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 on a National Disorder" (Norton).
http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/commentary/opinion/warmedia.html
10/27/01
11:48:38 AM
Mother Jones
* Squelching the News in Democracy's Name * - Web Exclusive: Opinion: 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.
http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/commentary/opinion/warmedia.html
* Anti-Globalization, Pro-Peace? * - Web Exclusive: The question of whether to support or oppose the US-led bombing of Afghanistan is fracturing the anti-globalization movement. With Americans overwhelmingly in favor of military action, could protesting for peace cost the coalition its hard-won momentum?
http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/features/news/peace.html
* Bombing, Before and After * - Web Exclusive: Cartoon: Explosions in Kabul -- fallout in Cairo.
http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/commentary/humor/after.html
* Beyond the Blasts * - Web Exclusive: From Green Beret to terrorist; A Capitol offense; fingering terrorists; Falwell needs your support; the weight of the humanitarian crisis; the stimulus package unwrapped; more ... http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/features/news/blast7.html#102401
* Bush Files * - Web Exclusive: Norton admits caribou error; Bush begs kids for money; O'Neill under fire; war resuscitates Rumsfeld; more...
http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/features/news/bushfiles36.html#102401
* Discuss * - Follow the Money: Afghanistan sits astride the best pipeline routes from the oil and gas fields of Central Asia to the vast markets of India and Pakistan. Did Unocal, a US oil company that spent years wooing the Taliban, help legitimize the Afghan regime?
http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/WebX?50@@.ee99d34
10/27/01
12:04:48 AM
The Al-Qa'idah Group Had Nothing To Do With The 11 September Attacks
The Al-Qa'idah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the USA, according to Usamah Bin-Ladin in an interview with the Pakistani paper Ummat.
The Al-Qa’idah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the USA, according to Usamah Bin-Ladin in an interview with the Pakistani paper Ummat. Usamah Bin-Ladin went on to suggest that Jews or US secret services were behind the attacks, and to express gratitude and support for Pakistan, urging Pakistan’s people to jihad against the West. The following is the text of an interview conducted by a “special correspondent”, published Pakistani newspaper Ummat on 28 September, place and date of interview not given. The first paragraph is Ummat’s introduction.
Kabul: Prominent Arab mojahed [holy warrior] Usamah Bin-Ladin has said that he or his al-Qa’idah group has nothing to do with the 11 September suicidal attacks in Washington and New York. He said the US government should find the attackers within the country. In an exclusive interview with daily “Ummat”, he said these attacks could be the act of those who are part of the American system and are rebelling against it and working for some other system. Or, Usamah said, this could be the act of those who want to make the current century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity.
Or, the American Jews, who are opposed to President Bush ever since the Florida elections, might be the masterminds of this act. There is also a great possibility of the involvement of US intelligence agencies, which need billions of dollars worth of funds every year. He said there is a government within the government in the United States. The secret agencies, he said, should be asked as to who are behind the attacks. Usamah said support for attack on Afghanistan was a matter of need for some Muslim countries and compulsion for others. However, he said, he was thankful to the courageous people of Pakistan who erected a bulwark before the wrong forces. He added that the Islamic world was attaching great expectations with Pakistan and, in time of need, “we will protect this bulwark by sacrificing of lives”. Following is the interview in full detail:
Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?
Usamah: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who Made the earth as an abode for peace, for the whole mankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to The Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin [true Muslim] people of Pakistan who refused to believe in lie of the demon. I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya, and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies [of Muslims].
The US has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates. However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that, it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of United States, or the latter itself considers them as its enemies. Or
The countries, which do not agree to become its slaves, such as China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria, and the former Russia [as received]. Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed. According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the US government has stated. But the Bush administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him. Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usamah and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush administration approved a budget of 40bn dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other US president, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.
Ummat: A number of world countries have joined the call of the United States for launching an attack on Afghanistan. These also include a number of Muslim countries. Will Al-Qa’idah declare a jihad against these countries as well?
Usamah: I must say that my duty is just to awaken the Muslims; to tell them as to what is good for them and what is not. What does Islam says and what the enemies of Islam want? Al-Qa’idah was set up to wage a jihad against infidelity, particularly to encounter the onslaught of the infidel countries against the Islamic states. Jihad is the sixth undeclared element of Islam. [The first five being the basic holy words of Islam, prayers, fast, pilgrimage to Mecca, and giving alms] Every anti-Islamic person is afraid of it. Al-Qa’idah wants to keep this element alive and active and make it part of the daily life of the Muslims. It wants to give it the status of worship. We are not against any Islamic country nor we consider a war against an Islamic country as jihad. We are in favour of armed jihad only against those infidel countries, which are killing innocent Muslim men, women, and children just because they are Muslims. Supporting the US act is the need of some Muslim countries and the compulsion of others. However, they should think as to what will remain of their religious and moral position if they support the attack of the Christians and the Jews on a Muslim country like Afghanistan. The orders of Islamic shari’ah [jurisprudence] for such individuals, organizations, and countries are clear and all the scholars of the Muslim brotherhood are unanimous on them. We will do the same, which is being ordered by the Amir ol-Momenin [the commander of the faithful] Mola Omar and the Islamic scholars. The hearts of the people of Muslim countries are beating with the call of jihad. We are grateful to them.
Ummat: The losses caused in the attacks in New York and Washington have proved that giving an economic blow to the US is not too difficult. US experts admit that a few more such attacks can bring down the American economy. Why is al-Qa’idah not targeting their economic pillars?
Usamah: I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the US is not uttering a single word.
Ummat: Why is harm not caused to the enemies of Islam through other means, apart from the armed struggle? For instance, inciting the Muslims to boycott Western products, banks, shipping lines, and TV channels.
Usamah: The first thing is that Western products could only be boycotted when the Muslim fraternity is fully awakened and organized. Secondly, the Muslim companies should become self-sufficient in producing goods equal to the products of Western companies. Economic boycott of the West is not possible unless economic self-sufficiency is attained and substitute products are brought out. You see that wealth is scattered all across the Muslim world but not a single TV channel has been acquired which can preach Islamic injunctions according to modern requirements and attain an international influence. Muslim traders and philanthropists should make it a point that if the weapon of public opinion is to be used, it is to be kept in the hand. Today’s world is of public opinion and the fates of nations are determined through its pressure. Once the tools for building public opinion are obtained, everything that you asked for can be done.
Ummat: The entire propaganda about your struggle has so far been made by the Western media. But no information is being received from your sources about the network of Al-Qa’idah and its jihadi successes. Would you comment?
Usamah: In fact, the Western media is left with nothing else. It has no other theme to survive for a long time. Then we have many other things to do. The struggle for jihad and the successes are for the sake of Allah and not to annoy His bondsmen. Our silence is our real propaganda. Rejections, explanations, or corrigendum only waste your time and through them, the enemy wants you to engage in things which are not of use to you. These things are pulling you away from your cause. The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which make us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness.
Ummat: What will the impact of the freeze of al-Qa'idah accounts by the US?
Usamah: God opens up ways for those who work for Him. Freezing of accounts will not make any difference for Al-Qa’idah or other jihad groups. With the grace of Allah, al-Qa’idah has more than three such alternative financial system, which are all separate and totally independent from each other. This system is operating under the patronage of those who love jihad. What to say of the United States, even the combined world cannot budge these people from their path. These people are not in hundreds but in thousands and millions. Al-Qa’idah comprises of such modern educated youths who are aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in their hands. These are the very flaws of the Western fiscal system, which are becoming a noose for it and this system could not recuperate in spite of the passage of so many days.
Ummat: Are there other safe areas other than Afghanistan, where you can continue jihad?
Usamah: There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir. Then it is not the problem of my person. I am helpless fellowman of God, constantly in the fear of my accountability before God. It is not the question of Usamah but of Islam and, in Islam too, of jihad. Thanks to God, those waging a jihad can walk today with their heads raised. Jihad was still present when there was no Usamah and it will remain as such even when Usamah is no longer there. Allah opens up ways and creates loves in the hearts of people for those who walk on the path of Allah with their lives, property, and children. Believe it, through jihad, a man gets everything he desires. And the biggest desire of a Muslim is the after life. Martyrdom is the shortest way of attaining an eternal life.
Ummat: What do you say about the Pakistan government policy on Afghanistan attack?
Usamah: We are thankful to the Momin and valiant people of Pakistan who erected a blockade in front of the wrong forces and stood in the first file of battle. Pakistan is a great hope for the Islamic brotherhood. Its people are awakened, organized, and rich in the spirit of faith. They backed Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union and extended every help to the mojahedin and the Afghan people. Then these are very Pakistanis who are standing shoulder by shoulder with the Taleban. If such people emerge in just two countries, the domination of the West will diminish in a matter of days. Our hearts beat with Pakistan and, God forbid, if a difficult time comes we will protect it with our blood. Pakistan is sacred for us like a place of worship. We are the people of jihad and fighting for the defence of Pakistan is the best of all jihads to us. It does not matter for us as to who rules Pakistan. The important thing is that the spirit of jihad is alive and stronger in the hearts of the Pakistani people.
Source: Karachi Ummat in Urdu 28 Sep 01 pp1, 7
Source: BBC Monitoring Service
http://www.khilafah.com/1421/category.php?DocumentID=2392&TagID=2)
10/26/01
10:29:06 PM
Key Taleban Opponent Executed
Abdul Haq the Hero of anti-Soviet resistance The family of opposition commander Abdul Haq has confirmed that he was executed by Afghanistan's ruling Taleban regime.
Haq's brother, Daoud Arsalan, said that they had now accepted the "sad truth" that Haq had been "martyred by the Taleban".
A representative of the opposition Northern Alliance, Daoud Mir, also acknowledged the death, which he described as a "severe loss for the entire world, including the Americans".
Taleban spokesman Mohammed Tayyab Agha had earlier told the BBC that Haq and two other men had been killed after US attempts to rescue him failed.
He said at least one American had been travelling with Haq and was now on the run.
The Pentagon said it could not confirm Haq's death nor any rescue attempt, but said the death would be a loss for the prospect of a broad-based government in the country.
Haq, 43, one of the best-known guerrilla commanders who fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, is thought to have slipped back into the country from Pakistan with the aim of raising a rebellion against the Taleban.
Omar Samad, director of the Afghanistan Information Centre and advisor to the US Congress, told the BBC that he thought Haq had been betrayed by someone linked to the Taleban before his departure from Pakistan.
An ethnic Pashtun, like the Taleban, Haq had been critical of the current US bombing campaign against Afghanistan, saying it could damage his attempts to win over moderate elements within the Taleban.
Click here for map of reported air strikes
Taleban forces said they captured Haq after surrounding his hiding place in the province of Logar south of the capital, Kabul.
Mr Agha said US helicopters had launched a dramatic rescue attempt after Haq called for help by satellite phone, but he was caught as he tried to flee on horseback.
Haq was executed at 1300 local time (0830 GMT) on a religious edict issued by Mullah Omar and Muslim clerics in Afghanistan, Mr Agha said.
Haq's nephew, Mohammed Yousuf, said that he his uncle and a companion named only as Hamid were hanged following their capture.
In other developments:
US Department of Defence admits that it bombed a Red Cross warehouse in Kabul by mistake - the second such error US President George W Bush signs into law new anti-terrorism measures drawn up in the wake of the 11 September terror attacks on New York and Washington The White House says the anthrax sent in a letter to Senate majority leader Tom Daschle may have been produced in the US The Czech Government confirms rumours that Mohammed Atta - suspected of being one of the suicide hijackers behind the attacks on the US - met an Iraqi spy in Prague earlier this year US media reports suggest those killed in last month's attack on New York's World Trade Center could number fewer than 3,000, in contrast to an official figure of 4,167 Doctors in Kabul hospitals appeal for an end to the US raids, saying they are now having to operate on the wounded in conditions reminiscent of the 19th century
Meanwhile American warplanes continued to bomb the Afghan capital, Kabul, on Friday -the Muslim day of prayer.
Reports said at least 10 bombs fell in quick succession during night raids and big fireballs could be seen north of Kabul.
The attacks followed a daylight raid on the city in which storage facilities belonging to Red Cross workers were struck, which the organisation said were clearly marked.
The Pentagon denied that the US military was getting bogged down in Afghanistan with no victory in sight.
"I don't personally believe that we are being bogged down or are getting bogged down," said spokesman Rear Admiral John Stufflebeem. "This is a very complicated operation. This is not traditional force-on-force warfare."
He said that although there might be differences between the aims of the US and the Northern Alliance, they were offering each other mutual support.
Taleban Supreme Leader Mullah Omar remained defiant, calling on the movement's supporters around the world to demonstrate against what he called the oppression of Muslims by countries such as the US and Russia.
In a pre-recorded statement played to the BBC by Taleban officials, Mullah Omar said it was not terrorism, but the causes of terrorism which were responsible for an unstable world. He accused the US of using the media to label the holy war, which he said was the duty of all Muslims, as terrorism.
The UK Government earlier announced that it was to deploy ground troops to help US-led operations.
A force of 200 commandos will operate from warships off the coast of Pakistan, with another 400 on stand-by in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1621000/1621278.stm
10/26/01
10:22:21 PM
United States Admits Second Bombing Error On The Red Cross
The Red Cross says the buildings were clearly marked US military warplanes "inadvertently dropped bombs" on Red Cross warehouses and on a nearby residential area in the Afghan capital Kabul, the US Defence Department said on Friday.
US Navy fighters and B-52 bombers mistakenly bombed six warehouses used by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), destroying vital stocks of food.
This is the second time ICRC buildings have been hit since US air strikes began on 7 October. Two of the warehouses hit this time were struck last time around.
The US admitted accidentally bombing ICRC warehouses in Kabul on 16 October, injuring a security guard, but said that Taleban vehicles had been seen in the area.
"Although details are still being investigated, preliminary indications are that the warehouses were struck due to a human error in the targeting process," it said in a statement.
There were no immediate reports of casualties.
"It has happened again," said Mario Musa, spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
"Huge explosions took place and three of our warehouses are on fire now."
Mr Musa told the BBC the compounds hit on Friday contained food, blankets and other material that was to be distributed to thousands of disabled and needy people in the city.
He said all Red Cross installations were clearly marked and all parties in the conflict had been told their locations.
Loss of life 'regretted'
He said the bombing took place at 1130 local time on Friday (0700 GMT) in good visibility.
The French news agency AFP also reported that two girls - sisters aged six and 11 - were killed when a US bomb landed on a village on the outskirts of Kabul early on Friday.
The United States has repeatedly said it is not targeting civilians and regrets any loss of life.
Officials at a Kabul hospital told AFP a man also died when a bomb hit a communications centre in the east of the city on Friday.
Taleban claims refuted
The deaths came a day after the United Nations confirmed that nine people had been killed when a US cluster bomb landed near a village in western Afghanistan on Monday.
The Taleban claim that more than 1,000 civilians have died nationwide since strikes began, but the US accuses them of inflating the figures.
Taleban troops are reported by the UN to be moving into residential areas to make it harder for US warplanes to strike them without hitting civilians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1621000/1621921.stm
10/26/01
10:11:14 PM
AlterNet Headlines
THE CNN OF THE ARAB WORLD
Tamara Straus, AlterNet
Al-Jazeera, the 24-hour Arab news network that came to prominence when American media aired its videotapes of Osama bin Laden, has been called highly objective and extremely biased. Which is it? AlterNet spoke to veteran Middle East journalist Lamis Andoni to find out.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11811
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
John Tirman, AlterNet
If the 50-year history of U.S. policy in southwestern Asia teaches us anything, it is that aggressive military actions lead to destabilization of countries and the amplification of militant Islamic sentiment around the world. A must-read analysis.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11796
A WAR WITHOUT SACRIFICE
David Corn, AlterNet
What sacrifice can Bush ask of Americans? None. Instead the war greases the skids for corporate America. CEOs across the country can say, Thank you, bin Laden.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11805
OPIUM FOR THE MASSES
Cynthia Cotts, Village Voice
Is it U.S. neglect or meddling that has allowed the drug trade in Afghanistan to flourish? Recent coverage is conflicting, and government officials are being elusive about our current role in the situation.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11793
AMERICA'S LOVE AFFAIR WITH LITTERING
Alan Bisbort, Hartford Advocate
What ever happened to the outrage over litter? And what does it say that so many are collectively fine with the idea that the world is our garbage can?
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11806
POLYAMORY: ETHICAL NON-MONOGAMY
Paul King, Octopus
Polyamory means "many loves." It is a word that describes the practice of engaging in multiple intimate relationships simultaneously, with the consent of everyone involved.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11808
FREE DRUGS FROM YOUR FAUCET
Mark D. Uehling, Salon
How did tiny amounts of nearly every drug under the sun get into our drinking water -- and what are they doing to us?
*In EnviroHealth: http://www.alternet.org/?IssueAreaID=18
WAVELENGTHS: PUBLIC RADIO, PRIVATE PRESSURES
Dan Kennedy, Boston Phoenix
While listeners rely on public radio stations as virtually the last bastion of serious news and talk, their dependence on corporate underwriting raises some very troubling issues.
*In MediaCulture: http://www.alternet.org/?IssueAreaID=19
SOLOMON: WAR NEEDS GOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS
Norman Solomon, AlterNet
For some people, war is terror, disaster and death. For the Pentagon, it's a PR problem. So they've hired a PR firm to spin the war in Afghanistan.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11809
HUFFINGTON: THE GARY CONDITIZATION OF THE TERROR STORY
Arianna Huffington, OverthrowTheGov.com
At a time when the public is hungering for greater perspective and deeper understanding, news coverage has grown narrow and repetitive.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11810
WEISBROT: PROTECTING BIG PHARMA FROM BIO-TERRORISM
Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet
Bayer, the German pharmaceutical giant, has finally reached agreement with the U.S. over the price to sell its antibiotic Cipro. That means the U.S. government will protect Bayer's patent and continue to force developing countries to buy drugs at non-generic prices.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11812
Want to sound off about any of the stories above? Visit AlterNet's rapidly growing online community:
http://www.alternet.org/discuss
10/26/01
9:59:14 PM
FAIR - Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and news reports
ACTION ALERT: October 26, 2001
FCC Moves To Lift Cross-Ownership Ban
Just two days after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the FCC began to eliminate the last remaining shreds of regulation on media concentration. With all eyes elsewhere, the FCC voted unanimously to "review" laws that prohibit the same company from owning both a newspaper and a TV station in the same geographic area, and laws that limit the percent of the national audience that a single cable company can reach.
FCC chair Michael Powell has made no secret of his desire to abandon any substantive public interest restrictions on the dominance of big media corporations, claiming "the oppressor here is regulation."
See "Their Man in Washington," http://www.fair.org/extra/0110/powell.html
He even presented this latest move as a patriotic act, declaring, "The flame of the American ideal may flicker, but it will never be extinguished...We will do our small part and press on with our business, solemnly, but resolutely."
Pressure to drop the cross-ownership ban comes from companies like Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., whose recent acquisition of station operator Chris-Craft puts it in violation, giving it two TV stations and a newspaper in New York City. (News Corp. already had a waiver to operate one TV station and a newspaper in New York.) There are more than 40 markets with newspaper-broadcast combinations already, most 'grandfathered' in when the law was written in 1975. Other companies in violation of the law include the Tribune Co. which owns TV-broadcast combinations in Los Angeles, New York, Orlando and Chicago.
Powell has called the cross-ownership ban "extremely prohibitive," and said he sees no reason a city's TV station and newspaper shouldn't be controlled by the same company. Indeed, media corporations routinely make deals that violate existing law, so confident are they of the current anti-regulatory climate-- "skating where the puck is going to be," is how one industry analyst described it (L.A. Times, 9/14/01).
Besides the wholly predictable result of a single company controlling a town's TV stations, radio stations, cable company and only newspaper, critics warn that elimination of this rule will essentially signal the absorption of the newspaper business into the television industry, with a negative impact on the quality of print journalism. Newspaper companies "see savings in news gathering by combining with TV stations as a big plus," an industry analyst told the L.A. Times (9/14/01), giving an indication that the newly merged megacompanies would provide communities with less news, not more.
FCC reviews include a mandatory public comment period to give Americans a chance to weigh in on proposed regulations. Examination of some previous public comment periods shows that the comments received are often few and are overwhelmingly drawn from media companies and industry trade organizations.
The deadline for comment on the cable ownership cap has been extended to January 4, 2002; FAIR will release more information on that soon. More urgent right now are comments about the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban, which are due by December 3.
At a time of crisis, the dangers of such overwhelming concentration in media are more glaring than ever. The changes underway will make U.S. media even less diverse, more commercial and less accountable to the public.
ACTION: Please let the FCC know that lifting the cross-ownership ban to allow further media consolidation will not serve the public interest.
Because the FCC has time-consuming requirements for email comments which require that people format their message in a certain way, FAIR created a form to simplify the process. You can submit comments to the FCC about cross-ownership at:
http://www.fair.org/mailform.php
For more details on the FCC's efforts to weaken ownership rules, see the Center for Digital Democracy's in-depth resources:
http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/mediaownership/index.html
10/26/01
9:52:37 PM
The Nation
President Bush signed a broad anti-terrorism bill into law at a White House ceremony this morning, granting federal authorities unprecedented surveillance and intelligence-gathering powers.
In addition to permitting authorities to use more overseas intelligence information, the measure allows for longer detentions of suspects who are not US citizens, grants the FBI broad access to sensitive personal records, makes the payment of membership dues to political organizations a potentially deportable offense, expands wiretapping authority while decreasing judicial supervision and creates a broad new definition of "domestic terrorism" that could target people who engage in acts of political protest and subject them to wiretapping and enhanced penalties.
The bill, crafted in Attorney General John Ashcroft's office in the wake of last month's terrorist attacks, passed both houses of Congress overwhelmingly Thursday. Rare are the moments in American history when a Congress has surrendered so many cherished freedoms in a single trip to the altar of immediate fear.
As Laura Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington National Office, told The Nation: "This bill goes light years beyond what is necessary to combat terrorism. Included in the bill are provisions that would allow for the mistreatment of immigrants, the suppression of dissent and the investigation and surveillance of wholly innocent Americans."
For the full story read the latest installment of John Nichols's Online Beat currently at:
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/
And don't miss these editorials, articles and columns from the new November 12, 2001 issue of The Nation:
JONATHAN SCHELL: The New Brink
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011112&s=schell
ERIC ALTERMAN: 'Blowback,' the Prequel
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011112&s=alterman
BRUCE SHAPIRO: Information Lockdown
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011112&s=shapiro
IAN URBINA: US Bows to Turkey
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011112&s=urbina
JOSHUA B. FREEMAN: Working-class Heros
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011112&s=freeman
MICHAEL MASSING: Media Watch: Seven Days In October
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011112&s=massing
WILLIAM GREIDER: Pro Patria, Pro Mundus
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011112&s=greider
SEPTEMBER 11 RESOURCES
We've also created a special page on The Nation website, where we're collecting all of our September 11 material, including articles, links, activist info, resources on Islam and the Chomsky/Hitchens debate. So check it out at:
http://www.thenation.com/special/wtc/index.mhtml
WHAT IS PATRIOTISM?
Ten years ago, The Nation published a special issue on patriotism (July 15/22, 1991), which addressed just what patriotism is and ought to be. Given the relevance of the question today, we've re-published selections from that special issue: From Richard Cloward & Frances Fox Piven; Jesse Jackson; Katrina vanden Heuvel; William Sloan Coffin; Martin Duberman; Richard Falk; Howard Fast; Erwin Knoll; Mary McGrory and Natalie Merchant, among others.
All available currently at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/mhtml?i=archive&s=schaar_wtc_19910715
10/26/01
9:46:10 PM
Terror Law: A Win For Fear, A Loss For Freedom
"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny," British parliamentarian Edmund Burke explained in 1800.
Two centuries have passed, but legislatures continue to reinforce the link between bad law and tyranny. The U.S. Congress did so this week, with the passage of the ambitiously named Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act.
Rare are the moments in American history when a Congress has surrendered so many cherished freedoms in a single trip to the altar of immediate fear.
Crafted in Attorney General John Ashcroft’s little shop of legal horrors from the remnants of past assaults on the Constitution, the "USA PATRIOT ACT" is a legislative Frankenstein’s monster.
"This bill goes light years beyond what is necessary to combat terrorism," argues Laura Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington National Office. "Included in the bill are provisions that would allow for the mistreatment of immigrants, the suppression of dissent and the investigation and surveillance of wholly innocent Americans."
And the bad legislation is now the law of the land. Signed Friday by President Bush, it was opposed in the Senate only by Russ Feingold, D-Wi. In the House is drew broader opposition from 62 Democrats --including the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Michigan’s John Conyers, and Congressional civil liberties watchdogs such as Massachusetts’ Barney Frank and Georgia’s John Lewis -- as well as three Republicans and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders.
What freedoms have Americans lost? Civil libertarians worry most that the new legislation:
-- Permits the Attorney General to incarcerate or detain non-citizens based on mere suspicion, and to deny re-admission to the U.S. of non-citizens (including lawful permanent residents) for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment.
-- Minimizes judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement authorities in anti-terrorism investigations AND in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.
-- Expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches, again in anti-terrorism investigations AND in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism. This means that law enforcement authorities can enter and search an individual’s home without presenting a warrant or in any way informing the subject of the search.
-- Gives the Attorney General and the Secretary of State the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and to block any non-citizen who belongs to them from entering the country.
-- Makes the payment of membership dues to political organizations a deportable offense.
-- Grants the FBI broad access to sensitive medical, financial, mental health, and educational records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order.
-- Will lead to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes and use of intelligence authorities to by-pass probable cause requirements in criminal cases.
-- Puts the CIA and other intelligence agencies back in the business of spying on Americans by giving the Director of Central Intelligence the authority to identify priority targets for intelligence surveillance in the United States.
-- Allows searches of highly personal financial records without notice and without judicial review based on a very low standard that does not require probable cause of a crime or even relevancy to an ongoing terrorism investigation.
-- Allows student records to be searched based on a very low standard of relevancy to an investigation.
-- Creates a broad new definition of "domestic terrorism" that could target people who engage in acts of political protest and subject them to wiretapping and enhanced penalties.
Standing alone in the Senate to oppose the legislation, Feingold recalled past assaults on basic liberties: "The Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the internment of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans during World War II, the blacklisting of supposed communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era, and the surveillance and harassment of antiwar protesters, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during the Vietnam War."
He then explained to his fellow senators: "Now some may say, indeed we may hope, that we have come a long way since the those days of infringements on civil liberties. But there is ample reason for concern. And I have been troubled in the past six weeks by the potential loss of commitment in the Congress and the country to traditional civil liberties."
In the contemporary legislature where he sits, the Senate of the United States of America, no member would stand with Russ Feingold. But he did not stand alone. Surely, a legislator from another era and another legislature, Edmund Burke, was with him in spirit.
Source: http://www.thenation.com/thebeat
10/26/01
5:36:04 PM
Nenana Ice Lottery lLnds Unique Insight Researchers Use Contest Records To Study Changing Climate
By Doug O'Harra, Anchorage Daily News
In the complex science of tracking global warming, researchers usually crunch billions of measurements through a vast network of equations inside some gargantuan supercomputer. It's often inconclusive.
They should just check out the Nenana Ice Classic, Alaska's longtime lottery to pick the moment when winter ends on the Tanana River.
In a study to be published today in the journal Science, two Stanford researchers analyzed 84 years of winning times and found that breakup on the Tanana has been arriving, on average, about 5.5 days earlier than it did when the annual contest began in 1917.
This unique to-the-minute gambling record kept for eight decades by Nenanans provided as convincing evidence of an earlier spring in the Northern Hemisphere as many other, more scientific records, said biologist Raphael Sagarin, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford's Hopkins Marine Station in Pacific Grove, Calif.
"It almost precisely matches the general temperature trends for Arctic regions, where you have much more sophisticated climactic data," he said this week. "It's really intriguing that the ice melt record in Nenana really captures that subtle trend."
But word from the banks of the Tanana suggests that it may be a bit too subtle to help Alaskans make next year's guesses.
"I've looked at the records myself, and it appears to me that it hasn't really gotten any earlier," said classic manager Cherrie Forness, an 18-year resident of Nenana. "We just kind of watch the winter and kind of guess."
Most people "don't look at the numbers and try to figure out when it's going to break up," added Julie Coghill, a former ice classic manager and Web master of the lottery's Internet site. "They just use somebody's birthday or a favorite number."
Ever since winter-weary engineers building the Alaska Railroad mounted an $800 wager on the moment the river would flow free, the Nenana Ice Classic has grown into a contest so popular that it was written into the first state laws back in 1959.
Organizers in Nenana have followed the same procedure for decades, Forness said.
Working from official specifications, they erect a wooden tripod painted with black and white stripes on the ice off Nenana and connect it to a clock in a tower on shore. When the ice disintegrates or moves downriver, the tripod topples, yanks the trip rope and stops the clock. People who have guessed the correct day, hour and minute share a jackpot that went as high as $335,000 in 2000.
Last spring, eight individuals and pools shared $308,000 for guessing 1 p.m. on May 8, the second most common day for the Tanana's breakup. The ice has gone out as early as 3:47 p.m. on April 20, 1998, and as late as 11:41 a.m. on May 20, 1964. But most breakups have occurred between April 29 and May 12, with 21 hitting on just three days -- April 29 to May 1.
