humanitarian Reporting, executives from BBC and other media have struggled since the mid-1990s to define a constructive role that journalists can play in humanitarian efforts. With a clear opportunity now available, BBC is playing quarterback to relief agency complaints about the U.S. military campaign. This stems from the industry's search of a role rather than from a partisan agenda.
The relief sector is poised to win the media contest. No matter where blame actually may lie, come January the international media spotlight will shine on the failure of the humanitarian mission in Afghanistan. Christian Aid already has said 600 civilians in Afghanistan have died of starvation. This figure will likely multiply in coming months --building pressure on the United Nations, where some member states are likely to deflect criticism onto Washington.
Some of the criticism stems from the United Nations' ongoing difficulties in protecting civilians during times of conflict -- an increasingly hot topic for the body during the past 18 months. U.N. General Assembly resolutions have criticized the Security Council for relying too heavily on extrabudgetary funding and for lacking the analytical and operational capabilities to prevent conflict. Bulgaria, Norway and Ireland -- all slotted as non-permanent Security Council members in 2002 -- are highly critical of the United Nations' failure to protect civilians in wartime.
Momentum could easily build within the Security Council, polarizing member nations. Based on prior statements and U.N. voting records, Norway will likely stir up debate over Afghanistan, with Ireland, Bulgaria and newcomer Syria opposing the United States. France and China remain wildcards.
Fractures are developing within the United Nations. UNHCR, UNICEF, the U.N. World Food Program and Security Council Chairman Richard Ryan have called repeatedly for member states to disburse funds pledged to Afghan relief efforts. Operating budgets for Afghanistan are conditioned on promises of aid, not cash in hand, and member states have been slow to honor their pledges. U.N. relief efforts are regularly underfunded, jeopardizing humanitarian missions, but this circumstance is less likely than U.S. military action to draw media fire.
Facing another failure in shielding civilians from conflict, the United Nations likely will attempt to intercede in the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan. Veiled criticism of Washington will surface in moves by the General Assembly and the Security Council to ensure the U.N.'s humanitarian objectives take precedence over U.S. military goals.
Although the United Nations as an organization may be unable to sway U.S. policy in Afghanistan, it will serve as the nucleus of mainstream opposition for states in the Middle East that are uncomfortable with U.S. actions but which find it difficult to openly oppose Washington.
Countries like Iran and Egypt -- already calling for a major U.N. role in dealing with international terrorism -- will find new strength in the U.N.'s shifting position. They could quickly be joined by critically important coalition members such as Saudi Arabia or other Gulf states, rendering continued U.S. military action politically and operationally difficult -- if not impossible -- military goals.
Source: http://www.stratfor.com/home/0110221700.htm
10/27/01
12:34:13 PM
Taliban Lack Support From The Afghan people
One of the last interviews of Ahmad Shah Masood
Omaid Weekly exclusive: The following is an interview with Ahmad Shah Masood (rahmatullah alaih - God's blessings upon him), conducted in early August 2001 by Dr. Piotr Balcerowicz, a lecturer at the Institute of Oriental Studies at Warsaw University. Dr. Balcerowicz, who had consulted with Omaid Weekly before his trip to northern Afghanistan this summer, has traveled the world widely and has numerous writings on Afghanistan.
Piotr Balcerowicz: How was it possible that in the early- and mid-90s the Taliban movement proved so successful? Which factors were responsible?
Ahmad Shah Masood: Three main factors contributed to their success at that time. First, it was the unstable situation inside Afghanistan when the Soviets withdrew their troops in 1989. The mujahideen were not in good terms with each other, especially in Qandahar in the south and in the areas controlled by Abdur Rashid Dostum. On the top of that, the misdeeds of compatriots such as Gulbudin Hekmatyar and some others played a major role.
The second factor was the assistance the Taliban were receiving mainly and directly from Pakistan, and indirectly from the United States. Pakistan intervened from the very outset and was engaged in founding the Taliban movement. Saudi Arabia also helped.
Third, the Taliban themselves adapted good military tactics and had good and well-calculated politics. They chose good slogans for the people: they came to bring peace. With good military tactics, they started their offensive from Qandahar. And the very fact that they came under the name of the Taliban, that is “religious students” or “seekers of true knowledge”, gave them legitimacy.
These factors were responsible for pushing back the mujahideen.
But, in fact, as you well know yourself, all these factors I have mentioned are large chapters by themselves and should dealt with separately in great detail.
PB: If you knew then what you know now, and if you could go back in time, to the early 1990s, how would you have done things differently? What would you have changed your policy and strategy?
Ahmad Shah Masood: The factors I have mentioned were not completely within our control. They were of a more generic nature, relating to the overall character of the country and its territory. We had control only over some of them, and then only to a very limited degree. A good example of a neglected factor that we could have but did not influence was some kind of reconciliation. We should have been more willing to compromise. In other words, the forces of the United Front [eds: Afghanistan's national resistance force], as a democratic entity, which is now fighting the Taliban, should have been unified before [the Taliban's success]. It is only now that people like Ismail Khan, Abdur Rashid Dostum, Haji Abdul Qadir fight side by side. But they were not at that time.
But, in fact, this is not something we were able to do at that time, because Pakistan was dealing with each of them separately, making it extremely difficult -- practically beyond our control -- to compromise. We were not in a position, even in the 1990s, to bring an effective change even in the areas controlled by Dostum in the north or in Qandahar in the south.
PB: In 1996, you were in Kabul when the Taliban came, offering peace and cessation of internal fights. Why was their proposal, their scenario to put an end to the civil war, more attractive for people at that time than the solutions suggested by you?
Ahmad Shah Masood: Once the Taliban reached Kabul, their slogans were no longer effective. As you know, the Taliban had to fight at the gates of Kabul for two years. We were defeated mainly because Gulbuddin Hekmatyar evacuated his positions in Char Asyab on the outskirts of the city in 1995. Consequently, the Taliban came through the east, that is through the lines that had been previously under the control of Hekmatyar and Haji Qadir.
Even as early as 1995 and 1996, during the fighting in and around Kabul, and despite the difficult situation, we did not see any, even slightest, indication of hostility against our government or resentment among the population of Kabul districts under our control, such as open protests, revolts or rioting against us or the taking of weapons from government soldiers. But, this is precisely what could be observed in the Taliban-controlled part.
For a time, Kabul was partitioned into two zones, after we had had to withdraw our forces because of Hekmatyar’s act of disloyalty. We had already evacuated half of Kabul, and Taliban were in control of the other half. Still the population of Kabul did not fight against us, even though they could have.
As you can now see, it is the Taliban who have been, in the end, morally defeated. They have been gradually ruined because the have always perceived Kabul as a hostile place and they are still afraid of the repetition of the 1997 rioting and unrest. In general, they are very much mistrustful when it comes to the people in the territories they have captured.
Not far from Khoja Bahauddin in Takhar Province, there is an area called La Haban where the Taliban attacked our positions three days ago. As a consequence, they lost as many as 14 commanders in that area. It was partly due to their mistrust and fear of the people of Taloqan: They were so suspicious of the people of Taloqan that they had to withdraw most of their heavy weapons from the city. Such incidents are not rare. We have never had such worries and concerns while we were in Taloqan, or in any other province.
Source: http://www.omaid.com/english_section/curr_issue.htm#item2
10/27/01
12:24:58 PM
And Now, A Message From Our Sponsor
Afghan hearts and minds will eventually have to be won over to supporting whatever the West chooses to replace the Taleban. Small wonder BBC figures claiming 'Millionaire' level audience ratings for shortwave broadcasts to Afghanistan have got the Psyops teams all excited. Tony Callaghan and Rohan Jayasekera report.
For all the ferocity of the US-led air assault on Afghanistan, it is the war on the radio airwaves that is seeing some of the sharpest action. The most overt act was the 8 October jamming and bombing of the Taleban-run Radio Voice of Shari'a transmitters on Asmaii Mountain - which on past readings of the Geneva Convention may have been a war crime.