Sagarin, a marine biologist, first heard of the classic when he came to Alaska in August 2000 to study how creatures in tide pools were responding to changing coastal conditions.
"I was reading my trusty Lonely Planet guide to Alaska, and it had a small mention in it of the Nenana Ice Classic," Sagarin said."I immediately thought this might be a good record for looking at climate change in Alaska."
He and assistant professor Fiorenza Micheli obtained the breakup times between 1917 and 2000 and compared them with temperature trends in Nenana and Fairbanks. Though individual breakup dates bounce all over, Sagarin and Micheli found their statistical patterns were consistent with a warming trend through the 1940s and a colder period that lasted into the 1970s. Since then, Sagarin said, it's been getting warmer -- and the breakups averaging sooner.
"It was just this gambling contest, but it resulted in very careful observations of nature," he said.
The biologist also contacted Forness, Coghill and longtime classic watchman Percy Duyck -- all now footnoted in Science as official references. Coghill has long kept detailed classic records and posted them on the Internet at http://www.ptialaska.net/~tripod/.
"As a scientist, he needed to verify that the information I had on the Web site was accurate information and wasn't some goofy thing," she said.
Using Nenana's ice breakup as a way to gauge global warming is an example of phenology, the study of the timing of natural events like animal migrations and the flowering of plants.
"Because scientists weren't thinking about climate change 80 or 90 years ago, it's really important that people kept these data," Sagarin explained in a press release from Stanford. "Phenology used to be dismissed as a hobby of eccentric British naturalists, some of whom have family records dating back to the 1750s of when the first leaf appeared on a particular tree in spring."
With the evidence for global warming mounting, scientists have documented that leaves are unfolding sooner each spring and coloring later each fall across the Northern Hemisphere, wrote Spanish scientists Josep Penuelas and Iolanda Filella in a separate article appearing in the same issue of Science.
"New (data) suggest that the growing season has become nearly 18 days longer during the past two decades in Eurasia and 12 days longer in North America," they wrote.
Often the best information for these changes come from "nontraditional" observations by hobbyists, indigenous people -- and ice classic record keepers, Sagarin said.
"Contest records . . . can be considered quite accurate as the high stakes lead to constant vigilance at the time of breakup," Sagarin and Micheli write. "The Nenana contest may be especially valuable because it is based on a more consistent definition of breakup than many records."
Still, for all that, not even Sagarin claims to have any insight into when winter will lose its grip on the Tanana in 2002.
"Everyone asks me that," he said. "I would say it's sort of like the difference between predicting climate, which we can do, and predicting the weather, which we still can't."
Doug O'Harra can be reached at mailto:do'harra@adn.com and 907 257.4334
Source: http://www.adn.com/front/story/733369p-773969c.html
10/26/01
5:34:22 PM
Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE
<http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/default.asp?source=top>
A FRIEND OF THE DEVIL'S IS A FRIEND OF MINES
An announcement by the Bush administration yesterday that it would repeal a Clinton-era mining regulation pleased industry leaders but angered environmentalists. The regulation, which applies to hard-rock minerals such as gold, silver, and copper, allows the Interior secretary to veto new mines on federal lands if they threaten the well-being of communities or the environment. In the last five years, mining development has declined 85 percent, a fact industry leaders blame on the Clinton administration's policies. Environmentalists, however, say the hard-rock mining regulation is necessary to prevent groundwater pollution; they plan to sue to stop the repeal.
straight to the source: New York Times, Katharine Q. Seelye, 26 Oct 2001 <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/26/politics/26MINE.html>
GRIZZLIES: ADD 'EM
A bid to scrap a plan to reintroduce grizzly bears along the Montana-Idaho border was overwhelmingly rejected by the public, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although 98 percent of the 28,000 comments supported reintroducing grizzlies to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, a representative for Interior Secretary Gale Norton said this week that the final decision would be based less on public opinion and more on "the policy, the science, and the needs and desires of local elected officials and citizens who would be most affected." The Clinton-era reintroduction plan won the support of environmentalists, but drew criticism from local officials and ranchers, who expressed concern about conflicts between bears and livestock, or bears and people. Meanwhile, the grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park are enjoying a record breeding year.
straight to the source: Casper Star-Tribune, Associated Press, 25 Oct 2001 <http://www.trib.com/HOMENEWS/WYO/25Grizzly.html>
GOING BA-NENANAS
Is the climate changing? You bet. Or residents of Nenana, Alaska do, anyway. For the last 84 years, the folks in Nenana, 230 miles north of Anchorage, have been placing bets on when the ice would break up on the nearby Tanana River. The annual guessing game, known locally as the Nenana Ice Classic, allowed a team of Stanford University researchers to conclude, in an article published this week in the journal Science, that the breakup is occurring an average of 5.5 days earlier in recent years than it did in 1917. Scientists used to dismiss this kind of amateur data-gathering, but nowadays, with the push to prove that the climate is changing, many are taking it seriously. So are Ice Classic participants, who stand to win upwards of $300,000 if they guess right.
straight to the source: Anchorage Daily News, Doug O'harra, 26 Oct 2001 <http://www.adn.com/front/story/733369p-773969c.html>
10/26/01
5:09:09 PM
Dear Friends,
I am forwarding this story to you, not to give you fear, but to let you know that we are now considered "dissenters". I haven't seen any definition of "terrorist" by our gov't so who knows who that group will include. Who knows how long we will have the freedom to share our thoughts like this, or the freedom of broadcasting. Our bill of rights has been trampled, our constitution cries out, our forefathers cry for our loss of freedom due to a heinous act of "terror" on 9/11/01 and all the terror that we've experienced since. We have had NO proof shown us as to WHO did this. We have no proof of except repeated video of planes hitting the WTC HOW those buildings really came down, we still haven't been told WHO made the $2.5 million on the market due to the crash and Haven't CLAIMED it, nor any PROOF who is behind the anthrax going around the country and world. YET, many laws including this HEINOUS law/blow to our freedom has been SWEPT through like lightning. It is time to put the flags away, and post the Bill of Rights in it's place. As I've said all along freedom doesn't come for free.
I saw a video last night of the US Foreign policy since 1947 when the National Security Act was passed. It is a CREDIBLE video, with information by Bill Moyers(on the Secret Govt), John Stockwell (former CIA);School of Assassins (Fort Benning, Ga) UNBELIEVABLE STUFF and our policy of Genocide by Sanctions (plus lots more). I thought I knew a lot until I saw this. You MUST obtain a copy. It's a $10 donation and worth the money in education. Get a copy of "What I've Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy" by Frank Dorrel by emailing him at fdorrel@hotmail.com While you still can. (hotmail.com) Who knows how much harrassment we will all face under this new law and intrusion by the secret gov't, the open gov't, and those people trying to "protect us".
May GOD protect us from the "evil" and the "evildoers", but I'll leave it to God to figure out who they are. I will continue to pray for all living things worldwide, people, animals, plants regardless of their wealth, poverty,color, religion, etc. I knew with the stolen election that we had lost our country, but didn't think it would go down the tubes so quickly since. We have seen history happen before our very eyes in nano-seconds. What can you do? Tell others what you know as long as you can. Keep your eyes and ears open, and don't fall for the propaganda and lies we are being told and have been told since 1947 and probably earlier. Stay out of fear. Think love and peace. As Jon Lennon said put a sign in your window that says Peace. Speak up for injustice. As MLK would say "we can't have justice as long as injustice exists anywhere in the world". I'll be live on Sunday on the air, join me. Remember to check your clocks, it'll be 12 pm EST, but still 10 am in Arizona. To all you true patriots, freedom fighters, citizens of planet Earth, I wish you love, peace and divine protection,
Meria
10/26/01
5:01:57 PM
Company Loses Second Bid to Silence Stockholder Who Posted Critical Comments on Web
California Judge Dismisses SLAPP Suit Filed by Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A California judge has dismissed Hollis-Eden Pharaceuticals' second lawsuit against a stockholder who posted critical messages on an Internet message board. The judge agreed with Public Citizen Litigation Group's position that the suit was an improper SLAPP suit -- (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) -- a lawsuit designed to deter public participation.
In May 2001, Hollis-Eden, a drug research firm, sued Los Angeles area resident Greg Alcus, claiming that a message he had posted to Yahoo!'s "HEPH" message board in March defamed the company. Alcus, represented by Public Citizen, moved to strike the complaint pursuant to California's "anti-SLAPP" statute on the ground that the suit was an attempt to chill his right to speak freely about the publicly held company. Recognizing that First Amendment rights are threatened by the financial hardship and chilling effect of defending a frivolous lawsuit, the anti-SLAPP statute gives SLAPP defendants a mechanism for having meritless suits dismissed early in the litigation.
The judgment entered this week follows a Sept. 24 ruling by California Superior Court Judge Kevin A. Enright that the subject of Alcus' posting concerned a matter of "public interest" within the meaning of the SLAPP statute and that Hollis-Eden's claims against Alcus were meritless. In the March 21, 2001, posting, Alcus asked why the company was sitting on information about a drug research project. Alcus based his message on the company's public filings and answers given by a company official during a shareholders' meeting.
"Hollis-Eden's real gripe was not with any particular posting, but with the fact that Mr. Alcus was critical of the company," said Allison Zieve, an attorney with Public Citizen who represented Alcus. "Hollis-Eden's goal was to stifle Mr. Alcus. The judge clearly understood that."
San Diego-based Hollis-Eden first sued Alcus on Dec. 14, 2000, claiming that two comments he posted in November were defamatory. Enright dismissed that case on March 28, 2001, saying that the comments were related to a matter of public interest and that the company had no likelihood of prevailing in the case. The judge ordered the company to pay approximately $72,000 for Alcus' attorney fees.
In the second suit, Hollis-Eden complained about the March 21 posting. The company again claimed that Alcus had defamed the company. In dismissing the suit, the judge again awarded attorney fees.
In a motion to strike filed on Alcus' behalf, Zieve argued that Alcus' March posting fell within the scope of a California statute that protects people from SLAPP suits and was not defamatory. The company is a publicly traded corporation that invites public comment, she argued. When the company's stock price falls, when its drug development stalls or when investors have trouble obtaining information about the company, the ensuing discussion is a matter of public interest.
Public Citizen worked on the case with local counsel Charles A. Bird of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP, based in San Diego, Calif.
For background information about this and other Internet free speech cases that Public Citizen has handled, please go to
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/briefs/IntFreeSpch/articles.cfm?ID=5801
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.
For more information, please visit http://www.citizen.org
10/26/01
4:50:28 PM
UTNE WEB WATCH
The Best of the Alternative Web
THE CHALLENGE OF TERROR: A TRAVELING ESSAY
by John Paul Lederach, World Council of Churches
-- How much is the Unites States' cry for revenge really about justice? What is the answer to terrorism? What will keep events like those on September 11, 2001, from ever happening again? John Paul Lederach examines all of these questions in his essay for the World Council of Churches.
PUNK ROCK COOKING
by Gayle Forman, Getcrafty.com
Look out Julia Child--anarchist cooking is coming to a kitchen near you! In this delicious article, complete with 10 tips to add anarchy to your own cooking style, Gayle Forman shucks convention and encourages amateurs to engage in free association in the supermarket and embrace kitchen disasters--it's all part of the process.
SHELL GAME: CITIBANK ATTACKS MONEY-LAUNDERING REGULATIONS
by Lucy Komisar, In These Times
-- Citibank, a known supporter of off-shore banks that help clients hide funds, opposes anti-money laundering laws being considered by Congress.
Links to the above articles: http://www.utne.com/webwatch
10/26/01
4:48:22 PM
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE
U.S. AND KENYA CLASH OVER ANTHRAX TAINTED MAIL
By Jennifer Wanjiru
NAIROBI, Kenya, October 25, 2001 (ENS) - Kenya and the United States are locked in a war of words over whether a parcel sent to a Kenyan doctor actually contained anthrax spores.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-25-03.html
SUCCESS OF ENGINEERED FOODS DEPENDS ON CONSUMER TRUST
By Cat Lazaroff
WASHINGTON, DC, October 25, 2001 (ENS) - The United States and Europe appear to be on a collision course over the regulation of genetically modified food, according to senior government policy advisors speaking Wednesday at a Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology dialogue, entitled, "Are the U.S. and Europe Heading for a Food Fight Over Genetically Modified Food?"
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-25-06.html
LAWSUIT PROMPTS EPA TO DOWNGRADE AIR QUALITY IN CALIFORNIA VALLEY
SAN FRANCISCO, California, October 25, 2001 (ENS) - Under threat of litigation from medical, community and environmental groups, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has downgraded the air quality status of California's San Joaquin Valley from serious to severe. The change will require the region's environmental regulators to develop plans to reduce ozone pollution by 30 percent by 2005.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-25-07.html
FISHING SUBSIDIES BILLIONS MORE THAN GOVERNMENTS ADMIT
GLAND, Switzerland, October 25, 2001 (ENS) - Government subsidies to the fishing industry amount to at least US$15 billion per year, or roughly 20 percent of the total landed value of the world's commercial fish catch, according to new figures released today by WWF, the conservation organization.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-25-02.html
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: OCTOBER 25, 2001
Salmonella Genome Decoded
Climate Change Defeated Extinct North American Mammals
Critical Habitat Proposed for Endangered Plant
Rochester Playgrounds Contaminated with Arsenic
Air Cleaning System Could Destroy Anthrax
New Children's Environmental Health Centers Designated
Horseshoe Crab Research Center Opens in Virginia
Blue Ridge Paper Must Reduce Wastewater Color Discharge
Boeing Gives $1 Million for Puget Sound Environmental Center
Acacia Vineyard Helps Restore Napa-Sonoma Marshes
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-25-09.html
10/26/01
3:50:39 PM
Nuclear Power And Terrorism
by Matt Bivens
Go to the website of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( www.nrc.gov), and you'll find an apology for how thin the information is there. On October 11 the website was closed; now bits and pieces are slowly re-emerging. Susan Gagner, an NRC press spokeswoman, says the site is being "scrubbed" of information that might be useful to terrorists. She said the NRC had been asked to take that action by "another government agency," but would not say which one. Another NRC spokesman told Reuters they were removing, for example, latitude and longitude coordinates of nuclear reactors, plant schematics and so on. Note that a full monthafter September 11, the NRC had to be toldto do this by someone else!
Well, better late than never. As The Nation has reported, the terrorists who in 1993 bombed the World Trade Center trained beforehand at a remote site not thirty miles from Three Mile Island --and afterward threatened to send 150 suicide bombers into America's nuclear plants. [See "Nuclear Safety," September 16]. Given that Al Qaeda terrorists active in America have been thinking about nuclear terrorism for eight years now, it seems likely that much of the NRC's now-secret information--assuming it was of interest and is not still obtainable on any AAA road map--was downloaded long ago.
In any case, one needs minimal inspiration from the NRC website to brainstorm half-a-dozen ways a handful of motivated individuals could turn a nuclear power plant into an American Chernobyl. (Or forty-four Chernobyls. That's the sort of deadly radiation cloud New Scientist magazine predicts England and Ireland would see if a commercial jetliner plowed into the spent fuel pool of Britain's Sellafield plant. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Sellafield's parent company, called the report "irresponsible.")
The 1986 fire at Chernobyl threw radiation across Ukraine, Belarus and much of Europe. The death-and-injury toll is a matter of debate; of 300 volunteer firefighters who immediately showed up to battle the six-day blaze, thirty-one were dead within the week. As the fire burned on, thousands more volunteers arrived, but estimates vary as to how many died how rapidly. The Ukrainian government this year estimated that more than 4,000 of those volunteer firefighters have since died a young death, and that more than 70,000 Ukrainians have been "disabled" by radiation sicknesses. The radiation has also created national sacrifice areas in Ukraine and Belarus, where hundreds of thousands deserted their homes in minutes, many of them never to return. Kiev has declared an area the size of the Netherlands unsuitable for agriculture; in neighboring Belarus, nearly a quarter of all farmland is contaminated, and the Health Ministry recorded a 161 percent increase in birth defects in babies born between 1986 and 1993. The World Health Organization says thousands of children have contracted or will contract thyroid cancer over the next decades, an ailment treatable with medication if caught early enough.
US government action is being taken to defend some of America's 104 nuclear power plants from such a fate. National Guardsmen have been called out to patrol some reactors, and others along the Great Lakes are being watched by the Coast Guard. But the NRC remains tight-lipped and looks like a spectator--in public never moving from its initial September 11 "recommendation" that commercial nuclear plants adopt high-level security--while state governors, national security officials and Congressional critics drive the action.
The NRC could demand or order instead of just recommending. But it has not done so--even when its recommendation looks to have been ignored. For example, it took well over a month after the World Trade Center fell--and weeks of complaints by citizens, media and politicians--before the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant could be bothered to post a guard and a gate at the road leading into its complex. Maine Yankee is being "decommissioned," but it's still home to an enormous pool of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel. A spokesman for Maine Yankee, Eric House, said that despite the complaints that the place looked like a ghost town, security has been there all along--just "focused" on the metal warehouse over the spent fuel pool. Some locals say they've heard there are armed men inside that building, but House would not comment on that. So there's no way for the public to know whether those armed men have increased in number since September 11; or whether they could handle five or ten or twenty armed kamikaze terrorists; or what they could do to prevent, say, a truck bomb from trundling through the open gate, parking next to the pool house and then making most of Maine uninhabitable after it blows up.
NRC officials counter that there has been no "specific or credible" threat to Maine Yankee, or to any other American nuclear plant. Apparently they were waiting for delivery of an Osama-gram with a big hissing fuse attached. And apparently they finally received something like that on Wednesday, when the NRC announced that a "credible" threat had been made "very specifically" against Three Mile Island. (So just as someone called them to tell them to clean up their website, someone--the CIA? the terrorists?--called them to suggest they look to Three Mile Island.) No details were offered, but some Pennsylvania airports were closed for several hours. By Thursday, the threat was "no longer credible."
There is nothing new in this lackadaisical approach to nuclear plant security. Daniel Hirsch of the Committee to Bridge the Gap--the gap in question being that between the public and the jargon-filled world of nuclear power--has recounted how he and others spent a dismaying fifteen years trying to get the NRC to insist on forcing the power plants it licenses simply to set up barriers to potential truck bombs. In 1982, after a suicide bomber killed 241 US Marines stationed in Lebanon, the NRC began to hear Hirsch's pleas, and to re-examine its 1970s-era security regulations for nuclear facilities. Those rules required that reactors be prepared for the following worst-case scenario: three lightly armed attackers moving together on foot, assisted by a fourth attacker inside the plant's work force. No cars, no planes, no grenades, no truck bombs, no gases, no multiple teams.
According to a paper Hirsch wrote in the mid-1980s, NRC safeguards staff saw post-Lebanon truck bombs as a serious danger, and in 1984 publicized their intent to put out new rules. The NRC contracted with the Sandia National Laboratories to study the truck-bomb threat--and Sandia concluded that it was worse than all had feared. A reasonable-sized charge set back beyond even the protected area for most plants could cause "unacceptable damage." (In other words, it could rip things apart sufficiently to cause reactor safety systems to fail, radiological releases, etc.--the sort of thing that a 1982 US Congressional Committee study had just concluded might bring thousands of fatalities, millions of poisonings and billions of dollars in damages.)
Oddly, Hirsch writes, two weeks after they got that terrifying Sandia research back, the NRC postponed all action on a new truck-bomb-defense ruling--"pending the results of research." If it's more dangerous than ever, why postpone? Hirsch writes that the NRC was taken aback at the cost to the industry of real security and plunged into a paralyzing internal debate. "As long as the proposed NRC truck-bomb rule involved only a few extra concrete barricades on-site, the cost to the licensees [nuclear power plants] would have been minimal and the political cost to the NRC acceptable," he wrote. "When research revealed that the problem was considerably more serious than previously thought and the solution therefore more expensive, the regulatory agency apparently felt it could not afford to require action proportionate to the problem." Other government agencies were all putting in truck-bomb-defense policies (at taxpayer expense); the NRC contented itself with studying truck-bomb-defense policies rather than requiring them.
In 1993, nine years later, after talk of new rules had begun, a deranged man drove his station wagon through the gates of Three Mile Island, crashing it into the turbine building and disappearing for four hours. Weeks later, terrorists tied to Al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center, and afterward wrote to the New York Times that they would send 150 suicide bombers against US nuclear targets.
Suddenly Hirsch and others who had written about security weaknesses at nuclear plants--among them Paul Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute and Bennett Ramberg, author of Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy: An Unrecognized Military Peril--found their truck-bomb fears shared by Congress. Under pressure, the NRC and the industry built new truck-bomb defenses.
But other concerns of Leventhal, Ramberg and Hirsch--for example, the danger of terrorists infiltrating a nuclear plant's work force -- were less satisfactorily handled. All three participated in a post-September 11 press conference in Washington to advocate, among other things, US military troops and antiaircraft weaponry posted at every nuclear facility. They also called for plant operators to aggressively recheck employee backgrounds, and for a government moratorium on plans to ship spent nuclear fuel to a central depository tentatively planned for Yucca Mountain, Nevada--a plan critics deride as "mobile Chernobyl."
Is that really what it takes to protect nuclear plants? If so, then some see in this a logical conclusion, and new currency for an old argument: that nuclear power is incompatible with democratic freedoms. If one has to scrub the websites, polygraph the employees, call out the guard and shoot down civilian aircraft that stray too close--does that sound like the USA, or the USSR?
And if it sounds too Soviet, then isn't it more sensible to just shut the nuclear plants down?
The Belgian government thinks so, and promises a bill by December 2002 to phase out its seven nuclear power reactors. Germany has already inked such a deal, and plans to replace the lost energy capacity with offshore windmill parks. It's easier than one might think. In America, despite all of the billions invested in it, nuclear power provides a mere fifth of the nation's electricity--far less than what five leading national laboratories say could be saved almost immediately with a national energy efficiency program, one that could unfold with most citizens never even noticing.
Given this logic, it's not hard to see why the industry would be in a state of denial about security: The very discussion is a lethal Pandora's box. Perhaps this is why a full month after September 11 the gates to Maine Yankee lay open, the NRC website was still packed with design schemata, and it was up to governors, not slow-moving NRC officials, to call out the guard. A clear-eyed discussion of how to defend these plants just might conclude that they are indefensible.
Source: http://www.TheNation.com
10/26/01
3:47:24 PM
Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy at the National Press Club on October 24, 2001
Military action and bioterrorism are capturing headlines, but the economy is also in dangerous territory. Hundreds of thousands have lost their jobs in the wake of the September 11 terrorism and the worsening recession. But instead of decisive action to help these displaced workers and spur the economy, the bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee is the worst kind of trickery. Paying mostly lip service to the plight of laid-off workers and the call for national unity, House Republican leaders are like the magician who says "Watch this hand" -- while shamelessly using the other hand to dole out economic pork.
We all know that the travel and tourism industries have been hit hard and according to the Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union, one-third of its members have been laid off. But among the hardest hit are women in state Welfare-to-Work programs who were trained in large numbers for work in the hotel industry. What happens to one of these women when she is laid off?
What does she find waiting for her at home? Will she receive the unemployment benefits that her co-workers get? Will she be forced to reapply for welfare assistance, for whatever is left of her 5-year limit? Tick. Tick. Tick. Every tick of that cruel clock bringing her and her children closer to despair, and not a job in sight. Only the Congress can stop the clock - and stop this heartless threat to poor families during a recession. Furthermore, women who are still receiving welfare assistance but have been unable to find jobs cannot reasonably be held to a time limit that is set to expire, when there simply are no jobs to be found.
It is likely that the House will pass this bill, so we must demand that the Senate create a plan to help both the people and the economy - not big business. This includes reforming unemployment insurance to include more workers, especially part-time workers, extending benefits and giving them directly to the unemployed (not block-granting to the states, creating another level of bureaucracy), stopping the welfare time clock, and rejecting any tax breaks for corporations that are not directly tied to new investments and job creation.
If Congress wants to stimulate spending, then it needs to get money into the hands of low-income and laid-off workers who, by necessity, will put it right back into the economy -- while feeding their families.
10/26/01
3:42:00 PM
Saudi Arabia Slams Western Media
Western states are seeking to keep good relations with Riyadh
by Frank Gardner, the BBC
Saudi Arabia has strongly attacked the Western media for criticising its position on terrorism.
In a speech published on Thursday, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abd Ulaziz - who effectively runs the country - called it a smear campaign inspired by hatred of Islam.
Several US senators, as well as the US media, have accused Saudi Arabia of not doing enough in the war against terror - a charge it vehemently denies.
"The vicious western media attack against the Kingdom is only because of the ancient spite against Islam," the Saudi crown prince was quoted as saying.
He said that his government would not compromise on the issue of defending its religion or the nation - strong words from a strong leader and ones which were dutifully reprinted by the government controlled-press.
Accusations
The speech follows repeated accusations in the Western media that Saudi Arabia is partly to blame for supporting extremist Islamic groups outside the country.
Until recently, Saudi Arabia was one of only three countries to maintain ties with Afghanistan's Taleban rulers.
Some US senators have also criticised Saudi Arabia for not doing more to support the US led war on terrorism, but that charge has been denied in public by both the Saudi and US governments.
Last Sunday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said both Egypt and Saudi Arabia had responded to every request the US had made of them.
But most Saudis find it hard to accept that hostile opinions voiced in the Western media are not directed by Western governments.
Since they have never known a free press in their own country, many assume that Western media criticism in some way reflects official government policy.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk
10/26/01
3:34:31 PM
Take A Guess: Who's Going To Pay For The Terror Economy?
by Robert B. Reich
Not since World War II have Americans felt so unified. We're fighting a war against terrorism and we're fighting to get the economy moving again. And we're all in this together. Except when it comes to paying the bill. The cost of the war on terrorism since Sept. 11 is estimated to be $40 billion, just for this year. That includes at least $20 billion for the military; $7 billion for recovery and relief in New York and at the Pentagon; $3 billion to fight bioterrorism; $2 billion for more security at dams, power plants and federal buildings; and $600 million to secure our airports and aircraft.
That's a lot but still less than 1% of our annual national product. To get the economy moving again, the federal government will have to part with a lot more. Ideally, the government would put that added money into the hands of middle-and lower-income people. Not only are they the most at risk of losing their jobs but they're also much more likely to spend additional cash. High-income people already spend all the money they want to. The House Ways and Means Committee has proposed $100 billion in tax cuts over the next year to spur the economy. Problem is, these cuts are mostly for the rich. All of the $54 billion in accelerated tax cuts would go to the top 30% of taxpayers. Half would go to the top 5%. Eighty percent of the benefits from the proposed capital gains tax cuts would go to the richest 2% of households.
So who's going to pay? Middle-and lower-income Americans. Eighty percent of Americans now pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. The House Ways and Means bill doesn't cut payroll taxes, even temporarily. To the contrary, it would increase the odds that payroll taxes would have to be hiked.
Here's why: With all the extra spending and tax cutting, the federal budget will go into the red next year.
That itself is no cause for worry. A budget deficit is perfectly fine when the economy is shrinking, as it almost certainly is now. Consumers and businesses aren't spending enough to keep the economy running near full capacity, so the federal government spends more and taxes less.
Unfortunately, the House's tax bill retains most of its cuts beyond next year, even after the economy is likely to turn up again. That spells trouble because government is going to need a lot more money starting in a decade, when the 79 million baby boomers begin collecting Social Security.
What to do? One possibility would be to raise the Social Security retirement age. It's already 67 for some people; it could even go to 70. But this wouldn't be fair to lower-income people, many of whom will have spent 45 years in hard physical work. Another possibility would be to slash SocialSecurity payments. But this wouldn't be fair to boomers who paid payroll taxes on the assumption that they could count on Social Security.
The most likely solution would be to hike payroll taxes. Odds are that this is what the president's Social Security commission will recommend. That way, the federal budget would go back to a surplus, allowing the federal debt to drop. By the time the boomers' Social Security comes due, the government could borrow the money to pay them.
The payroll taxes paid by today's workers are more than sufficient to cover the cost of today's Social Security because the boomers are still working. So where is the extra going? To finance the war against terrorism and--if the House Ways and Means Committee has its way--a big tax cut going mostly to the rich.
Get it? Income and capital gains tax cuts for the rich now, payroll tax hikes on middle-and lower-income Americans to come.
Americans like to think we're all in this together. But if the tax bill now emerging in the House becomes law, the richest of us will be excused.
Robert B. Reich, a former secretary of Labor, is a professor of economic and social policy at Brandeis University and the author of "The Future of Success" (Knopf, 2001)
Source: http://www.latimes.com
10/26/01
3:27:31 PM
Planet Ark World Environment News
UPDATE - US State Dept mailman falls sick with anthrax - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12987/story.htm
US energy bill, Alaska plans, may wait until 2002 - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12988/story.htm
Rockies seen as key to US natural gas growth - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12997/story.htm
USDA says government ready for food supply threat - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12991/story.htm
GM to work with ChevronTexaco on gasoline fuel cells - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13002/story.htm
UPDATE - New Jersey probes possible new anthrax case - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12986/story.htm
FEATURE - New aluminium process aims to cut pollution - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12995/story.htm
Controversial Thai-Malaysia gas pipeline gets nod - THAILAND http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12996/story.htm
WWF urges reform of $15 bln fishing subsidies - SWITZERLAND http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12993/story.htm
Three bodies pulled from wreck of Russia's Kursk - RUSSIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12992/story.htm
Ireland goes for green with new recycling effort - REPUBLIC OF IRELAND http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12989/story.htm
NZ Parliament office evacuated in anthrax scare - NEW ZEALAND http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12999/story.htm
German VDEW rejects mandatory emissions trading - GERMANY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12990/story.htm
German fuel cell developers pool resources - GERMANY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13000/story.htm
EU candidates look to clear path in Friday talks - CZECH REPUBLIC http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12994/story.htm
Gas is facing a tougher than expected battle - AUSTRALIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12998/story.htm
Australia aluminium fears cuts if Labor wins poll - AUSTRALIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13001/story.htm
10/26/01
3:23:48 PM
US Deptartment of Energy Suspends Atomic Waste Train Due To Terrorist Threat
by NIRS.org
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has agreed with the objections of numerous environmental and public interest groups, suspending a planned transcontinental train shipment of high-level atomic waste due to concern about possible terrorist attacks. The atomic waste train scheduled to carry 125 highly radioactive nuclear fuel assemblies from West Valley, New York through ten states to Idaho has now been postponed until at least April 1, 2002. It would have been one of the largest single shipments of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel in U.S. history, according to DOE spokesman John Chamberlain.