But that raid appears to have been part of a wider strategy. Between Washington, London and Paris secretive forces behind the lines are twiddling dials in furious bids for 'on-air supremacy'.
Television is banned in Afghanistan and this combined with high levels of illiteracy make radio the country's most vital information link. The BBC claims that before the current crisis, on an average day more than 60% of the population listened to World Service broadcasts in Pashto and Persian.
The British and US authorities are desperate to win over the Afghan populace to their plan to depose the Taleban and replace them with something less hostile. Small wonder they are invading the Afghan airwaves like Marines hitting a beach.
The BBC World Service in London has broadcast to Afghanistan in Persian for 60 years and in Pashto for 20 years. It has doubled its hours of output to Afghanistan since the start of the crisis. Washington is being more aggressive.
Congress has savaged the state-funded Voice of America (VOA) for trying to maintain editorial balance in its own Persian and Pashto broadcasts to Afghanistan. So the US military has deployed its own broadcast unit to spread its version of the truth.
The 193rd Special Operations Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, also known as "Commando Solo," has a fleet of six EC-130 planes equipped to broadcast radio programmes into Afghanistan devised by US psychological operations (psyops) teams.
Their anti-Taleban, pro-US programmes feature traditional Afghan music, blood-curdling threats to the Taleban and soothing messages to the local populace in Dari and Pashto. They use, according to various press agencies, the 657, 1107, and 7084v kHz frequencies Voice of Shari'a used to use before the US miltary cut them off.
Journalist Nick Grace from the highly regarded industry source www.clandestineradio.com recalls similar operations during the US invasion of Haiti in 1994, when Commando Solo set up a station called Radio Democrat to broadcast on the same frequency as a once popular but later banned Haitian station called 4VEH. "It was a clever signal to the people that things would be returning to the way they were," he says.
Clandestineradio.com was monitoring the broadcasts from the Voice of Shari'a on 8 October - the second day of US-led bombing - when it recorded a 47 second burst of high-intensity jamming before the US bombs hit Asmaii Mountain. Locally nicknamed ' TV Mountain' it is base to several long range transmitters. (The actual moment of jamming and destruction is recorded on www.clandestineradio.com's website.)
Since then some 20 or so Taleban-run Voice of Shari'a regional centres have been closed down the same abrupt way, though Radio Netherlands reports many have since come back on air in some areas.
The strategy, including its eventual ineffectiveness, recalls the 1999 NATO bombing of Radio Television Serbia (RTS) in Belgrade. Sixteen civilians died in that attack. Amnesty International investigators concluded that it was an attack on civilians, an act banned by Article 52 (I) of the Geneva Convention protocols, and which "therefore constitutes a war crime".
On 11 October, Marine Corps Major General Henry P. Osman, Director of Operational Plans and Joint Force Development, presented photos of the Asmaii Mountain missile strikes to the media. There he was asked by one reporter, "if it's a civilian radio station, don't you run up against international law?"
Osman said he couldn't answer that question for sure. "We have tried very hard to ensure that all of our targeting is against military targets," he said.
US Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld was far less coy. Questioned about the validity of airstrikes on a radio station and the principles of free expression, he replied, ''Naturally, they cannot be considered to be free media outlets. They are mouthpieces of the Taleban and those harbouring terrorists.''
True, the Voice of Shari'a broadcast religious programmes and the official decrees and announcements of the Taleban.But it was also the foreign media's main source of information from the Taleban authorities, apart from the Peshwahar based Afghan Islamic Press (whose reports are currently available in translation from Index on Censorship's sister site www.crisisreports.org).
Non-western reporting of the crisis bothers the State Department. It had earlier tried to press the Qatari government to rein in local satellite channel al-Jazeera's independent Arabic language reporting. The Voice of Shari'a contribution was even less welcome.