"Actions speak louder than words, so although DOE will not admit it publicly, it's clear the West Valley shipment was suspended due to terrorism and security concerns," said Kevin Kamps of Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS). "We're relieved DOE has recognized the extreme danger this proposed shipment would have created and chose instead to suspend the shipment. But the threat such shipments pose is not going to go away in a few months. Proposals for shipping tens of thousands of high-level radioactive waste containers by train and truck through 43 States past the homes of 50 million Americans to national dumpsites in Utah and Nevada must be re-examined in light of the potential for terrorist attacks."
Last summer, NIRS hauled a full-size replica atomic waste transport container along the actual West Valley shipment route through NY, PA, OH, IN, IL, MO, KS, NE, WY, and ID, educating the public about the dangers of nuclear waste transportation.
According to sources closely following the shipment's status, the twin 20 foot-long, dumbbell-shaped metallic atomic waste containers were scheduled to leave DOE's West Valley Demonstration Project near Buffalo as early as mid-September, but that was before Sept. 11. Due to concerns about additional potential terrorist attacks, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham suspended DOE nuclear waste and materials shipments the day after 9/11. But DOE began lifting that suspension just a couple weeks later, raising the possibility that the West Valley shipment might still roll by the end of October. Because metal gaskets on the two containers have not been certified for cold weather conditions, DOE had agreed to deliver the shipment to its Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory no later than Oct. 31 in order to avoid encountering extreme low temperatures.
DOE reinstituted its suspension of nuclear waste shipments on Oct. 7, due to concerns of potential reprisal attacks in response to the beginning of U.S. military action in Afghanistan that day. Despite this, DOE's West Valley site director Alice Williams told the Buffalo News on Oct. 16 that the nuclear train might still roll by the end of the month despite on-going national terrorist threats. However, the very next day, orders were sent to Williams from DOE headquarters in Washington explicitly suspending the shipment until next spring, according to an Oct. 19 Buffalo News article. The two containers will now be off-loaded from the on-site railcars, where they sat outdoors since May, and will spend the winter inside the West Valley facility.
"Energy Secretary Abraham's decision to halt this high-level nuclear waste shipment, not once, not twice, but three times clearly shows that the Energy Department itself acknowledges atomic waste trains like this one are potential terrorist targets," said Tim Rinne, State Coordinator of Nebraskans for Peace.
"Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI have warned about additional terrorist attacks. Trucking firms and railroads have been put on highest alert against attacks upon hazardous and radiological shipments. Recently, airports around the Three Mile Island nuclear plant were shut down due to a terrorist threat. The DOE shipment ban should be extended indefinitely, and expanded to cover commercial high-level nuclear waste shipments as well," said Kay Drey of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
Despite the current shipment ban, Energy Secretary Abraham appears ready to give his thumbs up to the national high-level atomic waste dumpsite targeted at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. DOE closed its public comment period on the Yucca proposal Oct. 19, and has announced Abraham will make his recommendation to President Bush by the end of the year or early next year. In recent days, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) publicly announced its "concurrence" with DOE's Yucca Mountain siting guidelines, and in recent weeks finalized its own Yucca licensing regulations. At the same time, the NRC is reviewing a nuclear power industry license application to "temporarily store" all currently-existing irradiated fuel at the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation in Utah, which would launch 200 high-level atomic waste trains per year throughout the country as early as 2004.
"It is hypocritical for DOE to put the brakes on the West Valley shipment while rushing ahead to give its thumbs up to Yucca Mountain," said Dave Ritter, policy analyst at Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "Approval of the Yucca Mountain repository proposal would launch tens of thousands of high-level atomic waste trucks and trains onto our roads and rails. Inadequately addressing potential terrorist threats to such shipments is rash, irresponsible, and reckless."
DOE studies show that 50 million Americans in 45 States live within a half mile of projected highway and train routes to Yucca Mountain.
Critics also point to an Aug. 27, 1998 letter written by Abraham, who was then a U.S. Senator from Michigan, to then-Energy Secretary Richardson regarding plutonium shipments. In the letter, Abraham wrote "I am sure you will agree that the ramifications of an accident are too serious to consider anything less than the very best emergency response preparedness." A copy of the letter is available from NIRS.
"Just as police and firefighters were on the front line of the 9/11 attacks, so would emergency responders be called upon to protect our communities in the event of an atomic waste transport accident or terrorist attack upon a shipment," said Chris Williams, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana. "They need to be thoroughly trained and well equipped to deal with radiation emergencies, and not caught off-guard as our government agencies have been by the bio-terrorism attacks."
Critics have also called upon NRC to address terrorist threats to atomic waste transport containers. Commercial high-level atomic waste shipments, such as those to Carolina Power and Light's Shearon Harris reactor storage pools in North Carolina, have not been suspended despite the DOE ban.
In a Sept. 21 response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the NRC -responsible for regulating commercial and DOE high-level atomic waste transport containers and shipment safeguards --admitted that "the capacity of shipping casks to withstand such a [large aircraft] crash has not been analyzed."
In June 1999 the State of Nevada filed a "Petition for Rulemaking" to the NRC, charging that safeguards against terrorist attacks on high-level radioactive waste shipments were woefully inadequate or non-existent. Nine state governments and the Western Governors Association endorsed the petition. Despite officially agreeing to act on the petition in Sept. 1999, the NRC has yet to do so. A copy of the petition is available from NIRS.
"Large scale movement of radioactive waste on the roads and rails would create tens of thousands of potential targets, in virtually any scenario a terrorist might choose, whether major metropolitan areas, suburbs, or the agricultural heartland, near schools, hospitals, or water supplies," said Corey Conn of Illinois-based Nuclear Energy Information Service.
Kevin Kamps or Diane D'Arrigo, Nuclear Information & Resource Service
Phone: 202 328.0002 / Web: http://www.nirs.org
10/25/01
6:29:51 PM
Global Warming Alert Issued For U.S. Gulf States
by Union of Concerned Scientist
Conflicts over fresh water are in the future for the five U.S. states that border the Gulf of Mexico, a new report from the Changing Climate Endangers Gulf States' Valuable Natural Heritage
Top Scientists Say Region Must Plan Now to Avert Economic and Environmental Impacts.
A comprehensive new study released today by leading university and government scientists in the Gulf States concludes that the combined impacts of global warming and pressure from human activities pose serious challenges to the region. The scientists find that climate change in the Gulf States will lead to more extreme rainfall events and longer dry periods, accelerating sea-level rise and increased coastal flooding, and northward extension of ranges of non-native plants and animals with the projected 3-7 degrees Fahrenheit temperature increase over the 21st century. The report foresees wide-ranging impacts, including more conflicts over fresh water and potential threats to the region's vital agriculture, forestry, shipping and tourism industries.
"Climate change will likely magnify the harmful side effects of human activity on the region's environment," said the lead author of the report, Dr. Robert Twilley of the University of Louisiana-Lafayette. "Our natural resources contribute over $160 billion a year to the region's economy. We must act now to protect our valuable heritage."
Confronting Climate Change in the Gulf Coast Region: Prospects for Sustaining Our Ecological Heritage is a joint effort by the Ecological Society of America and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Leading ecological scientists from the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, University of New Orleans, University of Alabama, Rice University, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, University of Florida, University of South Florida, and University of Miami wrote the report. One of the nation's top atmospheric scientists from Pennsylvania State University assisted with the study. The report represents the current state of scientific knowledge about the impacts of climate change on the Gulf Coast's unique environments. It draws on the research of the world's leading climate scientists, who have found that carbon pollution from power plants, vehicles and clearing forests is contributing to rising global temperatures and a changing climate.
According to the new report, global warming may intensify the region's historically variable and sometimes extreme climate, and threatens to undermine the efforts along the coast to restore wetlands and beaches. Accelerated sea-level rise together with local land subsidence could lead to substantially higher ocean levels by the end of the 21st century. Increased maximum summer temperatures and heat index increases could give rise to more frequent heat waves and more heat-related illnesses and deaths per year.
"This report is a wake-up call to everyone in the Gulf region that climate change is real and must be taken seriously," said Dr. Denise Reed from the University of New Orleans. "Problems with freshwater supplies for agriculture, industry, and urban areas are likely to get worse."
If the climate becomes drier in the future, a change in the intensity and frequency of wildfires is likely to result in severe impacts on the timber industry in the region. If the climate becomes wetter, on the other hand, the region's forestry industry could also be threatened by a higher incidence of pests such as the Southern pine bark beetle. Agriculture, crucial to the Gulf States' economy, might also have to deal with increased pest incidence, droughts, and fires. While fewer freeze events and higher carbon dioxide concentrations would have positive implications for the industry, the challenges to meet the water needs of crops will be increasingly serious, even if rainfall stays at current levels.
Public health in the region is not immune to the threats of a changing climate. Higher temperatures will lead to increased production of ground-level ozone, which, when combined with higher concentrations of air pollutants and higher pollen counts, could seriously compromise air quality. Higher water temperatures and increased salinity in estuarine waters could also increase viral and bacterial contamination of shellfish along the Gulf coast, negatively impacting the recreation and commercial fishing industries.
But the scientists say the outlook is not hopeless.
"Prudent steps now to protect our land and water resources can pay big dividends in the future," said Dr. Susanne Moser, Staff Scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Leaders from Corpus Christi to the Florida Keys should act without delay to minimize the impacts of climate change."
The report says the Gulf States can meet the challenge of global warming with a three-pronged approach: reducing emissions of carbon pollution, minimizing human stresses on ecosystems, and adapting to the challenges to come. Reducing the dependence on fossil fuels by developing clean energy sources would reduce global warming gas emissions and create jobs and new economic opportunities for region. By implementing the best practices in land and water resource use, policy-and decision-makers can minimize ecologically harmful side effects of climate change. And finally, elected officials and government leaders can plan ahead by increasing their flexibility and adaptive capacity in managing the state's precious water resources, agriculture, forests, ecosystems, and coasts. Search news releases
To set up interviews, or for UCS info, contact:
PAUL FAIN Press Secretary 202 223-6133 pfain@ucsusa.org
RICH HAYES Media Director 202 223-6133 rhayes@ucsusa.org
MICHAEL PANCOOK Transportation Media & Outreach Coordinator 510 843-1872 mpancook@ucsusa.org
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02238 617-547-5552 Contact us at ucs@ucsusa.org predicts.
The study on the impacts of global warming was conducted by scientists from the Gulf states: Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. It details potential threats to the region's agriculture, forestry, shipping, and tourism industries.
"Climate change will likely magnify the harmful side effects of human activity on the region's environment," said the lead author of the report, Dr. Robert Twilley of the University of Louisiana-Lafayette. "Our natural resources contribute more than $160 billion a year to the region's economy. We must act now to protect our valuable heritage."
"Confronting Climate Change in the Gulf Coast Region: Prospects for Sustaining Our Ecological Heritage" is a joint effort by the Ecological Society of America and the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report represents the current state of scientific knowledge about the impacts of climate change on the Gulf Coast's unique environments.
Using the work of climate scientists worldwide, Gulf states scientists projected a temperature rise in the region of three to seven degrees Fahrenheit during the 21st century.
This degree of warming will lead to more extreme rainfall events and longer dry periods, accelerating sea level rise, coastal flooding, and northward extension of ranges of nonnative plants and animals, the scientists found.
"This report is a wake-up call to everyone in the Gulf region that climate change is real and must be taken seriously," said Dr. Denise Reed from the University of New Orleans. "Problems with freshwater supplies for agriculture, industry, and urban areas are likely to get worse."
Global warming is linked to the emission of gases that trap the heat of the Sun's rays close to Earth by forming a layer in the atmosphere that functions the way the roof of a greenhouse keeps the Sun's warmth within.
Carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas, and most scientists worldwide agree that carbon dioxide pollution emitted from fossil fueled power plants and motor vehicles is contributing to rising global temperatures and a changing climate.
The ongoing deforestatation in both northern and tropical countries contributes to global warming by removing the trees who would otherwise absorb the excess carbon dioxide emitted by burning fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas.
Besides carbon dioxide, contributors to global warming include ozone in the high atmosphere, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride, nitrous oxide, and black carbon (soot) particles.
The Gulf states scientists conclude that the effect of global warming on their region may intensify its historically variable and sometimes extreme climate and threatens to undermine the efforts along the coast to restore wetlands and beaches.
Accelerated sea level rise brought about by melting polar ice caps together with local land subsidence could lead to higher ocean levels by the end of the 21st century, the report says. In Texas, a mid-range sea-level rise figure "would result in ocean levels 17 inches higher by 2100."
Salt-water intrusion in coastal groundwater sources — a problem already occurring during droughts — is likely to increase as sea level rises. Rationing of groundwater withdrawal may become more common, the scientists say.
If the climate becomes drier in the future, a change in the intensity and frequency of wildfires is likely to result in severe impacts on the timber industry in the region. If the climate becomes wetter, on the other hand, the region's forestry industry could also be threatened by a higher incidence of pests such as the Southern pine bark beetle.
Agriculture, crucial to the Gulf states' economy, might also have to deal with increased pest incidence, droughts, and fires. While fewer freeze events and higher carbon dioxide concentrations would have positive implications for the industry, the challenges to meet the water needs of crops will be increasingly serious, even if rainfall stays at current levels, the new report predicts.
Public health in the region is not immune to the threats of a changing climate, the scientists warn. Increased maximum summer temperatures and heat index increases could give rise to more frequent heat waves and more heat-related illnesses and deaths each year.
Higher temperatures would lead to increased production of ground-level ozone — smog — which, when combined with higher concentrations of air pollutants and higher pollen counts, could seriously compromise air quality, the study says.
Higher water temperatures and increased salinity in estuarine waters could also increase viral and bacterial contamination of shellfish along the Gulf Coast, negatively impacting the recreational and commercial fishing industries.
But the scientists say the outlook is not hopeless. "Prudent steps now to protect our land and water resources can pay big dividends in the future," said Dr. Susanne Moser, staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Massachusetts-based organization that coordinated the study. "Leaders from Corpus Christi to the Florida Keys should act without delay to minimize the impacts of climate change," she urged.
The report suggests that reducing emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing the dependence on fossil fuels would reduce global-warming gas emissions. The development of clean energy sources would create jobs and new economic opportunities for region.
By implementing the best practices in land and water resource use, policy and decision makers can minimize ecologically harmful side effects of climate change.
Ecological scientists from the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, University of New Orleans, University of Alabama, Rice University, the University of Florida, University of South Florida, and University of Miami wrote the report jointly with scientists from two federal government agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
2 Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02238
617-547-5552
MailTo:ucs@ucsusa.org
Source: http://www.ucsusa.org/index.html
10/25/01
4:18:57 PM
Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE
<http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/default.asp?source=top>
REAL GENIUSES
Two environmental activists were among the 23 people honored with MacArthur "genius awards" yesterday. One of the $500,000 fellowships, which are awarded annually to outstanding individuals by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, was pilot and conservationist Sandra Lanham. Lanham flies researchers to remote areas of the Southwest and Mexico to study endangered species. She is a self-taught naturalist, as is the other environmental MacArthur recipient, Cynthia Moss. The director of Kenya's Amboseli Elephant Research Project, Moss is one of the world's leading experts on elephants and author of "Portraits in the Wild," "Elephant Memories," and other books.
straight to the source, New York Times, Mel Gussow, 24 Oct 2001 <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/24/national/24AWAR.html>
10/25/01
3:00:33 PM
EMS.org
Groups Call for Hearings on Norton's Handling of Arctic Refuge Data
A coalition of environmental groups today (10/25) called for Senate hearings on Interior Secretary Gale Norton's apparent attempt to mislead Congress by altering government data regarding the effects of oil drilling on caribou in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Find out more: http://www.ems.org
Acid Rain Report Backs Jeffords Approach
The U.S. acid rain program needs an upgrade if ecosystems in Eastern states and Canada are to be restored, and a bill by Sen. Jeffords (I-Vt.) may hold the solution, according to groups releasing a new report on air pollution. Find out more read the press release and report: http://www.cleartheair.org
10/25/01
2:55:04 PM
Gallup Poll: World opts for criminal justice over war
An international Gallup poll shows:
*A majority of citizens in 32 out of 35 countries favored a criminal justice response, rather than military action response, to the Sept. 11 attacks. (Citizens of the U.S., Israel, and India were the exception).
*Majorities ranging from 67%-88% in NATO/Western countries and 83%-94% in Latin America favor a non-military approach.
*Of the European countries, France had the highest support for the military option with 30%. Britain had 18% support, and Greece 8%.
*All of the European countries were well above 60% in support of extradition of Osama bin Laden to stand trial.
*When asked whether their country should join with other NATO states to assist the U.S. in military strikes against the terrorists, European opinion varied widely - for example, only 29% in Greece agree, while 84% in France do so.
To see more complete Gallup Poll International results, go to:
http://www.gallup-international.com/terrorismpoll_figures.htm
10/25/01
2:45:30 PM
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE TO IRRADIATE MAIL
WASHINGTON, DC, October 24, 2001 (ENS) - The U.S. Postal Service will begin irradiating mail as of November 1 in an effort to wipe out deadly anthrax bacteria, Postmaster General Jack Potter announced today. The irradiation is part of a tough new set of measures Potter has introduced to protect postal workers and the public from anthrax in the mail.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-24-02.html
RESEARCH COULD OFFER NEW DEFENSES AGAINST ANTHRAX
WASHINGTON, DC, October 24, 2001 (ENS) - Two groups of researchers have announced key features of how anthrax toxin destroys cells. In back to back papers in the journal "Nature," investigators identify how one part of the toxin gets into cells and how another part turns off one of the cell's major internal switches. The studies also show how at least one molecule can prevent the toxin from destroying cells.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-24-06.html
CHESAPEAKE BAY IN FAILING HEALTH
By Cat Lazaroff
WASHINGTON, DC, October 24, 2001 (ENS) - Rapid development of open space and increasing pollution have led to the first documented health decline in the Chesapeake Bay in recent years, a new report reveals. The annual State of the Bay Report by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation shows that excessive water pollution, problems with the blue crab fishery and accelerated loss of land to suburban sprawl are harming bay ecosystems.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-24-07.html
CYANIDE SPILL GHANA'S WORST ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER
By Mike Anane
ACCRA, Ghana, October 24, 2001 (ENS) - Villages in the Wassa West District of Ghana's western region have been hit by the spillage of thousands of cubic metres of mine wastewater contaminated with cyanide and heavy metals. The cyanide-laced waste contaminated the River Asuman on October 16 when a tailings dam ruptured at a mine operation owned by the South African company, Goldfields Ltd.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-23-07.html
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: OCTOBER 24, 2001
Changing Climate Endangers Gulf States Ecosystems
Interior Bill Wins Praise from Enviros
$59 Million Pledged to Combat Lead Poisoning
Bryozoan Bacteria Could Help Fight Cancer
River Groups Sue Corps Over Dam
EPA Launches Projects to Clean Charles River
Geologist Finds Lost Island in Santa Barbara Channel
Public Comments Sought on Condor Reintroduction
Teacher at Sea Nets New Knowledge
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-24-09.html
10/25/01
1:35:50 PM
SCHAKOWSKY | New Tax Cut : Families vs. Huge Corporations
http://www.truthout.com/10.25.tax.cut.htm
SPECIAL REPORT | The Republican Special Interest Economic Package
http://www.truthout.com/4.NU.Tax.Cut.pdf
House Passes Sweeping Anti-Terrorism Bill
http://www.truthout.com/10.25.Anti-Terrorism.Bill.htm
DASCHLE | Briefing 10.24.01
http://www.truthout.com/10.25Daschle.Briefing.htm
GEPHARDT | Statements 10.24.01
http://www.truthout.com/10.25.Gephardt.Statements.htm
Afghanistan Roundup | 10.24.01
http://www.truthout.com/10.25.Afghan.Roundup.htm
10/25/01
1:26:00 PM
Pacifica Campaign Action Alert
Pacifica Chief Calls for Sale of KPFA and WBAI
Compares Pacifica Reform Movement To Sept. 11 Terrorists
Pacifica Campaign Demands Immediate Resignation of Ken Ford
Phone, Fax, E-mail Protests Set
NEW YORK, (Oct. 24) -- Pacifica Radio National Board Vice-Chair Ken Ford called yesterday for the 52-year-old network to sell its flagship station in Berkeley as well as its largest station, WBAI 99.5 FM in New York City. At the same time, Ken Ford denounced opponents of the sale as "zealots" and likened them to the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks that killed some 6,000 people.
Ken Ford estimates the sale of KPFA and WBAI could fetch anywhere from $300-$500 million, the San Francisco Examiner reported Tuesday, October 23.
"KPFA in Berkeley and WBAI in New York are in the broadcast band reserved for commercial stations," Ford was quoted as saying. "I've been told non-commercial licenses sell for $30 to $40 million and commercial licenses sell for $150 to $250 million each. Think of what we could do with the difference! Let's parley these commercial licenses into more stations around the country. To me that's just common sense."
Ford also told The Examiner that community radio activists nationwide, who have criticized the fiscal mismanagement, censorship, and union-busting at the five-station Pacifica Radio network, were akin to the Sept. 11 terrorists.
"They're zealots," he said. "I see parallels between this group and Al-Qaeda, the terrorists who bombed New York. They have an innate anger towards society as a whole."
Given the current national and international climate, many civil libertarians are concerned that such reckless "terrorist-baiting" could make peace and social justice activists subject to police surveillance and investigation or even worse.
The Pacifica Campaign, a nationwide organization of listeners and staff alike fighting to preserve Pacifica's mission of community-based radio, immediately criticized Ford's call for the sale of stations and his slander of the Pacifica reform movement.
"This is further evidence that the present Pacifica leadership is aiming to sell community assets and, we believe, to pocket some of the proceeds themselves," said Bok-Keem Nyerere, a staffer with the Pacifica Campaign. "Just this past August, Pacifica Board member Bert Lee confirmed to us that financial rewards have been offered to Board members if they back a sale."
Pacifica's leadership has been attempting to amend the network's bylaws in order to permit a sale of stations without a board majority vote and for board members to financially benefit from such a sale.
Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) went on to the floor of the House of Representatives earlier this year to warn about a sale of Pacifica station WBAI in New York. "My knowledge of the reputation of certain recent appointments to the board of the Pacifica Network ... leads me to conclude that there is a clear and immediate danger that attempts will be made to sell WBAI to a commercial owner. Such a sale would mean the loss of a vital voice for working families in New York City."
For the full story:
http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.pacifica.1023w
See also Counterpunch's analysis and the full text of the notorious 1999 Micheal Palmer email to Mary Frances Berry that discusses plans to sell either KPFA or WBAI:
http://www.freestone.com/kpfa/kpfa_email.html
PLEASE TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION CALL, FAX, AND E-MAIL
* Demand No Sale of KPFA and WBAI
* Demand Ken Ford's Immediate Resignation from the Pacifica Board
* Demand an Apology by Ken Ford for his Reckless Slander of the Pacifica Reform Movement
1) CALL AND/OR FAX THE FOLLOWING
Ken Ford
National Association of Home Builders
Pacifica Foundation Board Vice Chair
Tel: 800-368-5242 x8228
Tel: 301-350-6388
Fax: 202-822-0369
Jerry Howard, Ken Ford's Boss
NAHB Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer
Tel: 800-368-5242 x8257 or x8308
Fax: 202-266-8349
Robert Farrell
Pacifica Foundation Board Chair
Tel: 310-514-2052
Fax: 310-514-0967
John Murdock
Secretary, Pacifica Foundation
Tel: 202-861-0900
Fax: 202-296-2882
Wendell L. Johns
Treasurer, Pacifica Foundation
Fannie Mae
Washington, DC
Tel: 202-752-5355
Fax: 202-752-4281
Valrie Chambers
Board Member
Tel: 361-825-6012
Fax: 281-655-0266
Bert Lee
Board Member
Tel: 202-248-1896
Fax: 202-244-1151
2) EMAIL
Cut the below list of email addresses, paste it into the To: line of your email composition form, and then cut and paste the text of the letter or compose your own, and send it. Also go to:
http://www.progressiveportal.org/letters/pacifica/ford/
kford@nahb.com, KenFordPacifica@aol.com, bsmith@nahbofficer.com, jhoward@nahb.com, tomasmoran@aol.com, jmurdock@ebglaw.com, wendell_L_johns@fanniemae.com, Alfigo@aol.com, Valrie.Chambers@mail.tamucc.edu, ValrieChambers@aol.com, jmurdock@ebglaw.com, HARAV1@aol.com, robrobin@erols.com, lesliecagan@igc.org, prbram@aol.com, bmwpacifica@aol.com, JSPacifica@aol.com, gbarnstone@pdq.net, dick@dickgregory.com, krishnaroy@aol.com, jferguson@cnbc.org, voterparticipate@netscape.net, rwlc@aol.com, pacificacampaign@yahoo.com,
Sample Text
Dear Pacifica Board member,
Pacifica Board Vice-Chair Ken Ford's reckless call in the San Francisco Examiner for the sale of Pacifica stations KPFA and WBAI for $300-$500 million represents an abrogation of his responsibility as a steward of the Pacifica Radio network. He should resign immediately.
Further, we are appalled that Ken Ford has compared critics of Pacifica management to those who've carried out the Sept. 11 attacks that killed 6,000 people.
"They're zealots," he said of the nationwide group of free speech and community radio activists who have criticized the mismanagement, chaos, censorship, and union-busting at the five-station Pacifica Radio network. "I see parallels between this group and al Qaeda, the terrorists who bombed New York. They have an innate anger towards society as a whole."
Ken Ford is being insensitive not only to those who have lost their lives and their family members in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he is insulting the tens of thousands of Pacifica listeners, staffers, national board members, and wide sectors of the community radio movement nationwide who have been peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights in urging accountability and democratic reform at the country's oldest listener-sponsored radio network.
Ken Ford has repeatedly sought to slander our movement as violent, as terrorists and extortionists. Not one shred of evidence has ever been offered to substantiate these allegations. He has also threatened members of the public with prosecution by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and says he reported some to the FBI for the crime of sending him a critical email. Clearly, he has no appreciation for the First Amendment or civil liberties. His term on the Board has expired. He should resign immediately.
xoxox
Tax deductible contributions to support the work of the Pacifica Campaign may be made to our fiscal sponsor, a 501 (c) (3) organization. Make checks payable to: Institute for Media Analysis-Pacifica Campaign. Our mailing address: The Pacifica Campaign, 51 MacDougal St., #80, New York, NY 10012. Thank-you.
Or donate on-line at http://www.pacificacampaign.org/donate.asp
10/25/01
1:03:10 PM
An Emblem Of The Times
by Silvia A. Brandon Pérez
The progress of the times demands we cut more trees that we may print the Sunday Times -- O darkest age approaching! Will death's newest angel light a candle on this path? O darkest darkness, will you reign at last? Such people as inhabit these horizons, O world, O new, O brave, their resumés a short biography of the age, the lettered and unlettered both, captains of commerce and the rest -- this modern world in all respects a shadowed pantomime that chills the breath ... the newest version of the rule strike unto them, lest you be stricken first. And money wins all causes, did it always? Are these eyes fogged by present strife? O brave new dark new world, could I salute, I would; I'm sadly burdened with regrets that come at midpoint in our lives -- did I teach well, was my example pure, could I have done a better deed -- O world, not brave except when dollars pave the way, the value of a man in dimes and cents, or in the suit he wears, or in the car he drives, the modern hero but an ancient prostitute, sold to the bidder who pays best. Let freedom ring to freedom's knell, and modern heaven equal modern hell, well carpeted in finest Aubusson, with Jennair stoves to add well-mannered flames. O darkness, all the lights about my city flicker, the final blackout beckons.
Silvia A. Brandon Pérez is a “people’s lawyer,” by her own description, a litigator specializing in civil rights and immigration. She has been writing poetry since she was 11.
10/25/01
12:50:32 PM
PARTISAN TAX RELIEF FOR THE RICH AND POWERFUL
Congress' Stimulus Package Passes Over the Poor and Unemployed
by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
The House Ways and Means Committee's economic stimulus package approved on October 12 -- costing $103 billion in fiscal year 2002 and $162 billion over ten years -- consists overwhelmingly of tax cuts. More than 95 percent of its cost in 2002 and over the next 10 years are tax reductions, and between eight and nine of every ten dollars in the package over the next decade are cuts for corporations and businesses, or cuts that disproportionately benefit upper-income families.
While the legislation showers tax-cut benefits on corporations and high-income individuals, it provides scant assistance to unemployed workers. Only a small fraction of unemployed workers would receive added unemployment insurance benefits when their regular benefits run out, or secure any help in maintaining their health insurance. Indeed, most unemployed workers would get no assistance under the legislation.
The legislation also is inconsistent with bipartisan principles for a sound and fiscally responsible stimulus package that the Ways and Means Committee chairs and the ranking members of the House and Senate Budget Committees issued just two weeks ago. Those principles call for stimulus measures to be temporary and to have a quick effect on the economy. However, many of the tax cuts in the Ways and Means package are permanent and would do little to stimulate the economy now.
Essentially, the Ways and Means Committee has used the stimulus legislation as a vehicle to attach a number of tax cuts that have little to do with boosting the economy now or assisting unemployed workers. Instead they are tax cuts that have long been sought by powerful interest groups and that some in Congress have long favored for ideological reasons. Even Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill criticized some of the elements of the Ways and Means package as "show business" designed to accommodate constituents.
Some of these tax provisions provide major benefits to selected corporations. Changes in the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax included in the Ways and Means package would provide $25 billion in 2002 to corporations subject to the AMT. According to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, more than a dozen major corporations -- including IBM, General Motors, and several energy companies -- would each receive tax breaks of over $100 million as a result of these changes. Companies would receive most of these AMT benefits as tax refund checks. The total amount of such checks that would be written to these corporations would exceed the total in "rebate" checks that would be sent to over 40 million low- and moderate-income taxpayers under the bill.
Moreover, if the proposal's provision to allow partial expensing of business investments were approved, it would cause states to lose an estimated $5 billion a year in revenues for the next three years. This comes against a backdrop of already falling state revenues and discussions in many state capitals of new budget cuts or the need for state tax increases to make up the shortfalls.
Certain other key provisions in the Ways and Means legislation heavily favor high-income taxpayers, the group that is most likely to have the resources to weather an economic downturn and least likely to spend additional after-tax income. According to a separate analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, the tax cuts in the Ways and Means legislation are as skewed to people at the top of the income spectrum as the tax cuts enacted in June. In addition, several of the tax measures in the Ways and Means package would make the nation's already worrisome medium- and long-term budget outlook more problematic.
In fact, the threat the package poses to long-term fiscal discipline is more serious than an initial glance at the legislation might indicate. The official cost estimate that the Joint Tax Committee has issued for the legislation rests on the assumption that the biggest immediate tax cut in the package -- the partial expensing of investments that corporations make -- actually will expire at the end of three years, as the legislation calls for, rather than being extended at that time. But the record in Congress suggests that 'temporary' measures often are extended or become permanent. If that occurs -- and there is no question there will be powerful corporate lobbying efforts to ensure partial expensing is extended when its scheduled expiration approaches -- the cost of this package will grow by about $250 billion over 10 years. If partial expensing remains in effect, the package's total cost will exceed $400 billion over the decade.
The Ways and Means legislation raises the following issues:
While including generous tax breaks for corporations and upper-income individuals, the Ways and Means legislation provides extremely limited assistance to unemployed workers. The package speeds up the transfer of $9 billion already slated to be shifted from the federal unemployment insurance trust funds to state unemployment accounts. It also provides states with $3 billion through the Social Services Block Grant to provide health coverage for unemployed workers.
These provisions are unlikely to offer much assistance to the unemployed or to provide much stimulus to the economy. The $9 billion in transferred unemployment insurance funds would simply go into state unemployment trust fund reserves. States would not be required to use these funds to pay unemployment benefits or to make any payments in the months ahead. Indeed, many states would be likely to "bank" these funds so they have a larger reserve in their unemployment accounts.
The Ways and Means package includes a number of permanent tax cuts, thereby departing from bipartisan principles that all provisions of a stimulus package be temporary. The legislation includes four permanent tax cuts: a reduction in the capital gains tax rate, the repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, a conversion into permanent law of what is now a temporary provision that allows deferral of taxation on certain income that businesses (primarily multinational corporations involved in banking, finance, and insurance) earn overseas, and changes to allow the cost of improvements to leased property to be depreciated over a shorter period.
These permanent tax cuts violate the principles the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Budget Committees issued on October 4, which call for stimulus measures to be temporary, to last no more than 12 months to the extent that is practicable, and not to worsen the long-term budget outlook. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin have warned that if a stimulus package contains items that worsen the longer-term fiscal outlook, the package will risk pushing up long-term interest rates and thereby undercutting some of the stimulative effect the package otherwise might have.
The majority of the temporary provisions in the package would be in effect for two or three years, distorting the definition of "temporary" and increasing the likelihood that these provisions may be permanently extended. The chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Budget Committees called for stimulus proposals to have a large part of their impact on the economy in the next six months and to sunset within one year, to the extent practicable. Only one major tax provision in the Ways and Means package meets this test -- the rebate for low-income workers. The spending provisions to aid the unemployed also would be temporary and end relatively quickly.
In contrast, all of the corporate tax cuts that are temporary would expire in either 24 months or 36 months, and thus would extend beyond the period when the economy is expected to be in need of stimulus. The largest individual income tax cut -- accelerating the implementation of the 25 percent tax rate -- would entail costs over five years, of which only one-quarter would occur in 2002.
The provision to accelerate certain tax-rate reductions scheduled for 2004 and 2006 would reduce the ability of policymakers to ensure fiscal discipline over the long run, a matter of particular concern given that most or all of the total budget surplus over the next ten years has apparently disappeared. New estimates issued by the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Budget Committees show that even without a stimulus package, virtually the entire non-Social Security surplus over the next ten years has disappeared. Their estimates show that only $53 billion of the non-Social Security surplus would remain over the next 10 years.
Other tax measures in the package -- such as the repeal of the corporate AMT -- also could lead to large out-year costs. The corporate AMT was enacted to prevent excessive use of tax avoidance schemes by corporations; its repeal would signal corporations that they can use existing tax breaks more aggressively. Moreover, repeal would be likely to spur corporations to push more vigorously for enactment of additional tax preferences that would further reduce future corporate income tax revenues, since new preferences would become more valuable in the absence of the AMT.
The capital gains tax cut, included against the advice of Fed Chairman Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Rubin, would be especially ineffective as a stimulus mechanism and constitutes another permanent tax cut whose benefits would overwhelmingly accrue to the wealthiest Americans. In congressional briefings following the September 11 attacks, Greenspan and Rubin laid out principles that Congress should adhere to in developing an economic stimulus package. Although Greenspan and Rubin generally avoided specific policy recommendations, they singled out the capital gains tax rate as being inappropriate for economic stimulus legislation. Similarly, in a recent report the Congressional Research Service found that "a capital gains tax cut appears the least likely of any permanent tax cut to stimulate the economy."
The package includes corporate tax cuts that create little incentive for firms to undertake new investments. As noted, the package proposes a permanent repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. This tax was modified as part of the 1986 Tax Reform Act to prevent corporations from pyramiding so many tax breaks on top of each other that some corporations could largely or entirely escape income tax even while pulling down large profits. Although the corporate AMT may have to be adjusted temporarily to avoid unwanted interactions with other temporary provisions in the package, permanent repeal of the corporate AMT cannot be justified as an effective stimulus mechanism. Indeed, corporate AMT repeal would be ineffective as a stimulus, since it would not induce corporations to undertake new investment. Eliminating the corporate AMT would simply reduce the taxes that corporations subject to the AMT must pay on their current income, the majority of which represents income earned on investments made in previous years.
Provisions in the Ways and Means package also would worsen the fiscal situation in the states, where budgets are already under severe strain as a result of the economic slowdown. Some 44 states use federal depreciation rules for their own corporate income taxes and would therefore be adversely affected by the Ways and Means proposal to provide more generous depreciation deductions by allowing partial expensing of business investment. States would likely lose about $5 billion a year in state revenues from 2002 through 2004 as a result of this provision. This reduction in state revenues would come at a time when many states are falling into fiscal crisis and, because of balanced budget requirements, are being forced to cut programs and/or raise taxes amidst the downturn.
Taken as a whole, the Ways and Means legislation reflects a sharp departure from the bipartisan principles for economic stimulus that have emerged over the past few weeks in discussions among congressional leaders, the administration, and respected economic advisers such as Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin. One principle that has been stressed repeatedly is the importance of avoiding fiscal policies that will worsen the medium- and long-term budget outlook, since such policies have the potential both to exert further upward pressure on long-term interest rates and to worsen the nation's fiscal problems down the road. High long-term interest rates can dampen economic activity today, discouraging business and housing investment, and prevent the Federal Reserve's rate-reduction policy from being as successful as it otherwise would be in stimulating the economy.
Despite what appeared to be bipartisan acceptance of this principle, nearly $60 billion -- or almost 40 percent -- of the $162 billion ten-year cost of the package would occur after 2002, when the economy is likely to have recovered. Further, those figures understate the full extent of the fiscal problems the Ways and Means proposal may cause. The "out-year" cost will be much greater than $60 billion if some of the temporary corporate tax cuts are extended when they are about to expire. As noted, a large push to extend these tax breaks is a virtual certainty when they are about to end.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonpartisan research organization that analyses government policies and programs, especially those affecting low- and moderate-income people.
Source: http://www.cbpp.org
10/25/01
12:41:45 PM
ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL FAVORS THE BIG BOYS
IBM Alone is Slated for a $1.4 Billion Rebate Check
Citizens for Tax Justice is a public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation.
The "stimulus" tax-cut bill just approved by the House Ways and Means Committee calls for some $25 billion in immediate tax rebates to large profitable corporations that paid the low-rate "alternative minimum tax" over the past decade and a half because loopholes cut their regular income tax bills to little or nothing.
Some $6.3 billion of these corporate rebate checks would be made out to just 14 tax-avoiding Fortune 500 companies -- whose rebates would average $450 million each. (These companies reported more than $33 billion in pretax U.S. profits in 2000.)
Topping the list is IBM, slated to get a $1.4 billion rebate check. General Motors is next at $833 million, followed by General Electric at $671 million, TXU (Texas Utilities) at $608 million, DaimlerChrysler at $600 million, and ChevronTexaco at $572 million.
Of these 14 low-tax companies that would get more than $100 million each under the GOP-backed bill, five are in the energy business. Two are in the airline industry, which is receiving $15 billion in grants and loans under already passed legislation.
The bill’s proposed total of $25 billion in instant rebates for profitable tax-avoiding corporations is almost twice as big as the $13.7 billion in added individual rebates that the tax committee decided to provide to 37 million, mostly low-income families and singles whose 2000 earnings were too low to qualify for the previous round of personal tax rebates.
Under the bill, the "AMT" would be repealed (to facilitate future tax sheltering) and corporations would be entitled to an immediate rebate of any alternative minimum tax they paid since the tax was established in 1986. In contrast, under current law, a company that pays the AMT can get a refund in a later year only if its regular income tax payments exceed the AMT that year. Many profitable companies have so many loopholes that they never pay enough in regular income taxes to use these "AMT credit carryforwards."
Citizens for Tax Justice http://www.CTJ.org
10/25/01
12:35:08 PM
MEDIA MASH: NYC Benefit Was Old White Guy Heaven
The Masher
What Were they Thinking?
"Think of how steel is made. Like steel, our spirit is stronger than iron because the steel making process adds alloys to the basic elements found in nature, and then tempers them under fire to create a new harder substance. In the process of making the American spirit, alloys of virtue and memory, heroism and hardship are continually added to the raw materials of America's past and fused in the forge of history."
-- Souls of Steel, by Cokie Roberts and Steven V. Roberts, Parade Magazine, Oct 12, 2001
Hey Steve and Cokie, the Masher has a question -- what about the rest of humanity?
Concert for New York Doesn't Reflect New York
There were some tear-jerking moments in the Concert for New York at Madison Square Garden on Saturday night.
The Masher doesn't want to take anything away from performers who gave of their time and energy, or the many people in the audience and watching on TV who were grieving the loss of loved ones and friends.
But the incredible whiteness of the event, the ancientness of the music and performers, and the overall lack of New York character on the stage was pretty appalling. It seemed like the concert was programmed for nostalgic white cops and firemen living in the suburbs, forgetting the other thousands of victims who represented many races, nationalities, communities and neighborhoods of New York.
The stars of the event were a steady parade of over-fifty white guys from England: Elton John, Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Roger Daltrey, Pete Townshend, David Bowie and Paul McCartney (who reportedly was a key factor in the concert and penned an insipid song called Freedom just for the moment). When joined by Billy Joel, Harrison Ford, Robert DeNiro, James Taylor, Billy Crystal and the misogynist Howard Stern, we crossed the Atlantic, but kept the same "aging white guy" theme on the stage.
Add George Pataki, Rudy Guiliani, Bill Clinton and Tom Daschel and a certain trend continues. Drop half a generation and you've got John Bon Jovi, Richard Gere, John Mellencamp, Adam Sandler, David Spade, John Cusack, Michael J. Fox and Jim Carrey. One step younger and there's Kid Rock, the Back Street Boys, and a couple of all-white bands, whose names I didn't catch.
This after New York City almost nominated a Latino, Freddy Ferrer, in the Democratic primary for Mayor just a week before. The huge concert in the Big Apple did not have even one Hispanic performer in a five hour show. This smacks of racism, and does not reflect reality. To have only one male Black headliner -- rapper JZ, who sang one song in the first few minutes -- and Destiny's Child and Macy Gray as the only other people of color in dozens of acts and presentations is appalling (though Halle Berry was one of a half dozen starlets who gave a brief introductions). To have the ratio of male-to-female performers something like 5-to-1, and have virtually no young artists (sorry, the Back Street Boys don't count) should make the VH1/Miramax/AOL crew that put this thing together do a little soul searching. Why are they are afraid of the real world we all live in?
The event was completely edgeless, except for a couple of notable performances, including Mick Jagger's stirring working class anthem, "Salt of the Earth," and James Taylor's "Fire and Rain." The fact that the newly refabricated The Who played five songs from "Who's Next" -- an album retreived from the qualude-laced eraly 1970's -- reflected a lack of understanding that the world has changed in the past 30 years.
It's disconcerting when an event like this concert can only honor the brave cops and fireman who lost their lives, and not make mention of other victims. The NYPD and FDNY -- all 6,000 strong -- were seated in the front rows with cameras constantly panning them. Given such attention to this predominantly white group all but ignores the fact that people from 80 countries perished at the World Trade Center. Countless immigrant workers, foriegn businessmen, even somewhere around 200 Pakistanis died in the attacks. Meanwhile, hundreds of union members lost their lives -- but the word union was not mentioned once in a show that seemed as long as eternity.
The crowd was decidedly pro-war, and the comedians that got stage time --including Adam Sandler, who cracked jokes about bin Laden's "smallcox" --egged the audience on. Hillary Clinton was practically booed off the stage, and Richard Gere's lone attempt to raise the notion of all humanity was meet with instant hostilty and cat calls. He retreated fast. Only the graceful teenager Natalie Portman was able to get in a sensitive comment regarding innocent victims around the world.
This concert was a crass commercial event; a patriotic rally that had none of the class of the first benefit concert on September 21. At that concert, the performers didn't even mention their own names. At this concert, artists promoted their new songs, new albums and recussitated careers.
When you think New York music, it is easy to think Paul Simon, Bruce Springstein, Lauryn Hill, Jennifer Lopez, Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, Willie Colon, and whole host of rappers and R&B performers. But these New York characters were not on display in Madison Square Garden.
Instead we had the British invasion all over again, giving new meaning to The Who's anthem: "Won't Get Fooled Again."
Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11791
10/25/01
12:31:38 PM
New at TomPaine.com
STIMULATE THE RICH
Forget Everyone Else
Representative Bill Thomas has put forward an "economic stimulus" package the gives 85 percent of its benefits to corporations and the wealthy. Working families, laid-off workers and everyone else gets the crumbs.
Among other things, Thomas proposes a retroactive repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, enacted in 1986 to prevent corporate abuse of tax shelters. If passed, the bill would require the U.S. Treasury to immediately refund $6.4 billion paid by 14 corporations under the AMT. GE, GM and Enron would get hundreds of millions apiece. IBM alone would get $1.4 billion.
READ THE OP AD:
AND READ THESE OP-AD FEATURES:
THE RIGHT STIMULUS STARTS WITH ENERGY
So Why Are Our Leaders Looking Elsewhere?
by Ann Hancock
The best energy policy also happens to be the best security policy for our country. It's time for our leaders to take notice. AUDIO and TEXT produced by Steven Rosenfeld
http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/23/index.html
ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL FAVORS THE BIG BOYS
IBM Alone is Slated for a $1.4 Billion Rebate Check An analysis of Rep. Thomas's AMT-repeal proposal, from Citizens for Tax Justice.
http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/23/3.html
PARTISAN TAX RELIEF FOR THE RICH AND POWERFUL
Congress' Stimulus Package Passes Over the Poor and Unemployed, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/22/index.html
WORKING FAMILIES COME FIRST
An AFL-CIO Blueprint to Reverse the Economic Impact of Sept. 11 and the Pre-Attack Downturn
http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/23/1.html
ALSO NEW AT TomPaine.com:
History
A CAUTIONARY TALE FROM CANADA
Americans Won't Know the Value of Civil Liberties ... Until They're Gone
by Nate Hendley
Thirty years ago, Canada's draconian War Measures Act trampled civil liberties and reduced public support for that country's war on terrorism. Are we destined to repeat the mistakes of our neighbor to the north?
http://www.tompaine.com/history/2001/10/22/index.html
WHAT ABOUT HOMELAND SECURITY?
Gun Safety And Not-So-Ordinary Citizens
by Richard Blow
After finding an illegal machine gun -- with ammo -- in the back of Damien Robinson's car on game day, New Jersey police gave him a slap on the wrist and quickly sent him on to the New York Jets locker room.
http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/19/1.html
PBS Series -- #3
PBS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST ALTERNATIVE VIEWS
Safe Programming Welcome, Controversy Discouraged
by Jerold M. Starr
The PBS green light to corporate and conservative foundation underwriting and ban on labor and public interest group funding amounts to a de facto censorship of program content.
http://www.tompaine.com/news/2001/10/23/index.html
Poetry
AN EMBLEM OF THE TIMES
by Silvia A. Brandon Pérez
"O brave new dark new world, could I salute, I would." AUDIO and TEXT produced by Sharon Basco
http://www.tompaine.com/history/2001/10/23/index.html
ECONOMICS REPORTING REVIEW
October 15 - October 19
A Weekly Compendium and Commentary
by Dean Baker
Economic Stimulus ... The Real Deal on Consumer Confidence ... Downtown in Latin America ... Understanding the WTO ... and more.
http://www.tompaine.com/news/2001/10/22/1.html
10/25/01
12:05:00 PM
The Case For Smart Intelligence
by Dan Pulcrano
Calls to make it easier for intelligence agencies to spy on US citizens and visitors have emerged with disturbing regularity in the wake of September 11. The myth underlying the rush to usher in a new era of domestic surveillance suggests that if only Congress had not unwisely "shackled" these agencies with well intentioned reforms that limited their ability to collect information, the Pentagon might have five sides and the twin towers would still stand proudly in lower Manhattan's skyline.
It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that September's intelligence failure stemmed not from the inability to collect data, but from law enforcement's capacity to analyze and act on information already in hand.
This view cannot be dismissed as partisan carping, because many of the calls for institutional reform have come from Republican senators responsible for oversight of the services, and from veterans of the services themselves. A careful read of military trade publications, mainstream and conservative dailies and news networks clearly indicates that the security establishment should have been aware that terrorists were planning to target urban icons with hijacked commercial airliners, and that efforts to track and apprehend suspects were hampered by bureaucratic paralysis rather than too few clues.
Intelligence lapses are not new they date back at least to the Truman administration, when the CIA was organized and shortly thereafter embarrassed in 1949 by the surprise explosion of the first Soviet atomic bomb. Sidetracked by national revolutions, assassination plots, UFOs, LSD experiments and allegations of abetting crack dealers, the Cold War-era agency was sufficiently distracted from its primary function of intelligence gathering and analysis to leave America's leaders ill prepared for such events as the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis, and the invasion of Kuwait.
FBI effectiveness during the 1960s and 1970s was similarly compromised by political and personal agendas. (The war against Black nationalists and Vietnam War opponents and J. Edgar Hoover's obsession with bedroom snooping come to mind.) The post-Hoover FBI has made efforts to transform and professionalize itself, but can't seem to free itself from persistent scandals and outdated systems.
Despite recent embarrassments like misplacing 3,135 pages of evidence from the McVeigh case and employing a Russian spy in its highest ranks, the FBI will likely continue lobbying for a vote of confidence to allow it to scan in-transit email for keywords and provide it with back doors to encrypted communications. The idea the FBI can prevent terrorist attacks if allowed to collect more information about more people is not supported by post-Sept. 11 disclosures. In fact, information about at least some of the hijackers was in its hands prior to the attacks, and with some old fashioned shoe leather and a check of vehicle records, credit files and flight bookings, might have been able to stop at least some of the terrorists from boarding their flights.
The attackers' methodology should not have come as a surprise. America's security establishment ignored repeated signals that international terrorists were planning to use commercial passenger jets as explosive devices against high profile targets.
* Gerald Carmen, a Reagan-era government official, wrote in the Washington Times, "I recall discussions on the threat of terrorism and the possibility of hijacking planes being used as weapons. This threat was recognized 20 years ago or longer."
* In 1986, American officials were aware of a thwarted plan by Hezbollah terrorists to blow up a hijacked Pan Am flight over Tel Aviv.
* In December 1994 French paratroopers stormed a hijacked Air France airliner after learning that the bin Laden-linked Algerian Groupe Armee Islamique planned to crash the Airbus A-300, full of fuel and dynamite, into the Eiffel Tower.
* In 1995, Abdul Hakim Murad told police in the Philippines of his intentions to hijack a commercial airliner and crash it into CIA headquarters. Murad was an associate of Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 truck bombing at the World Trade Center, and had trained at four US flight schools.
* The FBI has known for three years that bin Laden operatives were training to become pilots in the US, according to an Oct. 14 report in the Los Angeles Times.
* One of them, Habib Zacarias Moussaoui, was taken into custody on Aug. 17 after telling a Minnesota flight school that he wanted to learn how to fly jumbo jets, but not land them.
* The New York Times last week quoted government officials saying that "the CIA got a series of intercepted communications and other indications that al-Qa'eda might be planning a major operation."
Moreover, bin Laden himself had not been particularly shy about warning the world of his intentions.
* In the summer of 1998, Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad, who described himself as "mouth, eyes and ears of Osama bin Laden," described the objectives of his patron's holy war against the US: "Bring down their airliners. Prevent the safe passage of their ships. Occupy their embassies. Force the closure of their companies and banks."
* Seven weeks before the Twin Towers attack, bin Laden sat alongside aides who briefed the pan-Arab TV channel MBC of an impending "big surprise" in the form of "a hard hit against US and Israeli targets across the world." He also told the London-based editor of the Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper to watch for a "huge and unprecedented attack."
As other nations became increasingly concerned about the al-Qa'eda danger, they began sharing intelligence with the US, which continued to go about business as usual.
* The latest edition of Jane's Intelligence Digest reports that "claims that Western intelligence services failed to gather vital information about Osama bin Laden,the al-Qa'eda network and links between the Taliban regime and Pakistan have been exposed as fallacy by the leaking of an astonishingly detailed report. Compiled by Russian intelligence, the report was passed by Moscow's Permanent Mission at the UN to the Security Council and the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan."
The document, presented to the Security Council's Committee on Afghanistan on March 9, 2001, detailed explicit intelligence about 55 al-Qa'eda bases and named seven of its top officials. Conventional wisdom is that President Bush -- like his predecessor who was similarly presented with detailed information pinpointing al-Qa'eda targets -- opted not to take military action for fear of disrupting US efforts to further Israeli-Palestinian peace.
* Also ignored was a French intelligence report on al-Qa'eda, which was passed to the FBI earlier this year, according to the Los Angeles Times. A month after its receipt, an FBI official acknowledged that the report had not been translated into English.
* Despite 240 suicide attacks in recent decades "outside Israel and Sri Lanka," security expert Rohan Gunaratna writes, "there has been little or no thinking on how to protect its human and infrastructure targets from airborne suicide attack." Another case in which the information was there, but the response wasn't.
* Contrast that with the FBI's quick and decisive action in the arrest and detention of programmer Dmitry Sklyarov in July after speaking at a conference about a processor he developed to allow conversion of Adobe eBooks into unencrypted Portable Document Format.
The conversion of the nation's most important law enforcement agency into the computer industry's copyright infringement police is no trivial matter, given the stakes to our nation. Initiatives intended to close the intelligence gap by throwing money at the problem will no doubt pass Congress, but bigger budgets alone won't solve the problems.
"The excuses we hear are a lack of resources and some sort of deterioration that has taken place because of well-intentioned rules and regulations to protect our civil liberties. This is absurd on the face of it," wrote Reagan-appointed Ambassador Carmen in the Washington Times. "Having run an agency myself, you never have enough resources, you never have enough good people, and you never have the right kind of organization. What has to be done by the senior people is to prioritize their objectives, doing the most important ones first. There is always enough money for the most important ones."
Those sage words have not yet registered with the FBI brass. Even following the attack, the FBI's response at best lacks direction and at worst has begun reverting to the type of behavior that characterized the agency's excesses during the time of J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon. Among the troubling indications:
* A blanket roundup of 650 people in the wake of Sept. 11 pulled in many individuals with no terrorist links, including cases of mistaken identity, such as San Antonio radiologist Dr. Al Badr Al-Hazmi, who was held for 13 days because his name was similar to two of the hijackers.
* A police chief in Worcester, Mass., ordered a peace rally to be photographed, saying he had "been instructed by the FBI to take photos of all demonstrations." In that rally, members of the Worcester Peace Works exercised their constitutional rights by holding signs reading "Thou Shalt Not Kill."
* The FBI has attempted to question a Berkeley woman about her peaceful protests against Israel's occupation of Palestinian areas."It's certainly possible," Kate Raphael told the San Jose Mercury News this week, "that the FBI don't understand the difference between a lesbian peace activist and Islamic fundamentalist men who crash planes into buildings. But that's a sad statement about our government."
The squandering of agency resources on non-criminal targets is particularly appalling given Sunday's Los Angeles Times report regarding hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi. Added in August to an immigration watch list because of their connections to the bombing of the USS Cole last year, the INS informed the FBI that the two had entered the US already. The FBI forwarded the case to its Los Angeles office around September 9, but did not check California Department of Motor Vehicles records, which would have given them a San Diego address, or Alhazmi's Visa card, which he used to purchase his ticket on Flight 77 for September 11. That plane slammed into the Pentagon.
Clearly, overhaul of the nation's intelligence gathering systems should be a top national priority. Counterterrorism, to be effective, will require good management of information, skilled analysts, a lot more translators, infiltration of terrorist organizations and teams focused on tracking known terrorist groups rather than broad dragnets that compromise the constitutional rights of non-terrorists.
An ill advised campaign to replace poison cigars and Bulgarian umbrellas of Cold War days with profiling, national ID cards and a new generation of invasive spying technologies like Carnivore will no doubt continue. But collecting more data through surveillance won't do any good if agencies fail to act on it, as appears to be the case with the pre-Sept. 11 al-Qa'eda intelligence.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has already called for the "transformation of intelligence gathering" in the DOD's Quadrennial Defense Review Report, released Sept. 30.
Fox News reports that two Republican senators are attempting to oust CIA director George Tenet. One of them, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, was quoted in the Washington Times, saying, "We cannot afford anything less than the best. We can do better with our intelligence agencies." He added sardonically, "This was not an intelligence success, clearly."
President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, told the Washington Post after the Cole attack, "In 14 years of government service in three administrations I observed many historic crises, and in every one the consolidated product of the intelligence bureaucracy either failed to provide warning, as in Kuwait, or was grossly wrong in its assessment, as in the Yom Kippur War."
Preventative intelligence doesn't photograph as well as retaliation, so it won't be the lead story on Headline News. It's a smart investment though, with knowledgeable, considered execution that avoids overreach, intrigue and obsession with expensive gadgetry.
Dan Pulcrano is editor of the Metro Silicon Valley weekly newspaper.
Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11781
10/25/01
11:52:29 AM
Coming This Fall ... More Media Deregulation
by Tamara Straus
For those disturbed by CNN and the networks' framing of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack through such Hollywood-inspired slogans as "American Under Attack" and "America Strikes Back," there is cause for even greater concern. This fall, two media ownership rules will be reconsidered by the Federal Communications Commission, and given the commission's Republican majority, both will likely be thrown out.
First up for review is the 25-year-old rule baring any single media company from owning both a newspaper and a radio or television station in the same market. The other rule likely to be tossed stipulates that no media company can reach more than 35 percent of U.S. television households. Striking either of these rules would lay the groundwork for even more media mega-mergers; striking both at the same time would virtually guarantee it.
"It is very likely that the television market will resemble the auto industry, where there are only three or four major players," Scott Cleland, an analyst for the Precursor Group, a Washington-based research group, told the Los Angeles Times on Oct. 22.
Americans don't pay much attention to the FCC, which is good for the media industry. It's also good for the FCC, which is now headed by Michael K. Powell (son of Colin), since Powell tends to view the media industry like a media executive. At a luncheon sponsored by the Hollywood Radio and Television Society on Oct. 19, Chairman Powell made clear that he is no foe of media consolidation, and even sees consolidation as a means for diversification (sort of like those who see doing away with affirmative action as a means for improving equal opportunity).