At home US radio network Voice of America (VOA) has been pressed to take a more overtly pro-American line. More than 150 VOA staff signed a petition protesting censorship after the State Department sought to ban a VOA broadcast of an interview with Taleban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar.
The US Congress is currently discussing funds for a future Radio Free Afghanistan to circumvent the independent minds at VOA. Says Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida: 'If we turn this into a PBS (the US non-profit Public Broadcasting Service) documentary - seesawing on every side and being balanced - that's not promoting democracy'.
Some reports, including one from the BBC's online service, say the US has even taken to dropping wind-up radios -which do not need batteries - pre-set to the US broadcast channels.
Once wound up, the unwinding motion generates enough charge to receive signals for up to an hour. The radio can pick up the usual AM and FM frequencies, but also the all-important shortwave signals - home to the BBC and VOA - in the range of 5 megahertz to 18 megahertz.
According to observers of the intelligence community the shortwave network might be home to something more serious than Afghan folk music and reassurances of US goodwill. An unconfirmed, (and presently unconfirmable) report suggests that UK media have been asked to drop reports on the use of so-called 'Numbers Stations'.
These use otherwise incomprehensible strings of code numbers, broadcast by shortwave to agents and special forces in the field.
According to communications from one authoratative source, the British government has used its famous D Notice system to 'persuade' British papers not to report on its use. Under the D Notice system newspaper editors are advised informally that publication of certain information is potentially hazardous to the country's defence (hence the 'D' in D Notice).
The other new player in the on-air war is the French NGO Droit de Parole (Right to Speak). It has reportedly begun tentative broadcasts in the otherwise unused FM band from the eastern Afghan province of Parvan, according to French news agency AFP.
So far ranging a meagre 40 kilometres but theoretically reaching some 150,000 people, its founders have high hopes for the future. "The transmitter's pylon consists of two lampposts, one inserted inside the other, it has been set up in Jabalosaraj, it has a very basic studio and equipment donated by a number of sponsors, notably the French public radio and television," technician Jean-Pierre Grimaldi told AFP.
"This station came about through a project aimed at promoting the role and the place of Afghan women. It was supported by [Northern Alliance] Commander Masoud [recently killed by suicide bombers posing as journalists],' explained Dragica Ponorac, chairwoman of Droit de Parole.
The group says it has worked with similar 'free' radio stations in the former Yugoslavia. "The project has been adapted to the new situation of the Afghan crisis. `But we will make sure that the radio station maintains its status as an independent radio station,' Ponorac promised AFP.
Source: http://www.indexonline.org/news/110901/20011018_afghanistan.shtml
10/27/01
12:15:05 PM
Terror Act Has Lasting Effects
by Declan McCullagh
WASHINGTON -- Legislators who sent a sweeping anti-terrorism bill to President Bush this week proudly say that the most controversial surveillance sections will expire in 2005.
Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said that a four-year expiration date "will be crucial in making sure that these new law enforcement powers are not abused." In the House, Bob Barr (R-Georgia) stressed that "we take very seriously the sunset provisions in this bill."
But the Dec. 2005 expiration date embedded in the USA Act -- which the Senate approved 98 to 1 on Thursday -- applies only to a tiny part of the mammoth bill.
After the president signs the measure on Friday, police will have the permanent ability to conduct Internet surveillance without a court order in some circumstances, secretly search homes and offices without notifying the owner, and share confidential grand jury information with the CIA.
Also exempt from the expiration date are investigations underway by Dec. 2005, and any future investigations of crimes that took place before that date.
On Thursday, Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to publish new guidelines as soon as the president signs the bill, which is expected to happen Friday. "I will issue directives requiring law enforcement to make use of new powers in intelligence gathering, criminal procedure and immigration violations," Ashcroft said.
President Bush said this week that he looks forward to signing the USA Act, which his administration requested in response to the Sep. 11 hijackings, "so that we can combat terrorism and prevent future attacks."
During the Senate debate Thursday, the lone critic of the bill was Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), who introduced an unsuccessful series of pro-privacy amendments earlier this month.
"We in this body have a duty to analyze, to test, to weigh new laws that the zealous and often sincere advocates of security would suggest to us," Feingold said. "This is what I have tried to do with this anti-terrorism bill. And that is why I will vote against this bill."
Feingold said the USA Act "does not strike the right balance between empowering law enforcement and protecting constitutional freedoms."
But not one of his colleagues joined him in dissent. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) seemed to speak for the rest of the Senate when saying "the homefront is a war front" and arguing that police needed new surveillance powers.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) did not vote.
Other sections of the USA Act, which the House approved by a 357 to 66 vote on Wednesday, that do not expire include the following:
Police can sneak into someone's house or office, search the contents, and leave without ever telling the owner. This would be supervised by a court, and the notification of the surreptitious search "may be delayed" indefinitely. (Section 213)
Any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system and record addresses of Web pages visited and e-mail correspondents -- without going to a judge. Previously, there were stiffer legal restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques. (Section 216)
Any American "with intent to defraud" who scans in an image of a foreign currency note or e-mails or transmits such an image will go to jail for up to 20 years. (Section 375)
An accused terrorist who is a foreign citizen and who cannot be deported can be held for an unspecified series of "periods of up to six months" with the attorney general's approval. (Section 412)
Biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris scanners, will become part of an "integrated entry and exit data system" with the identities of visa holders who hope to enter the U.S. (Section 414)
Any Internet provider or telephone company must turn over customer information, including phone numbers called -- no court order required -- if the FBI claims the "records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism." The company contacted may not "disclose to any person" that the FBI is doing an investigation. (Section 505)
Credit reporting firms like Equifax must disclose to the FBI any information that agents request in connection with a terrorist investigation -- without police needing to seek a court order first. Current law permits this only in espionage cases. (Section 505)
The current definition of terrorism is radically expanded to include biochemical attacks and computer hacking. Some current computer crimes -- such as hacking a U.S. government system or breaking into and damaging any Internet-connected computer -- are covered. (Section 808)
A new crime of "cyberterrorism" is added, which covers hacking attempts causing damage "aggregating at least $5,000 in value" in one year, any damage to medical equipment or "physical injury to any person." Prison terms range between five and 20 years. (Section 814)
New computer forensics labs will be created to inspect "seized or intercepted computer evidence relating to criminal activity (including cyberterrorism)" and to train federal agents. (Section 816)
Source: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,47901,00.html
10/27/01
11:55:48 AM
Squelching The News In Democracy's Name
The Bush administration's efforts to control the news -- with the broadcast media's willing collaboration -- may be more dangerous to American democracy than any terrorist.
by Mark Crispin Miller
When the White House, via National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, "requested" recently that the networks not air any future unedited videos of Usama bin Ladin, that tacit order met largely with a frightening silence. America's elected representatives voiced no complaint about this effort to black out discomfiting news, and -- far worse -- the broadcast media's top managers sank quickly to their knees. While some newspapers did editorialize against it, that blunt stroke of intimidation moved the broadcast media's bosses mainly to salute the power that had just muscled them. "It was very useful to hear their information and their thinking," CNN chairman Walter Isaacson told the New York Times. "After hearing Dr. Rice, we're not going to step on the land mines she was talking about." Rupert Murdoch called full compliance his network's "patriotic duty."
There are some countries, certainly, where state suppression of the news is considered "patriotic." The government of China, for example, no doubt saw it as their "patriotic duty" in 1993 to tell Murdoch to remove the BBC's broadcasts from Star TV, his Asian satellite service, because of the BBC's tactless coverage of the Tienanman Square massacre; Murdoch -- then as now -- obliged. But in these United States our Constitution, with its hallowed First Amendment, has it otherwise. Here, the government's attempts to control the news are unquestionably un-patriotic, whatever Rupert Murdoch thinks, and however genuinely terrifying the terrorist threat. It's all the more disturbing, then, to cosider the range of this administration's efforts to squelch important but embarassing news, and the extent to which at least the broadcast media have so far proved willing to abet them -- a trend that bodes nothing but ill for American democracy.
This is an administration apparently out to dominate all discussion on everything related to this new war. Such repressiveness was evident in Ari Fleischer's unsuccessful attempt to extend Rice's efforts by browbeating newspapers into not reprinting transcripts of bin Ladin's speeches, and his not-too-subtle warning that "Americans should watch what they say"; in Bush's short-lived and ill-managed move to limit Congressional access to classified intelligence; in Colin Powell's efforts to induce Al Jazeera, the Arab world's only independent TV network, to tone down their broadcasts of what the State Department deems "inflammatory rhetoric"; in the Pentagon's temporary cancellation of daily press briefings for reporters; and in John Ashcroft's recent statement urging federal agencies to think two or three times before granting FOIA requests.
Rice's veiled order to the networks had less to do with saving us from any clear and present danger than with her employers' drive to control information and potentially keep us in the dark. And in their quick compliance with that order, those who run the major networks made it clear that we cannot count on learning anything from them that the administration doesn't want released.
As for the specific issue of airing video of Bin Ladin himself: First of all, we can dismiss the Bush team's ludicrous contention that bin Ladin might be sending "coded signals" to his agents. Even if the terrorists were all robotically attuned to their paymaster's wardrobe or facial tics, in this wired world they certainly would have no trouble finding his oration on the Web, or via TV satellite, since Qatar's Al Jazeera shows the tapes, as does the BBC. Thanks to the White House and its high-level courtiers in the media, we Americans -- or those of us without the proper hardware -- are now the only people in the whole developed world who can't actually hear what our enemy is saying about us. That's an odd distinction, considering we are also his main targets.
Certainly, in wartime there are valid reasons to suppress an enemy's public broadcasts. For example, in nations haunted by a fascist past, it's arguably sensible to try to keep a lid on the intoxicating spiels of those persistent enemies -- foreign or domestic -- who would turn back the clock. And in a country menaced by a mighty neighbor, and not yet ready to fight back, it's probably a wise move not to air the bellicose addresses of the enemy leader, because it could hurt national morale at a decisive moment. Thus the BBC did not broadcast the Fuehrer's first speech to the Germans after war had been declared, although the network had often carried his pre-war speeches. Such exposure might conceivably have spooked the British people, and emboldened Britain's fascists to pitch further appeasement, or even an alliance.
But the current situation is completely different. In this case, in fact, the White House should have done everything possible to encourage the networks to continue serving us bin Ladin on the rocks. There is, to put it mildly, not much risk that we could be seduced by a performer so fanatical and alien, and so explicitly devoted to our absolute destruction. On the contrary: To see him thanking God for all our suffering and bereavement is to hate him all the more. So honestly infuriating is that sight, moreover, that it serves the useful propaganda purpose of convincing those viewers who might be skeptical about bin Ladin's perfidy if they were merely told about it by the US government. Since 1947, we have been mobilized against so many foreign demons that a thoughtful citizen must be forgiven for becoming just a tad suspicious when called to arms against a new Nicaragua. But Bin Ladin's in-your-face medievalism speaks for itself; every American should get to see it, up close and personal.
Although it was the terrorists who brought on this climate of official hostility to information, it is not they who are to blame for our surrender to it. With their box-cutters and barbaric zeal, they wrought destruction on our lives, property, and economy. But they could not hurt America's democracy. That is something that Americans alone can do. And through their close collaboration since the start of this new war, our government and several powerful media leaders have dealt democracy just such a blow. Whether it proves fatal depends on the resolve of the nation's elite news editors and producers and their corporate shot-callers -- and on the public's readiness to pressure them into upholding their duty to the Constitution. If we allow the government and media to keep us all in nervous ignorance, American democracy will not prevail against the terrorists; it will have been destroyed regardless of the outcome of this latest war. What do you think?
Mark Crispin Miller is a professor of media studies at New York University, where he directs the Project on Media Ownership. He is the author of "The Bush Dyslexicon: Observantions o