"Media and television are more diverse in 2001 than any other time in our history," said Powell, as if he were a character out of an Orwell novel. "With more diversity, there's more fragmentation, and with fragmentation it's hard to make money." He continued, "It seems to me when you're dealing with rules that were written ... in a different market and economic market, you'd want your government to put them back on the table."
You can see media executives heads wag, can you not? Especially since media companies have been quick to report their heavy losses from round-the-clock reporting of the post-Sept. 11 disaster. Mel Karmazin, president of Viacom, and Jack Fuller, president of the Tribune Company, had been arguing to the Senate as early as July that concentration limits were contributing to intolerable business hardships, calling them, in Karmazin's words, "irrational, anti-competitive and an obstacle to expanded choice" (even though in Viacom's case, profits are up). Now, in light of the estimated $100 million news companies spent covering the war against terrorism and the estimated $500 million in advertising revenue lost, they have even more to cry about -- and they can do it in the name of public service.
Speaking at a Goldman-Sachs investor briefing on Oct. 2, Karmazin said, "We think that Washington is going to be a whole lot more receptive to a new round of deregulation ... the only thing that we will go to Washington to do again is sit there and tell them that we really need another round of deregulation far more than they have thought about in the past."
FCC Chairman Powell may believe, in twisted fashion, that today's television news exemplifies the greatest diversity of voices in history and that consolidating the media business from its current fragmented state of eight or nine giants to a streamlined cast of four will ensure a greater cross-section of views. But history shows otherwise. Since the initial media deregulation of the Ronald Reagan era, changes in FCC ownership policy have brought about drastic budget cuts in the news departments of TV networks because they are now owned by entertainment conglomerates like Disney that focus on the bottom line.
The results? News staff have been reduced. Investigative units have been gutted. Foreign bureaus closed. Out of this morass has come low-cost talking heads shows of the Fox News variety, a hunt for eyeballs through ever more lengthy and sensationalistic coverage of scandals involving public figures and news that amuses -- infotainment.
Jeff Chester, founder of the Center for Digital Democracy in Washington, D.C., hardly breathes when he talks about the repercussions of further media deregulation. "The goal for the first FCC rule under review, the so-called 'cross-ownership' safeguard, has been to ensure a community has some diverse editorial perspective, with no single owner able to dominate with its viewpoint," he said. "The second rule under review currently places limits on the size and clout of single cable TV company. If the FCC and the media giants are successful in weakening the ownership safeguards, a single owner in a community could control several TV and radio stations, a cable system and newspaper. It would be disastrous for the public interest."
In November, Chester's organization will launch a letter-writing campaign (www.democraticmedia.org) to protest the FCC's deregulatory agenda. Concerned media watchers should join it, or willfully enter the golden era of Orwellian television news programming.
Tamara Straus is senior editor of AlterNet.org.
Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11789
10/25/01
11:42:58 AM
Where The Bodies Are
by Geov Parrish
Last week, when President Bush traveled to Shanghai for an APEC meeting, his first venture outside the country since Sep. 11, a few American reporters noted that some Chinese are skeptical of the current U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan because of the "mistaken" U.S. strike of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade two years ago. The U.S. claimed it had relied on outdated information.
But what virtually nobody -- at least in the United States -- has reported is that in the two most publicized instances of civilian death in the two-week-old Afghanistan campaign, the exact same thing appears to have happened. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. As survivors and refugees, and their stories, have begun to trickle into Pakistan, the scope of the civilian destruction the U.S. is creating is only starting to become clear.
In the first abominable incident, four men died when the offices of a United Nations agency, the Afghan Technical Consultants in Kabul, were bombed on October 9. The Pentagon has said that the ATC was near a military radio tower, but U.N. officials say the tower was a defunct and abandoned medium and short wave radio station that hadn't been in operation for over a decade. The ATC had even given its address to higher-up U.N. officials to pass on to the U.S. military, so that it would be spared. One of the victims, Abdul Saboor, had arrived only two hours before after volunteering to make the perilous trip from Pakistan into Afghanistan on foot to deliver much-needed cash salaries to U.N. employees so that they could eat. The cash was incinerated along with the offices.
The second incident of mistaken identity was far worse. Independent witnesses have now confirmed that in the northern village of Karam, between 100 and 200 people -- mostly women, children, and old people -- were killed when bombers made repeated passes and flattened the village during early evening prayers. This time, the Pentagon said that Karam was once a training camp for Al-Qaeda. In fact, the site was used to train mujahideen during the 1980s and was run by Sadiq Bacha to train members of the Hezb-i-Islami faction, with CIA support. Some of those men later joined the Taliban, but the base was never used by Al-Qaeda. It was closed and abandoned in 1992, before bin Laden moved to Afghanistan. In the 1990s, families moved in and built mud and rock houses on the site. During the winter, nomads also made Karam their temporary home.
Karam is now gone. It's impossible to know how many other villages have shared its fate, since the Taliban have expelled all western reporters and Pakistan has closed its border with Afghanistan, making it hard for reporters to get into the country. Both the U.S. and the Taliban have incentives to understate casualties. Pakistani border guards are beating Afghani refugees with sticks and firing guns at them to keep them from crossing into Pakistan, where their eyewitness accounts may further enrage the Pakistani populace.
But a few are making it in, and the stories are leaking out, mostly in the Islamic press but also in Europe -- but, notably, not in the United States. Here is a small collection of the civilian deaths told to reporters so far. None of these accounts come from Taliban sources; all are from refugees and Western or Pakistani reporters.
In Jalalabad, the Sultanpur Mosque was hit by a bomb during prayers, with 17 people caught inside. Neighbors rushed into the rubble to help pull out the injured, but as the rescue effort got under way, another bomb fell, killing at least 120 people.
In the village of Darunta near Jalalabad, a U.S. bomb fell on another mosque. Two people were killed and dozens--perhaps as many as 150 people--were injured. Many of those injured are languishing without medical care in the Sehat-e-Ama hospital in Jalabad, which lacks resources to treat the wounded.
More civilian deaths are being reported in the villages of Torghar and Farmada, north and west of Jalalabad. At least 28 civilians had died in Farmada, which has an abandoned Al-Qaeda training camp nearby.
In Argandab, north of Kandahar, 10 civilians have died from the bombing and several houses have been destroyed. The same has happened in Karaga, north of Kabul.
A five-year-old child was killed while sleeping in his family's home outside Kandahar when two bombs fell on a munitions storage area half a mile away. The explosion threw shells and rockets in all directions and one of those shells smashed through the mud-brick wall of his bedroom, slicing open young Taj Muhammed's abdomen and burning his six-year-old sister, Kambibi. Taj suffered for 12 hours at a nearby hospital before he died.
On Oct. 7, the first night of the bombing, at least one private residence in Kabul suffered a direct hit and others were damaged. The U.S. also destroyed the Hotel Continental in the city's center. On the same night, bombs were dropped on the houses of Taliban leaders in Kandahar. Two civilian relatives of Mullah Muhammad Omar were killed: his aged stepfather and his 10-year-old son.
On Oct. 8, the second night of the bombing, three missiles were aimed at the airport in Jalalabad, but only one hit the target. The other two went astray and exploded nearby, killing one civilian, and injuring a second so severely that he was driven to a hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan, to have shrapnel removed from a deep wound in his neck and his spinal injuries treated. He's not expected to survive. A third 16-year-old boy injured in the same attack was also taken to a hospital in Peshawar; he lost his leg and two fingers, and he says that many more people were injured and may have died in the same incident.
On Oct. 11, a bomb aimed at the Kabul airport went astray and hit Qala-e-Chaman, a village one mile away, destroying several houses and killing a 12-year-old child. On the same night, another missile hit a house near the Kabul customs building, killing 10 civilians.
As of Oct. 12, the U.N. had independently reported at least 20 civilian deaths in Mazar-i-Sharif and 10 civilian deaths in Kandahar.
On Oct. 13, Khushkam Bhat, a residential district between Jalalabad airport and a nearby military area, was accidentally bombed by U.S. planes trying to down a Taliban helicopter. More than 100 houses were flattened. At least 160 people were pulled from the rubble and taken to hospitals. In Kabul, witnesses described a huge fireball over the Kabul airport, indicating either the possible use of fuel-air bombs, which can cause destruction over a wide area, or the bombing of an enormous fuel storage facility which can have the same effect. Casualties are not yet known.
On Oct. 16, two bombs fell on two Red Cross warehouses in the center of Kabul. The warehouses, bombed in full daylight, were clearly marked with red crosses on their roofs. U.S. spokesmen claim that the warehouses were hit because there were military vehicles parked nearby. They were Red Cross transport trucks.
On Oct. 17, a bomb scored a "direct hit" on a boy's school in Kabul, but fortunately didn't explode. A U.S. plane, however, dropped a bomb at Mudad Chowk, a residential area of Kandahar, which did explode, destroying two houses and several shops, and killing at least seven people. In Kabul, four bombs fell near the city center; casualties are still unknown.
On Oct. 18, a bomb killed four members of a family in the eastern suburb of Qalaye Zaman Khan when it demolished two homes. A half mile away, another bomb exploded in a housing complex, killing a 16-year-old girl. The U.N. reported that Kandahar had fallen into a state of "pre-Taliban lawlessness," with gangs taking over homes and looting shops. By the next day, according to the U.N., at least 80 percent of Kandahar's residents had left the city to escape the bombing. They are swamping the surrounding villages, where there are no resources to care for them. Some have moved on to the border and crossed into Pakistan. One refugee said that there are bodies littering the streets of Kandahar and people are dying in the hospitals for lack of drugs. "We know we will lead a miserable life in Pakistan, in tents," he said. "We have come here just to save our children."
The civilian death toll is probably in the thousands, and sure to rise with two new developments. U.S. Air Force pilots may now fire "at will" -- at anything they desire, without pre-authorization from strategists peering at satellite and surveillance photos. In fact, there are now regions of the country that have been designated "kill boxes," reminiscent of Vietnam's "free-fire zones" but without benefit of advance warning to Afghanis. Kill boxes are patrolled night and day by low-flying aircraft with the mission to shoot anything that moves within the area.
American planes are also now dropping cluster bombs, an anti-personnel weapon that disperses small bomblets over a wide area -- essentially, hundreds of flying landmines, slicing through people, cars, trucks, and even certain types of buildings. About 8-12 percent of the brightly-colored bomblets don't explode on impact, leaving behind attractive but deadly toys for children to play with later.
Or, maybe the United States will drop a food packet on top of one. With winter coming on and an estimated seven million at risk of starvation, there's not much time left to kill civilians before they start dying on their own.
Thanks once more for the special Sunday research help from my Eat the State! co-editor, Maria Tomchick.
Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11782
10/25/01
11:35:21 AM
Pentagon Hires Image Firm To Explain Airstrikes To World
U.S. Trying To Reverse Rise In Muslims' Outrage
by Warren P. Strobel and Johathan S. Landay, Mercury News Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has hired a well-known Washington public-relations firm to help it explain U.S. military strikes in Afghanistan to global audiences, U.S. officials confirmed Thursday.
It's part of a broader Bush administration campaign to try to reverse a rising tide of opposition in the Islamic world.
The firm, the Rendon Group, has worked in the past for U.S. government agencies, including the CIA, which paid it to boost the image of the Iraqi National Congress, a U.S.-backed group of Iraqis opposed to the rule of President Saddam Hussein.
That effort in the mid-'90s ended with an investigation by the CIA's inspector general over how a reported $23 million was spent on behalf of the Iraqi National Congress and its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, current and former intelligence officials said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.
For the anti-terrorism public-relations war, the Pentagon is paying Rendon to monitor news media in 79 countries; conduct focus groups; create a counterterrorism Web site that will provide information on terrorist groups and the U.S. campaign against terrorism; and recommend ways the U.S. military can counter disinformation and improve its own public communications.
``The war on terrorism started without notice,'' said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon press officer. ``We needed a firm that could provide strategic counsel immediately. We were interested in someone that we knew could come in quickly and help us orient to the challenge of communicating to a wide range of groups around the world.''
McClellan said the initial contract, awarded without bidding, is for $397,000 and lasts 120 days, with an option to extend it for up to one year.
Officials at the company declined comment, citing a confidentiality agreement in the contract.
The Bush administration has been widely criticized, both at home and abroad, for being slow to realize the importance of images in the war on terrorism. It is struggling to counter a widespread perception in the Islamic world that the war in Afghanistan is a war on Islam and that the United States is indifferent to civilian casualties.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said earlier this week, ``To the extent we need to do a better job to make sure that people are not confused as to what this is about, then we darn well ought to do a better job.''
``We are clearly losing the `hearts and minds' issue,'' said one official involved in the administration spin effort, describing it as ``not a very well-organized effort.'' The official requested anonymity.
In recent days, the administration has dispatched waves of officials for international television interviews, particularly on the widely watched Arab station Al-Jazeera. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has appeared on Metro TV in Indonesia, where anti-American protests have been widespread, and Great Britain's ITN.
But initial analyses indicate that the outreach effort still has a long way to go.
An Al-Jazeera interview of Bush national security adviser Condoleezza Rice ``continued to garner significant press attention,'' but Arabic press commentators in Morocco and Saudi Arabia ``found nothing new,'' said a State Department review of foreign media reporting Thursday.
``They claimed that the U.S. is offering Arabs a `false equation,' i.e. the war against terrorism is not against Islam or Arabs -- nevertheless, it is Muslims and Arabs who will have to pay for Sept. 11,'' the review said.
The choice of the Rendon Group to advise the Pentagon may not be a coincidence, given its past work on behalf of the Iraqi opposition.
Source: http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/pr19.htm
10/25/01
11:17:12 AM
Unintended Consequences
by John Tirman
All wars have unintended consequences. No matter how cautious generals and political leaders are, war sets in motion waves of change that can alter the currents of history. More often, generals and political leaders are not troubled by long-term side effects; they are sharply focused on achieving a victory and war's aims. The result is that the unseen and unintended occur, at times as a bitter riptide which overwhelms the original rationales for engaging in armed combat.
This unpredictable cycle of action and reaction has thwarted U.S. policy in southwestern Asia for 50 years. It began with attempts to contain the Soviet Union and control the oil-rich fields of the Persian Gulf, and continues today in the popular assault in Afghanistan to destroy the al-Qa'ida terrorist network. In that half century, nearly every major initiative led to an unexpected and sometimes catastrophic reaction, for which new military remedies were devised, only again to stir unforeseen problems. The cycle, regrettably, may be repeating again.
The half-century history begins with CIA intrigue in Iran. The original spigot of Middle Eastern oil, Iran was long dominated by Britain and its oil company, British Petroleum. During World War II, strongman Reza Kahn, a Nazi sympathizer, was deposed by the British in favor of his son, Reza Shah, who in turn was shunted aside by the increasingly assertive parliament, the Majlis. In 1951, the Majlis elected as premier Mohammed Mossedegh, a nationalist reformer, who quickly sought control over Iran's oil wealth. The British, aghast at seeing 50 percent of BP's stake in Iran nationalized, sought his ouster, which the CIA provided in 1953. The Shah was reinstated and ruled with an iron fist, enabled by lavish American military aid.
The overthrow of Mossedegh remains a bitter memory for Iranians, and for Muslims more widely. While he was mainly a secular nationalist, even Islamic militants bewail his fate as another instance of Western interference and violence. In the years of the Shah's rule, many of the beleaguered reformers gravitated toward the ulama, the clerical class, who were relatively independent of the regime. So U.S. policy, which targeted the left as possible Soviet sympathizers or threats to oil interests, had the unintended effect of strengthening the political power and sophistication of the ulama.
By the 1970s, the Shah had become a self-styled regional power, flush with an unfettered flow of weaponry from the United States. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, neither a wallflower when it came to arming allies against perceived Soviet expansionism, had bluntly dismissed the Shah's pleas for military supremacy, but President Nixon embraced the Shah without restraint. Not only were the newest jet fighters and other advanced weaponry made available, but endless commercial ties were created, bringing thousands of Americans to Teheran. In 1971, the Shah's oil minister launched a cascade of price increases that rocked the American economy for nearly a decade, but it was American guns and products that the ever-richer Shah and his cohort really sought. A widely perceived decadence eroded whatever support the regime maintained, and by the late 1970s, the Shah was struggling against the now-familiar Muslim "street" that detested the Westernized elite and resented their fabulous oil riches in the midst of poverty. In 1979, the Shah abdicated and left Iran in a stew of disarray. It was only a matter of months before the Islamic Revolution came to full flower.
The Devastating Aftermath
Apart from the war in Vietnam, where millions died, the U.S. role in imposing and sustaining the Shah in Iran is perhaps the most invidious episode in America's foreign policy. The consequences are colossal, and malignancies continue to appear. Among the first of these was the change in Soviet policy toward the region, and specifically in Afghanistan.
The Soviets had meddled in Afghanistan for years, supporting its on-again, off-again communist party. A mildly pro-Soviet regime in Kabul was under intense pressure from Islamic radicals in the late 1970s, however, and Moscow kept a wary eye on the chaotic events in neighboring Iran. As Islamic militancy gained in the post-Shah governments in Teheran, the Kabul regime became less and less tenable. In the Kremlin, the Soviet leadership opposed intervention until the Afghan regime was in complete turmoil. A high-level Russian, Georgy Kornienko, notes it was Defense Minister D.F. Ustinov who finally convinced the others to intervene:
"The push to change his former point of view," he recalls in a memoir, "came from the stationing of American military ships in the Persian Gulf in the fall of 1979, and the incoming information about preparations for a possible American invasion of Iran, which threatened to cardinally change the military-strategic situation in the region to the detriment of the interests of the Soviet Union. If the United States can allow itself such things tens of thousands of kilometers away from their territory in the immediate proximity from the USSR borders, why then should we be afraid to defend our positions in the neighboring Afghanistan? -- this was approximately Ustinov's reasoning."
Politburo minutes from the entire previous year, now available, make clear the Soviet leaders' view that the Islamic militants were responsible for major attacks on government forces in Herat and elsewhere, and posed a threat, particularly with the active aid of the new Khomeini regime in Iran. The USSR, after all, included five Central Asia republics that were predominantly Muslim and bordered both Afghanistan and Iran. So the Shah's decades-long brutality gave rise to a broad Islamic movement in the region that, once in power in Teheran, not only alarmed Washington but also worried the much nearer Moscow.
The U.S. response to the collapse of the Shah, the triumph of Khomeini, and the December 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was to be played out tragically over the coming dozen years. Beginning with the Carter administration in the summer of 1979 -- months before the Soviets invaded --the CIA provided arms and training to the Afghan opposition, the now infamous mujaheddin, first to provoke the Soviets to ill-considered action (as Carter advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski has since revealed), and, after the December 1979 invasion, to make the Soviet stay in Afghanistan as inhospitable as possible. The large flow of arms and high-tech weapons like shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles did not come until 1986, by which time the Soviet leadership was firmly committed to departure. But a steady supply of Chinese-made AK-47s and Soviet-made weapons sent via Egypt provided the Islamic rebels with ample firepower to cripple the Soviets' aims in Afghanistan. It was, at the time, heralded as the wondrous victory of the "Reagan Doctrine," the strategy to arm "freedom fighters" against Soviet-leaning regimes in places like Angola and Nicaragua.
In all its venues and applications, the Reagan Doctrine had no qualms about the human costs of fomenting warfare, and most important for the present predicament, had no post-conflict strategy. The wages of war were high for all. Angola is still in a civil war more than 20 years later, with the Reagan-backed Savimbi fueling a self-aggrandizing conflict. Nicaragua is devastated, impoverished; the Contras, who battled the Sandinista regime, engaged in a drug trade that now swamps the region.
So, too, with Afghanistan: the Soviets left in 1989, defeated, but their departure also left Afghanistan a political minefield (to go along with the 10 million real land mines left by both sides in the war). Warlords battled with each other for nearly a decade until the most extreme faction, the Taliban, gained ascendency in the late 1990s and provided the home to the terrorists the United States now seeks to rout. In the meantime, the 3 million AK-47s sent to the mujaheddin have been located as far away as Liberia and Mozambique, the fodder for other wars and misery. Professor Fred Halliday of the London School of Economics wrote at the end of the 1980s:
"The most striking feature of the Reagan Doctrine was the way in which Washington itself came to be a promoter and organizer of terrorist actions. The mujaheddin in Afghanistan, UNITA in Angola and the Nicaraguan Contras were all responsible for abominable actions in their pursuit of "freedom" -- massacring civilians, torturing and raping captives, destroying schools, hospitals and economic installations, killing and mutilating prisoners ... Reagan was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people through terrorism."
At about the same time the Afghan resistance was being organized with U.S. aid, the Iraq regime of Saddam Hussein launched an attack on Iran to gain the oil fields on the gulf. This unprovoked act of war followed a period of quiet rapprochement with Washington (Bzrezinski again), and throughout the ensuing eight years of carnage -- in which one million people died -- the U.S. government increasingly helped Iraq, supplying it with more than $5 billion in financial credits, intelligence data, heavy equipment like trucks and political respectability. In most estimates, the U.S. "tilt" toward Baghdad was indispensable in saving Saddam from defeat.
The reason for the "tilt" was to frustrate the Islamic radicals in Teheran. This counter-Khomeini strategy extended beyond Iraq to countries like Turkey (where the U.S. approved a military coup in 1980 and suppression of Kurds, resulting in a civil war that has taken 30,000 lives) and Saudi Arabia (the keystone of U.S. oil policy, which led the U.S. to cast a blind eye on Saudi corruption and human-rights abuses). But Iraq, during the 1980s, was the centerpiece of this gambit.
After the catastrophic war of 1980-88, the new president, George Bush, embraced a policy of accommodation with Iraq. Within a few months of taking office, National Security Directive (NSD) 26 set the policy: "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area" were the two rationales of a strategy that would "pursue, and seek to facilitate, opportunities for U.S. firms to participate in the reconstruction of the Iraqi economy ... Also, as a means of developing access and influence with the Iraqi defense establishment, the United States should consider sales of non-lethal forms of military assistance." Said a senior official of NSD 26: "The concern over Iranian fundamentalism was a given." The Reagan-Bush accommodationist policy toward Iraq meant that Saddam received only a slap on the wrist or the murder, with chemical weapons, of 5,000 Kurds in the north at the end of the war with Iran.
But when Iraq occupied Kuwait in August 1990, the tilt fell over. The anti-Iran strategy, itself a response to the ruinous policy of supporting the Shah, now had unavoidable consequences: the long and devastating war in Afghanistan; intensified bloodshed in the Iran-Iraq war; the Kurdish massacres in Turkey and Iraq; an acceleration of Islamic militancy in Pakistan and civil war in Kashmir; and the subjugation of Kuwait and the threat to oil fields of Saudi Arabia. It has had other corollary effects, such as a tolerance of Syrian misdeeds, as well as devotion to the perversely corrupt and fragile House of Saud, as Seymour Hersh so chillingly reports in the Oct. 22 issue of the New Yorker. One must ask, in the wake of such an astounding set of catastrophes, if leaving Khomeini's Iran alone after 1980 would not have been less devastating in human terms, or whether Soviet "hegemony" over Afghanistan would not have been far better for Afghans, than 20 years of war, displacement and impoverishment.
The Next Catastrophe?
What will be next in this series of haunting mistakes? If this 50-year history teaches us anything, it is that aggressive military actions surely will earn a violent reaction, and that the pattern consistently displays three characteristics: large-scale human misery; the "involvement" of neighboring countries; and the amplification of militant Islamic sentiment around the world. In just a matter of weeks, all characteristics are now visible in the "war on terrorism."
While the responsibility for hundreds of thousands of starving or displaced Afghans cannot directly be laid at the feet of President Bush, the U.S. bombing campaign is the proximate cause. Panicky refugee flows are beginning to swell; on Oct. 19, the responsible U.N. agency said there are now refugees in the thousands and that conditions on the border with Pakistan are "chaotic." This steady stream of hungry and homeless is likely to enlarge if the bombing continues, civil war worsens or on-the-ground U.S. action escalates. By mid-November, food supplies will be harder to convey to "our" Afghans as winter sets in; shelter is also a desperate need. Some truly horrifying predictions of freezing and starvation have been aired -- up to one million -- which is improbable, but even thousands would be a sad ordeal.
The refugee situation is more complex, because it is not only a continuing misery for millions (already 3.5 million Afghans live in either Pakistan or Iran, a vast number in squalor), but because it strains the host communities, and is an incubator for militancy and violence. The 900,000 internally displaced Afghans will get far less international attention, even though their material circumstances may be desperate and their political vulnerability perilous.
In the idiom of international relations, the most worrisome consequence is the perilous state of Pakistan. Coerced to cooperate with the United States, the military government is risking a revolt from below. Tensions with India are escalating over terrorist attacks in Kashmir, orchestrated perhaps by the same Pakistani military establishment we are now utilizing to attack Afghanistan. The worries about collapse or gradual disintegration of secular rule in Pakistan are punctuated by its possession of nuclear weapons. It is conceivable that within a few years the same sort of criminals who attacked the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 will have weapons of considerably greater power than four commercial jets. If one is comforted by the denigration of such scenarios by American officials, recall that they are the same group that engineered the accommodationist policy toward Iraq and the embrace of the mujaheddin. The eventual takeover of Islamabad by politically noxious "Islamicists" is a near certain, if the war escalates or is prolonged, or if an equally dangerous clique gains control in Kabul. It is difficult to see how Pakistan can readily stabilize under circumstances that have nearly come to this fruition as of mid-October.
The refugee flows and the anti-American sentiment among even moderate Muslims in the region also may destabilize Iran. The advances of moderation via civil society and the two electoral victories of President Khatemi could be reversed as a result of the war in Afghanistan and the American right wing's demands to antagonize Teheran as a "sponsor" of terrorism, along with the Taliban and Saddam. Internal political struggles in Iran were slowly being won by the forces of civility and democracy, but the "war on terrorism" may soon claim them as victims.
The calls to mount a campaign against Saddam, which is supported by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the pundits at the Washington Post, is nearly beyond the pale of predictability if the administration is foolish enough to try it. Such a move, which would require a colossal military effort, would stir the Muslim street to threaten not only Pakistan and Iran, but Saudi Arabia and possibly other countries. These episodes of unrest in the region always reveal the decrepit state of the Saudi royal family, its immense debt from high living and corruption and the devil's bargain the U.S. has struck to preserve control of oil. There have been sizable, bloody riots even as far away as Nigeria and Indonesia.
The "war of terrorism," now conducted mainly on Afghan soil, is enough to stir these anti-American sentiments, although perhaps a short and precise military campaign is necessary and we will simply have to cope with the fallout. But a long bombing campaign, a lengthy American search-and-destroy mission in the Afghan countryside, a bloody assault on the Taliban and siege of Kabul -- these unwarranted tactics, coupled with a refugee crisis, could inflame the tinderbox of Muslim sentiments. Invading Iraq would then only confirm their worst suspicions, that is, that Washington is intent upon destroying not just terrorists, but regimes in Muslim societies.
The roots of Muslim rage are not well understood, though surely the history of American (and, it must be said, British and French) actions in the region stretching from Algeria to Pakistan is a source. Justified or not, Muslim grievances center on the perception that America wields its power carelessly without a thought for the value of Muslim lives, whether Palestinians in the desperate refugee camps, Iraqis gunned down in the "turkey shoot" of Desert Storm, Kurds manipulated by one U.S. government after another or the millions who endure the savage rule of despots propped up by Washington. The ravages of globalized capitalism, while a more indirect burden, are also at work, because it is a system that, intentionally or not, undermines traditional ways of life, while failing to provide the satisfactions of modernity to any but a very few. If the search and seizure of bin Laden is not accomplished very quickly, and with unambiguous evidence of his guilt, he will become -- if he hasn't already -- a legend to tens of millions and a model for further action against the West.
Steps Toward a Different Strategy
The goal of neutralizing or eliminating bin Laden and the al-Qa'ida network is laudable. Critics of American foreign policy should not mistake this network for folk heroes along the lines of Che Guevara or Franz Fanon. Al-Qa'ida is promoting a different order altogether, one that is violent at its core, not only in its complete rejection of pluralism and openness in Muslim societies, but in its repression of women and others. It is a dangerous and reactionary ideology in all respects. Christopher Hitchens has labeled it a form of fascism, which is not historically accurate, but the emotional meaning is resonant.
So how should the United States and its European allies deal with this danger? A detailed strategy is not something most of us are prepared to put forward, but some criteria are comprehensible. The first is to see this form of terrorism as acts of criminals rather than acts of warriors. (Hendrick Hertzberg in the New Yorker made this useful contrast right after the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that it ennobles the hijackers to call this a war; they are criminals.) Law enforcement, enhanced by the full throttle of intelligence services -- including cooperation with allies -- is the most likely way to foil al-Qa'ida over the long haul.
Aggressive investigations, detainment of plausible suspects, freezing financial assets and the like keep terrorists on the move, harassed and disrupted. Counter-communications strategies and pressure on thugs like the Saudi princes who fund al-Qa'ida will further immobilize them. This does mean a very long effort, stretching out over years; it is, in fact, one that has already been underway for years, but devalued and made inept by successive American presidents. A "law enforcement plus" strategy does involve some diplomatic resources and military actions that go beyond, for example, the longtime struggle against the mafia. One should not underestimate the disruptive power of killing bin Laden, if it can be quickly administered. But the longer term strategy is essentially one of old-fashioned techniques that require constant vigilance, cooperation across many borders and respect for law and its institutions, including an international criminal, to bring the terrorists to justice.
At the same time, coping with underlying causes of this terrorism and American vulnerabilities must be a priority. Here the Bush administration is especially weak or dissembling. The control of oil remains the linchpin of U.S. security policy in the region, and, indeed, the immediate reason for bin Laden's rage is the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia since Desert Shield began in August 1990. American officials and opinion elites insist that we are there to protect our "access" to oil, but everyone in the world has access to oil; it's control over oil, and particularly the pricing of oil, which are at stake. There has been no energy policy for years, and the Bush energy proposals are not addressing the problem of gulf oil dependency at all. In part this is because American companies that do business there are close to the Bush administration (Halliburton, Dick Cheney's last employer, is one such firm), but it is also because to devise and implement an effective national strategy to reduce dependency on oil would require an enormous leap in fuel efficiency standards, a BTU tax, and a sharp increase in use of conservation and other fuels (possibly including nuclear energy). These measures have been so devalued by conventional wisdom and resisted by pampered consumers they are simply unpalatable. Sacrifices may go as far as one-hour waits at airport security lines, but not to using a 75-mile-per-gallon small car or paying for big improvements in mass transit.
The problem of Muslim "rage" and the like is far more complex, of course, but certainly there are steps that can be taken. It is commonplace nowadays to hear that we don't explain ourselves well to the Muslim world, that we are represented mainly by MTV and "Melrose Place" (occasionally it's also acknowledged that it was a bad idea to decimate the foreign service and the U.S. Information Agency). While this view has some merit, it misses a much larger point: it's not just that we must tell our story better, we must begin to listen to what the concerns of the Muslim world actually are. This doesn't mean tuning in to the cacophony of the "street"; an enormous number of Western-oriented Muslim intellectuals are disenchanted with U.S. policies and can eloquently articulate the various critiques. That they have little sympathy for the U.S., despite Sept. 11, and see only further alienation as a result of the military assaults on Afghanistan, is alarming. In the broad U.S. political culture, we are not listening to such critiques, which is what is often meant by American arrogance: what we have to tell others is more important than what others have to tell us.
These kinds of approaches to the politics and security challenges of southwestern Asia and north Africa are just that -- steps in what should be a much richer and complex national debate. That so many in the political and opinion establishment have resisted and even denounced such notions is a distressing sign of how uphill such steps will be. If we do care to absorb the lessons of the last 50 years in that region, however, we can do so only by engaging the history of policy failures (which beset all great powers) as well as the glory of the American dream. So much of that history is one of tragic and even catastrophic consequences, most of them unforeseen and unintended. We need now -- immediately -- to consider and act on those lessons both to honor the dead of Sept. 11 and to prevent more tragedy in the future.
John Tirman is program director at the Social Science Research Council, and author of "Spoils of War: The Human Cost of America's Arms Trade."
Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11796
10/24/01
11:11:43 PM
AlterNet Headlines
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
John Tirman, AlterNet
If the 50-year history of U.S. policy in southwestern Asia teaches us anything, it is that aggressive military actions lead to destabilization of countries and the amplification of militant Islamic sentiment around the world. A must-read analysis.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11796
AMERICA RESPONDS TO HOAXES
David Cassel, AlterNet
Did Al Gore forewarn 3,000 Jews of the attack on the World Trade Center? This and other rumors are flying across the country.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11799
ALIEN WORSHIPPERS BLAME MONOTHEISM FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS
Kate Silver, Las Vegas Weekly
The Raelians -- an international religious sect that believes human life was created by aliens and holds science as its highest religion -- rage against "religious fanatics."
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11802
LIFE UNDER OCCUPATION
Lori A. Allen, AlterNet
A student living in the West Bank gives a harrowing, on-the-ground account of an embattled strip of land and a people constantly under siege.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11784
BURNING EMBERS
Bill Berkowitz, WorkingForChange.com After more than 20 years and thousands of deaths, America's "freedom fighters" in Angola are still wreaking havoc.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11798
DURST: FAQS ABOUT BOMBING AFGHANISTAN
Will Durst, AlterNet
"We're shooting off laser-guided smart bombs and ready to eat ethnically sensitive pre-packaged meals at the same time. Is this sending mixed messages?" and other great questions.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11800
HUTCHINSON: WHEN THE PROFILED BECOME PROFILERS
Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet
A recent Gallup and Zogby International poll found that more blacks than whites think Arabs should be profiled and required to carry a national identification card.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11801
PENTAGON HIRES IMAGE FIRM TO EXPLAIN AIR STRIKES TO WORLD
Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay, San Jose Mercury News
In an attempt to stem anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, the Pentagon has hired the Rendon Group, which previously was paid to boost the image of the Iraqi National Congress.
*In MediaCulture: http://www.alternet.org/?IssueAreaID=19
THE RISE OF THE BRAND STATE
Peter van Ham, Foreign Affairs
Branded states which, like branded products, are increasingly known by image and reputation, are the harbingers of a postmodern politics based on style as much as substance.
*In Globalization: http://www.alternet.org/?IssueAreaID=21
WHERE THE BODIES ARE
Geov Parrish, WorkingForChange.com The scope of the civilian destruction the U.S. is creating in Afghanistan is only starting to become clear.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11782
COMING THIS FALL ... MORE MEDIA DEREGULATION
Tamara Straus, AlterNet
This fall, two important media ownership rules will be reconsidered by the FCC, and given the commission's Republican majority, both will likely be thrown out.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11789
THE CASE FOR SMART INTELLIGENCE
Dan Pulcrano, AlterNet
Overhaul of U.S. intelligence gathering systems should be a top priority. But broad dragnets that compromise constitutional rights of non-terrorists won't solve a thing.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11781
MEDIA MASH: NYC BENEFIT WAS OLD WHITE GUY HEAVEN
The Masher, AlterNet
With all due respect to the performers and the crowd, Who lined up New York's benefit concert with a group of ancient white guys totally unrepresentative of the city?
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11791
10/24/01
11:06:32 PM
World Environment News - October 25th, 2001 from Planet Ark =============================================================
Here are today's Reuters 'World Environment News' headlines, proudly brought to you by Planet Ark.
Doing environmental research? Search our news archives at: http://www.planetark.org/searchhome.cfm
UPDATE - EPA proposes easing of anti-smog gasoline rules - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12971/story.htm
No shortcuts for Senate in writing US farm law - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12972/story.htm
Suspected anthrax cases rise to six in Maryland - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12983/story.htm
SMUD plans Calif power plant near abandoned nuke - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12974/story.htm
UPDATE - Tests - White House workers not exposed to anthrax - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12979/story.htm
UPDATE - US to ease hard-rock mining rules - green groups - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12970/story.htm
ANALYSIS - UK polluting more thanks to shift to coal - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12978/story.htm
Swedish green technology has huge potential - study - SWEDEN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12977/story.htm
Hulk of doomed Kursk submarine emerges from water - RUSSIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12981/story.htm
INTERVIEW - Latvia says close to fisheries deal with EU - LATVIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12976/story.htm
UPDATE - German nuke waste transport may face delays - GERMANY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12982/story.htm
Attack on German rail used for nuke waste transport - GERMANY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12984/story.htm
INTERVIEW - Hong Kong offices may become hydrogen generators - CANADA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12980/story.htm
Coalition forms to protest Ottawa G20 meeting - CANADA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12973/story.htm
Latam demands help in fight to save environment - BRAZIL http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12975/story.htm
Wind to benefit if Australia power target raised - AUSTRALIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12985/story.htm
10/24/01
11:04:32 PM
Giving Up On Canada --And Critical Thought?
by David Orchard
In the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack in New York we are witnessing some very disturbing developments in Canada. Prominent politicians, academics and media spokespersons are demanding that Canadians, as evidence of their solidarity with the United States, give up their border and their sovereignty, give up Canada in effect. Newspapers announce "the end of Canadian nationalism." We are all Americans now, we are admonished.
Canada was not responsible for the terrorist attacks in the U.S. and no Canadian link has been established for those involved. Yet Canada is being implicated and Canada's immigration policy is singled out. Canada is being requested, by no less a figure than the U.S. ambassador, to consider a North American perimeter, meaning one North American power centre, or in other words a Greater U.S.A.
At the same time a form of McCarthyism appears to be sweeping the continent. Almost overnight, only certain things are safe to say. Even defending our own existence as a nation has now become almost subversive.
My mother gave several years of her life overseas during World War II; as an officer and nurse she tended the wounds of those brave enough to fight fascism and defend this country and its freedom. A million Canadians joined her in uniform in a six year war that took some fifty million lives. Now an horrific event in New York is enough for some to tell us their efforts were in vain, that we no longer even deserve a country. This is also a betrayal of all those who fought to keep the border there and preserve our sovereignty, from Isaac Brock, Tecumseh and de Salaberry in 1812 on down through the years.
Along with our country it appears we are being asked to give up critical thought. In the U.S., journalists who dare to raise questions are being fired, casualties of an atmosphere which has prompted Walter Cronkite to urge his fellow Americans to wake up to this danger. "When [the Germans] yielded up their free speech so easily [to Hitler], they became responsible for what their government did in their name," he warned recently.
In Canada, those saying "wait a minute, let's think this through," are instantly labelled anti-American. Two theories predominate concerning the New York/Washington events. One that they were the acts of madmen, incapable of comprehension, or alternatively, that they were a reaction to U.S. foreign policies. Those who examine the latter are being quickly attacked and silenced, even their patriotism questioned.
Yet the very logic that is unleashing bombs and cruise missiles on Afghanistan presupposes a rationality to the terrorist attack. Why would we bombard Afghanistan if the hijackers were merely madmen? There are serious questions that need to be debated and answered before our forces attack a foreign country. The first is the issue of legality. A nation can ask another country for the extradition of a suspected criminal. It can not bomb it, if it says no, or if it insists on certain conditions before compliance. Canada's Supreme Court recently upheld Canada's own right to impose conditions before extraditing suspected criminals to the U.S.
Furthermore, the U.S. has informed the United Nations it reserves the right to widen this war, to attack any country suspected of condoning or harbouring terrorists. This declaration falls far outside any possible interpretation of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. A nation's right to self-defence in international law is very little different from the right of the individual in Canadian law. If my neighbour threatens to kill me, or if I suspect he may do so, the law does not allow me to shoot him first.
Law, domestic and international, is in place to prevent vigilante action. The Afghans, many starving and huddled in their cellars through these nights of terror, never elected the Taliban as their government and should not be made collectively responsible for its actions. Did not the U.S., Pakistan and Saudi Arabia impose and maintain the Taliban's rule upon the long suffering people of Afghanistan? Did the U.S. government not train, sponsor, and finance the same terrorists we are now condemning, when it was using them against the Soviet Union? Most Americans have no idea what actions their government has taken around the world, including in the Middle East, where some of the most ironfisted dictatorships in existence retain their grip over their populations only with U.S. and British support. (Most Americans also do not know that their government and that of Britain have been bombing Iraq on a virtually weekly basis since 1991, also in flagrant violation of international law.)
Canadians pride themselves on being better informed, and Canada, as a close friend of the United States, with a proud tradition as a peacemaker, has a responsibility to its own citizens and to the world to examine all these questions. Our law makers must do so before we join an action which pits West versus East, rich versus poor in an unpredictable, open ended war we may live to profoundly regret. The bombing of war torn Afghanistan is already creating new victims and no doubt a new generation of martyrs.
About the author:
David Orchard farms in Borden, Sask. He is the author of The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism, and was the runner-up to Joe Clark in the 1998 PC Party leadership contest.
Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ORC110A.html
10/24/01
10:54:11 PM
Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading lead directly into the CIA`s Highest Ranks
CIA Executive Director "Buzzy" Krongard managed Firm that handled "put" Options on UAL
by Michael C. Ruppert
Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That evidence also demonstrates that, in the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options" on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker's Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard's last position at Banker's Trust (BT) was to oversee "private client relations." In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.
Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.
The Scope of Known Insider Trading
Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media. It is well documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades - in real time - as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests. Previous stories in FTW have specifically highlighted the use of Promis software to monitor such trades.
It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to understand the significance of these trades. "Selling Short" is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current market prices, but not being required to actually produce the stock for some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short contract is entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by buying the stock after the price has fallen and complete the contract at the pre-crash price. These contracts often have a window of as long as four months. "Put Options," purchased at nominal prices of, for example, $1.00 per share, are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised, they give the holder the option of selling selected stocks at a future date at a price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an investment of $10,000 it might be possible to tie up 10,000 shares of United or American Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the option is then obligated to buy them if the option is executed. If the stock has fallen to $50 when the contract matures, the holder of the option can purchase the shares for $50 and immediately sell them for $100 - regardless of where the market then stands.
A "call option" is the reverse of a put option, which is, in effect, a derivatives bet that the stock price will go up.
A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:
Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options... Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million. On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;... Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders," they would represent a gain of about $4 million. [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.] No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million. Merrill Lynch & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by "insiders," their profit would have been about $5.5 million. European regulators are examining trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a "double whammy" for them.]
On September 29, 2001 - in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media - the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.
"The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors - whose identities and nationalities have not been made public - had advance knowledge of the strikes." They don't dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.
"... October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called "put" options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp."
"...The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options..."
As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks.
CIA, the Banks and the Brokers
Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and brokerage world is critical to grasping the already frightening implications of the above revelations. Let's look at the history of CIA, Wall Street and the big banks by looking at some of the key players in CIA's history. Clark Clifford - The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of First American Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.
John Foster and Allen Dulles - These two brothers "designed" the CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U.S. investments in Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most powerful - to this day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.
Bill Casey - Ronald Reagan's CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.
David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.
George Herbert Walker Bush - President from 1989 to January 1993, also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation, and which shares joint investments with the bin Laden family.
A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard - The current Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust.
John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation's second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented laundering drug money. This includes Citigroup's 2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.
Nora Slatkin - This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on Citibank's board.
Maurice "Hank" Greenburg - The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg's and AIG's long connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11. AIG's stock has bounced back remarkably well since the attacks. To read that story, please go to http://www.copvcia.com/stories/part_2.html.
One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests of the American people, especially those who died on September 11.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html
10/24/01
10:49:07 PM
'Brutality Smeared In Peanut Butter'
Why America Must Stop The War Now.
By Arundhati Roy
As darkness deepened over Afghanistan on Sunday October 7 2001, the US government, backed by the International Coalition Against Terror (the new, amenable surrogate for the United Nations), launched air strikes against Afghanistan. TV channels lingered on computer-animated images of cruise missiles, stealth bombers, tomahawks, "bunker-busting" missiles and Mark 82 high drag bombs. All over the world, little boys watched goggle-eyed and stopped clamouring for new video games.
The UN, reduced now to an ineffective acronym, wasn't even asked to mandate the air strikes. (As Madeleine Albright once said, "We will behave multilaterally when we can, and unilaterally when we must.") The "evidence" against the terrorists was shared amongst friends in the "coalition".
After conferring, they announced that it didn¹t matter whether or not the "evidence" would stand up in a court of law. Thus, in an instant, were centuries of jurisprudence carelessly trashed.
Nothing can excuse or justify an act of terrorism, whether it is committed by religious fundamentalists, private militia, people's resistance movements - or whether it's dressed up as a war of retribution by a recognised government. The bombing of Afghanistan is not revenge for New York and Washington. It is yet another act of terror against the people of the world.
Each innocent person that is killed must be added to, not set off against, the grisly toll of civilians who died in New York and Washington.
People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed.
Governments moult and regroup, hydra-headed. They use flags first to shrink-wrap people's minds and smother thought, and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury their willing dead. On both sides, in Afghanistan as well as America, civilians are now hostage to the actions of their own governments.
Unknowingly, ordinary people in both countries share a common bond - they have to live with the phenomenon of blind, unpredictable terror. Each batch of bombs that is dropped on Afghanistan is matched by a corresponding escalation of mass hysteria in America about anthrax, more hijackings and other terrorist acts.
There is no easy way out of the spiralling morass of terror and brutality that confronts the world today. It is time now for the human race to hold still, to delve into its wells of collective wisdom, both ancient and modern. What happened on September 11 changed the world forever.
Freedom, progress, wealth, technology, war - these words have taken on new meaning.
Governments have to acknowledge this transformation, and approach their new tasks with a modicum of honesty and humility. Unfortunately, up to now, there has been no sign of any introspection from the leaders of the International Coalition. Or the Taliban.
When he announced the air strikes, President George Bush said: "We're a peaceful nation." America¹s favourite ambassador, Tony Blair, (who also holds the portfolio of prime minister of the UK), echoed him: "We're a peaceful people."
So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace.
Speaking at the FBI headquarters a few days later, President Bush said: "This is our calling. This is the calling of the United States of America. The most free nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that reject hate, reject violence, rejects murderers and rejects evil. We will not tire."
Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with - and bombed - since the second world war: China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), the Belgian Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-70), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980s), Nicaragua (1980s), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999). And now Afghanistan.
Certainly it does not tire - this, the most free nation in the world.
What freedoms does it uphold? Within its borders, the freedoms of speech, religion, thought; of artistic expression, food habits, sexual preferences (well, to some extent) and many other exemplary, wonderful things.
Outside its borders, the freedom to dominate, humiliate and subjugate usually in the service of America¹s real religion, the "free market". So when the US government christens a war "Operation Infinite Justice", or "Operation Enduring Freedom", we in the third world feel more than a tremor of fear.
Because we know that Infinite Justice for some means Infinite Injustice for others. And Enduring Freedom for some means Enduring Subjugation for others.
The International Coalition Against Terror is a largely cabal of the richest countries in the world. Between them, they manufacture and sell almost all of the world's weapons, they possess the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological and nuclear. They have fought the most wars, account for most of the genocide, subjection, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations in modern history, and have sponsored, armed and financed untold numbers of dictators and despots. Between them, they have worshipped, almost deified, the cult of violence and war. For all its appalling sins, the Taliban just isn't in the same league.
The Taliban was compounded in the crumbling crucible of rubble, heroin and landmines in the backwash of the cold war. Its oldest leaders are in their early 40s. Many of them are disfigured and handicapped, missing an eye, an arm or a leg. They grew up in a society scarred and devastated by war.
Between the Soviet Union and America, over 20 years, about $45bn (£30bn) worth of arms and ammunition was poured into Afghanistan. The latest weaponry was the only shard of modernity to intrude upon a thoroughly medieval society.
Young boys many of them orphans - who grew up in those times, had guns for toys, never knew the security and comfort of family life, never experienced the company of women. Now, as adults and rulers, the Taliban beat, stone, rape and brutalise women, they don't seem to know what else to do with them.
Years of war has stripped them of gentleness, inured them to kindness and human compassion. Now they've turned their monstrosity on their own people.
They dance to the percussive rhythms of bombs raining down around them.
With all due respect to President Bush, the people of the world do not have to choose between the Taliban and the US government. All the beauty of human civilisation - our art, our music, our literature - lies beyond these two fundamentalist, ideological poles. There is as little chance that the people of the world can all become middle-class consumers as there is that they will all embrace any one particular religion. The issue is not about good v evil or Islam v Christianity as much as it is about space. About how to accommodate diversity, how to contain the impulse towards hegemony every kind of hegemony, economic, military, linguistic, religious and cultural.
Any ecologist will tell you how dangerous and fragile a monoculture is. A hegemonic world is like having a government without a healthy opposition. It becomes a kind of dictatorship. It¹s like putting a plastic bag over the world, and preventing it from breathing. Eventually, it will be torn open.
One and a half million Afghan people lost their lives in the 20 years of conflict that preceded this new war. Afghanistan was reduced to rubble, and now, the rubble is being pounded into finer dust. By the second day of the air strikes, US pilots were returning to their bases without dropping their assigned payload of bombs. As one pilot put it, Afghanistan is "not a target-rich environment". At a press briefing at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, was asked if America had run out of targets.
"First we're going to re-hit targets," he said, "and second, we're not running out of targets, Afghanistan is ..." This was greeted with gales of laughter in the briefing room.
By the third day of the strikes, the US defence department boasted that it had "achieved air supremacy over Afghanistan" (Did they mean that they had destroyed both, or maybe all 16, of Afghanistan's planes?)
On the ground in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance - the Taliban's old enemy, and therefore the international coalition's newest friend - is making headway in its push to capture Kabul. (For the archives, let it be said that the Northern Alliance's track record is not very different from the Taliban's. But for now, because it's inconvenient, that little detail is being glossed over.) The visible, moderate, "acceptable" leader of the alliance, Ahmed Shah Masud, was killed in a suicide-bomb attack early in September. The rest of the Northern Alliance is a brittle confederation of brutal warlords, ex-communists and unbending clerics. It is a disparate group divided along ethnic lines, some of whom have tasted power in Afghanistan in the past.
Until the US air strikes, the Northern Alliance controlled about 5% of the geographical area of Afghanistan. Now, with the coalition's help and "air cover", it is poised to topple the Taliban. Meanwhile, Taliban soldiers, sensing imminent defeat, have begun to defect to the alliance. So the fighting forces are busy switching sides and changing uniforms. But in an enterprise as cynical as this one, it seems to matter hardly at all.
Love is hate, north is south, peace is war.
Among the global powers, there is talk of "putting in a representative government". Or, on the other hand, of "restoring" the kingdom to Afghanistan's 89-year old former king Zahir Shah, who has lived in exile in Rome since 1973. That's the way the game goes - support Saddam Hussein, then "take him out"; finance the mojahedin, then bomb them to smithereens; put in Zahir Shah and see if he's going to be a good boy. (Is it possible to "put in" a representative government? Can you place an order for democracy - with extra cheese and jalapeno peppers?)
Reports have begun to trickle in about civilian casualties, about cities emptying out as Afghan civilians flock to the borders which have been closed. Main arterial roads have been blown up or sealed off. Those who have experience of working in Afghanistan say that by early November, food convoys will not be able to reach the millions of Afghans (7.5m, according to the UN) who run the very real risk of starving to death during the course of this winter. They say that in the days that are left before winter sets in, there can either be a war, or an attempt to reach food to the hungry. Not both.
As a gesture of humanitarian support, the US government air-dropped 37,000 packets of emergency rations into Afghanistan. It says it plans to drop a total of 500,000 packets. That will still only add up to a single meal for half a million people out of the several million in dire need of food.
Aid workers have condemned it as a cynical, dangerous, public-relations exercise. They say that air-dropping food packets is worse than futile.
First, because the food will never get to those who really need it. More dangerously, those who run out to retrieve the packets risk being blown up by landmines. A tragic alms race.
Nevertheless, the food packets had a photo-op all to themselves. Their contents were listed in major newspapers. They were vegetarian, we're told, as per Muslim dietary law (!) Each yellow packet, decorated with the American flag, contained: rice, peanut butter, bean salad, strawberry jam, crackers, raisins, flat bread, an apple fruit bar, seasoning, matches, a set of plastic cutlery, a serviette and illustrated user instructions.
After three years of unremitting drought, an air-dropped airline meal in Jalalabad! The level of cultural ineptitude, the failure to understand what months of relentless hunger and grinding poverty really mean, the US government¹s attempt to use even this abject misery to boost its self-image, beggars description.
Reverse the scenario for a moment. Imagine if the Taliban government was to bomb New York City, saying all the while that its real target was the US government and its policies. And suppose, during breaks between the bombing, the Taliban dropped a few thousand packets containing nan and kebabs impaled on an Afghan flag. Would the good people of New York ever find it in themselves to forgive the Afghan government? Even if they were hungry, even if they needed the food, even if they ate it, how would they ever forget the insult, the condescension? Rudi Guiliani, Mayor of New York City, returned a gift of $10m from a Saudi prince because it came with a few words of friendly advice about American policy in the Middle East. Is pride a luxury that only the rich are entitled to?
Far from stamping it out, igniting this kind of rage is what creates terrorism. Hate and retribution don't go back into the box once you've let them out. For every "terrorist" or his "supporter" that is killed, hundreds of innocent people are being killed too. And for every hundred innocent people killed, there is a good chance that several future terrorists will be created.
Where will it all lead?
Setting aside the rhetoric for a moment, consider the fact that the world has not yet found an acceptable definition of what "terrorism" is. One country's terrorist is too often another¹s freedom fighter. At the heart of the matter lies the world's deep-seated ambivalence towards violence.
Once violence is accepted as a legitimate political instrument, then the morality and political acceptability of terrorists (insurgents or freedom fighters) becomes contentious, bumpy terrain. The US government itself has funded, armed and sheltered plenty of rebels and insurgents around the world.
The CIA and Pakistan's ISI trained and armed the mojahedin who, in the 80s, were seen as terrorists by the government in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Today, Pakistan - America's ally in this new war - sponsors insurgents who cross the border into Kashmir in India. Pakistan lauds them as "freedom-fighters", India calls them "terrorists". India, for its part, denounces countries who sponsor and abet terrorism, but the Indian army has, in the past, trained separatist Tamil rebels asking for a homeland in Sri Lanka - the LTTE, responsible for countless acts of bloody terrorism.
(Just as the CIA abandoned the mujahideen after they had served its purpose, India abruptly turned its back on the LTTE for a host of political reasons. It was an enraged LTTE suicide bomber who assassinated former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1989.)
It is important for governments and politicians to understand that manipulating these huge, raging human feelings for their own narrow purposes may yield instant results, but eventually and inexorably, they have disastrous consequences. Igniting and exploiting religious sentiments for reasons of political expediency is the most dangerous legacy that governments or politicians can bequeath to any people - including their own.
People who live in societies ravaged by religious or communal bigotry know that every religious text - from the Bible to the Bhagwad Gita - can be mined and misinterpreted to justify anything, from nuclear war to genocide to corporate globalisation.
This is not to suggest that the terrorists who perpetrated the outrage on September 11 should not be hunted down and brought to book. They must be.
But is war the best way to track them down? Will burning the haystack find you the needle? Or will it escalate the anger and make the world a living hell for all of us?
At the end of the day, how many people can you spy on, how many bank accounts can you freeze, how many conversations can you eavesdrop on, how many emails can you intercept, how many letters can you open, how many phones can you tap? Even before September 11, the CIA had accumulated more information than is humanly possible to process. (Sometimes, too much data can actually hinder intelligence - small wonder the US spy satellites completely missed the preparation that preceded India's nuclear tests in 1998.)
The sheer scale of the surveillance will become a logistical, ethical and civil rights nightmare. It will drive everybody clean crazy. And freedom - that precious, precious thing - will be the first casualty. It's already hurt and haemorrhaging dangerously.
Governments across the world are cynically using the prevailing paranoia to promote their own interests. All kinds of unpredictable political forces are being unleashed. In India, for instance, members of the All India People's Resistance Forum, who were distributing anti-war and anti-US pamphlets in Delhi, have been jailed. Even the printer of the leaflets was arrested.
The rightwing government (while it shelters Hindu extremists groups such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal) has banned the Islamic Students Movement of India and is trying to revive an anti- terrorist Act which had been withdrawn after the Human Rights Commission reported that it had been more abused than used. Millions of Indian citizens are Muslim. Can anything be gained by alienating them?
Every day that the war goes on, raging emotions are being let loose into the world. The international press has little or no independent access to the war zone. In any case, mainstream media, particularly in the US, have more or less rolled over, allowing themselves to be tickled on the stomach with press handouts from military men and government officials. Afghan radio stations have been destroyed by the bombing. The Taliban has always been deeply suspicious of the press. In the propaganda war, there is no accurate estimate of how many people have been killed, or how much destruction has taken place. In the absence of reliable information, wild rumours spread.
Put your ear to the ground in this part of the world, and you can hear the thrumming, the deadly drumbeat of burgeoning anger. Please. Please, stop the war now. Enough people have died. The smart missiles are just not smart enough. They're blowing up whole warehouses of suppressed fury.
President George Bush recently boasted, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2m missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." President Bush should know that there are no targets in Afghanistan that will give his missiles their money's worth.
Perhaps, if only to balance his books, he should develop some cheaper missiles to use on cheaper targets and cheaper lives in the poor countries of the world. But then, that may not make good business sense to the coalition¹s weapons manufacturers. It wouldn't make any sense at all, for example, to the Carlyle Group - described by the Industry Standard as "the world's largest private equity firm", with $13bn under management.
Carlyle invests in the defence sector and makes its money from military conflicts and weapons spending.
Carlyle is run by men with impeccable credentials. Former US defence secretary Frank Carlucci is Carlyle's chairman and managing director (he was a college roommate of Donald Rumsfeld's). Carlyle's other partners include former US secretary of state James A Baker III, George Soros and Fred Malek (George Bush Sr's campaign manager). An American paper the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel - says that former president George Bush Sr is reported to be seeking investments for the Carlyle Group from Asian markets.
He is reportedly paid not inconsiderable sums of money to make "presentations" to potential government-clients.
Ho hum. As the tired saying goes, it's all in the family.
Then there's that other branch of traditional family business - oil. Remember, President George Bush (Jr) and Vice-President Dick Cheney both made their fortunes working in the US oil industry.
Turkmenistan, which borders the north-west of Afghanistan, holds the world's third largest gas reserves and an estimated six billion barrels of oil reserves. Enough, experts say, to meet American energy needs for the next 30 years (or a developing country's energy requirements for a couple of centuries.) America has always viewed oil as a security consideration, and protected it by any means it deems necessary. Few of us doubt that its military presence in the Gulf has little to do with its concern for human rights and almost entirely to do with its strategic interest in oil.
Oil and gas from the Caspian region currently moves northward to European markets. Geographically and politically, Iran and Russia are major impediments to American interests. In 1998, Dick Cheney - then CEO of Halliburton, a major player in the oil industry - said, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight." True enough.
For some years now, an American oil giant called Unocal has been negotiating with the Taliban for permission to construct an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan and out to the Arabian sea. From here, Unocal hopes to access the lucrative "emerging markets" in south and south-east Asia. In December 1997, a delegation of Taliban mullahs travelled to America and even met US state department officials and Unocal executives in Houston. At that time the Taliban's taste for public executions and its treatment of Afghan women were not made out to be the crimes against humanity that they are now.
Over the next six months, pressure from hundreds of outraged American feminist groups was brought to bear on the Clinton administration.
Fortunately, they managed to scuttle the deal. And now comes the US oil industry's big chance.
In America, the arms industry, the oil industry, the major media networks, and, indeed, US foreign policy, are all controlled by the same business combines. Therefore, it would be foolish to expect this talk of guns and oil and defence deals to get any real play in the media. In any case, to a distraught, confused people whose pride has just been wounded, whose loved ones have been tragically killed, whose anger is fresh and sharp, the inanities about the "clash of civilisations" and the "good v evil" discourse home in unerringly. They are cynically doled out by government spokesmen like a daily dose of vitamins or anti-depressants. Regular medication ensures that mainland America continues to remain the enigma it has always been - a curiously insular people, administered by a pathologically meddlesome, promiscuous government.
And what of the rest of us, the numb recipients of this onslaught of what we know to be preposterous propaganda? The daily consumers of the lies and brutality smeared in peanut butter and strawberry jam being air-dropped into our minds just like those yellow food packets. Shall we look away and eat because we're hungry, or shall we stare unblinking at the grim theatre unfolding in Afghanistan until we retch collectively and say, in one voice, that we have had enough?
As the first year of the new millennium rushes to a close, one wonders - have we forfeited our right to dream? Will we ever be able to re-imagine beauty?
Will it be possible ever again to watch the slow, amazed blink of a newborn gecko in the sun, or whisper back to the marmot who has just whispered in your ear - without thinking of the World Trade Centre and Afghanistan?
© Arundhati Roy
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,579196,00.html
10/24/01
10:36:40 PM
Forget The War Against Poverty
Who deserves western aid - Pakistan, producer of the Ghauri-II nuclear capable missile, left, or East African agricultural workers, right?
by Charlotte Denny, The Guardian
In the rainy season, the fertile red earth around Mpiita primary school turns to sticky mud. When Ugandan farmer Sam Bamugoverere was a pupil there 15 years ago, the school had no classrooms, just trees for the pupils to shelter under. "We would bring a stone to sit on and a banana leaf mat to cover our heads," he says. If it got too wet under the jackfruit tree, the teachers would send them home.
Sam's seven year old son, Tony, started Mpiita school this year, but unlike his father he studies under a roof. The school has eight brand new classrooms built as part of a massive government investment programme in education. Since 1997, Kampala has abolished schools fees, doubled its spending on primary education, and built 10,000 new classrooms. The money has come from the savings the country has made on its bills to foreign creditors.
Uganda is the success story of the debt relief campaign, a country which has made good use of the money it has won back from the west. But now, as the global downturn triggered by the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington threatens to push millions more people below the global poverty line, aid agencies worry that benefits of debt relief have been largely wiped out by a collapse in commodity prices.
Uganda's finance minister, Gerald Ssenduala, says his country needs more help. Since the attacks, however, western attention has been focused on shoring up the economies of key members of its coalition - such as Pakistan - rather than on Africa. Countries have been queuing up to offer Pakistan help with its £26bn of foreign debt, even though the government spends 25% of its budget on the military and just 4% on primary education.
Key ally
But while G7 leaders dither about what to do for Africa, Pakistan, a key ally in the war against terrorism has jumped to top of the debtors' queue. Since September 11, the US has promised Islamabad $1bn in debt rescheduling and aid, while the EU has given it an extra £950m in trade concessions. With aid budgets already stretched, campaigners say the message appears to be that debt relief and trade concessions are no problem to arrange if you are a key US ally.
"The whole thrust of the international aid programmes over the last five years has been rewarding countries which have good poverty reduction programmes," says Kevin Watkins of Oxfam. "Is Pakistan good at reducing poverty? No. Is it corrupt? Yes. Does it have good spending priorities? No."
Uganda would not be receiving any money from the west at all, if its arms budget was similarly bloated. Under a landmark debt deal agreed with lenders three years ago, it has had nearly 40% of its loans written off, but in exchange has agreed to spend the savings on health and education.
Five years ago, the country spent 125bn shillings (£50m) a year on primary education and 180bn shillings on paying back its loans. This year, interest payments have fallen to just over 100bn shillings, and education spending has risen to over 250bn.
But Mpiita school and others like it are threatened by recessionary forces spreading out from the wounded US economy. Even before the attacks on the US last month, Mr Ssenduala was a worried man. The country depends on coffee for nearly 60% of its export earnings and coffee prices, along with most other commodities have been on the slide since the slowdown in the world economy began last autumn. Last week they hit a 30-year low.
"Coffee is the main export for Uganda and because of the drop in price it is now difficult for us to reach this 150% debt sustainability level," Mr Ssenduala says. With export earnings falling, Uganda may be forced to divert money from social services back into paying off its remaining debts.
Uganda is not alone. Despite the grand hopes of an escape from poverty laid out yesterday by Thabo Mbeki and other African leaders, without extra help from the west, the slump in commodity will threaten the economies of coffee producers like Uganda and Tanzania and cocoa exporters like Ghana and Ivory Coast, all of whom owe large sums to the west.
"The problems that poor countries such as Uganda are having with terms of trade prove that the debt sustainability calculations made by the World Bank and IMF are entirely spurious," says Christian Aid's head of policy, Mark Curtis. "They fail to take into account the kinds of shocks in commodity markets we are seeing at the moment."
Extra help
Oxfam says Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia may all need extra help this year because the export earnings projections on which their debt write-offs were based have proved hopelessly optimistic. Uganda, which does have the kind of anti-poverty programmes held up as a model by the west, could definitely make good use of the kind of money Washington is throwing at Pakistan.
"We would like to be able to stand on our own but we have not been able to win the kind of investment we need," says Mr Ssenduala. "When you are a beggar you become a nuisance."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,579799,00.html
10/24/01
10:28:31 PM
Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE
<http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/default.asp?source=top>
ILLEGAL EAGLES
Federal species protection laws and the religious rights of Native Americans are clashing in a U.S. District Court in Seattle this week, where a 47-year-old man is on trial for violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Terry Antoine, a member of the Cowichan band of the Salish Tribe in British Columbia, is charged with smuggling eagle carcasses from Canada into the United States, where he sold or traded them to other tribes for use in religious ceremonies. Bald eagles are sacred to many Native American tribes, but because the birds are threatened and therefore protected by law, they can only be obtained through the National Eagle Repository, which collects eagles found dead in the wild. Advocates for the tribes say the system does not accommodate Native American religious needs, but U.S. courts have upheld stringent protections for the eagles so far.
straight to the source: Salt Lake Tribune, Associated Press, Elizabeth Murtaugh, 23 Oct 2001 <http://www.sltrib.com/10232001/nation_w/142613.htm>
GULF NOT UP TO PAR
Global warming will bring troubled times to the Gulf Coast in the next 50 to 100 years, according to a study released yesterday by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Ecological Society of America. The report predicts flooding, droughts, and shortages of fresh water from Laguna Madre to the Florida Keys. Rising sea levels will cause problems in a region that is already overdeveloped, and freshwater will be in short supply, as salt water creeps into coastal estuaries and evaporation increases off of reservoirs and rivers. Biologist Evan Siemann, one of the authors of the report, says he hopes it will serve as a call to action: "We need to start thinking about these things now and not wait until it's a crisis."
straight to the source: Houston Chronicle, Tony Freemantle, 23 Oct 2001 <http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1102515>
THE TIDE IS HIGH
If you think you have to spend a year in a tree or a lifetime on Capitol Hill to help the environment, think again. Thanks to a new online program called "Turn the Tide," everyday folks can learn how to protect the environment and -- here's the twist -- keep track of how well they do so. The program, a project of the Center for a New American Dream, offers participants nine simple, ecologically smart ways to change their lives, from cutting car trips to canceling junk mail. The center's Eric Brown describes the program as a "powerful tool" for demonstrating the impact of small behavioral changes. Each member has a personal log, and the site calculates how many resources the member saves.
straight to the source: Washington Post, Don Oldenburg, 17 Oct 2001 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6317-2001Oct17.html>
MURKY OUTCOME
In a decision that could have serious implications for the environment, U.S. Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced this week that he will run for governor of his home state next year. Murkowski, a former banker, has been a senator for 21 years and is the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He has made enemies of environmentalists, especially through his tireless promotion of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and logging in southeastern Alaska. Current Lt. Gov. Fran Ulmer, a Democrat, plans to challenge Murkowski, but political analysts say the senator will come equipped with a fortune in campaign funds and will be nearly impossible to beat.
straight to the source: Anchorage Daily News, Liz Ruskin, 23 Oct 2001 <http://www.adn.com/front/story/732543p-771000c.html>
STORY OF THE MORRILL
A consumer activist and political organizer hopes to be Pennsylvania's next governor -- and its first Green one. Michael Morrill of West Reading announced yesterday that he will run for the state's top office in 2002 as the Green Party candidate, on a platform that includes tougher protections for the environment, an $11 per hour minimum wage, and an end to corporate welfare. Morrill's candidacy may be a sign of the increasing popularity of Pennsylvania's Green Party, which will field 30 candidates in local elections next month. Still, Morrill faces an uphill battle; the state has not elected a third-party governor in nearly 150 years.
straight to the source: Philadelphia Inquirer, Thomas Fitzgerald, 24 Oct 2001 <http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/10/24/local_news/SGREEN24.htm>
10/24/01
10:24:41 PM
Public Citizens
NRC Rubber Stamps Changes in Siting Guidelines to Allow for Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump
WASHINGTON, D.C. - By concurring with proposed changes in siting guidelines for a nuclear waste repository in Nevada, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is agreeing to change the rules to fit the site - a clear attempt to ensure the dump is approved despite its potential dangers, Public Citizen said today.
In a press release yesterday, the NRC announced concurrence with the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed changes in the siting guidelines for a repository at Yucca Mountain. The original DOE siting guidelines (Part 960 in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10) would disqualify Yucca Mountain based on groundwater conditions. An aquifer beneath the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, which is the only source of drinking water for area residents, could become contaminated by radioactivity from the dump.
The proposed replacement rule (Part 963) would require compliance only with radiation protection standards established specifically for Yucca Mountain by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Public Citizen has criticized the EPA for setting a weak standard and is party to a lawsuit challenging this rule. The revised siting guidelines approved by the NRC would enable Yucca Mountain to be approved.
"The DOE and NRC are collaborating to change the rules of the game and allow the ill-conceived Yucca Mountain Project to move forward," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "These agencies are supposed to be protecting public health and safety, but it's clear that they are more concerned with protecting the interests of the nuclear industry."
The revised siting guidelines, which allow evaluation of the proposed repository site to be based on projected compliance with EPA standards rather than geologic characteristics, indicates a significant shift in the DOE's interpretation of nuclear waste policy. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 favored geologic containment of nuclear waste, whereas current DOE repository design proposals rely heavily on storage containers ("engineered barriers") to isolate the dangerous waste. However, projections of storage container performance over the very long periods that nuclear waste remains dangerously radioactive are uncertain because they involve predicting the containers' performance 10,000 years into the future using a limited amount of historical data.
NRC concurrence is required before the DOE's changes to the siting guidelines are finalized, since the NRC has licensing jurisdiction over the proposed nuclear dump. However, under a licensing rule that establishes NRC's regulations for evaluating DOE's potential license application for the dump, the NRC lacks legal basis for concurring with the new siting guidelines. So now, the NRC is also in the process of changing the licensing rule. This means that the NRC concurrence is premature because the revised licensing rule is not yet final.
"The NRC is jumping the gun and abandoning due process," said Hauter. "The agency's proposed revisions to its repository licensing rule have not yet been printed in the Federal Register and therefore cannot be considered final."
The latest version of the NRC's proposed changes to the licensing rule has not been publicly available since the NRC dismantled most of its Web site on Oct. 11.
Yucca Mountain, located 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nev., is the only site under consideration for development as a high-level nuclear waste repository. The proposed repository would contain 77,000 tons of radioactive waste from commercial nuclear reactors and the DOE weapons complex.
"Since the geology at Yucca Mountain cannot isolate the waste, the question is when - not if - the proposed repository would leak," said Hauter. "Why, then, are we continuing to throw money at this project that will cost billions of dollars, endanger communities along nuclear waste shipment routes in 45 states, and contaminate yet another site with high-level nuclear waste? The DOE should disqualify Yucca Mountain under the original siting guidelines and abandon the repository project."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.
For more information, please visit http://www.citizen.org
10/24/01
10:20:23 PM
MediaChannel.org
DAILY MEDIA NEWS
Breaking news stories about the international media, from mainstream and alternative sources.
http://www.mediachannel.org/news/today/
Global conflict coverage exclusively from Globalvision News Network.
http://www.gvnewsnet.com/html/USUnderAttack
TV NEWS VICTIMIZES KIDS
A new report finds that local U.S. TV news paints a distorted picture of America's youth, while ignoring public policy issues relating to families. (From Children Now)
World In Crisis, Media In Conflict: THE WAR OF SECRETS MediaChannel's ongoing coverage includes: * What we don't know CAN hurt us. * Progressive pundits challenge the press (video, audio, text). * The best from the News Dissectors' Daily weblog. * Books on media and conflict, guides for teachers and resources for journalists.
Plus Much, Much More...
http://www.mediachannel.org/atissue/conflict
FAREWELL, FREEDOM FORUM Eulogies for the European and African centers of the Freedom Forum. Also: Brill's Content and Inside.com close up shop. (From Guardian Unlimited, AllAfrica, Inside.com)
http://www.mediachannel.org/front.shtml#freedom
POLICY-MAKING IN WARTIME
Increased media concentration may become part of the of the pro-corporate agenda sneaking in under the wail of war sirens - even if we all saw it coming. (From Alternet)
http://www.mediachannel.org/front.shtml#policy
LONG LIVE THE INDY PRESS
Will market pressures and the disappearance of independent bookstores kill noncommercial magazines? Plus: What's different about the indy and ethnic press. (From Independent Press Association, Civil Rights Forum)
http://www.mediachannel.org/front.shtml#indy
HEROES AGAINST ALL ODDS
Journalists' groups honor reporters who've braved bullets, death threats and prison. (From Committee to Protect Journalists, International Women's Media Foundation)
http://www.mediachannel.org/front.shtml#courage
MEDIACULTURE
A collaboration between MediaChannel and Alternet exploring the currents, crises and cultures of American media. Recently featured: * The Illogic of Internet Filters * PBS Shuts Out Independent Producers * Censorship Can Be Fun! And much, much more...
http://www.mediachannel.org/front.shtml#mediaculture
JOURNALISM FOR THE FUTURE
Fair and free newspapers are essential if we are to preserve democracy, cautions Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen.
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/oped/blethen.shtml
10/24/01
10:03:53 PM
UN Set To Appeal For Halt In The Bombing
by Jason Burke
The United Nations is set to issue an unprecedented appeal to the United States and its coalition allies to halt the war on Afghanistan and allow time for a huge relief operation.
UN sources in Pakistan said growing concern over the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the country - in part, they say, caused by the relentless bombing campaign - has forced them to take the radical step. Aid officials estimate that up to 7.5 million Afghans might be threatened with starvation.
'The situation is completely untenable inside Afghanistan. We really need to get our point across here and have to be very bold in doing it. Unless the [US air] strikes stop, there will be a huge number of deaths,' one UN source said.
The move will embarrass Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, who said last week that there was no 'cause and effect' between the bombing and the ability of aid agencies to deliver much-needed food and shelter.
Aid workers yesterday strongly rejected Short's statements. 'Basically the bombing makes it difficult to get enough supplies in. It is as simple as that,' an Islamabad-based aid official told The Observer .
Dominic Nutt, a spokesman for the British charity Christian Aid, called Short's remarks sickening. 'Needy people are being put at risk by government spin-doctors who are showing a callous disregard for life,' he said. 'To say that there is no link is not just misleading but profoundly dangerous.' Christian Aid report 600 people have already died in the Dar-e-Suf region of northern Afghanistan due to starvation, malnutrition and related diseases.
Other agencies confirmed that the sick, the young and the old are already dying in refugee camps around the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif.
The World Food Program has calculated that 52,000 tons of wheat must be distributed in Afghanistan each month to stave off mass starvation. Since the aid program was restarted -on 25 September -only 20,000 tons have been supplied and 15,000 distributed. The concern is that the coming winter will make relief efforts more difficult. The first snows have already fallen on the Hindu Kush mountains and the isolated highlands ofHazarajat.
But though the WFP is accelerating the supply of food, it says it is unlikely to be able to bring in more than two-thirds of what is required. And it is clear that little aid is reaching the most remote areas where the need is greatest.
A new assessment by aid workers on the ground in Afghanistan will be presented to UN co-ordinators in Islamabad this week. It shows that the effects of the three-year drought that has hit Afghanistan are far worse than previously thought. Areas in the north-east are of particular concern.
In the western city of Herat food deliveries are barely keeping up with demand from the 1,000 people a day who are arriving at refugee camps.
'We are getting a significant amount of food into the country and we are desperately trying to get it to more remote areas. The usual distribution networks are hugely disrupted. At the moment a trickle is getting through,' said Michael Huggins, a spokesman for the WFP.
He said the WFP operation was hampered by a lack of truck drivers willing to carry food through Afghanistan because of the bombing raids, high fuel prices and communication difficulties.
The Taliban have also caused problems for aid agencies. A series of offices have been looted in major cities, prompting French agency Médecins Sans Frontières to shut down its entire Afghan operation. There have been a number of attempts to steal vehicles from aid agencies. The Taliban have also delayed relief convoys by demanding high taxes on their passage.
Although the expected influx of refugees to Pakistan has yet to occur, there are signs of larger shifts of population than before. The last three days have seen more than 10,000 people cross the border from Afghanistan around the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.
Refugees report a breakdown in law and order in Kandahar. 'It is impossible to live there now,' one said.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk
10/24/01
9:02:35 PM
UTNE WEB WATCH
The Best of the Alternative Web
THE LAST LAUGH
by Chris Wright, The Boston Phoenix
-- "As America finds itself in the throes of a national tragedy, what place is there for comedy?"
A PACIFIST DICTIONARY
by Kate Maloy, Non Violence Web
A pacifist defines what it means to be patriotic through nonviolence. Though pacifism is mocked by mainstream media, Kate Maloy writes how now is the most important time to stand up for one's principles.
BIOTERRORISM AND BIOWEAPONS SPECIAL REPORT
by The New Scientist, UK
-- The New Scientist provides a collection of articles from 1996 to the present that explore technological strides, concerns, and policy news related to biological attacks.
Links to the above articles: http://www.utne.com/webwatch
10/24/01
8:43:37 PM
World Bank's former Chief Economist William Stiglitz who resigned his post in dissent of the bank's policies which cause economic devastation around the world. (Big Brother10-15-01) At the end of his interview journalist Greg Palast concluded "the solution to world poverty and crisis is simple: remove the bloodsuckers."
To do this, it's necessary to understand how the bloodsuckers obtained their power. Herewith a brief description of how a cleverly devised banking system robs the average person of the right to a decent life while providing enormous wealth for its corporate owners and stockholders:
Henry Ford, Sr., staunch member of the United States' business community, once said "If the people of the nation understood our banking and monetary system, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
How did such a system get started? How do they keep it going? In 1935 during the Great Depression, the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency questioned the role of money as a basic cause of nationwide bank failures. To explain the workings of our monetary system they called Robert Hemphill, a former credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Georgia. Hemphill told the august committee a fable - 'The Temple of the Thirteen Suns'.
The essence of this fable is that a rich man going on a journey wanted a way to pay expenses without having to haul his unwieldy supply of gold. The goldsmith agreed to store the gold at 10% interest and gave the traveler a receipt - an I.O.U. or letter of credit. After the traveler left, the goldsmith offered to lend this gold to any local merchant who would pledge all his possessions to him as security. In each case, the new borrower asked the goldsmith to keep the gold and give him a paper receipt. Thus the goldsmith still had all the gold - not to mention mortgages on the possessions of everyone who had borrowed from him! With each loan and payment of interest the goldsmith's fortune grew until he became the wealthier than everyone in town. Reflecting upon this state of affairs he said, "What a lead-pipe cinch! I can collect just as much usury on this phony money as on the real gold."
So began the banking business. Money is based on credit. To be used equitably, money must be issued and its value controlled by governments for the general welfare of the nation and its people.
There is no need for money to be created as interest-bearing notes. However, it's still being issued this way worldwide by private banks against the security of people's own personal wealth or the wealth of other nations. The 'money' you borrow from them is created 'out of thin air.' It's a piece of paper that indicates you have pledged your possessions in exchange for your promise to repay the lenders of this money - with interest!
The crucial point to understand is that the way money is created and issued determines the workings of the marketplace. Money issued at interest by private banks, such as the United States Federal Reserve Bank, brings with it an overwhelming debt which has devastating effects on its own people and around the world. In contrast, money issued by a government without interest would benefit everyone. Instead of creating artificial shortages and causing horrendous suffering, interest-free money would simply be a medium of exchange and could release the abundance of human production.
According to authors Fraser and Morse in Tomorrow's Money: "The money of modern civilization is credit.[which] represents real wealth (goods and services}. But -- all our credit-tokens have been issued at-interest or as debt-tokens. First we had goldsmiths issuing credit-at-interest money to individuals. Next we had private banks issuing credit-at-interest money to individuals and the State. Now we have a Credit-Cartel issuing credit-at-interest to the entire world. Today, our wealth - your credit, and mine and the Nation's - is monetized in this way." (1)
"In England the goldsmith's method of issuing money was legalized under the Bank Act of 1694. [British] William of Orange needed money and [the Rothschild family] offered King William their gold - $6,000,000 - at 8% if he would give them a charter for a bank. And Permit them to issue an equal amount in paper notes at interest to themselves!" (2)
What's the matter with private banks issuing the nation's money? "The interest system enables private corporations to regulate and control the Nation's money supply - for their benefit instead of Society's" (3) (Does this remind you of the 2001 scarce energy crisis in California which suddenly turned into a glut, or the way gasoline prices rise and fall at the will of the oil barons?)
Not only is the total debt from interest physically impossible to repay -especially if based on scarce precious metals - but "The interest tribute increases our taxes, lowers our buying power, depresses and oppresses the Nation's production and business.The power and privilege to issue and regulate money are Sovereign Rights. They belong to the Nation - to us -and have been usurped and stolen from the people and the Nation to whom they rightfully belong." (4)
The American colonies' 1776 War of Independence against Britain was largely an effort to break free from the financial stranglehold placed upon them by the Bank of England. Space doesn't permit details of the struggle between Jefferson and Madison on the people's side vs. Alexander Hamilton representing a privileged group desiring to start a similar bank in the American colonies. Hamilton won and the private Bank of United States was chartered in 1791. "In all transactions, the Nation was to be jointly responsible with the bank - but was not - to receive any of the bank's profit's. Many other benefits accrued to enrich the bank and its stockholders, including a comprehensive tax exemption." (5)
Many government and other leaders in the U.S. have understood the power that money issuance gives to those who control it.
* In 1787 John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson "All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as down-right ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."
* President Abraham Lincoln: "By Government creation of money, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest." Lincoln tried to change the system by having the Treasury Department issue "Greenbacks" which were non-interest bearing notes. He was assassinated in 1865.
* President James A. Garfield: "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states "The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States...and to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin." But since the beginning of our country, bankers have been exercising de facto power in issuing the nation's money. In 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act which consolidated the power to issue and regulate the nation's money and handed it over to the Federal Reserve Corporation, a consortium of private bankers. Understand that the Federal Reserve Bank is "federal" in name only.
* Congressman Charles A. Lindberg, Sr.: "This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
* Senator Louis T. McFadden (for 22 years Chairman of the U.S. Banking Currency Commission): "The Federal Reserve (privately owned banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen."
The U.S. public, taught to believe that our money is based on gold, becomes alarmed when someone reports that gold is missing from the Treasury. This no longer matters. Our money hasn't been backed by gold since 1935 when the Roosevelt administration took us "off the gold standard". The paper money issued by the Federal Reserve Bank reads: 'THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.'
* President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 in 1963 giving the Treasury Department power to issue silver certificates as the base of U.S. money. Once sufficient silver certificates existed it would eliminate the demand for Federal Reserve notes. JFK was assassinated five months later. (See: http://www.rense.com/politics4/jflandfed.htm)
Others who championed the return of money issuance to the government included Congressmen Jerry Voorhis of California and Wright Patman of Ohio. These men understood what Mayer Anselm Rothschild, patriarch of the banking House of Rothschild, stated so clearly: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws"
Workers around the world have vastly increased their productivity, yet their standard of living has fallen drastically. How many people work two jobs to pay back money created 'out of thin air' using their own personal credit? How many millions in this country die premature deaths because 'there's no money' for food and doctor's bills? How many people in the 'Third World' starve to death because their countries are burdened with enormous debts to international bankers? (In mid-2001, foreign debt owed to Western bankers was $3,000,000,000,000 - three trillion dollars!)
Human corruption has devastated the Earth to the point where many experts fear it's impossible to restore a healthy environment. A change in consciousness is absolutely necessary. We need to stop exploiting each other. We need to act in a kindly and beneficial way toward the Earth and each other. Returning the power of issuing each nation's money to its own government is one step that will ease financial burdens and stop massive genocide against our fellow beings.
Suzanne Phillips
10/24/01
7:19:59 PM
Fighting the Good Fight: Buy Nothing Day on November 23
President Bush and other Western leaders are urging us to save our faltering economies by hitting the mall. San Francisco mayor Willie Brown's staff are distributing 15,000 posters featuring an American flag with shopping-bag handles (see below). Consumption is being cast as "fighting the good fight."
Let's get real. Yes it's a delicate moment. It's time to grieve, it's time to reflect. But it's certainly *not* time to stifle discussion and reverse progress on what, though it has been bumped from the news agenda, remains the world's biggest long-term problem: the unsustainable consumer binge of Western nations. In fact, now may be the time to take the sustainable consumption debate to a new plane.
November 23 is Buy Nothing Day. This year, celebrants in more than 50 countries will opt not to spend any money for 24 hours, but instead to enjoy pranks, parades, street parties, credit-card cutups - and some quiet time with family and friends. Why don't you join us?
Our website http://adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd/ is a font of information for BND enthusiasts. There you'll find posters, images, event ideas and contact information for organizers in your area.
We want to know what you're planning. Be sure to keep us up-to-date on your group's activities by emailing buynothingday@adbusters.org. Contact us there if you need more information or assistance.
Remember: On November 23, don't let anyone call your efforts trivial or treasonous or unpatriotic. At a time like this, getting public attention back on the big picture may be the most charitable thing any of us can do.
Thanks, and Happy Buy Nothing Day.
P.S. If you'd like to make your Buy Nothing Day activities a little more edgy, contact Paul Dechene at <pauld@adbusters.org>.
10/24/01
7:18:17 PM
Greenpeace Action Alert October 15, 2001
Urge Senate Majority Leader Daschle to Stand Strong and Resist the Bush Energy Agenda:
The heated debate on national energy policy has reached a low boil and has potential to erupt in the next few weeks. We should not allow this time of international conflict to provide a smoke screen for impractical decisions such as passing an irrational energy plan. The public should look skeptically at a plan that, in the name of addressing terrorism, will lock the United States into an increasingly vulnerable fossil fuel and nuclear dependant future. Over the next week, Senator Tom Daschle will be drafting a "balanced" energy plan that will eventually be brought up for a floor vote. Take action, fax your congressional representatives and Senator Daschle to make sure that America's energy future is one focused on safe renewable energy sources rather than fossil and nuclear fuels.
Take action now: http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/save/alerts/daschle-direct.htm
10/24/01
7:17:21 PM
Update On Fast Track Mark-Up In Committee And Next Steps
Contact Your Representative Tell Him/Her to Vote NO on Thomas' Fast Track Bill
In a remarkably partisan split, the Ways and Means committee voted on Rep. Thomas' Fast Track bill (H.R. 3005) last night (10/9/01) after four hours of nasty, bitter partisan rancor. The Ways and Means committee is stacked with 7 more Republicans than Democrats on it, so it was inevitable that the bill would be vote out of committee whenever Chairman Thomas called a vote.
What was REMARKABLE is that only two Democrats on the committee voted for the bill. Those two Dems are Tanner (TN) and Jefferson (LO) who had already supported the original Crane Fast Track bill. Every single other Democrat - including those who always vote against us on trade - such as Reps. Rangel, Levin., Matsui and McDermott - all opposed the Thomas bill. Indeed - there has never been such strong opposition to a trade vote on what is normally a very free-trade friendly committee. Given the stacked committee, this outcome is about as good as we could have gotten on a Fast Track with bright partisan lines drawn and lots of personal insult and divisiveness to boot.
The bad news though is that now that the bill is out of committee, it can be brought to the floor at any time. After the mark up, Chairman Thomas said it would be next week. (We do not believe that, but we have to be ready.) Other GOP House leaders have said it will be "in the next few weeks."
Do not despair: remember that Fast Track in 1997 was cleared out of committee and they had scheduled a floor vote and were about to start the floor debate when they announced that the bill was being pulled. So, it is not cataclysmic that the bill is out of committee, it is just horrible...
But, that committee vote is NOT any sort of an indication that Thomas' bill could pass on the floor! In fact, if we do our work - they will NEVER CALL A VOTE. That is our goal: if we deny them with the certainly that they have the votes they will NOT call a vote. Then Congress will recess in the first week of November without doing Fast Track and we will have won. On the other hand, as soon as they think that they have the votes, they will have a vote!!!
When could we see a floor vote on Fast Track?
A mark-up clears the way for a possible floor vote of a bill. As we have said all along, the Republicans will not schedule this for a vote unless they think that it has a chance of actually passing. So far the GOP have not been able to attract many Dems to support the Thomas bill and such a partisan mark-up certainly does not help their cause. The GOP plan is to try to pass the bill with 200 GOP and just a few Democrats. We need to lock down the GOP who are with us and make sure there are enough Democrats to make up the difference from the GOP we have. The GOP leaders and some in the Bush Administration are on a desperate mission though and have already started twisting arms and try to cut deals in order to have their way. Over the next few days and possible weeks, all undecided Members will be under tremendous pressure, and even Members who were opposed to Fast Track will be pressured to change their votes.
How do we fight Fast Track now?
We must intensify what we have been doing all along: continue to mobilize pressure against specific Members of Congress to get them to come out against Fast Track and to organize in opposition to Fast Track in every Congressional District around the country. The business lobby is mighty in its wealth, but there is certainly no real coalition of people behind it. We have been building for this moment since the spring, and now we must lock down our victory! The steps are simple but effective:
-> CALLS to your Member of Congress + to all undecided Members in your state (call us for the latest update on who they are: 202-546-4996 - ask for any member of the GTW field team) by using AFL-CIO's toll-free number: 1-800-393-1082. Right now, this is the most effective way to fight Fast Track. When calling, make sure you ask to speak with the person who handles trade issues, and ask for a written response to your call. In many cases you will end up leaving messages, if you have not heard back from the staffer within a day call back. Get everyone you know to make these calls as well.
-> LETTERS (via fax, snail mail or e-mail) to the undecided Members. On several web-pages you can find convenient sample letters that you can send directly from the page. Here are a few that we like: Our very own and from the AFL-CIO all you have to do is enter your zip-code to be able to e-mail your Representative.
-> EVENTS at home. Depending on when the vote gets scheduled there still might be some opportunities to organize meetings with your Member, public events etc.
Since we don't know exactly when and if there will be a floor vote, when is the most strategic time to call my Member?
Sometimes it might seem to you that we are crying wolf - - alerting you to take immediate action because a Fast Track vote is imminent but then nothing happens. Well, what is actually happening when that happens is that you have just been effective and have won a victory.
The thing to know is that the only reason they have to pull their mark-ups or they delay their floor vote on Fast Track (recall the same GOP House leaders have been saying since before July 4th that they wanted an imminent vote...) is because we have bested them. The only way we keep doing that is by pouring on pressure and raising enough noise. You should call your Member today and keep on calling with regular intervals until you get a clear answer on her/his position on Fast Track. Get them to put it in writing and ideally have a thank you event where they declare their opposition in front of lots of people and press, so when push comes to shove right before congress gavels out for this session, we have them all glued down. A floor vote could come up as soon as next week but if we are winning we will have final victory by running them off the clock - they will have to leave town never having had the votes to do Fast Track and we will have a big party!
We will keep you updated as best we can, and you should also feel free to check in with us for the latest updates. By keeping a constant pressure on the Members we continue to make it politically impossible for the GOP leadership to bring the bill to a vote. That's why you must continue the calls and get people you know to do the same.
What are some talking points I can use?
* This is not the time to bring up such a divisive and controversial issues. As the mark-up showed, Fast Track destroys the bipartisanship that was created after September 11th. There are many urgent things that MUST BE done for the millions who are suddenly without a job, to safeguard us from future attacks. Congressman, WHY are you wasting your and our time on this divisive, damaging issue?
* The Thomas bill (H.R. 3005) is a slap in the face - it is the same old anti-labor, anti-environmental garbage that was in the 1997 and 1998 Fast Track with some new rhetoric. It does not in any meaningful way address the issues of labor and the environment, it does nothing to fix the Chapter 11 NAFTA investment rules that attack key local laws, nor does it give Congress a more active role to assure these negotiators stop cutting NAFTA type deals. In fact, the Thomas bill rolls back the labor rights language of Nixon's 1974 Fast Track bill!
* H.R. 3005 allows foreign corporations to challenge domestic environmental laws. Under NAFTA there have been several lawsuits by foreign corporations challenging domestic environmental protections, and Thomas' bill does nothing to address this.
Source: http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/issue.cfm?ID=138
10/24/01
7:11:23 PM
A new e-book from Seven Stories Press
by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
GET THE FACTS ON WHAT'S IN YOUR MILK!
A powerful expose of the dangers of genetically engineered (r BGH) milk, and Monsanto's longstanding attempt to suppress this information
GOT (GENETICALLY ENGINEERED) MILK?
The Monsanto rBGH/BST Milk Wars Handbook
With an Introduction by Ben & Jerry and a
Foreword by John Hagelin, Ph.D.
rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone), is a genetically engineered (GE) potent variant of the natural growth hormone produced by cows. Manufactured by Monsanto, it is sold to dairy farmers under the trade name POSILAC. Injection of this GE hormone forces cows to increase their milk production by about 10%. Monsanto and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) insist that rBGH milk is indistinguishable from natural milk and safe to cows and consumers. However:
-rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 veterinary health risks on its Posilac label including mastitis and udder inflammation.
-rBGH milk is contaminated by pus from mastitis induced by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.
-rBGH milk is contaminated by the GE hormone which can be absorbed through the gut and induce immunological effects.
-rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally very different from natural milk.
-rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), excess levels of which have been incriminated as major causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.
-rBGH factory farms pose a major threat to the viability of small dairy farms. Thus, rBGH enriches Monsanto while posing risks but no benefits to the entire U.S. population.
The health hazards to animals, the detriment to small farms, the cover-up in Monsanto, all the negatives attached to rGBH are in no way balanced by any benefits of increased milk production in view of the national surplus.
Got (genetically engineered) Milk? is a unique resource manual on rBGH milk. It presents a comprehensive summary of the scientific literature since 1985, and Dr. Epstein's relatively inaccessible trail blazing scientific publications on rBGH over the last decade. These publications have played a major role in influencing foreign governments to ban rBGH milk. Got (genetically engineered) Milk? includes Dr. Samuel Epstein's press releases, editorials, and extensive correspondence with key members of Congress and the FDA. Got (genetically engineered) Milk? documents evidence of interlocking conflicts of interest between Monsanto and the White House, regulatory agencies, and medical institutions including the American Medical Association and American Cancer Society; Monsanto's white collar crime relating to suppression and manipulation of information on the veterinary and public health hazards of rBGH dairy products; and behind the scenes evidence of the Dairy Coalition's "hit squad", which targeted and attempted to stifle and discredit the author.
Of additional interest is the real story behind Fox Television's firing of Jane Akre, a veteran television reporter, following her extensive and in-depth interview with the author on rBGH, and also his involvement as the lead expert testifying on behalf of Jane in her subsequent successful litigation against Fox.
Got (genetically engineered) Milk? presents other valuable resource materials including listings of national and international anti-biotech public health, veterinary and animal rights activist groups, and of rBGH-free U.S. dairy producers, such as Horizon Organic and Swiss Valley Farms.
Of key interest is the book's critical relevance to the ongoing debate on GE foods, including irrefutable evidence discrediting the unpublished "trust us" safety assurances of Monsanto, and other GE food industries. Got (genetically engineered) Milk? thus makes it clear that Monsanto's highly deceptive track record on rBGH, compounded by FDA's complicity and refusal to label rBGH milk, more than justify dismissal its assurances of safety of GE foods.
Dr. Epstein is a multiple-award winning emeritus Professor of environmental medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago, author of 260 scientific publications, and author or co-author of 10 books.
To read Got (genetically engineered) Milk?, receive more information, or arrange an interview, please contact Tania Ketenjian at (212) 226-8760,
tania@sevenstories.com. or visit http://www.sevenstories.com
10/24/01
6:50:00 PM
Anthrax, Booming Cipro Sales, And The Bayer Company
Doctor Reports Anthrax Attacks Likely Cipro Sales Scam - FBI Alerted to Possible Bayer Company Terror Financing
(...) Given the Bayer Corporation's historic association with Third Reich financing, and the unprecedented FDA endorsement of Bayer's specious drug Cipro, Dr. Horowitz considers HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson's upcoming congressional request for $643 million for mostly Cipro, premature at best, and tragic at worst. Dr. Horowitz concluded, "I hate to think American taxpayers are funding their own demise. For all we know, those behind the recent anthrax attacks may be high level white-collar bioterrorist, profiting, as Bayer officials did during WWII, from terrorism blamed on one ethnic group."
10/24/01
6:47:26 PM
U.S. on verge of 'electronic martial law'
http://www.computeruser.com/news/01/10/16/news4.html
With anti-terrorism legislation nearing passage that expands the power of wiretaps to all forms of telecommunications, the U.S. appears to be just steps away from electronic martial law.
Afghanistan: We Didn't Have To Do This
http://commondreams.org/views01/1017-02.htm
A Shameful Silence as the Bombs Drop
http://commondreams.org/views01/1017-03.htm
10/24/01
6:23:30 PM
"Citizen, Can I See Your ID."
by Al Martin
What has not been explained to the American people is the reason why 35,000 Army Reservists and 65,000 National Guard have been called up. It is to maintain internal checkpoints. It has nothing to do with the external "War on Terrorism." All of these people are being trained at the US Army School of Urban Control at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. CNN actually showed an urban training mock-up, what they're training on, and what the new Internal Security checkpoint is going to look like. It was mighty sinister looking.
There was a barrier that went across the road. To the right was an elevated shed like structure, elevated perhaps fifteen feet in the air. It had a small second story that was open. On it was a sign that read "Homeland Security Internal Checkpoint." There were sandbags and the wooden arm that crossed the road read "100% ID Checked." Then there was a small shed to the right with a small barbed wire area behind that. On this structure was a sign, which read, "All citizens not having proper identification will be detained. All foreign nationals will be detained. All citizens who are deemed to be acting in a suspicious manner will be detained." At each of these posts there will be six armed Army or National Guard reservists with M-16's with full field kit. On top of the structure to the rear, the open structure on top, there's a man with a machine gun emplacement.
They showed the actual mockup used for training purposes. They had new uniforms. They weren't in their regular uniforms. It's a new gray uniform with a gray helmet and a visor so you can't see their eyes. The only thing you can see is from their lips down because they said that's "to prevent any retribution" from people who don't like this new idea.
This uniform looked exactly like the Imperial Storm Troopers from "Star Wars" except instead of white, it was gray. All the helmets have little transceivers so they can communicate with each other. There will be six guards at each internal security checkpoint. And there's another warning on the inside of the barbed wire enclosure, "Any detainees attempting to escape will be shot." It was a yellow and red sign inside the detainment area.
The only person who actually spoke on camera during this story was a sergeant, an Army Reservist sergeant. You could tell that he completely disagreed with what was going on. You couldn't hear the question being asked, but he was looking at the camera and he said, "We're here to protect the people." Then he put his head down and shook his head, and you could tell he didn't believe a word of what he was saying -- like it was some big frigging joke.
Then they showed the procedure they were using to train these guys. An average American car, like a Ford or a Chevy, drives up and there's supposed to be a husband and wife in the front seat and a couple of kiddies in the back. So they drive up to the checkpoint, and the corporal comes up to the car and says, "May I see your identification, citizen."
They call everyone "citizen." I swear to God, I'm not making this up. Then the guy asks for his driver's license, then something else and something else. Then he says, "Very good, citizen."
There's a spot on the gate that goes across the road that they had x-ed out. But you could tell what it said because the sergeant alluded to it. It said, "All citizens are required to present their National Identification Cards." But they left it blank as a black spray-painted out spot because the legislation for that hasn't happened yet.
The big sign on the side of the one and half story shed with the machine gun nest on top said "Homeland Security Internal Checkpoint." And now we're all supposed to say, "Hail the Republic." That's the new mantra. They showed a bunch of guys being trained at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, probably enlisted and reservists and such. And they kept raising up their right arm saying, "Hail the Republic."
The sergeant even said that they are duplicating the ancient Roman Legions salute to Caesar, using the right arm upraised with the fist. Instead of "Hail Caesar," though they say, "Hail the Republic."
This is what's coming. People don't believe it or people don't understand it but when 80% of the people support whatever "security" measures are necessary.
What does it all mean? We all better start worrying when George Bush starts to play the fiddle.
Congress is supposed to be recessed for the rest of the year, but they will be giving the Administration extraordinary wartime authority -- pursuant to all remaining legislation. In other words, they will simply allow the Administration to act under pending statutes. They are simply going to transfer to the Administration emergency wartime power to act under bills, which are still pending, even though they haven't been passed.
The implication is that we will be under a defacto state of martial law soon. There are 100,000 military being trained for these internal security checkpoints.
When they were showing the lines of enlisted and reserve people being trained in this camp, with M-16s in their hands, I can tell you I don't think any of them would hesitate to shoot at American citizens. I think they're being indoctrinated. The indoctrination they're going through is obvious. The enlisted people are being told by the drill sergeant that they are being given extraordinary authority that "your job is to protect the security of the State at all costs."
There is a direct parallel between the old Soviet Union and the East Bloc and what we are doing. We are establishing internal travel restrictions on the American people. We are essentially following the Soviet textbook. In the Soviet Communist Bloc, for example, there were checkpoints in every city. You had to have what's called an "internal travel visa." You had to have that visa stamped at every checkpoint in every city. Then they checked you out at every entrance to every city. Then if you checked out, they would affix a visa stamp and charge you ten marks for it. It was a real racket.
What will be interesting to see is what kind of a racket is going to go along with these internal security check points. In other words, how much of a "toll" are they going to charge? They're going to have to do something to pay for all of this and one of the obvious ways to pay for it would be to charge everyone a one or two dollar "toll."
And this is what we should be looking forward to - toll booths around the nation. They're not saying this yet, but obviously in an effort to pay for this, there's going to be some sort of a "security tax." Since this system is incredibly cumbersome (having to stop every single vehicle and check identification) and we've been taught to be suspicious of driver's licenses because it's so easy to obtain false driver's licenses, the implication is that national security cards are the only thing that will eventually be accepted as identification. The further implication is that in order to accommodate traffic (this will create traffic jams miles and miles long), there would be a separate line for those carrying pre-approved internal visas whose allegiance to the government has already been checked.
The sergeant on the news report said that all the people involved (100,000 military people) are being forced to swear new loyalty oaths to the United States. He just mentioned the government's overall policy, which Bush talked about last week, that all federal civilian employees are going to have to take new oaths of allegiance to the "Republic." And that extends to some members of the military who will be involved in internal security.
Surprisingly enough all these border checks, you would think, would be handled directly by the military - or under the auspices of the military. They're not. They're under the auspices of "Homeland Security." What it means is that you have 100,000 troops (reservists and national guards people) based in the United States, which will be seconded to the Office of Homeland Security. Their ultimate jurisdiction is being transferred from the Department of Defense to the Office of Homeland Security.
In other words, the Office of Homeland Security is gaining a militarized division of 100,000 troops.
It's finally getting some of the liberals nervous. But it's coming. Day after day, they're showing polls that seventy to eighty percent of the American people are prepared to approve whatever security measures are "necessary" to "fight terrorism."
MILITARY FRAUD DEPT.: According to the Friendly Colonel, the Redstone Arsenal base commander was chortling over the fact that the accuracy of the missile strikes in Afghanistan thus far was 37%. He was actually chortling on how "high" the accuracy rate has been. The general's exact words were that "the defense contractors will get paid as long as the things go off and hit the right country."
Also, the Friendly Colonel realizes the reason the FBI didn't stop all those weapons shipments from Huntsville Alabama (See previous story http://www.almartinraw.com/column22.html)
What they were doing was pre-positioning materiel in Pakistan. That leads one to the conclusion which he had already made earlier -that somebody knew this war was going to happen, possibly as long as six months ago (May 2001). In other words, they didn't know specifically the target, but somebody thought it likely that a "terrorist event" would happen that would precipitate a response by the US in Afghanistan.
And Where Did the "Mushrooms" Go? (See previous column http://www.almartin.raw/column32.html) They were intended for use by US armed forces. In other words, they were pre-staging supplies. That's where the "mushrooms" (anti-personnel land mines) went. He got an explanation how these "mushrooms" are used by Special Forces when they are clearing an area. When an area is being swept, they drop this weapons system behind them - to protect their rear and also to prevent anyone else from re-infiltrating an are which has already been cleared. The specific use of these mushrooms is in a sweep operation. When forces sweep an area and they don't want the area re-infiltrated they leave this passive weapons system behind. These weapons are principally used in an urban warfare environment.
The only correlation that can be made is that there would be an attack against the United States of sufficient size which would warrant a response, hence the predisposition of these weapons system, like these mushrooms which are under intense international criticism by an anti-land mine group in London.
The general also said that they're "re-ordering missiles like crazy - the Cruise and Tomahawk missiles." They are being reordered and Rockwell is building them as fast as they can. Cruise Missiles are about $1.6 million each, and the Tomahawks, which are larger, longer range, more advanced with a heavier payload, are about $3.5 million each.
He estimated that about 300 missiles have been used so far. It's not big money, but these missile systems are extremely profitable to build. They have a simple guidance system, a simple conventional explosive, and the micro-processors necessary for the look-forward view capacity is pretty simple. All they have to do is not hit the side of a mountain on the way to their target…
MEDIA DEPT.: According to a reliable inside source, all the mainstream media outlets have received a confidential memorandum from the White House asking that they change the monikers they're using "Homeland Security" to "Home Front Security." Apparently they believe that "Home Front Security" sounds more patriotic and less sinister than "Home Land Security."
They have also asked the media not to show any more footage of the urban training and internal security checkpoints and to minimize the coverage of any "future" troop movements within the United States. The implication is that when these internal security checkpoints get set up, there will be a lot of movement of troops, helicopters, etc. So as not to disturb the domestic tranquility of the people by telling the people the truth, the government is asking the media to limit coverage of any domestic troop movements.
All the media will comply because they're all dying to jump on the government line. MSNBC has in fact changed their moniker form "Homeland Security" to "Home Front Security." "Home Front" is more homey sounding and much more patriotic. It strikes a chord with a lot of people especially older people who remember this being so extensively used for security measures put in place during the Second World War.
EDUCATION/ INDOCTRINATION DEPT.: A warning of note -- Mothers of America beware. Last week during National Patriotism Day, sixty million American schoolchildren were supposed to stand up and say the Pledge of Allegiance together.
There was a little known and briefly shown incident on TV about a teacher in New Jersey. He was a fifth grade teacher who changed the words of the Pledge of Allegiance from "I pledge allegiance to the flag" to "I pledge allegiance to the Office of Homeland Security." Subsequently it was noted that in his opinion children are never too young to be taught obedience to the State. It should also be noted that the teacher in question who professed to be a loyal Vietnam veteran with a flat top hairdo, a Marine Corps. tattoo on his arm and a Timex watch, and replete with a polyester tie. He rather looked like some sort of reject for the corner stool at the local VFW, when he explained that "he never saw a commie he didn't want to bomb."
HISTORY OF FBI ANTI-TERRORISM SUCCESS DEPT.: In 1995, pursuant to the first round of "anti-terrorism" legislation a/k/a HR1701, the FBI was given a special $300 million grant to track down terrorist assets worldwide.
After a five-year search and an expenditure of $300 million of American taxpayers' money, they managed to find one bank account belonging to the Hamas terrorist group. It was in a savings bank in New Jersey, and it had $17000 in it.
The Treasury Department's current pronouncements that the terrorist assets they're freezing every day is just so much nonsense. They're not giving us any details about who owns these accounts or how they know they're connected to terrorist groups. One of the accounts they seized in California? Upon further investigation, it turned out that the account with $346 in it was in fact the coffee and donut fund for the local Arab American Chamber of Commerce.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH DEPT.: Having gone out to the $8.99 All You Can Eat Chinese Buffet with a bunch of cohorts, we found out that unbeknownst to us, there was an FBI agent sitting in the booth nearby. He was there not in an official capacity, but just having dinner with his wife. Anyway, we were talking about the new Office of Homeland Security and what the internal checkpoints were going to look like and what the new parameters of our new National Identity cards will be and, of course, referencing George Bush as George "Never Saw a Document He Didn't Want to Shred" Bush. And we talked about the number of civil rights that the American people will be giving up in this new campaign against terrorism.
When we got up to leave, the FBI agent said to me, "Hey pal, best flap your gums while you can because a year from now I'll have the power to arrest you for such seditious talk."
He was wearing his FBI badge on the inside to ensure that he would get his 15% discount at the restaurant.
My pals are all older and they're afraid that they'll get their Social Security checks taken away from them for hanging out with me. Then I told the FBI agent that, "Hey, we're just speaking the truth." And he said, "Like I said, seditious talk."
So remember - the new government mantra is "Speaking the truth about government misdeeds and abuses of power equals sedition."
AS SEEN ON TV DEPT.: The new checkpoints have been established and they look just like the mockups that were shown on TV. There's a large red and yellow placard that says "Homeland Security Internal Checkpoint." You have to show your driver's license to go through and you're told that soon even that will not be sufficient. There was a company of National Guard setting up an ancillary facility. They had their new gray helmets with the visors on, so you couldn't see their eyes. And it is true. We went through the checkpoint.
And yes, they really do address you as "Citizen."
Al Martin is America's foremost whistleblower on government fraud and corruption. A retired US Navy Lt. Commander and former officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence, he has testified before Congress (the Kerry Committee and the Alexander Committee) regarding Iran-Contra. Al Martin is the author of "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider" (2001, National Liberty Press, $19.95; Toll FREE order line: 1-866-317-1390) He lives at an undisclosed location, since the criminals named in his book have been returned to national power and prominence. His column "Behind the Scenes in the Beltway" is published regularly on Al Martin Raw: Criminal Govt Conspiracy.
Source: http://www.almartinraw.com/column37.html
10/24/01
6:07:20 PM
ID Card Idea Attracts High-Level Support
Top executives, lawmakers back national identification card proposal
BY Elise Ackerman and Paul Rodgers, Mercury News
Silicon Valley software mogul Larry Ellison's proposal to create a national ID card has gained substantial ground -- and the interest of top Bush administration officials -- in a signal that the controversial idea may be closer to reality than ever.
In an interview with the Mercury News on Tuesday night, Ellison, the chairman and CEO of Oracle, said he met with U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and officials at the CIA and FBI in Washington, D.C., over the past week to discuss the idea. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has endorsed it, other tech executives have jumped on board and even some prominent civil libertarians have said the idea is worth pursuing.
``We are in the process of putting a proposal together and analyzing what it would take to get to get something running in a matter of a small number of months, like three months, 90 days,'' Ellison said. ``We think we could put up this technology very, very quickly.''
The idea of a national ID card has been debated since the 1930s. But Ellison's proposal in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has reignited the dispute over privacy and security.
Under Ellison's plan, the government would create a national identification card. The card would contain basic information about the holder, including Social Security number, and would be linked to a federal database containing detailed personal data, including digital records of the person's thumbprint, palm print, face or eyes.
Passengers would show the card at airports, Ellison said, and would have their thumbs scanned by a digital reader to verify identity before boarding a plane.
The cards also would be instantly checked against a new national database. That database would base would link existing criminal and immigration data to screen out potential terrorists.
Oracle software
Ellison unveiled the idea three weeks ago in an interview with a Bay Area TV station. In it, he offered to donate the software. His company, Oracle, based in Redwood City, is the world's leading maker of database software. He is among the world's richest men, with a fortune estimated at $15 billion.
Since then, Ellison has offered more details.
The cards would be voluntary for all U.S. citizens, he said Tuesday. Any American without a card still could board a plane, but only after undergoing a more rigorous search.
``I think 99.99 percent of Americans will want these ID cards,'' Ellison said. ``Wouldn't you feel better if everyone who walked into an airport showed their ID card and put their thumb in the scanner and you knew they were who they said they were?''
The cards would be mandatory, however, for foreign visitors, including students on visas and non-citizens living and working in the United States who now carry ``green cards,'' he said. Ellison has not offered specifics on how the estimated 8 million illegal immigrants in the United States might be affected.
The national ID card idea has won the approval of retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, Harvard law professor and civil rights expert Alan Dershowitz and Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy in the past week.
More important, it is now supported by Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate subcommittee on terrorism, who met with Ellison on Thursday. Feinstein said she will write a letter this week to Ashcroft asking the Bush administration to move forward.
``There has to be some ID,'' Feinstein said. ``We have had a major catastrophe. This is a very serious time. The country is at war. The purpose here is to protect ourselves.''
Mindi Tucker, a spokeswoman for Ashcroft, said the attorney general would have no comment Tuesday night.
Concern for liberty
Critics say such a card would give government too much power to track citizens.
``ID cards were used by the South African government to keep apartheid in place and by Malaysia to separate religious people by group,'' said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit group in Washington, D.C.
Rotenberg and other opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, worry it could be required to board buses, apply for jobs, or even enter cities facing terrorist threats.
But supporters say those concerns are overblown.
At a speech in Salt Lake City last week, former Desert Storm commander Schwarzkopf said he saw nothing wrong with ID cards. ``I've had a military ID card since I was a cadet at West Point and I haven't lost any freedom,'' he told a cheering crowd.
Taking another approach, Harvard lawyer Dershowitz said he believes having an ID card would reduce racial profiling at airports.
``Four Arab-looking guys reading the Koran are much less suspicious if they have the cards and can just slash them through card readers,'' he said.
Dershowitz said the database would have to be carefully guarded and that police should not be able to ask for a card at will, a view Ellison and Feinstein share.
``You don't give up much,'' Dershowitz said. ``Civil libertarians will come around.''
Any move by the federal government to institute a national ID card system could mean millions for Silicon Valley companies.
Shalini Chowdhary, an analyst at Frost & Sullivan, said the U.S. government could end up spending more than $3 billion on computer chips, hardware, software and services that go into creating so-called ``smart'' ID cards.
Ellison said that if he does donate the software, maintenance and upgrades won't be free.
``I don't think the government has any trouble paying for the labor associated with the software,'' he said. ``I made this offer not because the government can't afford to pay for the software, but because I shut up the critics who were saying, `Gee, Larry Ellison wants to build a national database because he wants to sell more databases,' which is pretty cynical and bizarre. What's in it for me is the same thing that's in it for you: a safer America.''
Elise Ackerman at mailto:eackerman@sjmercury.com or 408 271.3774
Paul Rogers at mailto:progers@sjmercury.com or 408 920.5045.
Source: http://www0.mercurycenter.com/local/center/id101701.htm
10/24/01
3:38:32 PM
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE
ANTHRAX CONFIRMED IN DEATH OF TWO POSTAL WORKERS
By Cat Lazaroff
WASHINGTON, DC, October 23, 2001 (ENS) - Health officials confirmed today that the two U.S. Postal Service workers who died Monday in the Washington DC region had contracted inhalation anthrax. Another postal worker in New Jersey is now believed to be ill with the most dangerous, inhaled form of the disease.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-23-06.html
EU MAKES ITS MOVE TO RATIFY KYOTO PROTOCOL
BRUSSELS, Belgium, October 23, 2001 (ENS) - All 15 member countries of the European Union should ratify the Kyoto climate protocol by mid-June next year, the European Commission said today in a legislative proposal. This would see the global climate agreement legally bind the bloc by the close of next year's world sustainability summit in Johannesburg, scheduled for September.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-23-01.html
***********************************************************************
COUNTING CHERNOBYL'S CANCER COST
LISBON, Portugal, October 23, 2001 (ENS) - Chernobyl has made medical history, accounting for the largest group of human cancers associated with a known cause on a known date, ECCO 11, the European Cancer Conference heard in Lisbon today.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-23-02.html
INTRODUCED SPECIES INVADING U.S. WATERS AT RISING PACE
By Cat Lazaroff
WASHINGTON, DC, October 23, 2001 (ENS) - The rate of non-native species invading U.S. coastal waters has risen exponentially over the past 200 years and shows no sign of leveling off, warns a new report from the Pew Oceans Commission. Introduced species crowd out native species, alter habitats, disrupt ecosystems and impose economic burdens on coastal communities.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-23-07.html
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: OCTOBER 23, 2001
New Standard Guides Greenhouse Gas Reporting
WTO Rules in Favor of Turtle Protection Law
Transgenic Mouse Developed from Male Stem Cells
Baraboo River Runs Free for 115 Miles
Bitterroot Grizzly Reintroduction Plan Gets Second Look
Forest Service Accepts Thirtymile Fire Action Plan
12,000 Students Pledge to Boycott Citigroup Credit Cards
NOAA Funds Science Centers
Tree Ring Data Posted Online
Microsoft Donates Software to Environmental Group
For full text and graphics visit: