11/2/01
5:37:12 PM

AlterNet Headlines

http://www.alternet.org

TIME FOR ACTION -- AN ALTERNET EDITORIAL

Don Hazen, AlterNet

In the wake of Sept. 11, our paralyzed citizenry has allowed social setbacks and corporate greed to flourish under a smokescreen of patriotism. But now is the time, as Bill Moyers explains in a stirring address excerpted here, to resist those who would exploit our national tragedy.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11847

FEMINISTS AGONIZE OVER WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

Sharon Lerner, Village Voice

The military attack on Afghanistan is proving to be an excruciating dilemma for feminists, who are split over how to handle possibly the most misogynistic regime in the world.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11845

THE WARMONGERS HAVE LANDED

David Corn, AlterNet

After media warhawks declared that the US was "losing the first round of the war," bombing raids intensified. Coincidence, or pandering to the blow-'em-to-bits crowd?

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11848

GLOBAL CITIZEN: HOMEPLANET SECURITY

Elizabeth Sawin, AlterNet

With many nations involved in an escalating confrontation that may last years, where will we find the attention and resources needed to restore our wetlands, our soil and our atmosphere?

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11844

EXIT STRATEGIES FOR GROUND WAR KISSING

Rennie Sloan, AlterNet

We've gone from "tragedy sex" to "terror sex," and now we're moving on to "ground war sex." Let's pray we never reach "drop the bomb sex."

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11846

UZBEKISTAN'S HUMAN RIGHTS PROBLEM

Matt Bivens, The Nation

When it comes to this former Soviet republic, the U.S. government is divided, with State wanting better human rights and the Pentagon wanting bases and Tashkent's willing cooperation.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11841

SOLOMON: THE WORLD SERIES IN A TIME OF CRISIS

Norman Solomon, AlterNet

Hopefully, the essence of baseball will survive all the manipulation from corporate sponsors and symbol-hungry politicians -- especially in times of national crisis.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11843

ANTI-GLOBALIZATION, PRO-PEACE?

Emily Huber, Jamie McCallum, MotherJones.com

With Americans overwhelmingly in favor of military action, could protesting for peace cost the anti-globalization coalition its hard-won momentum?

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

11/2/01
5:37:03 PM

AlterNet Headlines

http://www.alternet.org

TIME FOR ACTION -- AN ALTERNET EDITORIAL

Don Hazen, AlterNet

In the wake of Sept. 11, our paralyzed citizenry has allowed social setbacks and corporate greed to flourish under a smokescreen of patriotism. But now is the time, as Bill Moyers explains in a stirring address excerpted here, to resist those who would exploit our national tragedy.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11847

FEMINISTS AGONIZE OVER WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

Sharon Lerner, Village Voice

The military attack on Afghanistan is proving to be an excruciating dilemma for feminists, who are split over how to handle possibly the most misogynistic regime in the world.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11845

THE WARMONGERS HAVE LANDED

David Corn, AlterNet

After media warhawks declared that the US was "losing the first round of the war," bombing raids intensified. Coincidence, or pandering to the blow-'em-to-bits crowd?

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11848

GLOBAL CITIZEN: HOMEPLANET SECURITY

Elizabeth Sawin, AlterNet

With many nations involved in an escalating confrontation that may last years, where will we find the attention and resources needed to restore our wetlands, our soil and our atmosphere?

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11844

EXIT STRATEGIES FOR GROUND WAR KISSING

Rennie Sloan, AlterNet

We've gone from "tragedy sex" to "terror sex," and now we're moving on to "ground war sex." Let's pray we never reach "drop the bomb sex."

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11846

UZBEKISTAN'S HUMAN RIGHTS PROBLEM

Matt Bivens, The Nation

When it comes to this former Soviet republic, the U.S. government is divided, with State wanting better human rights and the Pentagon wanting bases and Tashkent's willing cooperation.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11841

SOLOMON: THE WORLD SERIES IN A TIME OF CRISIS

Norman Solomon, AlterNet

Hopefully, the essence of baseball will survive all the manipulation from corporate sponsors and symbol-hungry politicians -- especially in times of national crisis.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11843

ANTI-GLOBALIZATION, PRO-PEACE?

Emily Huber, Jamie McCallum, MotherJones.com

With Americans overwhelmingly in favor of military action, could protesting for peace cost the anti-globalization coalition its hard-won momentum?

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

11/2/01
5:33:51 PM

The Nation

As the war in Afghanistan becomes more entrenched, many commentators have suggested, in effect, that a political strategy should be dispensed with altogether. Military victory alone will do. In a representative column in the Washington Post Charles Krauthammer urged that the goal of US policy now should be solely "destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban" with military force. What comes after, he writes, is "an interesting problem. But it comes after."

But Jonathan Schell eloquently insists in the most recent issue of The Nation that ignoring politics in favor of a purely military solution is a sure recipe for continued terrorism. As he concludes,"The United States can win the war in Afghanistan, but only at the cost of losing its war on terrorism. "

Read this story in its entirety currently at:

http ://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011119&s=schell

And don't miss these other related editorials, columns and articles from the November 19, 2001 issue of The Nation:

BILL MOYERS: Which America Will We Be Now?

http ://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011119&s=moyers

KATHA POLLITT: Victory Gardens?

htt p://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011119&s=pollitt

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Le Pouvoir Est Dans La Rue?

ht tp://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011119&s=hitchens

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Unleash The Press

h ttp://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011119&s=macarthur

DAVID CORN: Ridge On The Ledge

http:/ /www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011119&s=corn

STEVE NEGUS: Letter From Cairo

http: //www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011119&s=negus

SECURITY WITH LIBERTY: A FORUM

In a special Nation web feature Amy Bach interviews leading experts on civil liberties and law enforcement -- including Floyd Abrams, Alan Dershowitz and Nadine Strossen -- asking each to draw a line between acceptable and necessary measures for protecting the public and gratuitous assaults on basic rights authorized by the new anti-terrorism law. Read these timely and insightful interviews currently at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=bach20011101

POST SEPTEMBER 11 DETENTIONS

On October 28, a group of civil liberties, human rights, Arab-American, public access and other organizations, including The Nation, demanded the release of information on the many people who have been jailed and detained since the September 11th terrorist attacks.

The groups objected to the curtain of official silence over the unprecedented detention of several hundred individuals for more than six weeks. They cited the growing number of reports that raise serious questions about deprivations of fundamental due process, including imprisonment without probable cause, interference with the right to counsel, and threats of serious bodily injury.

The groups demanded information from the FBI, the Justice Department and the INS under the Freedom of Information Act, and the constitutional and common law right of access to public records.

You can read the offical FOIA request and related material currently at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=foia20011029

11/2/01
4:31:33 PM

FAIR

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Media analysis, critiques and news reports

ACTION ALERT:

Little Space For Dissent To the Military Line

During the weeks following September's terrorist attacks, two leading dailies used their op-ed pages as an echo chamber for the government's official policy of military response, mostly ignoring dissenters and policy critics.

A FAIR survey of the New York Times and the Washington Post op-ed pages for the three weeks following the attacks (9/12/01 - 10/2/01) found that columns calling for or assuming a military response to the attacks were given a great deal of space, while opinions urging diplomatic and international law approaches as an alternative to military action were nearly non- existent.

We counted a total of 44 columns in the Times and Post that clearly stressed a military response, against only two columns stressing non-military solutions. (Though virtually every op-ed in both papers dealt in some way with September 11, most did not deal specifically with how to respond to the attacks, with many focusing on economics, rebuilding, New York's Rudolph Giuliani, etc. During the period surveyed, the Post ran a total of 105 op-ed columns, the Times ran 79.)

Overall, the Post was more militaristic, running at least 32 columns favoring military action, compared to 12 in the Times. But the Post also provided the only two columns we could find in the first three weeks after September 11 that argued for non-military responses; the Times had no such columns. Both dissenting columns were written by guest writers.

The Times' and Post's in- house columnists provided the bulk of the pro-war commentary. Two-thirds of the Times columns urging military action were written in-house, as were more than half of the Post's pro-war columns. This may say something about which journalists are singled out for promotion to the prestigious position of columnist.

In addition, both op-ed pages showed a striking gender imbalance. Of the 107 op-ed writers at the Post, only seven were women. Proportionally, the Times did slightly better, with eight female writers out of 79.

When critics argue that U.S. news media have a duty to provide a broad debate on war, a common response is to ask why-- after all, isn't there a political and popular consensus in favor of war?

Perhaps, but there's reason to believe that the extent and nature of that consensus has been overstated and distorted.

In polls that offered a choice between a military response or nothing, it's true that overwhelming majorities chose war. But given the choice between a either military assault or pressing for the extradition and trial of those responsible (Christian Science Monitor, 9/27/01), a substantial minority either chose extradition (30 percent) or were undecided (16 percent). These people had next to no representation in the op-ed debate; in fact, it's likely that many people asked to choose whether or not to go to war had never seen an alternative to war articulated in a mainstream outlet.

There is also a little- acknowledged gender gap in poll responses about military action, a fact that lends new significance to the gender imbalance in Washington Post and New York Times op-eds. In the final two paragraphs of a 1,395-word story titled "Public Unyielding in War Against Terror " (9/29/01), the Washington Post pointed out that women "were significantly less likely to support a long and costly war." According to the Post, while 44 percent of women would support a broad military effort, "48 percent said they want a limited strike or no military action at all."

Similarly, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (Gallup.com, 10/5/01) showed that 64 percent of men think the U.S. "should mount a long-term war," while 24 percent favored limiting retaliation to punishing the specific groups responsible for the attacks. In contrast, "women are evenly divided-- with 42 percent favoring each option." Noting that "women's support for war is much more conditional than that of men," Gallup reports that though 88 percent of women favored taking retaliatory military action, that number dropped to 55 percent if 1,000 American troops would be killed (76 percent of men would support a war under these circumstances).

Of course, gender equity on the op-ed pages would not guarantee proportional representation for dissenters-- some of the most virulently pro-war and anti-Muslim columns have been written by female commentators (e.g., Mona Charen, who called for mass expulsions based on ethnicity--Washington Times, 10/18/01). But given the gender differences suggested by polling, more women on the op-ed pages might well give the lie to the conventional wisdom that all Americans have no-holds-barred enthusiasm for an open-ended war.

Even, however, if one accepts the idea that the public overwhelmingly favors war, the task of journalism is to remain independent and to ask tough questions of policy makers. After all, American history includes many official policies that were popular in their time, but which today are viewed as disasters. Wouldn't the country have been better off if journalists had provided a stronger, more abiding challenge to the consensus that supported Vietnam, or the internment of Japanese- Americans?

More than any other newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post-- with their unmatched influence in the nation's capitol and in U.S. newsrooms-- have a duty to provide readers with a wide range of views on how to deal with terrorism, its causes and solutions. If the purpose of the op-ed page is to provide a vigorous debate including critical opinions, both papers failed their readers at a crucial time.

ACTION: Please urge the Washington Post and the New York Times to broaden the range of debate on their op-ed pages about the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

CONTACT:

New York Times

Terry A. Tang, Op-Ed Page Editor

mailto:nytnews@nytimes.com

Toll free comment line: 1-888-NYT-NEWS

Washington Post

Michael Getler, Ombudsman

mailto:ombudsman@washpost.com

(202) 334-7582

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if you maintain a polite tone.

Please cc mailto:fair@fair.org with your correspondence.

Source: http://www.FAIR.org

11/2/01
4:22:20 PM

Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE

<http: //www.gristmagazine.com/grist/default.asp?source=top>

FAT CITY

Environmental problems ranging from toxic waste to air pollution have long been recognized as having human health effects -- but what about urban sprawl? A study released yesterday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says sprawl creates or exacerbates many common health problems, such as obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. The report also blames sprawl for other negative health consequences, including deaths from flooding caused by filled-in wetlands and pedestrian fatalities on sidewalk-less, multi-lane roads. The report calls for the implementation of "smart growth" policies that redesign communities around people, not cars.

straight to the source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Lyle V. Harris, 02 Nov 2001 <http://ww w.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/1102sprawl.html>

straight to the source: Salt Lake Tribune, Joe Baird, 02 Nov 2001 <http://www.sltri b.com/11022001/utah/145354.htm>

ANOTHER BOMBSHELL

The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Muhammad el-Baradei, warned yesterday that the events of Sept. 11 have increased concerns that terrorists might try to fashion nuclear weapons or launch attacks directly against nuclear facilities. El-Baradei's remarks came one day after the U.S. restricted airspace around all nuclear power plants due to security concerns, and just prior to a conference in Vienna on safeguarding against nuclear terrorism. The remarks were directed at the five acknowledged nuclear powers, as well as at India, Israel, and Pakistan, all of which are believed to have nuclear capabilities. Pakistan recently detained three atomic scientists for questioning about whether atomic weapons may have been obtained by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network.

straight to the source: New York Times, John Tagliabue, 02 Nov 2001 <htt p://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/02/international/02NUCL.html>

GRATEFUL LAKES

In a move that pleased environmentalists but irked industry, the U.S. Congress voted yesterday to ban new oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes for two years. The measure, which was part of a $24.6 billion federal energy and water bill, was passed overwhelmingly in both chambers despite President Bush's recent calls to tap into more domestic energy sources. Under the bill, states would be prohibited from green-lighting new projects while the Army Corps of Engineers studied the environmental impact of drilling. Although none of the Great Lakes states allow drilling from rigs on the water, there are currently seven slant wells that pipe oil and gas from under the lakes to the shore; Michigan Gov. John Engler (R), for one, has been looking to expand such drilling.

straight to the source: Detroit Free Press, Hugh McDiarmid, Jr., 02 Nov 2001 <http://www.f reep.com/news/mich/drill2_20011102.htm>

straight to the source: Salt Lake Tribune, Associated Press, 02 Nov 2001 <http://www.s ltrib.com/11022001/nation_w/145376.htm>

11/2/01
3:25:20 PM

First global look at the biodiversity beneath our feet

By Environmental News Network

Volunteer scientist collects a GLIDE litterbag.

Most of us may not realize it, but this year and the next are part of a worldwide program to protect Earth's diverse forms of life known as the International Biodiversity Observation Year. During this window in time, scientists and educators are joining forces to increase communication of science-based information about biodiversity to a broad audience. The International Biodiversity Observation Year is taking place in the first two years of a century that scientists predict will see unprecedented changes to Earth's ecosystems.

Some of these changes are happening beneath our feet in the soil and the layer of plant debris on the soil surface called litter. There is not one experimental plot anywhere in the world for which all species of creatures living in soil and litter have been described. But that is about to change.

During November and December, scientists at 32 sites in 20 countries will gather field collections as part of a global experiment to survey biodiversity in litter. As part of their work for International Biodiversity Observation Year, they intend to analyze the role played by the creatures living in soil and litter in an important ecosystem function, decomposition. All of the scientists participating in the project are volunteering their time to place the litterbags in the field and collect them.

As part of the Global Litter Invertebrate Decomposition Experiment (GLIDE), last August and September the researchers placed mesh bags of leaf litter on the ground of diverse ecosystems, from tropical to boreal forests, from savannahs to Arctic tundra. Over the next two months they will retrieve a subset of these bags for analysis of global patterns of decomposition and the species involved.

Dr. Diana Wall of Colorado State University, who heads GLIDE, expects the study to advance understanding of large-scale distributions of the miniscule creatures that dwell in soil and litter. Even at small scales, biodiversity in soils and litter is poorly known.

The majority of these species are invisible to the naked eye since they live in dark underground habitats, and many are microscopic. The lack of information on below- ground species is partly due to their sheer abundance and diversity. For many soil and litter groups, less than 10 percent of species have been described scientifically. Said Wall, "There may be hundreds of species and thousands of individuals in a handful of soil or litter."

Despite limited knowledge about the identity of individual species of soil and litter creatures, soil biologists know that assemblies of these species play crucial roles in the functioning of ecosystems, including decomposing organic matter and recycling nutrients to the soil.

"The enormous resources required to survey below ground biodiversity has prohibited assessments across multiple biomes in the past," Wall explained.

But now Dr. Wall and her colleagues are utilizing creative approaches to make this first global scale assessment of litter biodiversity possible. They are able to use information from established international networks offering extensive geographical coverage, baseline data, expertise, and infrastructure such as the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility program.

A state-of-the-art technology called BioTrack is being used to accelerate identification of the tens of thousands of individuals they expect to find. BioTrack, directed by GLIDE Co-chair Dr. Mark Dangerfield at Maquarie University in Australia, scans each specimen and creates a high-resolution image. Computer software then compares the image with a virtual collection to provide a match and identify the specimen.

The researchers expect that within a year GLIDE will yield new data on the animals involved in various stages of litter decomposition across different latitudes and ecosystem types. This information will help determine how significant is the high diversity of litter fauna for the functioning of ecosystems and how it is influenced by the environment.

Other core projects of the International Biodiversity Observation Year include cataloging the wild relatives of the world's crops, a traveling exhibit called "Biodiversity 911: Saving Life on Earth," and Lost Worlds, a large format IMAX film on biodiversity and conservation.

http://www.enn.com/news/enn- stories/2001/11/11022001/s_45449.asp

11/2/01
2:50:58 PM

War Of Words

by Simon Jeffery

Broad-based

The present goal of US and British diplomacy is to build a future broad-based government in Afghanistan and hold together a broad-based coalition backing military action against the present one. Though such groupings may prove difficult to hold together, the idea is for them to be pro-western while retaining credibility with Muslim leaders and people. (See moderate Arab opinion)

Carefully targeted actions

As in: "these carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations" (Bush, October 7). The "carefully" part is essentially meaningless, since to carelessly target an action is to not target it at all - the attack on the World Trade Centre was a "carefully targeted action". So all it means is that military action will have a target, which is about the least we could hope for. The intention, of course, is to imply a clean strategy.

Cave

A dwelling that made Osama bin Laden somehow prehistoric and cowardly in the early stages of the crisis - for example "They hit and run, they hide in caves" (Bush, September 16) or "We're going to smoke them out of their caves" (Bush, September 25). But as the war goes on the cave becomes an impenetrable fortress, demanding the use of heavy munitions such as bunker busters, and locating Bin Laden is "like looking for a needle in a haystack" (Donald Rumsfeld, October 25).

Civilisation

As used by the US historian Samuel Huntingdon, the concept of the "clash of civilisations" terrifies the allied leadership and they go to great lengths to undermine it. But they cannot ignore the rhetorical appeal of "civilisation", so the strategy centres on putting Bin Laden beyond it. For example: "this conflict is a fight to save the civilised world" (Bush) or an attack on states that "have placed themselves outside the family of civilised nations" (Iain Duncan Smith). There is less emphasis on what constitutes "civilisation" (does it include carpet-bombing?), but Tony Blair's slightly ambiguous reference to Saudi Arabia as a "good and dependable friend of the civilised world" (October 30) hints at exclusivity. (See our values and our way of life)

Defaming the good name of ...

One of the prime minister's favourites. In recent speeches we have heard that Bin Laden "defames the good name of Saudi Arabia" (October 30). Of the attack on America, he says: "To justify it by saying such murder of the innocent is doing the will of God is to defame the good name of Islam" (October 8). Clearly intended to distance Bin Laden from both constituencies, it nevertheless lacks impact since Tony Blair is neither a Muslim nor a Saudi. He is merely speaking on behalf of "defamed" groups who may not share his views.

Global terror network

Usually refers to Bin Laden's al-Qaida group but is loose enough to be extended to others if and when the need arises.

Hawks and doves

Not the division between warmongers and peaceniks that you may expect. As the Bush administration prepared for war, the media divided its main players into "hawks" such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (who talked of "ending states" that sponsor terrorism) and "doves" like Colin Powell. Though the terms are relative, Mr Powell once spoke of his wish to "cut the head off ... and kill" the Iraqi army, and - it appears - his mission before this war was to build multilateral backing for a US military action. However, it is possible a "dove" such as Mr Powell supports a more limited war than Mr Wolfowitz. Anti-war sentiment is "dissent".

Hearts and minds

Can be loosely translated as public opinion or active support. Used from 1951 in the 1948-60 Malayan emergency, "to win hearts and minds" described a British campaign to isolate communist guerrillas from community support, and drive them into the jungle where existence was difficult. In the present crisis, it referred first to the fight to win Afghan "hearts and minds", but others have since moved the phrase to the home front, remarking that the government is "losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the British people" (Duncan Smith, October 31).

Long haul

As in: "We are in this for the long haul" (Blair on the launch of airstrikes, October 8) or "We should also be prepared for the long haul" (Jack Straw, October 22). The first refers to the military campaign ("even when al-Qaida is dealt with, the job is not over," Blair continued) and the second the west's involvement in Afghanistan when the conflict is over. Often teamed with phrases such as Blair's "the job is not over" or "we can carry on until the job is done" (Admiral Sir Michael Boyce on troop deployments, October 26) it adds an unglamorous but sturdy sound to speeches made at sober times.

Moderate Arab opinion

Pro-western Arab opinion.

Non-specific threat

Now standard FBI jargon that allows it to issue a warning without compromising intelligence sources, or admitting how much / little it knows. Intended to sound terrifying / reassuring. May lose its impact.

Our values and our way of life

Similar rhetorical appeal to "civilisation" but equally vague. For example: "And we may have sought to avoid the uncomfortable truth that there are some who wish completely to destroy our values and our way of life" (Straw, October 2). An alternative form involves constructions based around "everything we stand for" - for example, we are fighting "a group of people in Afghanistan who are the sworn enemies of everything the civilised world stands for" (Blair, October 30).

Peaceful

Covers two important concepts. The first that the Americans, British and other coalition partners are "a peaceful people" and the second that Islam is a "peaceful religion". Both are intended to minimise opposition - and possible insurrection - among Muslims, whom many western (therefore peaceful) politicians fear may see the war as an attack on their (peaceful) religion. The logic is that both groups are peaceful there can be no conflict between them. (See also clash of civilisations and religious duty)

Proportionate response

Means whatever you want it to, or alternatively nothing at all. A "proportionate response" to September 11 could have included the deliberate killing of 5,000 civilians (taking a life for a life) or a covert intelligence operation against al-Qaida (taking the necessary action to minimise the terrorist threat). The bombing of Afghanistan falls somewhere in between the two, but being a form of retaliation, is also a "proportionate response". Uniquely among the phrases on this list it holds an appeal to both hawks and doves (see above) as it covers both bases.

Religious duty

As in "the killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty" (Osama bin Laden, February 1998) or "Jihad today is a religious duty" (Sulaiman Abu Ghait, al-Qaida spokesman, October 10). With these words, the al-Qaida camp distances itself from its call to war.

Shoulder to shoulder

Three of the first words the prime minister spoke after the terrorist attacks on September 11: "In Britain, we will stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends in this hour of tragedy." While signalling a deep support it is a subtly different construction to phrases such as "right behind you" and it implies an equal stature. Mr Blair has been widely reported to have used his "shoulder to shoulder" alliance with the Bush administration to offer advice to the White House strategists and perhaps claim some credit for successes, but he will also shoulder the burden of failure if it comes. Also used by Duncan Smith.

War on terrorism

Already in use in Israel ("Anyone who thinks it is a ping-pong war on terrorism does not understand it" Ephraim Sneh, cabinet minister, July 31), the phrase describes the US-led campaign against the perpetrators of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Mr Bush did not originally use it himself, preferring to "hunt down and punish" (September 11). The concept of a "battle" between "the free and democratic world and terrorism" was suggested by the prime minister in the same speech that he promised Britain would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with America.

But the highest level use of "war" ("The deliberate and deadly attacks which were carried out against our country were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war", Bush, September 12) raises expectations of spectacular military action and provokes comparisons with earlier conflicts, such as the Gulf war and second world war. It prepares the public for perhaps unpalatable consequences, while also making them more likely.

Simon Jeffery stands shoulder to shoulder with civilisation in a carefully targeted action against those defaming the English language during the battle for hearts and minds.

MailTo:simon.jeffery@guardian.co.uk

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,586717,00.html

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,585353,00.html

http://www.TomPaine.com

A YUGOSLAV JOURNALIST'S ADVICE TO U.S. MEDIA

by Jasmina Teodosijevic-Ryan

In times of turbulence and war, when passions and emotions prevail over reason, journalists can slide from professionalism into political marketing. AUDIO and TEXT produced by Sharon Basco.

http://www.tompa ine.com/news/2001/11/01/2.html

INDONESIA: THE NEXT DOMINO?

An Expert's View on Radical Islam in Indonesia

by David Case

"Radical Islam in Indonesia is still quite weak" ... yet "the government is naturally concerned that conflict in Afghanistan could boost domestic support" for radicals.

http://w ww.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/30/index.html

PBS STATIONS NOT RESPONSIVE TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Fourth in a Series on PBS

by Jerold M. Starr

Social capital? America needs it and PBS is positioned to contribute. First, however, it will have to liberate itself from commercial culture.

http://www.t ompaine.com/news/2001/11/01/index.html

TEXAS-SIZED CONTRIBUTIONS TO TEXAS SUPREME COURT

by Craig McDonald

Eight out of 10 Texans say that their judges are influenced by campaign money. Eight of 10 lawyers agree. Half of the judges do, too. AUDIO and TEXT produced by Steven Rosenfeld.

http://w ww.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/18/index.html

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

by The TomPaine.com Staff

Economic Stimulus ... Anger Across Racial Lines ... Homeland Security ... All Anthrax All the Time ... and more!

http://ww w.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/11/01/index.html

11/2/01
2:13:06 PM

UTNE WEB WATCH

The Best of the Alternative Web

ANTI-GLOBALIZATION, PRO-PEACE?

by Emily Huber and Jamie McCallum, Mother Jones Online

-- With momentum from the anti-globalization movement slowing following Sept. 11, activist coalitions ponder the best way to push an agenda while not alienating a patriotic public.

MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY

by Adam Finley, Ironminds.com

-- Sure, it's easy to mock a sentimental greeting card--but have you ever tried to write one? A tongue-in-cheek reflection on the unique and often misunderstood art of the greeting card from the witty folks at Ironminds.

MY EYES HURT--BLAME IT ON THE CRAWLS

by Jill Geisler, poynter.org

-- News media attempts to capture the public's waning attention span have made crawls -- scrolling text and graphic boxes -- the latest in a dizzying trend of information overload.

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

11/2/01
2:10:50 PM

The more discerning amongst us will immediately recognise that the current anthrax headline scares have grubby, big-business fingerprints all over them. It is the classic scenario. A relatively innocuous spore in most instances and of little use as a weapon of mass terrorism, is now being used as a very effective weapon - that of mass psychological terrorism.

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

Yes folks, anthrax is looking all set to become the latest 'psycho-plague'

The links for the additonal info below (and much much more!) can be found at http://www.militarycorruptio n.com/

"Propaganda on biological weapons including anthrax originates in the dark cellars of government for the purpose of swaying the public for increased police powers."

Anthrax was Trivial before Recent Hype

"Anthrax was unheard of by the public before sometime around 1995, when a flood of media stories appeared. At first, the subject was supposed terrorists weapons, but anthrax eventually became the center of focus. A flood of stories hitting the media means the government underworld is behind them."

The bin Laden link?

Under the disguise of invoking national emergency provisions, George W. Bush has ordered National Guard sentries to guard the BioPort facility in Lansing, Michigan. Bush has ordered, under pretext of "national security", that employees and officials of BioPort are forbidden to discuss with reporters, commentators, and researchers, the nature of the ownership of BioPort Corporation.

Death from anthrax vaccines

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

Stalling

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

Morally indefensible

"There are six or seven million unapproved quarantined doses (from Bioport) which the FDA can choose to release and which I'm told - unofficially - are being re-labeled 'experimental' right now," Nass said... Dr. Nass contends releasing the suspect doses under cover of a "crisis" and a panicked populace would not only be a "big mistake," it would be morally indefensible.

11/2/01
2:09:07 PM

ANTHRAX and VESTED INTERESTS?

http://www.rense.c om/general15/mediarant.htm

"100% Chance Of Bio Attack In The US!" say the networks.

The possibility of "terrorists" using anthrax as a biological weapon in the United States has not gone unnoticed by the talking heads at the network and cable news outlets. We have been told over and over again that there is a "100% chance" of such an attack.

100%! WOW! What do the teleprompter readers know that we don't know? And why do they fail to mention how terrorists came into possession of anthrax? While searching the Internet for answers to these questions, I came across the following quote from retired Air Force Major Glenn MacDonald:

"Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. William J. Crowe Jr. was part of the crew that sold Saddam Hussein the deadly means to wage war with anthrax germs. That's when the United States wanted the 'Butcher of Baghdad' to use anthrax on Iran."

Admiral William J. Crowe Jr. was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1985 until he retired from the Navy in 1989. This is the era during which the US government was backing Suddan Hussein and just before the period in time when President George Herbert Walker Bush waged war on Iraq because Hussein was no longer considered an asset to the United States. Not only is it disturbing that such a means of mass destruction was provided to Saddam Hussein (and who knows how many others) by our own government, it is equally disturbing to consider that retired Admiral William J Crowe Jr. is now in a position to reap profits from the sale of anthrax vaccine to the US Department of Defense. Or, one shudders to think, in a position to perhaps prevent the manufacture of the vaccine.

Crowe is on the board of directors and owns a 13% share of the Lansing, Michigan-based BioPort Corporation, the only company in the United States licensed to make a vaccine for anthrax. His 13% share ensures he will make a tidy profit from any sale of anthrax vaccine to the government. However, and this is what disturbs me most, BioPort has not produced a single drop of vaccine since they purchased Michigan Biologic Products Institute from the State of Michigan in 1998. In the meantime the Defense Department advanced BioPort $18 million in 1999 and another $24 million in 2000.

Under contract to supply the military with 14 million doses, BioPort has delivered less than 4% of that amount, despite the governent being willing to pay "triple the original cost in the contract, from $3.50 a dose, to over ten dollars!"

Inspections of the BioPort facility by the FDA in 1999 and 2000 found contamination and suspicious changes made to expiration dates. The agency has barred the company from releasing any of the vaccine as a result. MacDonald has asked, "Why has the Pentagon 'fronted' BioPort with millions of dollars in taxpayers' money when the troubled manufacturer has experienced continued failures? Does that have something to do with who some of its owners and investors are?"

Admiral Crowe is also an advisor to Global Options LLC, "an international crisis management firm based in Washington". Their web site (http://www.globalops.com) contains the slogan, "The Corporate Equalizer". Also on the advisory board for Global Options is former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, R. James Woolsey. The chairman and CEO of Global Options is Neil C. Livingstone, one of the people quoted in a 11 September 2001 article published by the Boston Globe after the attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. He was quoted as saying, "I think we are at war. I liken this to Pearl Harbor."

The President and every talking head at every major media outlet repeated this theme for days after the attacks. Is there a connection? Or, would we all have come to this same conclusion? Livingstone has been a featured guest on numerous network and cable outlets since 9/11 as an "expert" on terrorism. According to Kurt Saxon (http://www.kurtsaxon.com), "Any 'wanna be' terrorist, by reading Neil's book, can learn how to easily bring a system to its knees. If you are interested in how a terrorist works, or want to be one, you can't do better than to read what I describe as 'The Complete Terrorist', or 'The Terrorist's Bible', Neil Livingstone's own 'The War Against Terrorism', published by Lexington Books."

11/2/01
1:38:37 PM

United States Attempts To Shore Up Support For War

by Claire Cozens

The US is to marshal the efforts of the advertising world to help sell the bombing of Afghanistan to the American public.

Michael Sennott, a key figure in US advertising until his retirement earlier his year, will head a new government- led crisis-response team.

The Coalition against Terrorism will be in charge of shoring up public support for the war as it becomes clear that it could last longer than previously anticipated.

The team is being set up with the Advertising Council in New York, an independent organisation created after the attack on Pearl Harbour to rally public support for the US war effort.

The council is responsible for all of America's public- service announcements - extended commercials that broadcasters run free of charge - from anti-drink driving to road safety.

It has already put together several advertising campaigns since the terrorist attacks of September 11, including one that showed a view of the Manhattan skyline with the twin towers replaced by the words, "Hate has taken enough from us already. Don't let it take you".

But critics believe the council's response to the crisis has been slow and fragmented, and that it has been too keen to take orders from the White House rather than developing its own strategy.

The new team will create campaigns "to inform, involve and inspire" Americans' support for the fight against terrorism, said Mr Sennott.

The British government is also having to shore up waning public support for the bombing campaign in Afghanistan.

In a speech today, Tony Blair urged the British people not to forget the sight of the planes flying into the World Trade Centre and the "gloating menace" of Osama bin Laden.

Source: http://media.guardian.co.uk/attack/story/0,1301,583490,00.html

11/2/01
1:35:22 PM

US attempts to shore up support for war (October 30, 2001) The US is to marshal the efforts of the advertising world to help sell the bombing of Afghanistan to the American public.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Media/attack/story/0,1301,583490,00.html

Majority want bombing pause - UK Poll: 54% say halt attacks and allow aid convoys into Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583301,00.html

I TRIED TO BE PATRIOTIC

http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi- bin/config.pl?read=13974

SECURITY AT THE PRICE OF LIBERTY Nat Hentoff says: "Tyranny is when the state can know where you are, what you're doing, and what you're thinking." A frightening catalogue of what may lie ahead in the new age of 'security first'.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20011008- 23429308.htm

11/2/01
1:30:31 PM

One Guy, One Rifle And An Oil Pipeline = . . . .

by Bill McKibben

It's truly scary to imagine someone cooking up batches of anthrax and sending it through the mail. But the United States' deepest vulnerability to terrorism may have been exposed earlier this month not by a mad scientist or a suicide bomber but by a single drunken hunter with a .338-caliber rifle. On Oct. 4, according to police, Daniel Carson Lewis of Livengood, Alaska, shot a single hole into the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. Because it was near the base of a long, gentle rise, strong pressure spewed 285,600 gallons of petroleum 75 feet into the air, saturating the tundra. The pipeline was shut for nearly three days as workers struggled to fix the leak.

Authorities quickly announced that Lewis was not a terrorist. "It was just somebody being stupid with their gun," a state police spokesman said. "Alcohol and a guy with a gun-- nothing deeper than that."

If that was meant to be reassuring, it had the opposite effect. One guy with a rifle could shut down the biggest U.S. oil pipeline, delaying 2.7 million barrels of crude? What if there had been half a dozen guys? What if they'd used something bigger than rifles?

And what if we had decided to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, and doubtless for reasons of profound patriotism, the Alaska congressional delegation and the oil lobbyists have been demanding opening up the refuge for oil production as a matter of "national security." They might as well paste a big "Kick Me" sign on Uncle Sam's back.

If industry estimates of oil reserves are correct, the 800-mile pipeline would for a few years carry as much oil as now moves through the Strait of Hormuz. It's hard enough to defend our oil supplies in the Mideast. It is impossible to imagine a fatter, or less defensible, terrorist target than the Alaska pipeline.

Unless, that is, one looks at the handful of natural gas pipelines that serve our East Coast. Or the two dozen refineries concentrated in Texas, Louisiana and California that process a huge percentage of the oil we use. Or the nuclear power plants that have failed time and again to repel teams of mock terrorists designed to test their security. (Air Force jets scrambled Wednesday night over Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island plant because of a "credible threat.") Or the way that our own military planners have attacked centralized energy production plants and distribution grids in the Mideast, Serbia and now Afghanistan.

The classic study of U.S. vulnerability, "Brittle Power," was carried out for the Pentagon by the Rocky Mountain Institute in 1982. Its authors, Amory and Hunter Lovins, wrote at the time that "all of the energy sources being promoted as the backbone of American energy supplies in the 21st century are precisely those least suited to survive the uncertainty and violence that seems likely to characterize the future." Amazingly, it's these same centralized technologies that the Bush administration pushed for in last spring's energy plan and continues to support.

The alternative, of course, is to take the money now used to subsidize fossil fuels and nuclear power and use it instead to jump-start the conversion to renewable energy sources, which by their nature are decentralized, flexible and unappealing to terrorists. Take, for example, wind power. It is already the fastest-growing power source on Earth, mostly because it's environmentally benign. But now we know it's a security asset as well. An enemy could knock out one windmill, but it wouldn't spew radioactivity and it wouldn't damage all the other windmills. No one is standing guard around the clock on their rooftop solar panel.

It's a happy coincidence that clean power is also secure power. The sooner we get to work on it, the sooner we'll be able to cross one item off our list of worries.

Bill McKibben, the author of "The End of Nature" (Anchor, 1999), is a visiting scholar at Middlebury College

Source: http://www.LATimes.com

11/2/01
1:27:01 PM

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE

http://ens-news.com

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ADOPTS CLINTON'S ARSENIC RULE

By Cat Lazaroff

WASHINGTON, DC, November 1, 2001 (ENS) - The Bush administration, under pressure from environmental groups and the public, has decided to adopt the Clinton era standard for arsenic in drinking water. Blocking Clinton's 10 parts per billion standard was one of the Bush administration's first official acts - one which President George W. Bush later admitted was a mistake.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/nov2001/2001L-11-01-06.html

STATES CANNOT STOP FUEL DELIVERIES TO LEAKY STORAGE TANKS

WASHINGTON, DC, November 1, 2001 (ENS) - In 27 states, owners of underground storage tanks can continue to accept fuel deliveries even if the tanks are leaking in violation of federal environmental law, according to the director of natural resources and environment for the General Accounting Office, Congress's investigative arm.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/nov2001/2001L-11-01-03.html

EUROPE BANS CREOSOTE BY 2003

BRUSSELS, Belgium, November 1, 2001 (ENS) - The marketing and use of creosote and all products treated with it are to be banned throughout the European Union, the bloc's executive branch, the European Commission, has revealed. Industrial applications of the wood preservative will also be reduced.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/nov2001/2001L-11-01-04.html

AUSTRALIA PROTECTS WORLD'S LARGEST LIVING FISH

CANBERRA, Australia, November 1, 2001 (ENS) - Australian Environment Minister Robert Hill has listed the whale shark, the world's largest fish, as nationally threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity and Conservation Act. In making the announcement late last month, Senator Hill said there is evidence of a substantial decline in numbers of whale sharks.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/nov2001/2001L-11-01-02.html

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: NOVEMBER 1, 2001

FAA Restricts Airspace Over Nuclear Facilities

Sandia's Decon Foam Helps Clean Up Anthrax

EPA Restricts Two Agricultural Pesticides

Scientists Immunize Mice Against West Nile Virus

Study Finds Forest Service Timber Subsidy Report Unreliable

Labor Households Reject Arctic Drilling Claims

Florida Expands National Estuarine Research Reserves

Dow Urged to Withdraw Weed Killer

Worldwide Survey Assesses Biodiversity in Litter

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/nov2001/2001L-11-01-09.html

11/2/01
1:20:03 PM

Fighter Contract Gives Texas Economic Boost

From staff and wire reports Saturday, October 27, 2001

The Pentagon decision Friday to award a $200 billion contract to Lockheed Martin Corp. to build the next generation of stealth fighter jets wasn't just a victory for the company's Fort Worth-based aeronautics division, but for the entire Texas economy.

The deal, the biggest military contract ever awarded, will create a massive ripple effect, as Lockheed hires workers and subcontractors and buys services and material -- everything from concrete and lumber to electronics and testing equipment.

In an analysis for the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Waco economist Ray Perryman calculated that the contract will generate $137.1 billion in total expenditures over its 40-year life and pour $2.5 billion into state coffers.

Central Texas could see at least 3 percent of the prize, or $6 billion, through subcontracts and increased demand for state services.

"That's a massive injection" into the state's economy, Austin economist Jon Hockenyos said. "That, in turn, helps the state of Texas, and all things being equal, means more state tax revenue and helps maintain state jobs."

Perryman said the deal assures the survival of the Fort Worth plant that otherwise probably would have closed once it completed its current contract to produce F-16s, the world's best-selling fighter jet, in 2010.

Lockheed Martin said employment at its Fort Worth plant will grow by more than 2,000 workers, to 13,500 by 2005. Perryman estimates that the contract will produce 8,323 permanent jobs during the 10-year engineering and development phase, with more in later years.

Friday, Air Force Secretary James Roche announced that Lockheed was the winner of an $18.9 billion engineering contract to produce 22 aircraft over the next 10 years and to set up the production line. That is expected to eventually lead to the go-ahead to build 3,000 F-35 fighter jets, once Lockheed establishes it can design and build the aircraft to the Pentagon's specifications.

Roche wouldn't release details of why Lockheed was picked after a five-year review, but said during the review process its proposal "emerged continuously as the clear winner."

The F-35 will replace the aging fighter jets of the Air Force, Navy and Marines, with modifications to fit the needs of each branch. It also will be used by Britain's Royal Air Force and Navy, which want 150 of the planes. Britain has committed $2 billion toward development.

Lockheed Chairman Vance Coffman said his company would honor the trust shown by the Pentagon "by building a truly remarkable, capable and affordable multirole fighter, on schedule and on cost."

The first 22 planes are expected to be delivered in 2008. However, the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, has twice warned that the jet could end up costing more and take longer to build because the technologies need more development. The Pentagon says its independent investigation found that the technologies are adequate.

Lockheed and Boeing waged a long and costly advertising and lobbying campaign for the contract, which establishes Lockheed as the nation's sole fighter jet manufacturer.

In Fort Worth, about 500 employees at the F-16 assembly plant gathered to watch the announcement on a big-screen television and burst into cheers when Lockheed was chosen.

"This was all about this company and this company's future," said Art Price Jr., Lockheed's director of procurement for the fighter.

"I've worked here 23 years. It's paid my mortgage; it paid for my kids' education. (The Joint Strike Fighter contract) will do the same for their kids," Price said, sweeping his arm in the direction of some younger workers.

Analysts said Boeing may be in a better position to weather the contract loss. It is developing a pilotless combat aircraft that could be highly lucrative and, unlike Lockheed, has a commercial airline business. It also has contracts with the Pentagon to continue building F-18s and F-22s until 2011.

Each of the new F-35s will cost about $40 million. The version with the ability for short takeoff and vertical landings will cost more, but less than $50 million, the Pentagon said.

The Joint Strike Fighter will lead the U.S. military into a new generation of planes in the next 25 years, replacing many of its aging relics in need of retirement. The supersonic attack plane will replace the Air Force F-16 Falcons and A-10 Thunderbolts, the Navy F/A-18 Hornets and Marine AV-8B Harriers.

The new wave of Joint Strike Fighters will cut down on the number of parts the military needs for its planes, while still allowing for flexibility among its various branches. For example, the Marine Joint Strike Fighter will be able to take off and land vertically, allowing more ease with short runways and aircraft carriers.

It's too soon to tell when the ripples from the contract will begin to touch Central Texas, but the region should benefit, said John Breier, vice president for economic development for the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce.

"Any time one of our sister cities benefits in that large way, it's going to benefit our industry here," he said. Breier said Austin may be able to capitalize on its ability to help produce the technology necessary for a modern fighter plane, including software and semiconductors.

Nancy Evans, director of the University of Texas engineering career center, said the Lockheed contract will be a windfall for students looking for internships or permanent work. The opportunities will mean the state has a better chance of holding on to its engineering talent.

And the project means work for a wide variety of engineers -- aerospace, civil, electrical and computer, she said.

"It's great news," Evans said. "With the bulk of those jobs in Fort Worth, we definitely would benefit."

American-Statesman staff writers Claudia Grisales and Elizabeth Goldman contributed to this story.

http://www.austin360.com/auto_docs/epaper/editions/saturday/n ews_2.html

11/2/01
1:19:55 PM

Fighter Contract Gives Texas Economic Boost

From staff and wire reports Saturday, October 27, 2001

The Pentagon decision Friday to award a $200 billion contract to Lockheed Martin Corp. to build the next generation of stealth fighter jets wasn't just a victory for the company's Fort Worth-based aeronautics division, but for the entire Texas economy.

The deal, the biggest military contract ever awarded, will create a massive ripple effect, as Lockheed hires workers and subcontractors and buys services and material -- everything from concrete and lumber to electronics and testing equipment.

In an analysis for the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Waco economist Ray Perryman calculated that the contract will generate $137.1 billion in total expenditures over its 40-year life and pour $2.5 billion into state coffers.

Central Texas could see at least 3 percent of the prize, or $6 billion, through subcontracts and increased demand for state services.

"That's a massive injection" into the state's economy, Austin economist Jon Hockenyos said. "That, in turn, helps the state of Texas, and all things being equal, means more state tax revenue and helps maintain state jobs."

Perryman said the deal assures the survival of the Fort Worth plant that otherwise probably would have closed once it completed its current contract to produce F-16s, the world's best-selling fighter jet, in 2010.

Lockheed Martin said employment at its Fort Worth plant will grow by more than 2,000 workers, to 13,500 by 2005. Perryman estimates that the contract will produce 8,323 permanent jobs during the 10-year engineering and development phase, with more in later years.

Friday, Air Force Secretary James Roche announced that Lockheed was the winner of an $18.9 billion engineering contract to produce 22 aircraft over the next 10 years and to set up the production line. That is expected to eventually lead to the go-ahead to build 3,000 F-35 fighter jets, once Lockheed establishes it can design and build the aircraft to the Pentagon's specifications.

Roche wouldn't release details of why Lockheed was picked after a five-year review, but said during the review process its proposal "emerged continuously as the clear winner."

The F-35 will replace the aging fighter jets of the Air Force, Navy and Marines, with modifications to fit the needs of each branch. It also will be used by Britain's Royal Air Force and Navy, which want 150 of the planes. Britain has committed $2 billion toward development.

Lockheed Chairman Vance Coffman said his company would honor the trust shown by the Pentagon "by building a truly remarkable, capable and affordable multirole fighter, on schedule and on cost."

The first 22 planes are expected to be delivered in 2008. However, the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, has twice warned that the jet could end up costing more and take longer to build because the technologies need more development. The Pentagon says its independent investigation found that the technologies are adequate.

Lockheed and Boeing waged a long and costly advertising and lobbying campaign for the contract, which establishes Lockheed as the nation's sole fighter jet manufacturer.

In Fort Worth, about 500 employees at the F-16 assembly plant gathered to watch the announcement on a big-screen television and burst into cheers when Lockheed was chosen.

"This was all about this company and this company's future," said Art Price Jr., Lockheed's director of procurement for the fighter.

"I've worked here 23 years. It's paid my mortgage; it paid for my kids' education. (The Joint Strike Fighter contract) will do the same for their kids," Price said, sweeping his arm in the direction of some younger workers.

Analysts said Boeing may be in a better position to weather the contract loss. It is developing a pilotless combat aircraft that could be highly lucrative and, unlike Lockheed, has a commercial airline business. It also has contracts with the Pentagon to continue building F-18s and F-22s until 2011.

Each of the new F-35s will cost about $40 million. The version with the ability for short takeoff and vertical landings will cost more, but less than $50 million, the Pentagon said.

The Joint Strike Fighter will lead the U.S. military into a new generation of planes in the next 25 years, replacing many of its aging relics in need of retirement. The supersonic attack plane will replace the Air Force F-16 Falcons and A-10 Thunderbolts, the Navy F/A-18 Hornets and Marine AV-8B Harriers.

The new wave of Joint Strike Fighters will cut down on the number of parts the military needs for its planes, while still allowing for flexibility among its various branches. For example, the Marine Joint Strike Fighter will be able to take off and land vertically, allowing more ease with short runways and aircraft carriers.

It's too soon to tell when the ripples from the contract will begin to touch Central Texas, but the region should benefit, said John Breier, vice president for economic development for the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce.

"Any time one of our sister cities benefits in that large way, it's going to benefit our industry here," he said. Breier said Austin may be able to capitalize on its ability to help produce the technology necessary for a modern fighter plane, including software and semiconductors.

Nancy Evans, director of the University of Texas engineering career center, said the Lockheed contract will be a windfall for students looking for internships or permanent work. The opportunities will mean the state has a better chance of holding on to its engineering talent.

And the project means work for a wide variety of engineers -- aerospace, civil, electrical and computer, she said.

"It's great news," Evans said. "With the bulk of those jobs in Fort Worth, we definitely would benefit."

American-Statesman staff writers Claudia Grisales and Elizabeth Goldman contributed to this story.

http://www.austin360.com/auto_docs/epaper/editions/saturday/n ews_2.html

11/2/01
12:55:45 PM

Planet Ark World Environment News

Missouri deploys guard to two nuclear facilities - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13079/story.htm

US farmers launch radio ads for Bush trade bill - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13070/story.htm

UPDATE - EPA to tighten limit on arsenic in drinking water - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13099/story.htm

Foggy San Francisco sets sights on solar power - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13072/story.htm

UPDATE - Bill doubling US farm "green" not enough - critics - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13074/story.htm

US Embassy in Lithuania may have anthrax traces - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13075/story.htm

Knowles still bullish on Alaska gas prospects - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13097/story.htm

UPDATE - Bush proposes criminalizing biological weapons - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13083/story.htm

Corn growers press ethanol on New York state - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13092/story.htm

Florida bans feeding of sharks for dive tourists - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13090/story.htm

US businesses, unions urge Senate to pass energy bill - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13094/story.htm

Anthrax found in Kansas City, health officials say - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13082/story.htm

Norway sees pause after Barents Sea gas field start - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13087/story.htm

Fish finds true lurve with a throw of the dice - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13086/story.htm

Loss of habitat takes toll on British butterflies - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13069/story.htm

UK launches 3 million pound solar energy scheme - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13078/story.htm

WTO talks could make things worse - environmentalists - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13098/story.htm

UK sees wind power undercut fossil fuel in 20 yrs - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13073/story.htm

Europe reviews nuclear plant safety, fears attack - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13080/story.htm

Insurers see more disasters due to climate change - MOROCCO http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13100/story.htm

Kyoto climate talks face new hurdle - MOROCCO http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13091/story.htm

Japan's TEPCO says reactor on automatic shutdown - JAPAN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13089/story.htm

Japan's Tohoku Elec buys emissions rights with coal - JAPAN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13084/story.htm

Japan says no leak at reactor after nearby fire - JAPAN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13085/story.htm

Malaysia to help Jakarta fight log smuggling - INDONESIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13096/story.htm

Indian plan to destroy GM cotton crop seen failing - INDIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13095/story.htm

FEATURE - Dead cellphones reborn after EU order to recycle - FINLAND http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13071/story.htm

Court upholds states' rights to protect wild birds - EU http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13076/story.htm

Ontario to protect "vital" moraine north of Toronto - CANADA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13088/story.htm

UPDATE - Atom watchdog sees greater nuke terrorism risk - AUSTRIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13081/story.htm

Australia government to subsidise ethanol plants - AUSTRALIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13077/story.htm

11/1/01
7:01:15 PM

The Nation

As the assault on Osama bin Laden and his Taliban protectors in Afghanistan continues, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan's neighbor to the north, is emerging as one of the most steadfast regional supporters of the US-led military campaign. While other states in the region remained equivocal and noncommittal, Uzbekistan welcomed an early October visit from US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and quickly announced that the US could use its air space and airfields to mount attacks against Afghanistan. And, as with Pakistan, the US government has tacitly agreed to overlook Uzbekistan's human rights abuses in return for access to military bases on the Uzbek-Afghan border.

But, as Matt Bivens reports for The Nation exclusively from Tashkent, the US is doing a huge favor for President Islam Karimov's regime -- fighting his enemies in Afghanistan -- and paying him handsomely for the privilege. Given all this, there's no reason that the US can't simply demand that Uzbekistan move toward a minimal threshold of human rights guarantees.

For the full story read "Uzbekistans's Human Rights Problem" by Matt Bivens. Currently available exclusively at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=bivens20011030

And, don't miss "Bush's Uzbek Bargain," Dilip Hiro's October 17 Nation web report, also exclusively available at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=hiro20011017

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 web articles, links, activist info, a regularly updated section of media resources, a section on Islam and remarks on what patriotism is and ought to be. All available:

http://www.the nation.com/special/wtc/index.mhtml

11/1/01
6:58:26 PM

Gradual Changes Can Make Ecosystems Vulnerable

By David Suzuki

A well-known children's game involves removing wooden blocks from a block tower one at a time and then placing each removed piece carefully on top of the structure. Remarkably, the tower can often stay standing for quite some time until a key block is removed and the whole structure topples into a heap. Thus, the tower changes catastrophically from one stable state — standing — to another — collapsed.

Now, research is showing that a similar situation can occur in ecosystems. A recent article in the journal Nature, for example, presents evidence that various ecosystems can exist in more than one stable state and can switch from one to another, but only after going through a period of catastrophic change.

The term "stable" is actually a bit of a misnomer, because ecosystems are naturally undergoing constant change, as all things do. But within certain limits, the ecosystems are able to maintain a general state of equilibrium. Only when their limits are surpassed does the state shift.

One of the best examples has occurred in lakes. In one stable state, a shallow lake may consist of clear water with lush vegetation growing on the lake bottom. But over time, fertilizer run-off from agriculture, for example, may load the lake with excess nutrients. These nutrients can build up and the lake can remain clear for years before a critical threshold is reached and the lake suddenly changes from clear to murky. Algae then grow on the surface, and bottom-dwelling plants, deprived of light and oxygen, die off, making the water even more turbid and inhospitable to fish and other life.

The authors of the Nature article, an international group of ecologists, point out that returning the lake to its clear state is not simply a matter of reducing nutrient levels to those before the shift. Once the fish, plants, and other organisms who were essential to maintaining the clarity of the lake were gone, clear water would not return until nutrient levels are far lower than they were when the collapse occurred. That makes restoring the ecosystem even more difficult.

This type of ecosystem shift has also been documented in coral reefs. In the Caribbean, for example, many reefs have become colonized by fleshy microalgae. The algae had previously been kept in check by herbivorous fish and sea urchins, but nutrient run-off and overfishing caused fish stocks to plummet. Then, when a pathogen devastated the sea urchin population, a shift occurred and the algae rapidly colonized the reef.

Crucial to these examples is the point that changes between stable states did not occur gradually or smoothly. Instead, the changes were unannounced, and early warning signals of impending catastrophic change were unnoticed or difficult to detect. The authors conclude, "gradual change in environmental conditions, such as human-induced eutrophication (oxygen depletion) and global warming, may have little apparent effect on the state of these systems but still alter the 'stability domain' or resilience of the current state and, hence, the likelihood that a shift to an alternative state will occur in response to natural or human-induced fluctuations."

What this means is that an ecosystem like a forest or a lake may continue to appear normal, even though pollution or the loss of species is actually weakening it. Then suddenly that apparent stability can no longer be maintained and a collapse occurs. Unfortunately, we can't predict when and how that will happen, and once it does, restoring the original state may be impossible or take decades or even centuries. It makes far more ecological and economic sense to protect what we've got rather than attempting to put blocks in place after a collapse.

Source: http://www.enn.com/news/enn- stories/2001/11/11012001/s_45424.asp

11/1/01
6:55:04 PM

FAIR

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Media analysis, critiques and news reports

ACTION ALERT: CNN Says Focus on Civilian Casualties Would Be "Perverse"

According to the Washington Post (10/31/01), CNN Chair Walter Isaacson "has ordered his staff to balance images of civilian devastation in Afghan cities with reminders that the Taliban harbors murderous terrorists, saying it 'seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan.'"

Post media reporter Howard Kurtz quotes a memo from Isaacson to CNN's international correspondents: "As we get good reports from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, we must redouble our efforts to make sure we do not seem to be simply reporting from their vantage or perspective. We must talk about how the Taliban are using civilian shields and how the Taliban have harbored the terrorists responsible for killing close to 5,000 innocent people."

The memo went on to admonish reporters covering civilian deaths not to "forget it is that country's leaders who are responsible for the situation Afghanistan is now in," suggesting that journalists should lay responsibility for civilian casualties at the Taliban's door, not the U.S. military's.

Kurtz also quotes a follow-up memo from Rick Davis, CNN's head of standards and practices, that suggested sample language for news anchors:

" 'We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this from Taliban-controlled areas, that these U.S. military actions are in response to a terrorist attack that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the U.S.' or, 'We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this, that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan continues to harbor terrorists who have praised the September 11 attacks that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the U.S.,' or 'The Pentagon has repeatedly stressed that it is trying to minimize civilian casualties in Afghanistan, even as the Taliban regime continues to harbor terrorists who are connected to the September 11 attacks that claimed thousands of innocent lives in the U.S.' "

Davis stated that "even though it may start sounding rote, it is important that we make this point each time."

The New York Times reported (11/1/01) that these policies are already being implemented at CNN, with other networks following a similar, though perhaps not as formalized, strategy. "In the United States," the Times noted, "television images of Afghan bombing victims are fleeting, cushioned between anchors or American officials explaining that such sights are only one side of the story." In other countries, however, "images of wounded Afghan children curled in hospital beds or women rocking in despair over a baby's corpse" are "more frequent and lingering."

When CNN correspondent Nic Robertson reported yesterday from the site of a bombed medical facility in Kandahar, the Times reported, U.S. anchors "added disclaimers aimed at reassuring American viewers that the network was not siding with the enemy." CNN International, however, did not add any such disclaimers.

During its U.S broadcasts, CNN "quickly switched to the rubble of the World Trade Center" after showing images of the damage in Kandahar, and the anchor "reminded viewers of the deaths of as many as 5,000 people whose 'biggest crime was going to work and getting there on time.'"

If anything in this story is "perverse," it's that one of the world's most powerful news outlets has instructed its journalists not to report Afghan civilian casualties without attempting to justify those deaths. "I want to make sure we're not used as a propaganda platform," Isaacson told the Washington Post. But his memo essentially mandates that pro-U.S. propaganda be included in the news.

ACTION: Please tell CNN to factually report the consequences of the U.S. war in Afghanistan without editorializing. Including a justification for the bombing with every mention of civilian casualties risks turning CNN from a news outlet into a propaganda service.

CONTACT:

CNN, Walter Isaacson, Chairman and CEO

Phone: (404) 827-1500

Fax: (404) 827-1784

mailto:community@cnn.com

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if you maintain a polite tone.

Please cc fair@fair.org with your correspondence.

For further details, see Howard Kurtz's full Washington Post story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14435- 2001Oct30.html

11/1/01
6:51:48 PM

Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE

<http: //www.gristmagazine.com/grist/default.asp?source=top>

OUR SNICKER

The Bush administration tucked its tail between its legs and decided yesterday to toughen the limit for arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to the 10 ppb. The stricter standard was originally approved by the Clinton administration, but then rejected by current U.S. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, who questioned the science behind it and said the cost would be prohibitive for small communities. Environmentalists denounced her decision, and held it up as a shining example of the Bush administration's hostility toward the environment. Whitman changed her tune following a public comment period and a report by the National Academy of Sciences that indicated that the risks of developing cancer and other health problems from arsenic-contaminated water -- even at 10 ppb -- are much greater than previously thought.

straight to the source: Washington Post, Edward Walsh, 01 Nov 2001 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20926- 2001Oct31.html>

THE PERSISTENCE OF MERCURY

Anyone who's ever broken an old-style thermometer knows it's tough to clean up mercury, but the state of Washington is undeterred. The state's Ecology Department has created the nation's only program to battle persistent bioaccumulative toxins, or PBTs, and mercury will be the first target. Found in substances ranging from eye makeup to industrial waste to contaminated seafood, mercury can cause neurological problems and birth defects. Nearly 3,700 pounds of mercury from industrial sites are known to have contaminated air, land, and water in Washington last year, and untold additional pounds went unreported.

straight to the source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Lisa Stiffler, 30 Oct 2001 <http://seattlep- i.nwsource.com/local/44651_mercury30.shtml>

CLIMATE CONTRAIL

Of the many unprecedented events of Sept. 11, one of them -- the near-absence of airplanes in the skies that day and the next -- has given scientists important clues for studying the impact of aviation on climate change. Normally, the sky above 25,000 feet is full of contrails, cloud-like phenomena that form when ice crystals bond to jet fumes. Climatologists have long suspected that contrails contribute to global warming, but with constant air traffic, there was no way to compare the sky with and without airplanes. Now scientists are optimistic that data from Sept. 11 and 12 will help refine climate change computer modeling. Meanwhile for an update on the climate negotiation scene, as the latest round of international talks begins this week in Morocco, visit the Grist Magazine website.

straight to the source: New York Times, Andrew C. Revkin, 30 Oct 2001 <htt p://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/science/earth/30CONT.html>

BUTTERFLIES IN THEIR STOMACHS

Seventy-five percent of butterfly species in the United Kingdom are in decline, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature. Some experts had expected butterflies to be doing well as a result of global warming, because milder weather was expected to increase the ranges of many species. But temperature increases in the U.K. haven't been enough to compensate for habitat loss. The study, which was coordinated by Butterfly Conservation and three British universities, attributed the diminishing number of butterflies to the destruction of meadows, woodlands, and moors, and warned that without significant intervention many species would become rare or extinct.

straight to the source: BBC News, Helen Briggs, 31 Oct 2001 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1630000/1630193 .stm>

11/1/01
6:34:15 PM

Public Citizen Urges NRC, Congress to Take Hint From FAA

Flight Ban Underscores Dangers of Nuclear Power Plants

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Flight restrictions around nuclear power plants imposed this week by the federal government underscore how dangerous the plants are and serve as further proof that nuclear power plants should not be relicensed and new plants should not be built, Public Citizen said today.

On Tuesday, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prohibited all general aviation flights within 10 miles of, and lower than 18,000 feet above, the nation's commercial nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities, for reasons of national security. Such concern is not unwarranted; a disciple of Osama bin Laden being held in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance was quoted in The Washington Post this week as saying that the terrorists who struck America on Sept. 11 should have targeted a nuclear plant.

But while the FAA apparently recognizes the threat posed by nuclear plants, others in government are continuing efforts to expand and subsidize the nuclear industry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is still working toward relicensing nuclear plants, and congressional lawmakers are continuing to push a measure that would require taxpayers pay the majority of the costs in the event of a nuclear accident.

"Since Sept. 11, the public has been seeking assurances that nuclear power plants will not be the next, and incredibly devastating, targets of terrorist attacks," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "Yet astonishingly, even in the midst of a seemingly interminable series of heightened alerts, federal policymakers are acting to enrich the target environment for terrorists by taking steps to build new nuclear plants and extend the lives of old ones."

Nuclear power plants were originally licensed to operate for 40 years. Relicensing allows them to operate for another 20. In the weeks since Sept. 11, the NRC has forged ahead with the process of renewing licenses for reactors at several nuclear power plants. (The plants are Edwin E. Hatch, located northwest of Savannah, Ga.; Turkey Point, located northeast of Miami, Fla.; Surry, located near Williamsburg, Va.; North Anna, located northwest of Richmond, Va.; Catawba, in South Carolina, just south of Charlotte, N.C.; McGuire, located west of Charlotte, N.C.; and Peach Bottom, located west of Philadelphia.) Ultimately, perhaps as many as two- thirds of the nation's 103 operating reactors could be granted extensions through the NRC's pro forma relicensing procedure.

"It's often said that September 11 changed everything," Hauter said. "But not for the NRC, which is continuing business as usual. For the agency to just keep moving along on these license renewal applications is irresponsible and bizarre."

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved H.R. 2983, which reauthorizes the Price-Anderson Act. That act provides government-backed indemnification for the nuclear power industry in the event of any nuclear power accident. This will ensure that most of the cost of a nuclear plant accident would be paid for by taxpayers, not the nuclear power industry.

The bill's supporters say it is crucial for the construction of new nuclear power plants - evidence that the government wants to shield the industry from competitive market forces and effectively pave the way for the construction of new plants.

"The construction of new nuclear power plants is out of step with public sentiment, particularly now," Hauter said. "It's also unnecessary and incomprehensible. Really, what are these people thinking?"

Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.

For more information, please visit http:www.citizen.org

11/1/01
6:22:37 PM

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE

http://ens-news.com

ANTHRAX CLAIMS A FOURTH LIFE

WASHINGTON, DC, October 31, 2001 (ENS) - A fourth person has died of inhalation anthrax, and in this puzzling new case, there seems to be no link to anthrax contaminated post offices or mailrooms. Authorities fear the victim, a 61 year old woman who worked at a New York City hospital, could point to previously unknown targets of anthrax attacks.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-31-07.html

NEW ZEALAND TO RESUME TRANSGENIC CROP TRIALS

By Bob Burton

WELLINGTON, New Zealand, October 31, 2001 (ENS) - The New Zealand Labor Government has decided to allow the resumption of field trials of genetically modified organisms. The move, announced by Prime Minister Helen Clark on Tuesday, has been welcomed by biotech lobby groups and rejected by environmental and indigenous Maori groups.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-31-01.html

ENVIRONMENT STILL OFF WORLD TRADE TALKS AGENDA

BRUSSELS, Belgium, October 31, 2001 (ENS) - The odds of a new round of world trade negotiations including substantive talks on environmental issues have lengthened following the emergence of a new draft text for ministerial agreement at the Doha summit, due to start on November 9. Despite strong pressure from the European Union, the draft proposes no new environmental negotiations.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-31-04.html

BACKYARD BAT HOUSES PROMOTE PEST CONTROL

GAINESVILLE, Florida, October 31, 2001 (ENS) - If you see more bats this Halloween, it may be because homeowners are installing backyard bat houses to encourage the flying mammals to hang around and provide natural pest control, says a University of Florida (UF) expert.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-31-06.html

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: OCTOBER 31, 2001

Nature Conservancy Campaign Protects Colorado Wildlands

Coalition: Manatee Recovery Plan Needs More Work

Agriculture Department Appoints Natural Resources Secretary

New York Grant Supports New Energy Efficiency Standards

Alaska Tightens Security on Hazmat Shipments

Long Island Utility Installs Fuel Cells

Union Builds Green Headquarters

Arizona Hosts Colorado Plateau Conference

Furniture Company Seeks Exemption to Fill Wetlands

Energy Department Celebrates Weatherization Day

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-31-09.html

11/1/01
6:17:41 PM

Bin Laden's Family Cutting Ties With Carlyle Group Investment Firm

by Marcy Gordon, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Osama bin Laden's family in Saudi Arabia is cutting its financial ties with the Carlyle Group, a politically connected U.S. private investment firm, a source familiar with the relationship said Friday.

The break was a mutual decision, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The bin Laden family decided to sell its investment worth $2.02 million back to the firm mainly because its stake in a Carlyle fund that invests in buyouts of military and aerospace companies, the source said, confirming a report in Friday's editions of The New York Times.

There had been criticism in Saudi Arabia after the Sept. 11 terror attacks that the family, which disowned exiled Islamic militant Osama bin Laden years ago, might profit from increased military spending in the U.S. war against terrorism.

The family, whose construction company is one of the largest in the Middle East, also has invested with a number of other investment funds and financial institutions around the world, reportedly including U.S. financial services giant Citigroup, Deutsche Bank of Germany and the Dutch bank ABN Amro.

Carlyle has some $14 billion in assets under management. Its chairman is Frank Carlucci, a former U.S. defense secretary. Former President George Bush, former secretary of state James Baker and Arthur Levitt, who had been chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission through most of the Clinton administration, are senior advisers to the firm.

Source: http://www.truthout.com/11.0 1E.htm

11/1/01
6:12:12 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.gvnewsne t.com/html/USUnderAttack

OCTOBER 31, 2001 *New Features*

SHOULD WE TRASH MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES? The official comment period for revising media ownership rules continues. MediaChannel affiliates explain what's at stake and offer easy ways to make your voice heard.

http://www.mediac hannel.org/atissue/ownership

ANYWHERE, ANYTIME ACCESS

John Vince and Robert McChesney on the problems and promise of "digital convergence," where computer and communication technologies meet. (From UNESCO)

http://www.med iachannel.org/front.shtml#converge

MEDIA READER

The best media about the media. MediaChannel's international, biweekly, multimedia magazine * Nickelodeon Demolishes Moldova's Kids * Testing Drug Ads * Covering The Energy Crisis And much, much more... Plus: Streaming audio and video

http://www.mediach annel.org/news/mediareader

GLOBAL MEDIA LANDSCAPE: BELARUS

Last month's election bodes ill for the independent press of Belarus, especially because the United States backed the losing candidate.

http://w ww.mediachannel.org/news/reports/Belarus.shtml

MEDIACULTURE

A collaboration between MediaChannel and Alternet exploring the currents, crises and cultures of American media. Recently featured: * Funders Boycott Public Radio * AOL Censors Springsteen Lyrics * Lynn "Culture Warrior" Cheney And much, much more...

http://www .mediachannel.org/front.shtml#mediaculture

11/1/01
6:05:57 PM

AlterNet Headlines

http://www.alternet.org

OPERATION ENDURING AVARICE

Arianna Huffington, AlterNet

The so-called economic stimulus package that passed the House last week will dole out untold billions to major corporations and almost nothing to folks who have lost their jobs since 9/11.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11839

$1.4 BILLION FOR IBM + $1 BILLION FOR FORD = WAR PROFITEERING IBM wants a $1.4 billion tax rebate. Ford wants $1 billion. Countless other corporations are looking for huge handouts. If the Senate approves the phony "economic stimulus" package, Big Business could pocket over $70 billion. Learn more and take action to stop the bill at:

http://www.ourfuture.org

AFTER THE TALIBAN, CAN A COALITION GOVERNMENT SURVIVE?

Michael Kamber, Village Voice

Which of the factions will take power: the exiled king Zahir Shah, the Northern Alliance or a former mujahedeen warlord? Or will the Taliban hold on? A report from Central Asia.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11834

RELIGIOUS RIGHT ON THE ROPES

Bill Berkowitz, AlterNet

The Religious Right has taken a beating since Sept. 11, suffering ridicule for its leaders' remarks and comparisons to fundamental Islam. A survey of the Right's folly since the attacks.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11840

IS QUESTIONING WAR NAïVE?

Tim Wise, AlterNet

When warhawks call those of us who question war "naïve," it reminds me of something my Grandma once said: "You can call your ass a turkey, but that doesn't make it Thanksgiving."

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11833

CONFESSIONS OF A CALL GIRL'S FRIEND

Dara Colwell, Metro Silicon Valley

'Toni' made no secret of her occupation when I interviewed as a roommate, but even though she never brought her tricks home, there are some parts of any job that can't be left behind.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11836

SMACKED OUT

Mara Shalhoup, Creative Loafing Atlanta

Believers say a little-known drug called ibogaine eases heroin cravings and withdrawal, but it's never gained popularity with pharmaceutical companies or the Feds. Here's why.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11794

WTC VICTIMS DON'T NEED MORE CHARITY

Geov Parrish, WorkingForChange.com

While the outpouring of generosity and compassion appears to know no limits, many of the people directly affected by the events of Sept. 11 are getting no help at all.

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

DRUG WAR BRIEFS: 730,000 ARRESTED FOR POT IN 2000

Kevin Nelson, AlterNet

This week: FBI reveals that 734,498 were arrested for marijuana violations in 2000, a new record ... drug cops all over the world face corruption charges ... and more.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11797

SHOPPING LESS AND ENJOYING LIFE MORE

Brian Howard, E Magazine

America's growing obsession with acquisition is taking a heavy toll on the environment and the Center for a New American Dream has a plan for building a less materialistic society.

* In EnviroHealth: http://www.alternet.org /?IssueAreaID=18

DURST: WEAPONS GRADE COMEDY

Will Durst, AlterNet

While Congress tells us to remain calm, they ditch the Capital en masse and propose to nuke our mail. Meanwhile, Dan Rather contracts a severe case of anthrax envy....

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11837

11/1/01
5:50:52 PM

The Secret Behind The Sanctions

How The U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply

by Thomas J. Nagy

Over the last two years, I've discovered documents of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.

The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.

"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."

The document goes into great technical detail about the sources and quality of Iraq's water supply. The quality of untreated water "generally is poor," and drinking such water "could result in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."

The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low."

Food and medicine will also be affected, the document states. "Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants," it says.

The document addresses possible Iraqi countermeasures to obtain drinkable water despite sanctions.

"Iraq conceivably could truck water from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas. But the capability to gain significant quantities is extremely limited," the document states. "The amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping stations would limit laying pipelines to these reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine purification, the water still would contain biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from Northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs."

The document also discounted the possibility of Iraqis using rainwater. "Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter and spring, but it falls primarily in the northern mountains," it says. "Sporadic rains, sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains. But Iraq could not rely on rain to provide adequate pure water."

As an alternative, "Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons," the document says. "It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements."

In cold language, the document spells out what is in store: "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable unless the population were careful to boil water."

The document gives a timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water treatment capability, it probably will take at least six months (to June 1991) before the system is fully degraded."

This document, which was partially declassified but unpublicized in 1995, can be found on the Pentagon's web site at www.gulflink.osd.mil. (I disclosed this document last fall. But the news media showed little interest in it. The only reporters I know of who wrote lengthy stories on it were Felicity Arbuthnot in the Sunday Herald of Scotland, who broke the story, and Charlie Reese of the Orlando Sentinel, who did a follow-up.)

Recently, I have come across other DIA documents that confirm the Pentagon's monitoring of the degradation of Iraq's water supply. These documents have not been publicized until now.

The first one in this batch is called "Disease Information," and is also dated January 22, 1991. At the top, it says, "Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems."

The document proceeds to itemize the likely outbreaks. It mentions "acute diarrhea" brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect "particularly children," or by rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly children," a phrase it puts in parentheses. And it cites the possibilities of typhoid and cholera outbreaks.

The document warns that the Iraqi government may "blame the United States for public health problems created by the military conflict."

The second DIA document, "Disease Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February 21, 1990, but the year is clearly a typo and should be 1991. It states: "Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing." It adds: "Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm. . . . Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks."

This document lists the "most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days (descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely)."

Like the previous document, this one warns that the Iraqi government might "propagandize increases of endemic diseases."

The third document in this series, "Medical Problems in Iraq," is dated March 15, 1991. It says: "Communicable diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than usually observed during this time of the year and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplies and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war. According to a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World Health Organization report, the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply, there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the rise. Children particularly have been affected by these diseases."

Perhaps to put a gloss on things, the document states, "There are indications that the situation is improving and that the population is coping with the degraded conditions." But it adds: "Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks."

The fourth document, "Status of Disease at Refugee Camps," is dated May 1991. The summary says, "Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps. Further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation."

The reason for this outbreak is clearly stated again. "The main causes of infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea, dysentery, and upper respiratory problems, are poor sanitation and unclean water. These diseases primarily afflict the old and young children."

The fifth document, "Health Conditions in Iraq, June 1991," is still heavily censored. All I can make out is that the DIA sent a source "to assess health conditions and determine the most critical medical needs of Iraq. Source observed that Iraqi medical system was in considerable disarray, medical facilities had been extensively looted, and almost all medicines were in critically short supply."

In one refugee camp, the document says, "at least 80 percent of the population" has diarrhea. At this same camp, named Cukurca, "cholera, hepatitis type B, and measles have broken out."

The protein deficiency disease kwashiorkor was observed in Iraq "for the first time," the document adds. "Gastroenteritis was killing children. . . . In the south, 80 percent of the deaths were children (with the exception of Al Amarah, where 60 percent of deaths were children)."

The final document is "Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and Capabilities," and it is dated November 15, 1991. This one has a distinct damage-control feel to it. Here is how it begins: "Restoration of Iraq's public health services and shortages of major medical materiel remain dominant international concerns. Both issues apparently are being exploited by Saddam Hussein in an effort to keep public opinion firmly against the U.S. and its Coalition allies and to direct blame away from the Iraqi government."

It minimizes the extent of the damage. "Although current countrywide infectious disease incidence in Iraq is higher than it was before the Gulf War, it is not at the catastrophic levels that some groups predicted. The Iraqi regime will continue to exploit disease incidence data for its own political purposes."

And it places the blame squarely on Saddam Hussein. "Iraq's medical supply shortages are the result of the central government's stockpiling, selective distribution, and exploitation of domestic and international relief medical resources." It adds: "Resumption of public health programs . . . depends completely on the Iraqi government."

As these documents illustrate, the United States knew sanctions had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality. And it was more concerned about the public relations nightmare for Washington than the actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis.

The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a 1979 protocol relating to the "protection of victims of international armed conflicts," Article 54, it states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."

But that is precisely what the U.S. government did, with malice aforethought. It "destroyed, removed, or rendered useless" Iraq's "drinking water installations and supplies." The sanctions, imposed for a decade largely at the insistence of the United States, constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. They amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA's own words, "fully degrade" Iraq's water sources.

At a House hearing on June 7, Representative Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, referred to the document "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" and said: "Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations."

Over the last decade, Washington extended the toll by continuing to withhold approval for Iraq to import the few chemicals and items of equipment it needed in order to clean up its water supply.

Last summer, Representative Tony Hall, Democrat of Ohio, wrote to then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "about the profound effects of the increasing deterioration of Iraq's water supply and sanitation systems on its children's health." Hall wrote, "The prime killer of children under five years of age--diarrheal diseases--has reached epidemic proportions, and they now strike four times more often than they did in 1990.. . . Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the U.S. government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment. . . . I urge you to weigh your decision against the disease and death that are the unavoidable result of not having safe drinking water and minimum levels of sanitation."

For more than ten years, the United States has deliberately pursued a policy of destroying the water treatment system of Iraq, knowing full well the cost in Iraqi lives. The United Nations has estimated that more than 500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of sanctions, and that 5,000 Iraqi children continue to die every month for this reason.

No one can say that the United States didn't know what it was doing.

See for Yourself

All the DIA documents mentioned in this article were found at the Department of Defense's Gulflink site.

To read or print documents:

1.go to www.gulflink.osd.mil

2.click on "Declassified Documents" on the left side of the front page

3.the next page is entitled "Browse Recently Declassified Documents"

4.click on "search" under "Declassifed Documents" on the left side of that page

5.the next page is entitled "Search Recently Declassified Documents"

6.enter search terms such as "disease information effects of bombing"

7.click on the search button

8.the next page is entitled "Data Sources"

9.click on DIA

10.click on one of the titles

It's not the easiest, best-organized site on the Internet, but I have found the folks at Gulflink to be helpful and responsive. Thomas J. Nagy

Source: http://www.p rogressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html

11/1/01
5:42:56 PM

The Deseration Of Arafat

by Edward Said

Israeli pressure on Palestinians was stepped up even further in the days following the dreadful events of September 11th. Predawn raids were launched on the West Bank towns of Jenin, Jericho and Ramallah, destroying security outposts, government buildings and family homes. In the Beituniya district of Ramallah, shells hit a coffee shop, a mosque and a kindergarten—all perfectly acceptable ‘collateral damage’, and scarcely worth a mention in the Western media. Such Israeli aggression has, after all, been the norm for nearly a year now. Over 600 Palestinians have been killed since the Al- Aqsa Intifada began—four times the number of Israeli deaths; and 15,000 wounded—twelve times more than on the other side. Regular IDF assassinations have picked off alleged terrorists at will, most of the time killing innocents like so many flies. In August, fourteen Palestinians were openly murdered by Israeli troops using helicopter gunships and missiles, to ‘prevent’ them killing Israelis, although at least two children and five bystanders were also slaughtered, to say nothing of many wounded civilians.

Equipped with the latest in American-donated fighter-bombers, helicopter gunships, uncountable tanks and missiles, a superb navy and a state-of-the-art intelligence service, not to speak of its own nuclear weapons, Israel has been grinding down a dispossessed people without any armour or artillery, no air force—its one pathetic airfield in Gaza is controlled by Israel—army or navy, or any of the protective institutions of a modern state. Israel’s cruel confinement of 1.3 million people in the Gaza Strip, jammed like so many human sardines into a tiny pale surrounded by a barbed-wire fence, and of nearly two million in the West Bank—all of whose entrances and exits are controlled by the IDF—has few parallels in the annals of colonialism. Even under apartheid, F-16 jets were never used to bomb African homelands, as they are now sent against Palestinian towns and villages.

Behind this ruthless military pounding lies a longer-term logic. The destruction of Palestinian society which began in 1948, with the expulsion of 68 per cent of its native inhabitants—of whom 4.5 million remain refugees today—has continued through the thirty-four years of occupation since 1967. Decades of daily pressure on a people whose main sin is that they happen to be there, in Israel’s way, have sought to make life impossible for Palestinians, forcing them to give up any resistance, or to leave—as 150,000 have done for Jordan since last year. Community leaders have been jailed and deported by the occupation regime, small businesses crippled by confiscation, farms subject to demolition, universities closed down, students barred from classrooms. No Palestinian farmer or entrepreneur can export their goods directly to any Arab country—their products must pass through Israel, just as taxes are paid to Israel. In a word, the aim has been, as the American researcher Sara Roy has named it, to de-develop Palestinian society.

Today, divided into about 63 non-contiguous cantons, punctuated by 140 Jewish settlements with their own road network banned to Arabs, Palestinians have been reduced to mass unemployment—60 per cent are jobless—and penury. Half the population of Gaza and the West Bank live on less than $2 a day. They cannot travel freely from one place to the next within the occupied territories but must endure long lines at Israeli checkpoints, which regularly detain and humiliate the elderly, the sick, the student and the cleric for hours on end. Some 150,000 of their olive and citrus trees have been punitively uprooted; 2,000 of their houses demolished; wide swathes of their land either expropriated for the implantation of more settlers—there are currently about 400,000—or destroyed for military purposes.

As for the Oslo ‘peace process’ that began in 1993, it has simply re-packaged the occupation, offering a token 18 per cent of the lands seized in 1967 to the corrupt Vichy-like Authority of Arafat, whose mandate has essentially been to police and tax his people on Israel’s behalf. After eight fruitless, immiserating years of further ‘negotiations’, orchestrated by a team of US functionaries which has included such former lobby staffers for Israel as Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross, more abuses, more settlements, more imprisonments, more suffering have been inflicted on the Palestinians—including, since August 2001, a ‘Judaized’ East Jerusalem, with Orient House grabbed and its contents carted off: invaluable records, land deeds, maps, which Israel has simply stolen, as it did PLO archives from Beirut in 1982. Such has been the upshot to date of Ariel Sharon’s gratuitously arrogant visit to Jerusalem’s Haram Al-Sharif on 28 September 2000, surrounded by 1,000 soldiers and guards supplied by Ehud Barak—an action unanimously condemned even by the Security Council. Within a few hours, as the merest child could have predicted, anti-colonial rebellion broke out—with eight Palestinians shot dead as its first victims.

Sharon’s ‘restraint’

A few months later Sharon was swept to power essentially to ‘subdue’ the Palestinians—to teach them a lesson, or get rid of them. His record as an Arab-killer goes back 30 years, before the Sabra and Shatila massacres that his forces supervised in 1982, and for which he has now been indicted in a Belgian court. But he is no fool. With every Palestinian act of resistance, his forces ratchet up the pressure a notch higher, tightening the siege, taking more land, cutting off further supplies, launching deeper incursions into Palestinian towns like Jenin and Ramallah, making life more intolerable for the victims of the occupation—while with each turn of the ratchet, his propaganda machine explains that Israel is merely ‘defending’ itself, ‘securing’ areas and ‘re-establishing control’, with the sole aim of ‘preventing terrorism’. Sharon and his minions even attack Arafat as an ‘arch- terrorist’, although he literally cannot move without Israeli permission, in the same breath that they explain ‘we’ have no quarrel with the Palestinian people. What a boon for that people! With such ‘restraint’, why should a full-scale invasion, carefully bruited about to intimidate the Palestinians, be necessary?

In the United States, where Israel has its main political base and from which it has received over $92 billion in aid since 1967, Palestinian victims remain nameless and faceless, barely rating a mention on national news programmes. Matters are different with the Jewish dead. The terrible human cost of the suicide bombings in Haifa or Jerusalem settled quickly into a familiar explanatory framework. Arafat hadn’t done enough to control his terrorists; their hatred threatens incalculable harm to ‘us’ and our strongest ally; Israel must firmly defend its security. Thoughtful observers will add: these people have been fighting tiresomely for thousands of years anyway; there has been too much suffering on both sides, and the violence must be stopped; although the way Palestinians send their children into battle is yet another sign of how much Israel has to put up with. So, exasperated but still restrained, Israel invaded unfortified Jenin with bulldozers and tanks. In America, Israel has so far won the public relations war that it might seem scarcely necessary for it to put several more million dollars into a media campaign—using ‘stars’ like Zubin Mehta, Itzhak Perlman and Amos Oz—to further improve its image.

A major debate on American television this August between Palestinian Authority minister Nabil Shaath and the new Labour leader Avraham Burg, Speaker of the Knesset, confirmed the pattern—and demonstrated, yet again, the inability of the Authority and its spokesmen and women to speak up for the Palestinian people. Burg could smugly enunciate one brazen falsehood after another: that Israel has always wanted peace; that Israel is striving to remain calm while Palestinian terrorists—encouraged by the Authority and Arafat, who controls everything—threaten Israeli children with brutal murder; that, as a democrat and peace lover, he was concerned there was no real Palestinian peace camp; that the only difference between Shaath and himself was that he, Burg, was able to exert a restraining influence on Sharon while Shaath could exercise none on Arafat. All making the point, in classic propaganda style—a lie will be believed if it is repeated often enough—that it is Israel that is victimized by the Palestinians. Shaath could only respond with cringing servility to this farrago of lies, plaintively repeating that the Palestinians also want peace; that they long for the return of Oslo; that they are trying to be restrained; that they treat as scripture the AIPAC- sponsored Mitchell Report (whose main authors, Warren Rudman and Mitchell himself, were among the highest paid members of the Israeli lobby during their Senate careers).

Given the precious opportunity to deal with a sanctimonious thug like Burg, why is it that spokespeople like Shaath, Abed Rabbo, Erekat, Ashrawi and rest are not capable of simply reminding him that Israel is daily indulging in war crimes? Of pointing out the fact that literally millions of people are unable to travel, to buy food, to get health care? That hundreds of people have been killed, thousands of houses demolished, tens of thousands of trees uprooted, vast acres of land confiscated, that settlements continue—and all this during a ‘peace process’? Could they not once speak as human beings, rather than third-rate imitations of Kissinger and Rabin? Even a normally reliable spokesman like Ghassan Khatib seems to have been infected with the virus. Of course it is necessary to respond to questions about truces, agreements and so forth; but are these people so remote from the daily horror of Palestinian life that they cannot even mention it? The reply to questions about the Mitchell Report or the Powell visit has to make the basic point: so long as there is a military occupation of Palestine by Israel, there can never be peace. The overwhelming majority of the violence—tanks, planes, missiles, checkpoints, settlements, soldiers—comes from the Israeli side.

Arafat’s derelictions

Yet as the Israeli noose tightens around the Palestinians, Arafat is still hoping that the Americans will rescue him and his crumbling regime. Now more than ever, he and his coterie continue to beg for American protection. The Palestinian people deserve better. We have to say clearly that with Arafat and company in command, there is no hope. What kind of a leader is this, who has spent the last year grotesquely fetching up in the Vatican and Lagos and other miscellaneous places, pleading without dignity or even intelligence for imaginary observers, Arab aid, international support, instead of staying with his people, and trying to aid them with medical supplies, practical organization and real leadership? What the Palestinians need are leaders who are really with and of their people, who are actually doing the resisting on the ground, not fat cigar-chomping bureaucrats bent on preserving their business deals and renewing their VIP passes, who have lost all trace of decency or credibility.

Arafat is finished. Why don’t we admit that he can neither lead, nor plan, nor take a single step that makes any difference except to him and his Oslo cronies who have benefited materially from their people’s misery? All the polls show that his presence blocks whatever forward movement might be possible. We need a united leadership capable of thinking, planning and taking decisions, rather than grovelling before the Pope or George Bush while the Israelis kill his people with impunity. True leaders of a resistance movement respond to popular needs, reflect the realities on the ground, and expose themselves to the same dangers and difficulties as everyone else. The struggle for liberation from Israeli occupation is where every Palestinian worth anything now stands. Oslo cannot be warmed over or resuscitated as Arafat and company would like. What is required now are mass actions designed to press on with resistance and liberation, rather than confusing people with talk of a return to Oslo—who can believe the folly of that idea?—or the stupid Mitchell Plan.

What of Israel, stuck in a futureless campaign, flailing about mercilessly? As the Irish poet and critic, James Cousins, said in 1925: any colonial power will be in the grip of ‘false and selfish preoccupations that stand in the way of its attention to the natural evolution of its own national genius, and pull[ed] from the path of open rectitude into the twisted byways of dishonest thought, speech and action, in the artificial defence of a false position.’ All colonisers have gone that way, learning or stopping at nothing, until at last—as Israel turned tail from its twenty-two year occupation of Southern Lebanon—they exit the territory, leaving behind an exhausted and crippled people. If the Zionist enterprise was supposed to fulfil Jewish aspirations, why did it require so many new victims from another people who had nothing to do with Jewish exile and persecution in the first place?

Behind the braggadocio and savagery of Sharon’s government, Israeli self-confidence has been falling. True believers in Zionism in the original sense seem to be fewer and fewer. An authoritative Israeli observer has summed up the current scene: ‘Zionism has become no more than an affair of politicking apparatuses and slogans . . . Zionism today? An ideological bric-a-brac where anyone, right, left or centre, secular, traditionalist or integrist, can find something to justify their passions of the moment. Israel has well and truly entered the post-Zionist era’. [1] Naturally, that does not mean a sudden enlightenment has descended on Israeli public opinion. The slow modification of Zionist faith in its original form, as a genuine salvationist nationalism, has often left behind something worse—a sub-ideological racism, filled with hostility and contempt for Arabs. But this sump of prejudices, gathering beneath the hollowed- out, decaying trunk of official doctrines, is much less easy to trumpet round the world as a mission statement of Israel’s existence than the original Zionist message. Those who think that Israel’s international position is as strong as ever, as Perry Anderson has argued in this journal, are greatly mistaken. [2] However relentlessly biased the editorial or opinion pages of the leading American—or, to a somewhat lesser extent, European—press, not to speak of newscasts, may be, the days when the legitimacy of the Palestinian right to national sovereignty could be completely ignored have passed. Many ordinary Europeans and Americans no longer accept the notion that Israel enjoys some special moral status, which makes its policies of dispossession and assassination pardonable. The occupying power still has its imperial protectors abroad. But in the court of world opinion it has grown more isolated, and Israelis know it.

That is what explains the desperate expedients to which its friends in the United States have resorted, as they thrash about in search of a way to extricate Israel from the impasse of its attempts to suppress the new Intifida. Edward Luttwak, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, exulted in ‘the display of uniquely advanced military capabilities’ by Israel that allowed the IDF to decapitate Mustafa Zibri in Ramallah and murder scores more Palestinian leaders at will. [3] Graham Fuller, former Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA, urged the construction—literally—of a Berlin Wall round the occupied territories, patrolled from within by ‘international forces’, to incarcerate the Palestinians. [4] Thomas Friedman, star columnist of the New York Times, opined that ‘the only solution may be for Israel and the US [sic] to invite NATO to occupy the West Bank and Gaza and set up a NATO-run Palestinian state, à la Kosovo and Bosnia’. [5] What all these brutal and senseless schemes betrayed was a fear that Israel was losing. A real Palestinian leadership would have known how to expose this. The appalling events of September 11th, however, will now doubtless reconfigure the political geography of the Muslim and Arab worlds in unforeseen and dangerous new ways—for all concerned.

17 September 2001

[1] Elie Barnavi, ‘Sionismes’, in Elie Barnavi and Saul Friedlander, Les Juifs et le XXe siècle, Paris 2000, pp. 229–30.

[2] Perry Anderson, ‘Scurrying towards Bethlehem’, NLR 10, July–August 2001.

[3] ‘Israel’s Retaliation is on Target’, Los Angeles Times, 30 August 2001.

[4] ‘Build a Berlin Wall in the Middle East’, Los Angeles Times, 14 August 2001.

[5] ‘A Way Out of the Middle East Impasse’, New York Times, 24 August 2001.

Source: http://www.newleftr eview.net/NLR24502.shtml

11/1/01
5:38:53 PM

Mistake To Declare This A 'War'

by Sir Michael Howard

Sir Michael Howard, the eminent historian, has delivered a brilliant analysis of the terrorist crisis -and an indictment of its handling - which is likely to prove highly influential in this country and abroad.

Here is his speech in full:

"When in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Center the American Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that America was 'at war', he made a very natural but a terrible and irrevocable error. Leaders of the Administration have been trying to put it right ever since.

"What Colin Powell said made sense if one uses the term 'war' in the sense of war against crime or against drug-trafficking: that is, the mobilisation of all available resources against a dangerous anti-social activity; one that can never be entirely eliminated but can be reduced to, and kept at, a level that does not threaten social stability.

"The British in their time have fought many such 'wars'; in Palestine, in Ireland, in Cyprus and in Malaya, to mention only a few. But we never called them 'wars': we called them 'emergencies'. This meant that the police and intelligence services were provided with exceptional powers, and were reinforced where necessary by the armed forces, but all continued to operate within a peacetime framework of civil authority. If force had to be used, it was at a minimal level and so far as possible did not interrupt the normal tenor of civil life. The object was to isolate the terrorists from the rest of the community, and to cut them off from external sources of supply. They were not dignified with the status of belligerents: they were criminals, to be regarded as such by the general public and treated as such by the authorities.

"To 'declare war' on terrorists, or even more illiterately, on 'terrorism' is at once to accord them a status and dignity that they seek and which they do not deserve. It confers on them a kind of legitimacy. Do they qualify as 'belligerents' ? If so, should they not receive the protection of the laws of war? This was something that Irish terrorists always demanded, and was quite properly refused. But their demands helped to muddy the waters, and were given wide credence among their supporters in the United States.

"But to use, or rather to misuse the term 'war' is not simply a matter of legality, or pedantic semantics. It has deeper and more dangerous consequences. To declare that one is 'at war' is immediately to create a war psychosis that may be totally counter-productive for the objective that we seek. It will arouse an immediate expectation, and demand, for spectacular military action against some easily identifiable adversary, preferably a hostile state; action leading to decisive results.

"The use of force is no longer seen as a last resort, to be avoided if humanly possible, but as the first, and the sooner it is used the better. The press demands immediate stories of derring-do, filling their pages with pictures of weapons, ingenious graphics, and contributions from service officers long, and probably deservedly, retired. Any suggestion that the best strategy is not to use military force at all, but more subtle if less heroic means of destroying the adversary are dismissed as 'appeasement' by ministers whose knowledge of history is about on a par with their skill at political management.

"Figures on the Right, seeing themselves cheated of what the Germans used to call a frisch, frohliche Krieg, a short, jolly war in Afghanistan, demand one against a more satisfying adversary, Iraq; which is rather like the drunk who lost his watch in a dark alley but looked for it under a lamp post because there was more light there. As for their counterparts on the Left, the very word 'war' brings them out on the streets to protest as a matter of principle. The qualities needed in a serious campaign against terrorists - secrecy, intelligence, political sagacity, quiet ruthlessness, covert actions that remain covert, above all infinite patience - all these are forgotten or overriden in a media-stoked frenzy for immediate results, and nagging complaints if they do not get them.

"All this is what we have been witnessing over the past three or four weeks.

"Could it have been avoided ? Certainly, rather than what President Bush so unfortunately termed 'a crusade against evil', that is, a military campaign conducted by an alliance dominated by the United States, many people would have preferred a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations on behalf of the international community as a whole, against an criminal conspiracy; whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and, if found guilty, awarded an appropriate sentence. In an ideal world that is no doubt what would have happened.

"But we do not live in an ideal world. The destruction of the twin towers and the massacre of several thousand innocent New York office-workers was not seen in the United States as a crime against 'the international community' to be appropriately dealt with by the United Nations; a body for which Americans have little respect when they have heard of it at all. For them it was an outrage against the people of America, one far surpassing in infamy even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Such an insult to their honor was not to be dealt with by a long and meticulous police investigation conducted by international authorities, culminating in an even longer court case in some foreign capital, with sentences that would then no doubt be suspended to allow for further appeals. It cried for immediate and spectacular vengeance to be inflicted by their own armed forces .

"And who can blame them ? In their position we would have felt exactly the same. The courage and wisdom of President Bush in resisting the call for a strategy of vendetta has been admirable, but the pressure is still there, both within and beyond the Administration. It is a demand that can be satisfied only by military action - if possible rapid and decisive military action. There must be catharsis: the blood of five thousand innocent civilians demands it.

"Again, President Bush deserves enormous credit for his attempt to implement the alternative paradigm. He has abjured unilateral action. He has sought, and received, a United Nations mandate. He has built up an amazingly wide-ranging coalition that truly does embody 'the international community' so far as such an entity exists.

"Within a matter of days, almost, the United States has turned its back on the unilateralism and isolationism towards which it seemed to be steering, and resumed its former position as leader of a world community far more extensive than the so-called 'free world' of the old Cold War. Almost equally important, the President and his colleagues have done their best to explain to the American people that this will be a war unlike any other, and they must adjust their expectations accordingly. But it is still a war. The 'w' word has been used, and now cannot be withdrawn; and its use has brought inevitable and irresistible pressure to use military force as soon, and as decisively as possible.

"Now a struggle against terrorism, as we have discovered over the past century and not least in Northern Ireland, is unlike a war against drugs or a war against crime in one vital respect. It is fundamentally a 'battle for hearts and minds'; and it is worth remembering that that phrase was first coined in the context of the most successful campaign of the kind that the British Armed Forces have ever fought - the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s (a campaign incidentally that it took some fifteen years to bring to an end). Without hearts and minds one cannot obtain intelligence, and without intelligence terrorists can never be defeated.

"There is not much of a constituency for criminals or drug-traffickers, and in a campaign against them the government can be reasonably certain that the mass of the public will be on its side. But as we all know, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Terrorists can be successfully destroyed only if public opinion, both at home and abroad, supports the authorities in regarding them as criminals rather than heroes.

"In the intricate game of skill played between terrorists and the authorities, as we discovered in both Palestine and Ireland, the terrorists have already won an important battle if they can provoke the authorities into using overt armed force against them. They will then be in a win-win situation. Either they will escape to fight another day, or they will be defeated and celebrated as martyrs. In the process of fighting them a lot of innocent civilians will certainly be hurt, which will further erode the moral authority of the government.

"Who here will ever forget Black Sunday in Northern Ireland , when a few salvos of small-arms fire by the British Army gave the IRA a propaganda victory from which the British government was never to recover ? And if so much harm can be done by rifle fire, what is one to say about bombing ? I can only suggest that it is like trying to eradicate cancer cells with a blow-torch. Whatever its military justification, the bombing of Afghanistan, with the inevitable 'collateral damage' it causes, will gradually whittle away the immense moral ascendancy that we enjoyed as a result of the bombing of the World Trade Center.

"I hate having to say this, but in six months time for much of the world that atrocity will be, if not forgotten, then remembered only as history; while every fresh picture on television of a hospital hit , or children crippled by land-mines, or refugees driven from their homes by western military action, will strengthen the hatred of our adversaries, recruit the ranks of the terrorists and sow fresh doubts in the minds of our supporters.

"I have little doubt that the campaign in Afghanistan was undertaken only on the best available political and military advice, in full realization of its military difficulties and political dangers, and in the sincere belief that there was no alternative. It was, as the Americans so nicely put it, an AOS situation: 'All Options Stink'. But in compelling us to undertake it at all, the terrorists had taken the first and all-important trick.

"I can also understand the military reasoning that drives the campaign. It is based on the political assumption that the terrorist network must be destroyed as quickly as possible before it can do any more damage. It further assumes that the network is master-minded by a single evil genius, Osmana bin Laden, whose elimination will demoralise if not destroy his organisation. Bin Laden operates out of a country whose rulers refuse to yield him up to the forces of international justice. Those rulers must be compelled to change their minds. The quickest way to break their will is by aerial bombardment, especially since a physical invasion of their territory presents such huge if not insoluble logistical problems. Given these assumptions, what alternative did we have ?

"But the best reasoning, and the most flawless logic, is of little value if it starts from false assumptions. I have no doubt that voices were raised both in Washington and in Whitehall questioning the need and pointing out the dangers of immediate military action; but if they were, they were at once drowned out by the thunderous political imperative: Something Must be Done. The same voices no doubt also questioned the wisdom, if not the accuracy, of identifying bin Laden as the central and indispensable a figure in the terrorist network; demonising him for some people, but for others giving him the heroic status enjoyed by 'freedom-fighters' throughout the ages.

"We are now in a horrible dilemma. If we 'bring him to justice' and put him on trial we will provide him with a platform for global propaganda. If we assassinate him -perhaps 'shot while trying to escape' - he will be a martyr. If he escapes he will be a Robin Hood. He can't lose. And even if he is eliminated, it is hard to believe that a global network that apparently consisting of people as intelligent and well- educated as they are dedicated and ruthless will not continue to function effectively until they are traced and dug out by patient and long-term operations of police and intelligence forces, whose activities will not, and certainly should not, hit the headlines. Such a process that , as the Chief of the Defence Staff rightly pointed out, may well take decades.

"Now that the operation has begun it must be pressed to a successful conclusion; successful enough for us to be able to disengage with a reasonable amount of honour and for the benefit of the tabloid headlines to claim 'victory' (though the very demand for 'victory' and the sub-Churchillian rhetoric that accompanies it shows how profoundly press and politicians still misunderstand the nature of the problem that confronts us.) Only after we have done that will it be possible to continue with the real struggle that I have described above; one in which there will be no spectacular battles, and no clear victory.

"Sir Michael Boyce's analogy with the Cold War is valuable in another respect. Not only did it go on for a very long time: it had to be kept cold. There was a constant danger that it would be inadvertently toppled into a hot nuclear war, which everyone would catastrophically lose. The danger of nuclear war, at least on a global scale, has now thank God ebbed, if only for the moment, but it has been replaced by another, and one no less alarming; the likelihood of an on-going and continuous confrontation of cultures, that will not only divide the world but shatter the internal cohesion of our increasingly multi-cultural societies. And the longer the overt war continues against 'terrorism', in Afghanistan or anywhere else, the greater is the danger of that happening.

"There is no reason to suppose that Osmana bin Laden enjoys any more sympathy in the Islamic world than , say, Ian Paisley does in that of Christendom. He is a phenomenon which has cropped up several times in our history - a charismatic religious leader fanatically hostile to the West leading a cult that has sometimes gripped an entire nation. There was the Mahdi in the Sudan in the late nineteenth century, and the so-called 'Mad Mullah' in Somaliland in the early twentieth. Admittedly they presented purely local problems, although a substantial proportion of the British Army had to be mobilised to deal with the Mahdi and his followers.

"The difference today is that such leaders can recruit followers from all over the world, and can strike back anywhere in the world They are neither representative of Islam nor approved by Islam, but the roots of their appeal lies in a peculiarly Islamic predicament that has only intensified over the last half of the twentieth century : the challenge to Islamic culture and values posed by the secular and materialistic culture of the West, and their inability to come to terms with it.

"This is a vast subject on which I have few qualifications to speak, but which we must understand if we are to have any hope, not so much of 'winning' the new 'Cold War', but of preventing it from becoming hot.

"In retrospect, it is quite astonishing how little we have understood, or empathised with, the huge crisis that has faced that vast and populous section of the world stretching from the Mahgreb through the Middle East and central Asia into South and South-East Asia and beyond to the Philippines: overpopulated, underdeveloped, being dragged headlong by the West into the post-modern age before they have come to terms with modernity. This is not a problem of poverty as against wealth, and I am afraid that it is symptomatic of our western materialism to suppose that it is. It is the far more profound and intractable confrontation between a theistic, land-based and traditional culture, in places little different from the Europe of the Middle Ages, and the secular material values of the Enlightenment .

"I would like to think that , thanks to our imperial experience, the British understand these problems - or we certainly ought to - better than many others. So, perhaps even more so, do our neighbours the French. But for most Americans it must be said that Islam remains one vast terra incognita - and one, like all such blank areas on medieval maps, inhabited very largely by dragons.

"This is the region where we have to wage the struggle for hearts and minds and win it if the struggle against terrorism is to succeed. The front line in the struggle is not Afghanistan. It is in the Islamic states where modernising governments are threatened by a traditionalist backlash: Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, to name only the most obvious. And as we know very well, the front line also runs through our own streets. For these people the events of September 11th were terrible, but they happened a long way away and in another world. Those whose sufferings as a result of western air raids or of Israeli incursions are nightly depicted on television are people, however geographically distant, with whom they can easily identify.

"That is why prolongation of the war is likely to be so disastrous. Even more disastrous would be its extension, as American opinion seems increasingly to demand, in a 'Long March' through other 'rogue states' beginning with Iraq, in order to eradicate terrorism for good and all so that the world can live at peace. I can think of no policy more likely, not only to indefinitely prolong the war, but to ensure that we can never win it.

"I understand that this afternoon, perhaps at this very moment, the Prime Minister is making a speech exhorting the British People to keep their nerve. It is no less important that we should keep our heads.

Sir Michael was speaking to the Royal United Services Institute

http://www.thisislondon.com/dyna mic/news/story.html?in_review_id=470295&in_review_text_id=424158

Source: http://www.zmag.org/hidden pilger.htm

11/1/01
5:25:06 PM

Perceiving The Situation

by Michael Albert

Beyond Bush and his ilk predictably trying to use calamity to propel their reactionary agendas on every front they can, from repressive legislation about eavesdropping, to military expansion, and even to tax policy -- it is certainly also true and must be faced that many citizens are in a violent mood, suggesting all kinds of anti-civilian acts. So many that it feels overwhelming.

But how many U.S. citizens who are advocating bombings realize that the people of Afghanistan already live in a horrendously war-torn country, made virtually rubble from its war with Russia? How many understand that hunger and the danger of starvation for Afghanistan is so great that a misstep at this juncture – for example, cutting off all outside food aid, even without bombs – could cause not thousands but literally millions of innocent deaths by starvation? Not many of our citizens, is my guess. When such information is conveyed, how many will hold to the vengeful stance? When it becomes evident that vengeance by assault on civilians is precisely terrorism, that assault on civilians for political purposes is precisely terrorism, how many will want to hold to warring indiscriminately, to being a terrorist? One wonders how many of those working at Ground Zero in NYC would wish military devastation on innocent civilians in another country. Not many, if any, is my guess.

But what is even more promising, is that even in a moment of great pain and mourning, even at a time of national rallying, even when all public pressures cry for war, even before there has been opportunity to counter media madness and government manipulation with valid argument and evidence, even now many and probably most people are already wondering at least somewhat about the wisdom of Bush’s stance, and are even contemplating such unspeakable conclusions as that the cure for terrorism is not more and even greater terrorism, and that the cure for fanaticism is not to dispense with civil liberties.

I think there may be a tendency afoot among many activists, totally understandable, to see the great outpourings of nationalism and to be pessimistic beyond what evidence warrants. Yes, the events have been horrible in their immediate impact, of course. And yes the hypocritical willingness of Bush and others to try to parlay pain into more suffering in different forms, and even into more terror, has been stunning and terrifying. But there are good signs too – not solely in the humanity of the massive outpourings of sympathy, but also in the opposition to race hatred against Arabs that has erupted as quickly and perhaps more pervasively than the reverse, and in the almost instantaneous emergence of both reason and activism regarding war prospects.

Thus I want to share with you information from a communication from Portland Oregon. The letter writer communicates that:

“Today we had an anti-war demo in Portland. Like so many of you have expressed, I too have felt that we are heading into a very dark time for activism, no less radical politics.

“Now, Portland has seen a fair amount of activism lately - events large (1500+ for this year's May Day march, which had a permit taken out by the City Council because organizers refused to get one and the city didn't want to arrest everyone) and small (40 radical activists and union brothers and sisters shutting down the Port of Portland and delaying the offloading of an Italian vessel in protest of the G8 police rioting, a picket line which the longshoremen refused to cross, setting off similar actions as that ship proceeded along the west coast).

“I say all that for context, because I reckon things are a bit "better" here for that sort of activism than in many other communities around the country.

“Having said that, this was the largest demonstration I've been to in Portland since the Gulf War! Organizers were able to do a pretty good count as we were walking along a narrow area, and there were at least 2600 people there to speak against the incessant beating of the war drums.

“Nobody could believe it. Everyone (strangers I talked to, acquaintances I talked to) had been feeling very isolated and had taken on a very bleak attitude about the future of `the left.’

“We marched in the streets without a permit, spanning 12 or more blocks. There were no police anywhere to be seen. “This caused some problems, in that they *do* tend to be helpful with traffic control. Ah, well... we did ok without 'em on that one too, a few irate drivers notwithstanding :-)

“Well, 2600 isn't enough to stop the impending war, but it's a far bigger start than anyone expected. All is not lost! Let's not let our gloomy perspectives of the moment, (which are perfectly understandable as we watch the manufacture of consent occur before our very eyes, at breakneck speed) let's not let that gloom turn our very rational fears into a self-fulfilling prophesy.

“Afterward, I went to a `vigil’ organized by the Christian Coalition :-( This occurred in the main `public’ square in town (semi- privately owned and operated). There were fewer people at this one, but not by much. The creepy rhetoric of right-wing Christianity was toned down, but not by much. At least it was toned down though. We were there mostly in case of needing to protect any victims of the racism seething beneath the surface.

“I stood amidst the sea of American flags, amidst the `rousing’ renditions of the great patriotic hits, holding a `Jingoism Hurts America’ sign. I got into some rather interesting conversations with people who wanted to know what jingoism meant. I described it as a form of rhetoric using a chauvinistic patriotism to justify an arrogant and belligerent foreign policy. Some nodded and walked away, but many lingered to discuss. My friends and I were only too happy to oblige :-) With some sensitivity, it is possible to clue people in on the activities of the CIA in the overthrow of democratic governments, the institution of autocratic regimes such as the Taliban, and the creation of Osama bin Laden himself.

“I couldn't believe the conversations! Who knows if we did anything. Anyhow, it's not necessarily doom and gloom -let's get back out there and be visible, now!

I got the above letter without a return email address for its author. But here is my reply…Yes, you did something. You did precisely what we all need to be doing. You went out and worked for peace and justice, and you did it without fear and without arrogance, and without presuppositions. And you showed, in the process, what the potential is of such work.

Source: http://www.zmag.org/perceivi ng.htm

11/1/01
5:11:02 PM

FBI's Release Of Names Criticized

Information called premature as aliases tangle worldwide probe

by Michelle Mittelstadt, The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON – The FBI's terrorism investigation came under fire Thursday over growing indications that the agency may have been too quick to say it knew who the suicide hijackers were.

Several of those who commandeered jetliners last week apparently assumed the names of other Middle Easterners, according to information coming from the United States, Saudi Arabia and beyond.

Last Friday, the Justice Department released the names of 19 people that it said had crashed four jetliners in the eastern United States. FBI Director Robert Mueller said at the time that he was fairly confident the names were not aliases, though he cautioned that investigators were still gathering information.

But Thursday, he sounded less confident.

"We have several hijackers whose identities were those of the names" on airline passenger lists, he said. "We have several others that are still in question."

Those doubts threaten to further complicate a worldwide investigation that already has dozens of suspects and thousands of law officers chasing leads. There may be no way to verify some hijackers' identities because their bodies were destroyed in the plane crashes.

Identity theft or use of fraudulent documents "would make the investigation that much more difficult," said Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy Tucker. "How much more, I don't know."

Those criticizing the U.S. investigation include Saudi Arabian officials, whose cooperation the Bush administration needs in preparing for strikes against prime suspect Osama bin Laden.

In Washington, the Saudi Embassy said it had confirmed that at least two of the hijackers were using the identities of Saudis whose passports were stolen years ago. U.S. officials did not back that assertion, but Denver police did say that they took a passport-theft report in 1995 from a man whose name was the same as one on the FBI's list of 19.

The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, was at the White House on Thursday and was asked afterward about the Saudi names on the FBI's list.

He responded that at least five of those named "had no connection at all with what happened. ... Our hope is that there would be an effort to make sure before information like that is published."

Earlier, a Saudi Foreign Ministry diplomat, Ahmed Alshehri, complained to the Saudi newspaper Al-Medina of an "obvious American haphazardness in throwing accusations at innocent people," saying that "many of those mentioned as suspects appeared to be still around."

Mr. Alshehri's son is a pilot whose name is the same as that of a pilot on the list released by the FBI last week, Al-Medina said. According to The Associated Press, Al-Medina said it had interviewed the son since the attacks and that he believed he had been slandered in the United States.

Attempts by the AP to interview Saudis who say they were named as suicide hijackers have failed, reportedly because they have been instructed by Saudi authorities not to talk to the media. That prohibition apparently does not apply to the Saudi press, which is closely monitored by the government.

Other threads in the tangled identity web:

• In Egypt, the father of another man identified as a dead hijacker has said he recognized his son from photographs in newspapers – but insisted that he had spoken to him after the attacks took place.

• In India, police officials said that both men arrested last week on a train in Fort Worth had obtained passports with false information. They have been identified by U.S. authorities as Ayub Ali Khan, 51, and Mohammed Jaweed Azmath, 47. Indian police said they actually are, respectively, Gul Mohammed Shah, 32, and Mohammed Jaweed Azmat, also 32.

Both remained jailed on material-witness warrants in connection with the terrorism investigation. They were arrested with box cutters – the type of weapon used by some hijackers – plus hair dye and thousands of dollars in cash.

• One man identified by the FBI last week as a dead hijacker was listed as alive on an alert this week asking banks to check for suspects' financial transactions.

Men previously listed as dead remain on the FBI's lengthy "watch list" of people wanted for questioning – which hasn't been made public – because so many identities remain murky, one federal official said. "We're not taking any names off the list," the official said.

A copy of the watch list obtained by The Dallas Morning News includes at least 18 people whose names were identical or very similar to those listed in federal records as having aviation experience. Among the 18 were names apparently matching those of people who work for the Saudi national airline. The airline's pilots routinely train at a Florida flight school.

Immigration experts say that using a Saudi identity would have helped terrorists get into the country relatively easily. That country has far better relations with the United States than most others in the Middle East.

Dr. Richard H. Ward, dean of Sam Houston State University's College of Criminal Justice, said identity theft is relatively easy and is "one of the largest-growing crime problems."

Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors are trained to "pick up any type of forged document or something that's counterfeited," spokeswoman Kimberly Weissman said. But some criminals have been able to avoid doctoring paperwork by purchasing passports or visas with false information from corrupt officials, Dr. Ward said.

Hussein Ibish, with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in Washington, said he was troubled by reports that the hijackers may have been using other people's names.

"First of all, it makes the conspiracy even larger and more complex, as if it wasn't complex enough," he said. "And obviously, when people are accused of having been involved in this, life becomes difficult for them as well as their relatives."

Eric E. Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a think tank that studies a variety of law enforcement issues, said the public release of reputed hijacker names has given the FBI "another black eye" and undermined the bureau's credibility at a critical time.

"I was very pleasantly surprised that they appeared to have the names of the hijackers so quickly," said Mr. Sterling. "My reaction was, 'Wow, this is an impressive piece of police work.' Now that it has to be accompanied by a big 'oops' is very disappointing."

FBI officials didn't respond directly to the criticism Thursday. But one member of the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI suggested that the early release of names may have been a calculated tactic.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said that the release could draw out people who may have known the men by their aliases. And it could bring forth leads from people whose identities had been stolen.

"I think, because of the exigent circumstances, that this was by far the quickest way to get the information out," he said.

Staff writers Jim Landers in Washington and Todd Bensman, Lee Hancock, Ed Timms and Diane Jennings in Dallas contributed to this report, as did The Associated Press.

http://www.dallasnews.com/attack_on_america/stories/47 6435_probe_21met.AR.html

11/1/01
5:01:32 PM

What Muslim Would Write: 'The time of fun and waste is gone'?

by Robert Fisk

Fearful, chilling, grot-esque – but also very, very odd. If the handwritten, five-page document which the FBI says it found in the baggage of Mohamed Atta, the suicide bomber from Egypt, is genuine, then the men who murdered more than 7,000 innocent people believed in a very exclusive version of Islam – or were surprisingly unfamiliar with their religion.

"The time of Fun and waste is gone,'' Atta, or one of his associates, is reported to have written in the note. "Be optimistic ... Check all your items – your bag, your clothes, your knives, your will, your IDs, your passport ... In the morning, try to pray the morning prayer with an open heart.''

Part theological, part mission statement, the document – extracts from which were published in The Washington Post yesterday – raises more questions than it answers.

Under the heading of "Last Night'' – presumably the night of 10 September – the writer tells his fellow hijackers to "remind yourself that in this night you will face many challenges. But you have to face them and understand it 100 per cent ... Obey God, his messenger, and don't fight among yourself [sic] where [sic] you become weak ... Everybody hates death, fears death..."

The document begins with the words: "In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate ... In the name of God, of myself, and of my family.''

The problem is that no Muslim – however ill-taught – would include his family in such a prayer. Indeed, he would mention the Prophet Mohamed immediately after he mentioned God in the first line. Lebanese and Palestinian suicide bombers have never been known to refer to "the time of fun and waste'' – because a true Muslim would not have "wasted'' his time and would regard pleasure as a reward of the after-life.

And what Muslim would urge his fellow believers to recite the morning prayer – and then go on to quote from it? A devout Muslim would not need to be reminded of his duty to say the first of the five prayers of the day – and would certainly not need to be reminded of the text. It is as if a Christian, urging his followers to recite the Lord's Prayer, felt it necessary to read the whole prayer in case they didn't remember it.

American scholars have already raised questions about the use of "100 per cent'' – hardly a theological term to be found in a religious exhortation – and the use of the word "optimistic'' with reference to the Prophet is a decidedly modern word.

However, the full and original Arabic text has not been released by the FBI. The translation, as it stands, suggests an almost Christian view of what the hijackers might have felt – asking to be forgiven their sins, explaining that fear of death is natural, that "a believer is always plagued with problems''.

A Muslim is encouraged not to fear death – it is, after all, the moment when he or she believes they will start a new life – and a believer in the Islamic world is one who is certain of his path, not "plagued with problems''.

There are no references to any of Osama bin Laden's demands – for an American withdrawal from the Gulf, an end to Israeli occupation, the overthrow of pro-American Arab regimes – nor any narrative context for the atrocities about to be committed. If the men had an aspiration – and if the document is above suspicion – then they were sending their message direct to their God.

The prayer/instructions may have been distributed to other hijackers before the massacres occurred – The Washington Post says the FBI found another copy of "essentially the same document'' in the wreckage of the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania. No text of this document has been released.

In the past, CIA translators have turned out to be Lebanese Maronite Christians whose understanding of Islam and its prayers may have led to serious textual errors. Could this be to blame for the weird references in the note found in Atta's baggage? Or is there something more mysterious about the background of those who committed a crime against humanity in New York and Washington, just over two weeks ago?

From the start, the hole in the story has been the reported behaviour of the hijackers. Atta was said to have been a near-alcoholic, while Ziad Jarrahi, the alleged Lebanese hijacker of the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania, had a Turkish girlfriend in Hamburg and enjoyed nightclubs and drinking. Is this why the published text refers to the "forgiveness'' of sin?

The final instruction, "to make sure that you are clean, your clothes are clean, including your shoes,'' may have been intended as a call to purify a "martyr" before death. Equally, it may reflect the thoughts of a truly eccentric – and wicked – mind.

The document found in Atta's baggage ends with a heading: "When you enter the plane". It then urges the hijackers to recite: "Oh God, open all doors for me ... I am asking for your help. I am asking you for forgiveness. I am asking you to lighten my way. I am asking you to lift the burden I feel ...''

Was this an attempt to smother latent feelings of compassion towards the passengers on the hijacked planes – who included children among them – or towards the thousands who would die when the aircraft crashed? Did the 19 suicide bombers say these words to themselves in their last moments?

Or didn't they need to.

Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=96697

11/1/01
4:54:21 PM

A NEW CROP FOR FARMERS

Harvesting the Heavens

by Patrick Mazza

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in the Earth Island Journal. It is excerpted from the Climate Solutions report, "Wind: Harvesting Clean Energy for Rural Development."

The windmill, much as the farmhouse or barn, is a signature of the traditional rural landscape. Wind was a prime farm energy source before rural electrification and gasoline-powered water pumps. Now the wheel has come full turn, and wind is again providing vital support for rural communities -- this time as a generator of electricity for sale to energy-hungry cities and industries.

From Germany and Denmark to Minnesota and Iowa, and now in the Pacific Northwest, capturing the energy in air blowing above the land is emerging as a new economic enterprise often far more profitable than growing crops on the land.

Landowners who lease their land to wind-plant developers typically earn $1,500 to $2,000 annually for thirty years for each large-scale wind turbine on their land. Depending on the site, a thousand-acre farm can easily accommodate ten turbines, since each turbine takes around one-half acre to two acres out of crop production (mostly for access roads). Outside of that relatively small footprint, farm operations continue as usual. With earnings on many major farm commodities running $100 per acre or less, the attraction of harvesting the wind is obvious.

"Corn prices have been so low in recent years that farmers are making maybe $50 an acre," notes David Osterberg, a former Iowa legislator. His 1983 bill requiring utilities to derive a certain amount of energy from clean sources eventually led to the 1999 opening of the world's largest windplant, the 193-megawatt Storm Lake, Iowa, facility -- 257 turbines scattered in clusters across more than 100 properties. Each turbine yields around $2,000 annually to landowners.

"I talked to a farmer who makes $8,000 from four wind machines on his land," Osterberg says. "It is so much more money compared with anything else he can do with his land." The extra income helps that farmer employ his son full-time on the farm, an increasing rarity in rural America. "We could easily have ten times the wind energy production we now have in Iowa," Osterberg notes. "That would be another 3,000 of these towers each paying $2,000 apiece."

Seeking to reduce fossil-fuel pollution, governments around the world are promoting wind through research, mandated development, guaranteed markets and financial support. In the U.S., wind developers can take advantage of a federal tax credit of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour generated. But so far, the biggest push for wind energy in the U.S. has come from the state level.

California's tax credits, which served to promote windfarms in the 1980s, have given rise to the modern U.S. windpower industry. Even today, long after those tax credits expired, California remains the nation's leading windpower producer.

In recent years, the center of action has moved to the upper Midwest. Both Iowa and Minnesota now mandate clean energy development targets and major wind installations came on line in both states in 1999.

Now the wind explosion is sweeping the Pacific Northwest. From 20 to 25 percent of U.S. wind energy growth over the coming three years will take place in this region. Driving the development is customer willingness to pay a small premium for environmentally preferable energy. Mostly, "green power" customers are buying windpower, since it is the cheapest clean energy source.

Oregon's first windfarm, the 25-megawatt Vansycle Ridge facility near Pendleton, opened in late 1998. Portland General Electric buys the output for sale to the city of Portland, which has opted to use five-percent clean energy in municipal operations. The 84-megawatt Foote Creek Rim facility in Wyoming, jointly owned by PacifiCorp and the Eugene Water and Electric Board, supplies Pacific's Green Power program.

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) contracts for fifty-one of the megawatts generated at the Wyoming site. BPA has a goal of adding 1,000 megawatts of environmentally preferable power to the Northwest power mix by 2010 -- ten percent of its sales. Northwest agencies -- including Multnomah County, Oregon and the Salem Electric Board -- have committed to making green-power purchases. Through its Northwest Clean Energy Challenge, Climate Solutions and thirteen partner groups are also engaged in a major campaign to build green-power markets in the region.

As in the Midwest, agricultural operators in the Northwest are gaining new income from the wind boom. At Foote Creek, cows graze among turbine towers while landowners earn $140,000 annually in lease payments. On Vansycle Ridge, wheat grows right up to the turbine towers while farmers earn around $2,000 per turbine.

Growing demand is spurring further windplant expansion in the Northwest, so more rural communities and landowners stand to benefit. One Vansycle developer aims to add 300 megawatts along the ridge from Umatilla County to Walla Walla on the Washington side.

Energy Northwest plans a 25-megawatt turbine farm in the Horse Heaven Hills near Kennewick, Washington. San Diego-based Sea-West aims to build 300-500 MW of windpower plants in the Northwest. The company is already moving to build a 25-megawatt plant near Condon in north central Oregon and a 22-megawatt installation on the Blackfoot Reservation in Northwest Montana.

The Blackfoot nation has one of the richest wind resources in the Northwest. This will be the first utility-scale windplant on tribal lands anywhere in the U.S. Developers expect that all of these new Northwest plants will be on line by the end of 2001.

Harvesting the wind "is definitely an economic opportunity" for Northwest rural landowners, says George Darr, who manages the BPA's program to develop renewable energy sources.

Darr recently attended local public hearings in areas slated for the new projects. "The Number One comment was: 'How do I get one of these turbines on my place?'"

Patrick Mazza is a staff writer-researcher for Climate Solutions of Olympia, Washington.

Source: http://www.t ompaine.com/features/2001/02/20/3.html

11/1/01
4:49:13 PM

OUR DECENTRALIZED ENERGY FUTURE

On-Site Power Generation Arrives

by David Morris is author of Seeing the Light: Regaining Control of Our Electricity System, and is Vice President of the Minneapolis and Washington, DC based Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

If Congress wants to stimulate the economy in a way that will have both a short-term and a longiterm positive impact, if it wants to give a gift that will keep on giving, it can do no better than to stimulate on-site, decentralized electricity generation. Technologies are now available that can transform households and businesses and office buildings into electricity producers. A national effort to introduce these technologies will make our energy system more secure. A million power plants make for far less attractive terrorist targets than one giant power plant or one giant transmission line.

Our energy system will be more secure for another reason. More than 90 percent of proposed power plants will be fueled by natural gas. This burdens our pipelines and potentially, makes us dependent on imported gas and scarce gas reserves. The key problem is that a large central power plant fueled by natural gas, just like a large central power plant fueled by coal or oil or uranium, loses two thirds of the energy burned in the plant as waste heat. Less than a third of the energy consumed in the power plant actually enters our buildings as electricity. On-site power generation, on the other hand, can use the heat produced which can double and even triple overall energy efficiencies.

Our electricity system not only wastes fossil fuels, it wastes renewable fuels. Sufficient sunlight falls on a typical home in the United States to provide all the energy an efficient home needs on a year round basis. That's an enormous wasted resource. Indeed, in many parts of the country black rooftops soak up solar energy which heats up the house in the summer, increasing our demand for electricity for air conditioning. Thus sunlight right now is actually increasing our consumption of fossil fuels. In contrast, solar cells - devices that use sunlight to generate electricity - are now being built into rooftops and the sides of buildings. The price is tumbling. In 1975 a household solar array cost over half-a-million dollars. Today the cost is as low as $10,000.

So what should be done? I say we should launch a Manhattan Project level effort to reduce our vulnerability to terrorist attacks and our reliance on imported fuels by literally and figuratively empowering Americans to become energy producers. In larger buildings this means quickly converting boilers into power plants that supply electricity as well as heat. For federal buildings, managers should be given the financing to do this whenever the payback is less than 15 years. For private buildings the federal government should offer to finance any such investment that has a 10 year payback or less.

Fuel cells and microturbines are very small scale power plants that are just coming into the marketplace. For these the federal governmen should enter into contracts with a dozen or more manufacturers to buy an increasing amount of power at a guaranteed decreasing price. And the government should supply the money needed to allow manufacturers to quickly scale up their production processes. In the 1950s, an arrangement like this between the Navy Department and manufacturers of transistors quickly drove the price of transistors down dramatically.

For households the federal government should support a massive effort to install solar cells. Again, it should enter into multi-year contracts with manufacturers for an increasing purchase of solar cells at a price that is reduced each year. And it should offer households a rebate that covers the difference between the cost of solar electricity and their current cost of electricity. The rebate would be lower in communities with high cost electricity and higher in communities with lower cost electricity. This would allow all communities to participate in this national movement. The rebate would be short-lived, perhaps two years, until the increased manufacturing volume drives the price down to competitive levels.

And state and local government that joins in the effort should be rewarded. For example, in a few days the citizens of San Francisco will vote on whether to approve a $100 million bond that can be used for solar cell installations. If they approve this initiative, the federal government should match the amount used for solar cells and provide such financing as is needed to cover startup costs.

The manufacture of small power plants generates more jobs than the manufacture of large power plants. The installation of millions of small power plants will generate a massive demand for skilled labor. Thus at the same time as the federal government works with household and office building owners and manufacturers to drive volume up and prices down, it needs to finance a national job training program for installers and service technicians.

A multi-billion stimulus package to literally bring power to the people will spur the installation of millions of small power plants.These will generate the electricity we will need to meet future demand. They will also dramatically improve the environment, reduce our dependence on long fragile energy supply lines and create large numbers of well-paid jobs.

In World War II we were asked to sacrifice for the war effort. Today we are being asked to shop. A national effort to literally and figuratively empower Americans would be compatible with the current emphasis on increasing buying. But it would encourage a kind of buying that can have an enduring impact, not only economically but socially and psychologically on Americans. I believe such a bold effort would be enthusiastically embraced.

David Morris is author of Seeing the Light: Regaining Control of Our Electricity System, and is Vice President of the Minneapolis and Washington, DC based Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

Source: http://www.t ompaine.com/features/2001/10/30/2.html

11/1/01
4:42:54 PM

THE 800-MILE LONG CHAPSTIK......And Other Tales of Domestic Energy Insecurity

by Amory B. Lovins

America's fragile domestic infrastructure threatens her energy security at least as much as dependence on Mideastern oil. Replacing Mideastern oil with even more vulnerable domestic systems would therefore decrease energy security.

Extraordinarily concentrated energy flows invite and reward devastating attack. Even today, as our 1982 Pentagon study "Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security" found, a handful of people could shut down three-quarters of the oil and gas supplies to the eastern states (without leaving Louisiana), cut the power to any major city, or kill millions by crashing an airliner into a nuclear power plant. Expanding such centralized and vulnerable energy systems would harm national security.

Fundamentally, energy security is less about foreign vs. domestic sources, or a shortage of giant energy facilities, than about the basic architecture of the energy infrastructure. A system is secure not because it's American or big, but because it's designed to make large-scale failures impossible and local failures benign. Energy security starts with using less energy far more efficiently to do the same tasks. Then it gets that energy from sources that are inherently invulnerable because they're dispersed, diverse, and increasingly renewable.

This strategy doesn't cost more; indeed, it's already winning in the marketplace. For example, central power stations, no matter how well engineered, can't supply really cheap and reliable electricity. The power lines that deliver the electricity cost more than the generators, and cause almost all power failures. Onsite and neighborhood micropower is cheaper, eliminates grid losses and glitches, and harnesses waste heat, so savvy investors favor it.

Of course, Mideastern oil is a problem. Getting oil from the unstable Persian Gulf leaves America less secure and tied to unattractive regimes. Although only 22% of oil imports come from the Gulf (67% come from the Western Hemisphere), decreasing that dependence is wise. But this requires investing in the fastest and cheapest means, buying the most solution with each year and every dollar. We don't need just another crude-oil source, but an inherently secure supply chain delivering useful mobility fuels all the way to customers.

Energy efficiency is the rapid-deployment energy resource. Last year, America used 40 percent less energy and 49 percent less oil to produce each dollar of GDP than in 1975. Those savings are now the nation's largest "source"-five times domestic oil output. Most were achieved in just six years, during 1979-85, when GDP grew 16 percent, total oil use fell 15 percent, and Gulf imports fell 87 percent. Maintaining that pace could have eliminated Gulf imports ever since 1986.

Modern efficiency technologies can put another $300 billion a year back in Americans' pockets. Just a 2.7-mpg better light- vehicle fleet would eliminate Gulf imports. Saving energy is the fastest way to blunt OPEC's market power, beat down prices, and expand invulnerable sources' share of energy supply. Billions of dollars annual military fuel-saving opportunities just found by the Defense Science Board would also improve warfighting.

Then there are new ways to supply fuel that are secure, fast, and competitive. Done right, abundant farm, forest, and even urban wastes can yield clean liquid fuels while protecting topsoil, farmers, rural culture, climate, and prosperity. Producing such biofuels locally bypasses vulnerable pipelines and provides more jobs. Another attractive innovation is fuel cells using natural gas or renewable energy. (Manhattan's Condé-Nast Building outperformed its rivals by saving half its energy and incorporating the two most reliable known power sources - - fuel cells and solar cells -- all at no extra cost.) Together, these proven alternatives can displace oil promptly, securely, profitably -- and, in time, completely.

If pumping stations or key facilities at either end were disabled, nine million barrels of hot oil could congeal in one winter week into an 800-mile-long Chapstik.

In contrast, such options as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge decrease security. If the Refuge held economically recoverable oil (unlikely and a decade away according to the official data), then delivering that oil by its only route, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), would undercut the anti-terrorist purpose of the pending Defense Authorization Bill. It would make TAPS the fattest energy-terrorist target in the country.

TAPS is American, but frighteningly insecure. It's mostly aboveground, accessible to attackers, and often unrepairable in winter. If pumping stations or key facilities at either end were disabled, nine million barrels of hot oil could congeal in one winter week into an 800-mile-long Chapstik. The Army, U.S. General Accounting Office, and Senate Judiciary Committee found TAPS indefensible. It has already been incompetently bombed twice, shot at, and otherwise sabotaged. A disgruntled engineer's more sophisticated plot to blow up three critical points with 14 bombs, then profit from oil futures trading, was thwarted by luck two years ago. He was an amiable bungler compared with the September 11 attackers-whose Algerian colleagues have just threatened to blow up a major gas pipeline to Southern Europe.

Both Gulf oil and the vulnerable, rapidly-aging TAPS imperil national energy security. Both should be replaced with faster, cheaper, inherently secure energy (a resource six times larger and cheaper than their sum) and distributed domestic supply alternatives. That is how to design an energy system that terrorists can't shut off -- and a durable foundation for an America that is no longer a fragile power.

Amory B. Lovins is co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, an entrepreneurial, nonprofit organization that fosters the efficient and restorative use of resources to create a more secure, prosperous, and life-sustaining world.

Source: http://www.t ompaine.com/features/2001/10/30/5.html

11/1/01
1:40:09 PM

THE STIMULUS THAT KEEPS ON GIVING Energy Efficiency and the Economy

by Joseph Romm

A program to help corporate America adopt energy- efficient technologies would provide a potent economic stimulus. Ten billion dollars in incentives would immediately create jobs manufacturing and installing hardware such as energy- efficient lighting, heating and cooling, advanced windows, and insulation. But because the gains in efficiency are permanent, in each subsequent year, corporate America would have billions of dollars in energy savings it could then reinvest in making itself more productive. And that ongoing savings wouldn't cost the federal government any more money. Energy efficiency is truly the stimulus that keeps on stimulating.

In the early '90s, many electric utilities had incentives that encouraged efficiency. Numerous companies designed and implemented comprehensive energy management programs to take maximum advantage of those incentives. From 1991 through 2000, IBM cut total energy use by 25 percent due to energy conservation actions alone, saving 8.9 billion kilowatt hours of electricity -- enough power for nearly 1.5 million homes a year -- and pocketing $527 million. That savings is the equivalent of 58 percent of their entire 2000 dividend.

Many other companies have achieved similar success, as I discuss in my book Cool Companies (Island Press, 1999). From 1993 to 1997, Du Pont's 1,450-acre Chambers Works in New Jersey reduced energy use per pound of product by one third. Even as production rose 9 percent, the total energy bill fell by more than $17 million a year.

General Motors was able to cut its energy bill at a multi-factory complex in Flint, Michigan by 25 percent with the help of several utility engineers assigned to work with them. Annual savings came to $4,000,000 with a two-year payback. Perkin-Elmer, a billion-dollar manufacturer of analytical instruments headquartered in Connecticut, used energy efficiency incentives coupled with good energy management to cut energy consumption per dollar of sales by a 60 percent from 1991 to 1997.

It isn't just big businesses that would benefit. A well-designed efficiency effort would help small companies, too. In the early '90s, Centerplex, a small business in Seattle, reduced the energy consumption in its two office buildings by 55 percent. Thanks to utility incentives, the payback was only 1.5 years.

Unfortunately, since the mid-'90s, states and utilities scaled back these so-called demand-side management incentive programs. One reason California got into so much trouble with its electricity supply was that it cut those programs in half. And one reason it was able to avoid supply problems this summer was that it reinstituted a massive billion-dollar effort to promote efficiency.

State energy offices around the nation now have innovative, but under-funded, efficiency programs. As part of its stimulus package, the federal government should create a $10 billion block grant to states. States would compete for the money, and the most cost effective programs would be funded first. The California Energy Commission estimates that its demand-reduction efforts cost under $100 per kilowatt, several times less than the cost of building new power plants. That means a $10 billion efficiency stimulus might save 100,000 Megawatts (the equivalent of over 300 power plants).

An efficiency stimulus package would directly create tens of thousands of jobs manufacturing and installing energy-efficient hardware. It would save corporate America billions of dollars each year for the life of the hardware. It would minimize the likelihood of power outages over the next several summers and avoid the air pollution associated with hundreds of power plants. What other stimulus strategy can match those results?

Source: http://www.t ompaine.com/features/2001/10/30/3.html

11/1/01
1:36:22 PM

TomPaine.com

http://www.TomPaine.com

PATRIOTIC ENERGY

An "All-American Energy Plan" for Economic Stimulus

President Bush and Congressional Republicans are rushing to enact their energy plan before Americans learn how utterly bankrupt and corrupt it is.

For them, "national energy policy" means more subsidies and freedom from competition for top political patrons - the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, and companies that build and operate inefficient centralized power plants.

Bush & Company, gagged by campaign contributions, cannot acknowledge the real path toward economic stimulus, energy independence and enhanced national security: an immediate, aggressive investment in energy efficiency and decentralized, home-grown, renewable power.

READ OUR LATEST OP AD:

http://www.t ompaine.com/img/op_ad_011031_large.jpg

AND READ THESE OP-AD FEATURES:

THE STIMULUS THAT KEEPS ON GIVING

Energy Efficiency and the Economy

by Joseph Romm

Congress and the President just can't resist giving tax breaks and rebates to corporations and the wealthy. Energy expert Joseph Romm has some ideas for them -- tax breaks, rebates and investments that encourage alternative energy and efficiency that would create jobs today and keep stimulating the economy on into the future.

http://www.t ompaine.com/features/2001/10/30/3.html

THE 800-MILE LONG CHAPSTIK...

...And Other Tales of Domestic Energy Insecurity

by Amory Lovins

America's fragile domestic infrastructure threatens her energy security at least as much as dependence on foreign oil. Replacing Mideastern oil with even more vulnerable domestic systems would therefore DECREASE energy security. A terrorist could easily turn the Trans-Alaska Pipeline into an 800- mile Chapstik.

http://www.t ompaine.com/features/2001/10/30/5.html

LOOKING FOR JOBS IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES

Shortsightedness Prevails at Leading Labor Unions

by Jennifer Bauduy

The Teamsters think they will get more jobs by backing the GOP's energy bill, but home-grown renewable power and efficiency programs are the real employment goldmine.

http://ww w.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/09/18/index.html

OUR DECENTRALIZED ENERGY FUTURE

On-Site Power Generation Arrives

by David Morris

"We should launch a Manhattan Project- level effort to reduce our vulnerability to terrorist attacks and our reliance on imported fuels by literally and figuratively empowering Americans to become energy producers."

http://www.t ompaine.com/features/2001/10/30/2.html

Dispatch: Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

CLEANER THAN COWS

Pollution-Free Power Leaps Forward -- In Germany

by David Case

This northern German state plans to increase wind-power capacity enough to supply as much as 50 percent of the its electricity needs by 2005. Good jobs and reduced pollution are two of the byproducts.

http://w ww.tompaine.com/features/2000/11/15/index.html

A NEW CROP FOR FARMERS

Harvesting the Heavens in the American Midwest

by Patrick Mazza, from Earth Island Journal

At the 193- megawatt Storm Lake, Iowa, windpower facility, each of 257 turbines scattered across more than 100 properties pay $2,000 annually to landowners.

http://www.t ompaine.com/features/2001/02/20/3.html

History

A NEW DEAL FOR OUR NEW ERA America's Leaders Are Failing the Leadership Test in the Current Crisis

by Joseph A. Palermo

"Who among our country's leaders is articulating a vision for national renewal that embraces the interests and aspirations of all of our citizens, not just those who fund political campaigns?"

http://ww w.tompaine.com/history/2001/10/30/index.html

Dispatch: The Heartland

ETERNAL THINGS... AND TANGLED HUMAN AFFAIRS

by Ken Midkiff

"The trees, the mountains, the river -- these things remain eternal, while human affairs are tangled and untangled." AUDIO and TEXT produced by Sharon Basco.

http://www.t ompaine.com/features/2001/10/30/1.html

Q & A

THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S PAST HINTS AT THE SUPREME COURT'S FUTURE

by John Dean

The confidential role William Rehnquist played for the president, and the agenda behind the many briefs he prepared, is relevant today as the Supreme Court and country enter a new wartime era. AUDIO and TEXT produced by Steven Rosenfeld.

http://ww w.tompaine.com/history/2001/10/25/index.html

SLOWER THAN A SPEEDING BULLET

Amtrak's New Acela Only Looks Fast

by David Carr, from The Washington Monthly

Amtrak sunk an unprecedented $1.7 billion into Acela, hoping to make the leap into the 21st century after largely bypassing the 20th. But thanks to a combination of politics and performance, Acela hasn't lived up to the hype.

http://ww w.tompaine.com/history/2001/10/19/index.html

11/1/01
1:29:03 PM

Majority Want Bombing Pause

· Exclusive poll shows support for war cooling · 54% say halt attacks and allow aid convoys into Afghanistan

by Alan Travis, The Guardian

British public support for the war against the Taliban has dropped by 12 points in the past fortnight and a majority now believe there should be a pause in the bombing to allow aid convoys into Afghanistan.

The sharp drop in support revealed by today's Guardian/ICM poll confirms Tony Blair's fears that the reality of modern warfare and reports of mounting civilian casualties have already led to a wobble in British support.

It provides clear evidence that there has been a significant change in the mood of the country towards the war and explains why ministers have spent the last weekend trying to shore up public opinion and why the prime minister is to appeal to the nation to "keep its nerve" in a major speech today.

Although the prime minister will take comfort from the fact that nearly two-thirds say they approve of military action, the prime minister will be alarmed by details of the survey, which show that support among women has slumped by 17 points from 68% to 51%. Only a bare majority of women now approve of military action against the Taliban.

It is a similar picture among older voters, with support among the over 65s dropping from 71% to just 54% in the past fortnight. The slide in support for military action is least marked amongst men, where backing for the war has fallen by only six points from 80% to 74%, and among the young, down from 73% to 64%.

But it should be noted that while positive support for the war has cooled somewhat, this has not necessarily translated into anti- war feeling.

Those opposed to military action have risen by only four points in the last fortnight from 16% to 20%. The largest growth has been among humanitarian sceptics, with don't knows rising by eight points to 18%.

This is shown most clearly by the clear majority who agree with the statement that there should be a pause in the bombing campaign against the Taliban to allow aid convoys to go into Afghanistan.

A majority of 54% believe this should happen, with 29% saying that the bombing campaign should continue without pause.

When viewed against the 62% support for military action, this suggests that the clear motive behind those who back the calls for a pause in the bombing is humanitarian rather than outright anti-war reasons.

Among women there is overwhelming support for a pause (59% to 19%) but opinion among men is closer, with 49% in favour of a pause and 40% opposed.

Further evidence that it is a humanitarian inspired wobble in public opinion rather than outright opposition to the war is shown by the results to the question on attitudes towards sending British troops into Afghanistan to take part in the fighting on the ground. Some 57% backed the decision announced on Friday for a small force of British commandos to be sent to Afghanistan.

Some 29% disapproved of this decision, showing that there is only a small gap in British public opinion between attitudes to the bombing campaign and to use of British troops on the grounds.

A final question about public confidence in the government's ability to deal with a major outbreak of anthrax, smallpox or other public health threat, produced mixed results. A substantial minority, 44%, replied they were either not very confident (29%) or not at all confident (15%) that the government could cope.

A bare majority, 51%, said they were either very confident (12%) or fairly confident (39%) that the authorities could deal with it effectively.

· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,000 adults aged over 18 by telephone between October 26 and 28. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583301,00.html

Phone: 210.826.6656 and email: mailto:tomkeene@dcci.com

Note: Readers may want to read the World Court's decision on Nicaragua vs. U.S.A. It is on the World Court web site:

http://www.icj- cij.org/icjwww/decisions/summaries/inussummary8

11/1/01
1:19:27 PM

Beyond the Frame: Alternative Perspectives on the September 11th Atrocities

In response to the media's lockout of progressive voices in the aftermath of 9/11 and the beginning of America's "New War", the Media Education Foundation has launched a technologically innovative web-based project: "Beyond the Frame: Alternative Perspectives on the September 11th Atrocities" featuring streaming video and audio interviews with some of our leading dissident voices. Among the ones we already have up are Noam Chomsky and Nawal el Saadawi. In preparation are interviews with Howard Zinn, Robin Morgan, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Rabbi Michael Lerner among others. More will be added in the weeks and months ahead.

Go to http://www.mediaed.org to check it out.

11/1/01
1:04:33 PM

This bill, pushed by the entertainment industry, would force all new personal computers and digital home entertainment devices sold in the United States to have government-approved "policeware" built-in. If you're one of the millions of Americans who uses your computers to burn music CD's, listen to MP3's, share video files, you'd face up to 5 years in federal prison and a $500,000 fine. Remove the policeware from your personal computer and you will also face 5 years in the slammer.

http://www.stoppoliceware.org

11/1/01
1:00:22 PM

Afghan Seath Toll Mounts As US Warplanes Hit Civilian Targets

by Patrick Martin

As many as a hundred people were killed when US and British warplanes bombed and destroyed a hospital in the western Afghan city of Herat, the ruling Taliban government in Kabul claimed Monday. The Pentagon did not initially deny the report, which came after some of the heaviest air raids of the 16-day war, on the night of October 21-22. Doctors, nurses and patients were said to be among the dead.

Citing Taliban sources, the French news service Agence France Presse reported that the hospital in Herat was full of staff and patients when it was struck by a US bomb during an overnight raid on the city. The casualties were “very high,” AFP said.

Earlier the Afghan news agency Bakhtar reported that US planes bombed the Nawabad section of Herat, destroying five houses and killing eight to ten people.

Another attack Sunday left 18 dead and 35 wounded in Tarin Kot, capital of Uruzgan province north of Kandahar. Five separate attacks took place, and two health clinics were hit in the town.

The civilian death toll now stands at more than 1,000, according to reports issued by the Taliban government and verified at least in part by journalists working inside the country. Anecdotal accounts derived from interviews with Afghan refugees fleeing the war zone into Pakistan also confirm the claims of heavy damage to civilian targets and large loss of life.

The Washington Post, in two dispatches from its correspondent in Quetta, Pakistan, reported a huge surge of refugees from southern Afghanistan after the stepped up air strikes around Kandahar, with more than 3,500 crossing the border October 18. The refugees described widespread civilian casualties in Kandahar. The Post account concluded:

“As reports of civilian casualties and other mistakes mount in America’s war in the skies over Afghanistan, a growing number of Afghans from different backgrounds and political persuasions are questioning whether the United States is conducting a war against terrorism and Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban militia or against the Afghan people.”

Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, told a press conference in Islamabad Monday, “It is now clear that American planes are targeting the Afghan people.” He pointed to the remarkable series of “mistakes” by the US military, which has hit a UN de-mining office, a Red Cross warehouse, a World Food Program building and other clearly marked health care and relief facilities, culminating in the destruction of the second largest hospital in Herat, a large city near the border with Iran.

On October 17, six agencies called for a “pause” in the US bombing, warning that about 400,000 Afghans would run out of food within a month if aid deliveries are unable to proceed.

Unreported by either side in the war are the casualties among Taliban soldiers, who are increasingly the focus of the US and British attacks. There were intense air strikes against Taliban positions defending the key northwest city of Mazar-e-Sharif, and the first significant bombing of the major Taliban troop concentrations north of Kabul.

A Taliban government spokesman said that there were indications that US forces were using chemical and biological agents, with many wounded people suffering apparent poisoning. Abdul Hanan Himat of the Information Ministry told the British news service Reuters, “Today in my contact with doctors in Herat and Kandahar, they told me that they have found signs that Americans are using biological and chemical weapons in their attacks.” The same official told AFP, “There are signs of intoxication and doctors suspect that it may be because of chemical or biological weapons.”

The Bush administration and the Pentagon, as they have since the air war began, dismissed all Taliban claims of civilian casualties as lies. There has been no official US estimate of civilian casualties, other than a ludicrous claim by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that there have been only four confirmed deaths—those of four security guards killed when an American cruise missile slammed into the office of UN mine-clearing group in Kabul.

Top military officers in command of the air war made little attempt to disguise the savagery of the bombing campaign. Rear Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, commander of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, declared, “Our strategy has shifted from attacking operational targets such as airfields, air defenses, communication nodes, to tactical targets such as tanks and troops in the field that support the war-fighting capability. We are striking targets. We are killing people on the ground. That’s what war is all about.”

There was incontrovertible evidence of errant US bombing Monday, when four photographers for Western news services witnessed US fighter jets drop two bombs on positions of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. Two F-16s struck Northern Alliance observation posts, and the opposition soldiers asked the journalists to “call the Americans and tell them they were making a mistake,” said one photographer. The four witnesses included three Americans, one working for the New York Times, and a Spanish photographer working for the New York-based Newsday.

The Pentagon flatly denied Taliban claims that two US helicopters had been shot down in the course of the weekend raid by Special Forces troops on targets in Kandahar, but admitted that one helicopter had crashed in Pakistan, killing two soldiers and wounding three. US officials called the crash accidental rather than due to enemy fire.

As for the second helicopter, the Arab television station Al-Jazeera showed film of wreckage found in the southern province of Helmand, near the border with Pakistan. The debris included tires and a chunk of metal stamped with the words “Boeing” and “Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,” the site of a major helicopter factory. One chunk of metal was described by experts as the nosewheel of a Ch-47 Chinook helicopter.

The Special Forces raid involved more than 100 US Army Rangers and smaller numbers of Delta Force commandos who were dispatched to the residence of Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar with instructions to assassinate him. The Washington Post reported that President Bush has signed a National Security Directive authorizing the CIA to assassinate both Omar and Osama bin Laden, and authorizing the agency to spend an additional $1 billion to carry out this task.

More and bigger raids are expected. More than 2,000 US troops are on the ground in Pakistan, according to press reports, deployed in three airbases near the Afghanistan border. They are using the airports of Jacobabad and Pasni as logistical bases and the airport of Dalbandin, nearest to the border, as a forward operational base.

Source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/bomb- o23.shtml

11/1/01
12:54:43 PM

Media Are Out of Step With Democracy Acting As A Branch Of Government

by Salim Muwakkil

Without even being drafted into the armed forces, many journalists have saluted sharply and reported for duty in the nation's "war on terrorism." Rather than acting as the Fourth Estate, monitoring and balancing the power of the state, much of the media have instead been performing as the fourth branch of government.

In some ways, that's understandable; the American people reacted with shock, rage and patriotism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the media pretty much reflected the public mood. The initial coverage of the terrifying events showcased the media in all their glory. In short order, we learned the what, when, where and how of the story. Reporters and photographers captured the horror and drama of that historic day with the kind of professional dedication and personal courage that exemplifies the best in American journalism.

But the media have been deficient in explaining the why of the tragedy. And in a society with a representative government bound by constitutional principles, the media must provide a context for events, not simply serve up discrete bits of unconnected data and state-sponsored innuendo.

In this first salvo of this first war of the 21st Century, the government hasn't even offered proof that the enemy it has named is indeed the culprit in the attack. And while journalists have been meticulous in their nuts-and-bolts accounts of the World Trade Center's tumbling towers and the heartrending human stories connected to the tragedy, they have been negligent in seeking the why of the story.

American people remain largely uninformed about the many foreign policy decisions (including aiding in the overthrow of leaders in Iran and bombing Lebanon, Afghanistan, Sudan and Libya) that have inflamed much of the Islamic world. We instead are told that we are hated because we are rich, free and angelic.

Nor are most Americans aware that Central Asia, according to the Oil and World Journal, will account for 80 percent of our oil by 2050, and that some people with connections to the Bush administration have commercial interests in that exploration. This issue may not be earthshaking, but it certainly is a part of the overall context of our war in the Central Asian nation of Afghanistan. Surely, Americans should have some contextual understanding of the conflict before sending their youth into harm's way.

But much of the major media's energy is being spent showcasing their symbolic patriotism. The news networks have saturated their sets with red, white and blue motifs and their commentators with assorted lapel pins. Some newspapers have featured stick-on flags and "wanted" posters of Osama bin Laden. News coverage of the president seemingly has become one continuous press release, lauding his performance as commander in chief.

The media have decided to postpone completion of a study commissioned to recount the ballots cast in Florida in the 2000 election. The consortium behind the study includes major U.S. news organizations such as The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune. It has been "postponed indefinitely," according to Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communication at The New York Times. She said the decision was made because of a lack of resources.

To many Americans it may seem like a no-brainer; why wouldn't U.S. journalists reflect the war passions of the American public? Some believe that since unity is necessary during wartime, any attempt to sow disunity is akin to treason; a skeptical media is a luxury we can't afford. Government officials and military analysts often point to the contentious war in Vietnam as an example of a skeptical media gone awry.

But the contrary is actually true. The passions of war unleash demons that must be scrupulously monitored. Had American media been more conscientious during World War II, thousands of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent wouldn't have been interned. The German press, though originally suspicious and critical of the Nazi party, began falling in line after the 1933 Reichstag Fire convinced them that external threats were a potent danger. And were the pretexts for our entry into the Vietnam War more thoroughly analyzed, millions of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans may not have died.

The drums of war always drown out rational discourse. The news media should be the venue where citizens can turn to find reliable information, not data deployed as an adjunct to government policy or flag- festooned journalists performing as war mongering cheerleaders.

Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor at In These Times

email: MailTo:salim4x@aol.com

Source: http://www.ChicagoTribune.com

11/1/01
12:51:04 PM

The ID Idea Goodbye To Privacy.

by Robert A. Levy

artin Anderson, former aide to President Reagan, writes of a Cabinet meeting at which Attorney General William French Smith proposed a national ID card to curb illegal immigration. No ID, no job. Anderson caustically suggested an alternative that would be cheaper, lighter weight, impossible to lose, immune to counterfeiting or theft, even waterproof: Just "tattoo an ID number on the inside of everybody's arm." Naturally, Reagan understood the allusion, and the idea was never again taken seriously — until now.

In the wake of the calamitous events of September 11, Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R., Conn.) suggested a national ID using fingerprints or retinal scans. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) reportedly supports the idea. And in the hallowed halls of Harvard, self- described civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz proposed a "voluntary" card, with a chip that matches the holder's fingerprints. Dershowitz understands the incompatibility of national IDs and civil liberties, so he is promoting his card as "optional."

Optional indeed. Imagine Osama bin Laden's henchmen waiting to sign up for their IDs. That's about as likely as criminals volunteering to register their guns. Moreover, terrorists who are capable of destroying the World Trade Center are surely capable of obtaining forged IDs (even the high-tech variety), bribing officials who issue or check the cards, creating false identities that survive scrutiny, or using persons with legitimate cards to do their dirty work. Make no mistake: The predictable failure of a voluntary system will lead to compulsory IDs. Remember the elective tax check-off to finance political campaigns? Like clockwork, that fiasco spawned unrelenting calls for mandatory public funding.

Dershowitz disagrees. "It's a tradeoff between privacy and convenience," he says. Look at drivers who avoid long delays at tollbooths by acceding to electronic billing, triggered by a device on their dashboard. Well, yes, but terrorists, who plan their odious crimes years in advance, aren't likely to mind a few minutes of waiting in line to dodge electronic tracing. Furthermore, the dashboard device affords a real choice: Give up a little privacy, and save a lot of time. That's not what proponents of a national ID have up their sleeves. Their choice is: Give up some privacy by showing your card, or give up yet more privacy by subjecting yourself to surveillance, search, detention, or worse. If too few people go for the ID, the government will simply raise the ante — making its searches progressively more insufferable until the ID is less repellent by contrast.

True, we use identification cards every day — for, say, driving and check-cashing. But the primary purpose of a driver's license is to affirm that the holder is qualified to operate an automobile. And when you show an ID to cash a check, you're doing it to prove you are the payee. By comparison, neither specific skills nor a particular identity are required to engage in the majority of day-to-day transactions. Even our Social Security cards may be used only to track payroll taxes; federal law forbids their use for purposes of identification. We must not be compelled to "show our papers" every time we want to buy goods or services.

For security purposes, photo IDs are already required at airports. If the national ID were limited to name, address, photo — even fingerprints — and its use were confined to airports, few would object. After all, passports must now be exhibited for all international travel, despite the obvious implications for ethnic profiling. But the ID scheme is far more insidious.

First, the card will be effective only if scores of activities require its display. Terrorists are not stupid. They will select forums like theaters and sporting events, which are not as easily protected. Consequently, the number of ID-restricted activities will increase, and the card will become more burdensome and invasive. Constraining its use means limiting its effectiveness. Expanding its use means violating more privacy rights. And you can rest assured that the ID will remain with us long after the need for extraordinary security has receded.

Second, to target terrorists, a national ID must be linked to a central database of personal characteristics and private records and transactions. That data will be maintained by the federal government — unlike the information on car drivers, which is kept by 50 separate states. The pressure to include ethnicity as a factor will be irresistible, thereby exacerbating the profiling problem. No doubt, government officials will make the case that the ID and its linked database should not be limited to foiling terrorists. How about the drug war? Immigration? Gun registration? The potential for abuse is boundless. Keep in mind, it's been only four years since Congress rejected legislation to add photos, fingerprints, and retina scans to our Social Security cards; and only seven years since Hillary Clinton urged a national health card containing our lifetime medical records.

The keepers of the data will promise confidentiality, of course. But tell that to the Japanese-Americans who were interned after U.S. census data were compromised during the 1940s. Tell it to taxpayers whose personal records were illegally snooped by IRS agents in the mid-1990s. But none of that seems to concern Dershowitz, who asserts that no right to anonymity is "hinted at in the Constitution." Of course, that turns the Constitution on its head. The Ninth Amendment tells us we have an untold number of rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. The question is not whether we have a right to anonymity, but whether government has the power to take it away.

When it comes to political writings, for example, the Supreme Court said in 1995 that "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation." An extension of that doctrine to cover oral speech will be tested this coming term, when the Court decides whether door-to-door canvassers for Jehovah's Witnesses can be required to display a permit with their name on it.

To be sure, the right to anonymity is not absolute. But before stampeding toward a national ID, we should listen to Justice William O. Douglas, who cautioned a half-century ago: "To be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom."

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment- levy102401.shtml

11/1/01
12:45:55 PM

Backyard Terrorism

The US has been training terrorists at a camp in Georgia for years - and it's still at it

George Monbiot, The Guardian

"If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents," George Bush announced on the day he began bombing Afghanistan, "they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril." I'm glad he said "any government", as there's one which, though it has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent attention.

For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at al-Qaida's door. The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whisc. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's government.

Until January this year, Whisc was called the "School of the Americas", or SOA. Since 1946, SOA has trained more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Among its graduates are many of the continent's most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators and state terrorists. As hundreds of pages of documentation compiled by the pressure group SOA Watch show, Latin America has been ripped apart by its alumni.

In June this year, Colonel Byron Lima Estrada, once a student at the school, was convicted in Guatemala City of murdering Bishop Juan Gerardi in 1998. Gerardi was killed because he had helped to write a report on the atrocities committed by Guatemala's D-2, the military intelligence agency run by Lima Estrada with the help of two other SOA graduates. D-2 coordinated the "anti- insurgency" campaign which obliterated 448 Mayan Indian villages, and murdered tens of thousands of their people. Forty per cent of the cabinet ministers who served the genocidal regimes of Lucas Garcia, Rios Montt and Mejia Victores studied at the School of the Americas.

In 1993, the United Nations truth commission on El Salvador named the army officers who had committed the worst atrocities of the civil war. Two-thirds of them had been trained at the School of the Americas. Among them were Roberto D'Aubuisson, the leader of El Salvador's death squads; the men who killed Archbishop Oscar Romero; and 19 of the 26 soldiers who murdered the Jesuit priests in 1989. In Chile, the school's graduates ran both Augusto Pinochet's secret police and his three principal concentration camps. One of them helped to murder Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffit in Washington DC in 1976.

Argentina's dictators Roberto Viola and Leopoldo Galtieri, Panama's Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos, Peru's Juan Velasco Alvarado and Ecuador's Guillermo Rodriguez all benefited from the school's instruction. So did the leader of the Grupo Colina death squad in Fujimori's Peru; four of the five officers who ran the infamous Battalion 3-16 in Honduras (which controlled the death squads there in the 1980s) and the commander responsible for the 1994 Ocosingo massacre in Mexico.

All this, the school's defenders insist, is ancient history. But SOA graduates are also involved in the dirty war now being waged, with US support, in Colombia. In 1999 the US State Department's report on human rights named two SOA graduates as the murderers of the peace commissioner, Alex Lopera. Last year, Human Rights Watch revealed that seven former pupils are running paramilitary groups there and have commissioned kidnappings, disappearances, murders and massacres. In February this year an SOA graduate in Colombia was convicted of complicity in the torture and killing of 30 peasants by paramilitaries. The school is now drawing more of its students from Colombia than from any other country.

The FBI defines terrorism as "violent acts... intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government", which is a precise description of the activities of SOA's graduates. But how can we be sure that their alma mater has had any part in this? Well, in 1996, the US government was forced to release seven of the school's training manuals. Among other top tips for terrorists, they recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses' relatives.

Last year, partly as a result of the campaign run by SOA Watch, several US congressmen tried to shut the school down. They were defeated by 10 votes. Instead, the House of Representatives voted to close it and then immediately reopen it under a different name. So, just as Windscale turned into Sellafield in the hope of parrying public memory, the School of the Americas washed its hands of the past by renaming itself Whisc. As the school's Colonel Mark Morgan informed the Department of Defense just before the vote in Congress: "Some of your bosses have told us that they can't support anything with the name 'School of the Americas' on it. Our proposal addresses this concern. It changes the name." Paul Coverdell, the Georgia senator who had fought to save the school, told the papers that the changes were "basically cosmetic".

But visit Whisc's website and you'll see that the School of the Americas has been all but excised from the record. Even the page marked "History" fails to mention it. Whisc's courses, it tells us, "cover a broad spectrum of relevant areas, such as operational planning for peace operations; disaster relief; civil-military operations; tactical planning and execution of counter drug operations".

Several pages describe its human rights initiatives. But, though they account for almost the entire training programme, combat and commando techniques, counter-insurgency and interrogation aren't mentioned. Nor is the fact that Whisc's "peace" and "human rights" options were also offered by SOA in the hope of appeasing Congress and preserving its budget: but hardly any of the students chose to take them.

We can't expect this terrorist training camp to reform itself: after all, it refuses even to acknowledge that it has a past, let alone to learn from it. So, given that the evidence linking the school to continuing atrocities in Latin America is rather stronger than the evidence linking the al-Qaida training camps to the attack on New York, what should we do about the "evil-doers" in Fort Benning, Georgia?

Well, we could urge our governments to apply full diplomatic pressure, and to seek the extradition of the school's commanders for trial on charges of complicity in crimes against humanity. Alternatively, we could demand that our governments attack the United States, bombing its military installations, cities and airports in the hope of overthrowing its unelected government and replacing it with a new administration overseen by the UN. In case this proposal proves unpopular with the American people, we could win their hearts and minds by dropping naan bread and dried curry in plastic bags stamped with the Afghan flag.

You object that this prescription is ridiculous, and I agree. But try as I might, I cannot see the moral difference between this course of action and the war now being waged in Afghanistan.

Source: http://www.monbiot.com

11/1/01
12:43:12 PM

NEWS OF INTEREST

Backyard terrorism (VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED - I'll run it entirely soon) The US has been training terrorists at a camp in Georgia for years

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583254,00.html

The ID Idea - Goodbye to privacy

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment- levy102401.shtml

Media Are Out of Step With Democracy Acting as a Branch of Government

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1022-04.htm

Bin Laden and Omar Were Assassinated (Unconfirmed)

http://www.fr eerepublic.com/focus/fr/555761/posts

Thompson Says Info On Additional Anthrax Attacks 'CLASSIFIED' (They hide the truth about how widespread this is)

http://www.rense.com/ general15/classi.htm

Is US Lying About Extent And Source Of Anthrax Attacks?

http://www.rense.com/ge neral15/lies.htm

11/1/01
12:40:10 PM

Bin Laden Met With CIA Official In July In An American Hospital

(AFP) - Osama bin Laden underwent treatment in July at the American Hospital in Dubai where he met a US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official, French daily Le Figaro and Radio France International reported.

Quoting "a witness, a professional partner of the administrative management of the hospital," they said the man suspected by the United States of being behind the September 11 terrorist attacks had arrived in Dubai on July 4 by air from Quetta, Pakistan.

He was immediately taken to the hospital for kidney treatment. He left the establishment on July 14, Le Figaro said.

During his stay, the daily said, the local CIA representative was seen going into bin Laden's room and "a few days later, the CIA man boasted to some friends of having visited the Saudi-born millionaire."

Quoting "an authoritative source," Le Figaro and the radio station said the CIA representative had been recalled to Washington on July 15.

Bin Laden has been sought by the United States for terrorism since the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. But his CIA links go back before that to the fight against Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Le Figaro said bin Laden was accompanied in Dubai by his personal physician and close collaborator, who could be the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahari, as well as bodyguards and an Algerian nurse.

He was admitted to the urology department of Doctor Terry Callaway, who specializes in kidney stones and male infertility. Telephoned several times, the doctor declined to answer questions.

Several sources had reported that bin Laden had a serious kidney infection. He had a mobile dialysis machine sent to his Kandahar hideout in Afghanistan in the first half of 2000, according to "authoritative sources" quoted by Le Figaro and RFI.

Source: http://sg.news.yah oo.com/011031/1/1ml07.html

11/1/01
12:37:16 PM

Al-Qaida Is Winning The War, Allies Warned

by Tania Branigan, The Guardian

The eminent military historian Professor Sir Michael Howard launched a scathing attack yesterday on the continued bombardment of Afghanistan, comparing it to "trying to eradicate cancer cells with a blow torch".

It had put the al-Qaida network in a "win-win situation", he told the conference, and could escalate into an ongoing confrontation that would shatter our own multicultural societies.

The longer it went on, he added, the worse the consequences would be.

"Even more disastrous would be its extension... through other rogue states, beginning with Iraq, to eradicate terrorism for good and all," he said. "I can think of no policy more likely, not only to indefinitely prolong the war, but to ensure that we can never win it."

While praising President George Bush for moving away from the unilateralism and isolationism that had characterised recent US policy, Sir Michael said the administration had made a "terrible and irreversible" mistake in calling its anti-terrorism campaign a war.

It had granted al-Qaida a status it did not deserve and created overwhelming public demand for military action.

"Many people would have preferred a police operation conducted under the auspices of the UN on behalf of the international community as a whole, against a criminal conspiracy, whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court," Sir Michael said.

"Terrorists can be successfully destroyed only if public opinion supports the authorities in regarding them as criminals rather than heroes.

"As we discovered in both Palestine and Ireland, the terrorists have already won an important battle if they can provoke the authorities into using overt armed force."

Sir Michael, who was for many years regius professor of modern history at Oxford University, scorned the idea that al-Qaida could be defeated by the removal of the "evil genius" Osama bin Laden.

He warned: "It is hard to believe that a global network apparently consisting of people as intelligent and well-educated as they are dedicated and ruthless will not continue to function effectively until they are traced and dug out by patient operations of police and intelligence forces."

Source: http://www.rense.com/gen eral16/wrs.htm

11/1/01
12:36:19 PM

Trigger Happy

Bush administration hawks want to deploy “mini-nukes” against Osama bin Laden.

by Jeffrey St. Clair

How should the Pentagon get Osama bin Laden? With a discreetly placed nuke, says Rep. Steven Buyer, the right-wing congressman from northern Indiana. “Don’t send special forces in there to sweep,” Buyer told an Indianapolis TV station. “We’d be very naive to believe that biotoxins and chemical agents were not in these caves. Put a tactical nuclear device in and close these caves for a thousand years.”

Buyer doesn’t just want to kill bin Laden and his Taliban cohort. He wants to send a message to the world that America is now willing to use nuclear weapons on the battlefield. “I just want the [Bush] administration to know that I think the United States needs to send a message to the world that we are prepared to do that,” he says.

During his campaigns, Buyer has relentlessly pushed his service as a Gulf War vet. He touts himself as an expert on “asymmetrical warfare,” Pentagon-speak for attacks waged on U.S. targets by terrorists using unconventional weapons. Buyer wants to smoke them out with radioactive weapons.

Admittedly, Buyer is one of the kookier members of Congress. But he is far from a lone voice. A day after the World Trade Center attacks, Sen. Robert Torricelli, the New Jersey Democrat, vowed that the United States would “unleash hell upon them.” And Buyer’s view was echoed by Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, in a radio interview on October 21. “I would never rule out tactical nuclear weapons if I thought they could do the job, and if they were needed,” King told WABC. “If the military people said we think certain chemical weapons are going to be used, we know where they are, and the only way we can stop their use is by using tactical nuclear weapons.”

Among the wizards of Armageddon, there is an almost palpable desire to see nuclear weapons put to use on the battlefield. The frail doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction has been jettisoned with the wreckage of the Soviet Union, and in its place nuclear war planners are pushing a more robust and offensive role for the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Two weeks after September 11, the Japan Times reported that Pentagon war planners had presented Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush with a scenario for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. The Tokyo newspaper quoted a Pentagon source, who said that Bush had rejected the option, fearing almost certain global backlash.

However, Rumsfeld was more circumspect when he was asked directly on ABC’s This Week whether the United States was considering the use of nuclear weapons against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. “We ought to be very proud of the record of humanity, that we have not used those weapons for 55 years,” he told Sam Donaldson. “And we have to find as many ways as possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.”

But Rumsfeld’s cagey response was actually a significant statement that may signal a chilling shift in U.S. policy. Since the mid-’70s, the official U.S. line has been that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. Rumsfeld’s deputy, the hyper-hawkish Paul Wolfowitz, has warned the Taliban that the United States will “use a very large hammer.”

In case the Taliban had trouble reading between the lines, Thomas Woodrow, a Wolfowitz pal and veteran of the Defense Intelligence Agency, made the point clear in a column for the Washington Times. “At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilities should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan,” Woodrow wrote. “To do less would be rightly seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States and the current administration.”

The bomb of choice seems to be low-yield nuclear weapons, the so-called bunker-buster nukes that could be used as a kind of radioactive assassination weapon, designed to knock out the leadership of hostile regimes. In this twisted logic, proponents are pushing the bomb as a humanitarian device that could save civilian lives. “We’ve seen examples as recently as the air war with Serbia, when we attacked underground targets with conventional weapons with very little effect,” said Paul Robinson, director of the Sandia National Laboratory, in a September interview with the National Journal. “It just takes far too many aircraft sorties and conventional weapons to give you any confidence that you can take out underground bunkers. By putting a nuclear warhead on one of those weapons instead of high explosives, you would multiply the explosive power by a factor of more than a million.”

There’s another reason the nuclear hawks are pushing the idea of shifting the U.S. nuclear arsenal toward the low-yield nukes: They can develop new weapons without (in their minds, at least) violating the non-proliferation treaty. “We would neither have to conduct testing nor redesign for such a weapon, because we have them already,” Robinson said. “We could develop these lower-yield weapons without forcing the nuclear testing issue back onto the table, with a richer database of past tests, and at relatively low cost.”

It seems very unlikely that the United States would use nuclear weapons against the Taliban. However, the nuclear hawks and their allies in the bomb-making industries seem to have succeeded in exploiting the war in an effort to breathe life (and billions of dollars) a new generation of nuclear weaponry.

Source: http://www. inthesetimes.com/issue/25/26/news2.shtml

11/1/01
12:34:38 PM

UTNE WEB WATCH

The Best of the Alternative Web

by Keith Schneider, Grist Magazine

-- In the midst of struggling with our grief and alarm, many of the nation's environmental activists, writers, and leaders now share thoughts of optimism on the progressive political and environmental agenda.

LET'S PLAY DRESS UP

by The Anchorage Press

-- Here are a few distinctly Alaskan ideas for those still in search of a Halloween costume.

MUCH NEEDED, MUCH ABUSED

by Kim Ghattas, Inter Press Service

-- An estimated 290,000 Filipinos left their homes last year to work in Arab countries, where they were hired as domestic workers but treated as modern-day slaves.

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

11/1/01
12:34:01 PM

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE

http://ens-news.com

MOBILITY STUDY WARNS OF GRIDLOCK, POLLUTION

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts, October 30, 2001 (ENS) - People's insatiable appetite for mobility is heading the world's transportation systems toward unsustainable gridlock and environmental degradation unless several grand challenges are tackled, conclude Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers and colleagues in report on worldwide mobility at the end of the 20th century.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-30-06.html

FOREST INSECTS CAN BE PARTNERS, NOT PESTS

CORVALLIS, Oregon, October 30, 2001 (ENS) - The massive insect epidemics that have plagued Pacific Northwest forests in recent years are mostly a reflection of poor forest health conditions, overcrowding, overuse of chemicals, fire suppression and introduction of single species tree plantations or non-native species, a new report concludes.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-30-07.html

DAM AFFECTED PEOPLE OCCUPY TRACTEBEL HEADQUARTERS IN RIO

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil, October 30, 2001 (ENS) - About 350 men, women, and children from across Brazil, have taken over the headquarters of the Belgian transnational energy company Tractebel in Rio de Janeiro. Tractebel is the part owner of the electric utility Gerasul, and is constructing controversial dams in Brazil.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-30-03.html

KENYA TO CLEAR 10 PERCENT OF ITS FORESTS

By Jennifer Wanjiru

NAIROBI, Kenya, October 30, 2001 (ENS) - A battle has erupted in Kenya over a government decision to cut 10 percent of its forest cover despite vehement protests from the public and cases pending before the courts.

The government says it wants to settle the "landless," but critics fear that the land is set to be given to politically correct individuals ahead of the 2002 general elections.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-30-02.html

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: OCTOBER 30, 2001

252 More Species May Need Federal Protection

Grant Supports Study of Energy Surcharge

Criticism Prompts Halt to Poisoning Plans

INEEL, Contractors Settle on Asbestos and CFC Violations

Researchers Track Alaska Seal Migration

Visit Public Lands Fee Free on Veterans Weekend

Wisconsin Program Will Protect Water Quality

Mining Claims Bought for Wilderness Protection

Public Input Sought on Western Water Issues

Michelin Rally Brings Green Cars to Vegas

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-30-09.html

11/1/01
12:33:23 PM

Planet Ark World Environment News

UPDATE - NEWSMAKER-A Ford takes the wheel at Ford – USA
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13040/story.htm

Ohio panel approves 480-MW DPL Energy power plant – USA
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13034/story.htm

New England's EMI plans 420 MW Nantucket wind farm - USA
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13035/story.htm

UPDATE - EIA to take over weekly natgas report - source - USA
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13036/story.htm

UPDATE - US House leader predicts passage of trade bill - USA
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13037/story.htm

UPDATE - Outlook for WTO talks uncertain-USTR's Zoellick - USA
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13033/story.htm

WRAPUP - Authorities track worrisome new anthrax case - USA
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13047/story.htm

UPDATE - Armor Holdings to sell stock, received EPA inquiry - USA
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13044/story.htm

Exxon says it is taking action on climate change - UK
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13038/story.htm

Anti-globalisers voice outrage over WTO plan - SWITZERLAND
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13042/story.htm

Greenpeace urges public access to climate data - MOROCCO
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13041/story.htm

INTERVIEW - India's Indal eyeing smelter, refinery expansion - INDIA
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13045/story.htm

EU probes heavy oil tariffs in alumina production - EU
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13043/story.htm

EU tweaks indicators tracking economic transformation - EU
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13039/story.htm

China could add more balance to WTO - Supachai - CHINA
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13046/story.htm

UPDATE - Oil stops leaking from ship aground in Kuwait - BAHRAIN
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13048/story.htm

11/1/01
12:32:35 PM

Planes Banned Near Nuclear Plants

By JONATHAN D. SALANT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Federal Aviation Administration temporarily banned private planes from flying near nuclear power plants after Attorney General John Ashcroft warned of possible new terrorist attacks.

The FAA on Tuesday imposed the restrictions "for reasons of national security." The ban on flying within 11 miles of 86 nuclear plants and other nuclear sites such as the Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico expires Nov. 7.

Also in response to Ashcroft's warning, Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta told his department's administrators to make sure that the trucking, aviation, railroad, shipping and other industries maintained high levels of security.

The ban on private flights near nuclear power plants will force nearby small airports to close, said Warren Morningstar, a spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

"A small, general-aviation aircraft is not a significant risk to a nuclear facility," Morningstar said. "On the other hand, we also have to accept that there are serious national security threats, and we will do our best to protect the nation and keep people safe."

Commercial airplanes, which fly at higher altitudes, will not be affected. Nor will the ban apply to medical, law enforcement, rescue and firefighting operations when authorized by air traffic controllers.

The FAA also announced restrictions on private planes because of the World Series. Only pilots who file flight plans with the FAA will be allowed to fly within 34 miles of John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. The restrictions will be in effect from 6:45 p.m. to 2 a.m. EST during all World Series games played at Yankee Stadium.

Bans remain in effect on all private planes within 20 miles of Kennedy Airport or Reagan Washington National Airport. In Boston, New York and Washington, all private pilots must file flight plans with the FAA.

Blimps, news helicopters and banner-towing planes remain grounded in 30 metropolitan areas.

Federal Aviation Administration: http://www.faa.gov

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association: http://www.aopa.org

11/1/01
12:31:29 PM

FBI detains 5 Israelis for having connection with WTC incident

NEW YORK, September 19 (PNS): Five Israelis who had worked for a moving company based in New Jersey were held by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for having links with the World Trade Center incident in New York last Tuesday.

According to Information Times, the five are expected to be deported sometime soon.

The five were transferred out of the FBI's facility on Saturday morning and are now being held in two prisons in New Jersey by the Immigration and Naturalization Services. They are charged with illegally residing in the United States and working there without permits.

The Foreign Ministry said in response that it had been informed by the consulate in New York that the FBI had arrested the five for "puzzling behaviour." They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.

Source: http://www.paknews.com/main.php?id=4&date1=2001-09-19

10/30/01
7:33:36 PM

Brower Awards Honor Young Environmental Activists

by Stacey L. Fowler

Winners of this year's Brower Youth Awards.

The “power of one” is a theme that sums up the 2001 Annual Brower Youth Awards. Each of the six young people honored this year by Earth Island Institute demonstrated in truly remarkable ways just how much one person is capable of making a difference for the environment.

“One person is a lot, actually,” said Angela Coryell, 19, of Baring, WA. “One person could produce a film if they wanted to and that’s enough to get people to understand what you’re fighting for.”

And producing a film is precisely what Coryell did. “An Oily Sky” brought public attention to a long-neglected environmental crisis in her hometown.

“There was actually 160,000 gallons of oil that was seeping from a big oil tank under our school into our river,” says Coryell of the oil spill created by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. The students sent their documentary to local media and government officials who in turn have ordered the corporation to clean up the mess.

Coryell notes that a major barrier to solving environmental problems is lack of public awareness. “So in showing them — they can see it, they can hear it, the only thing they can’t do is smell it,” she said.

The Brower Youth Awards are part of the legacy of legendary environmental leader David Brower. Each year Earth Island Institute, which is one of the many organizations founded by the late Brower, recognizes the innovative environmental leadership efforts of six young people, ages 13 to 22.

Each individual receives a $3000 cash prize and a trip to the San Francisco Bay Area. The 2001 recipients were honored on October 13 at a ceremony in Brower’s hometown of Berkeley, CA.

Julia Butterfly Hill emceed the stirring event that was highlighted by the rhythmic artistry of Loco Bloco, a colorful drumming and dance troupe from San Francisco’s Mission District, and Eli Marienthal and Antonio Elmo Mims, the dynamic slam poetry duo known as Full Cycle.

“The telling of the stories is what gets more stories to happen,” explained John Knox, executive director at Earth Island Institute. “If we share not just the doom and gloom about the challenges that we face, but the really inspiring stories of the people who get fired up we can continue to make a difference.”

And every one of these stories is inspiring. Consider Deland Chan, a 16-year old who led a group of teens in the creation of an urban oasis in the midst of the concrete jungle that is New York City.

In September of 2000, Chan started an environmental group at the 92nd Street YMCA. Together the members are restoring a neglected garden, including surveying the soil to determine what plants are already there, researching which types of plants are native to Manhattan and which are invasive, and organizing a series of cleanup efforts.

“There is no such thing as passive apathy -- every single move counts,” said Chan. “If you feel personally that you don’t have the energy or the type of commitment to go ahead and lead an entire project -- that’s fine. But, be supportive of those that are and at least read a newspaper and see what is going on and educate yourself, and that will be doing your part,” she said.

Rob Fish of Bar Harbor, ME is the eldest recipient. Now at the ripe, old age of 23, Fish is being recognized for his efforts to save one of the last remaining and largest contiguous temperate rainforests in the world.

According to Fish, about two years ago a company called Wickes Lumber agreed to phase out the sale of wood from old-growth forests. But last December, he says, “Wickes tried to back out of their agreement by refusing to drop a contract with International Forest Products (InterFor) — a company that’s been clear- cutting the heck out of the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia.”

Fish led a group of activists in holding Wickes to its pledge. Early one morning, the group chained themselves to 20-foot tall metal tripods outside of Wickes’ retail center effectively closing the business down for several hours and drawing media attention throughout the northeast, Alaska, and in Canada.

“In the end,” said Fish, “Wickes put enough pressure on International Forest Products that our action had the unintended effects of forcing InterFor back into negotiations and the arrival at an agreement announced in April that sets aside over one million acres of the Great Bear Rainforest permanently.”

Fish also helped to pass a procurement policy that mandates that his school, the College of the Atlantic, may only purchase Forest Stewardship Certified (FSC) wood and must phase in 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper.

Another of this year’s recipients understands the power of market-based campaigns when it comes to educating the public and protecting the natural environment. Heide Iravani, of Charlotte, NC, began her environmental activism efforts at 16 as a canvasser for the Sierra Club. Now 18, Iravani was recognized by Earth Island for her extensive work in market-based campaigns being used for forest protection.

Iravani led the youth of her community in the Staples campaign, which is currently urging Staples Office Supply Store to stop selling paper that comes from clear-cut southern forests. She explained that the campaign wants Staples to stock post-consumer recycled and tree-free paper so that customers have the option to be socially-responsible in their purchasing decisions.

“I think there are two areas of accomplishment for me,” said Iravani. “First, we’ve gotten some acknowledgement from Staples, which is currently conducting a study to determine how they can integrate policies that will be sustainable and give their customers options for being socially-responsible when they’re purchasing products,” she said.

But more importantly, Iravani is proud of the effect she’s had on her community. “It’s showing young people, and people period, that they have the ability to make a large impact on an entire marketplace,” she said. “Everything seems to be defined economically and the individual consumer can have a huge impact. I think the Staples campaign is a great example of that,” said Iravani.

This Year’s youngest Brower Youth Award recipient is Grayson Schleppergrell, 13, from Charleston, SC.

As a fifth-grader, Schleppergrell led a group of his classmates in a project that landed the young activists before Congress.

“Mass fishing off the South Carolina coast called long-lining was trolling up and killing millions of pounds of swordfish everyday that were being thrown back dead because it wouldn’t count towards the quota,” said Schleppergrell. “Fishermen couldn’t keep it, but they also had it dead on the lines so they had to throw it back, which led to a serious decline in the swordfish population, especially off important breeding grounds,” he explained.

The students’ proposals to abolish swordfish quotas and introduce commercial long-lining buyouts gained the favor of their congressional representatives and as a result long-lining was banned off the South Carolina coast, thus thwarting the projected commercial extinction of swordfish within the coming decade.

Schleppergrell said he didn’t let his age get in the way of speaking up for the swordfish before a room full of distinguished adults.

“When you get up to speak, and you speak what you believe, and you know about what you believe -- then you can accomplish just about anything,” he emphasized.

Jared Duval, an 18 year-old from Lebanon, NH has been in Schleppergrell’s shoes. “At first it’s very intimidating going up against these big developers who have a lot of money and prestige, but then you realize that your voice basically counts as much as theirs does,” he said.

Duval led an effort to prevent a 56,000 square-foot supermarket from being built on wetlands near his high school. While many community members were upset about the development plans, none seemed to have any ideas of how to stop it.

“I wrote a petition and had the majority of the school sign it. We presented it to the school board, the zoning board, and just started attending all the zoning and planning board meetings,” explained Duval.

Duval and his peers effectively argued at the meetings and through the media that the supermarket would negatively impact the local quality of life. Ultimately the planning board voted 4 to 3 to deny the developers access to the land.

The environmental leaders of the future have arrived, and they’re not going anywhere. Through their heroic efforts these six young people have demonstrated that every single one of us counts. All we need to do is speak up.

Duval, like most of us, has been touched by the recent tragic events taking place in the world. The patriotic spirit sweeping the nation has Duval seriously thinking about what he finds amazing in America.

“One of the main things that makes us great, I think, is our natural beauty. The character of the wilderness really defines us — wild and free,” said Duval. He continued, “I think we need to respect that and incorporate it into our everyday lives by protecting our environment and speaking up when things are amiss."

Source: http://www.enn.com/news/enn- stories/2001/10/10302001/young_45320.asp

10/30/01
7:19:23 PM

SojoNet News Daily Headlines

http://www.sojo.net/news

Pressure To Curtail War Grows

In their meeting in Islamabad yesterday the president of Pakistan told the head of the U.S. Central Command that the Pakistani public is growing impatient with the bombing efforts and the unintended civilian casualties and that a Ramadan pause was needed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8830- 2001Oct29.html

Afghans warned over cluster bombs

The United States has begun broadcasting warnings to people in Afghanistan informing them how to tell the difference between unexploded cluster bomb units and airdropped food parcels--both of which are yellow.

http://europe.cnn.com/2001/US/10/29/ret.bomb.warnings/index.html

Detentions After Attacks Pass 1,000, U.S. Says

The number of people who had been detained in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks had surpassed 1,000, and civil liberties advocates said the government's refusal to disclose the identities of those held and the charges against them raised the possibility of secret detentions.

http://w ww.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/national/30DETA.html

Bush gives green light to CIA for assassination of named terrorists

President Bush has given the CIA an explicit go-ahead to carry out covert missions to assassinate Osama bin Laden and his supporters around the world, effectively lifting a 25-year ban on such activities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,582588,00.html

Dissenters Find Colleges Less Tolerant of Discord Following Attacks

The Sept. 11 attacks and the ongoing war have galvanized public opinion as have few events in recent history. Professors worry that the new conformity is having a corrosive impact on campuses, eroding their historical place as hotbeds of debate and dissent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/articles/A8688-2001Oct29.html

10/30/01
7:17:09 PM

Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE

<http: //www.gristmagazine.com/grist/default.asp?source=top>

BUILT FORD TOUGH

William Clay Ford, Jr., is taking over as CEO of his great-granddaddy's company, following the resignation today of Jacques Nasser. The changing of the guard at the Ford Motor Company could mean that environmentalists will gain an even more powerful ally in traditionally enemy territory; the younger Ford has a reputation for being unusually eco-friendly for an auto maven. In the past, as chair of Ford (a position he will continue to fill), Ford urged the company to begin issuing an annual "corporate citizenship report," the first of which in 2000 admitted loud and clear that SUVs are bad for the environment and contribute to global warming. (Ford has also jokingly referred to the 19-foot-long Excursion as the "Ford Valdez.") None of that is what got Ford his current job, of course; company reps hope the shakeup will help shake off recent financial woes.

straight to the source: New York Times, Danny Hakim with Michael Brick, 30 Oct 2001 <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/business/30CND- FORD.html>

straight to the source: Detroit Free Press, Jeffrey McCracken, 30 Oct 2001 <http://www.auto .com/industry/jac30_20011030.htm>

SUN FRANCISCO GIANTS

San Francisco could become the nation's leader in alternative energy use if voters approve two solar- energy ballot measures at the polls next week. Propositions B and H would enable the city to sell bonds to install solar panels on residential, commercial, and government rooftops, creating the largest solar power infrastructure in the United States. Advocates -- including nearly every major civic organization and city officials of diverse political stripes -- say the measures would reduce the city's dependence on California's unpredictable energy market and would be great for the environment.

straight to the source: San Jose Mercury News, Marilee Enge, 29 Oct 2001 < http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/solar29ps.htm>

BAD NEWS, BEARS

The controversial proposal now before the Senate to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could violate an international agreement signed by the U.S. in 1973 to protect polar bears and their habitats. An internal report obtained by the Washington Post shows that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded in 1995 that drilling could be harmful to the bears, which forage, rest, and give birth in the refuge's coastal plain, where the drilling would occur. The report has never been made public, though it was due to Congress five years ago. A spokesperson for Interior Secretary Gale Norton said that nothing in the international agreement specifically prohibits drilling, and that the administration would do everything possible to minimize the impact on the bears.

straight to the source: Washington Post, Michael Grunwald, 30 Oct 2001 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/articles/A8697-2001Oct29.html>

10/30/01
7:14:33 PM

The Nation

Alongside the White House and the Capitol building on the alleged terrorist hit list for September 11 was another, little- noticed target: Incirlik, a US airbase in southern Turkey. In a recent raid on a suspect's apartment in Detroit, the FBI found extensive drawings and materials relating to the base. Why Incirlik?

To find out, read Ian Urbina's editorial from the November 12, 2001 issue of the Nation, currently available at:

http ://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011112&s=urbina

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 web articles, links, activist info, a regularly updated section of media resources, a section on Islam and the Chomsky/Hitchens debate. All available:

http://www.the nation.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, Stephen Cohen, Vivian Gornick, William Sloan Coffin, Martin Duberman, Richard Falk, Howard Fast, Erwin Knoll, Mary McGrory and Natalie Merchant.

All available currently at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/mhtml?i=archive&s=schaar_wtc_ 19910715

10/30/01
7:13:18 PM

Public Citizen

Organizations Representing Consumers, Passengers, Pilots and Flight Attendants Urge Congress to Federalize Aviation Security

Groups Call for Standardized Procedures, Trained and Motivated Security Workers

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A coalition of organizations representing consumers, airline passengers, pilots and flight attendants sent a letter today to all members of Congress urging them to federalize airline and airport security, using standardized procedures and highly trained security workers who have passed criminal background and national security checks.

"The current aviation security system operated by airlines, airports and private security companies under FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] oversight and regulation cannot deal with terrorist threats of the magnitude America now faces," the letter said. "Even with closer supervision and support, the current system cannot realistically meet the threat of new aviation terrorism."

Citing not only the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackings but also the 1988 terrorist bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, the letter noted that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has failed to implement basic reforms despite the fact that aviation security was the subject of major legislation in 1990 and was criticized by two presidential commissions during the 1990s. Recommendations that have been ignored include matching bags to passengers; screening cargo, mail and luggage for explosives; and securing cockpit doors. Federalizing the system is essential to restore public confidence in air travel, the letter said. A copy is available athttp://www.citizen.org/congress/regulations/issue_ar eas/faa/articles.cfm?ID=6398.

Such change is needed because neither the DOT nor the FAA is a law enforcement agency, so adding another layer of federal supervision in either agency is likely to fail.

"We should not even consider retaining a system which could again risk . . . the lives of thousands of Americans to even more devastating aviation terrorist attacks in the future," the letter said.

"The Congress rushed to pass a $15 billion taxpayer bailout of the aviation industry without ever conditioning it on basic improvements in aviation security, which the industry has long opposed," said Joan Claybrook, Public Citizen president. "The industry's future depends on public confidence, which will be restored only with rapid passage of aviation security legislation mandating improvements. The White House has conceded that the president will sign a strong bill. The Congress should send him one immediately."

The letter sent today was signed by the Association of Flight Attendants, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, the Aviation Consumer Action Project (ACAP), the Business Travel Coalition, the Independent Pilots Association, the International Airline Passengers Association, Public Citizen and Victims of Pan Am Flight 103.

The House is scheduled to consider two version of aviation security legislation later this week. One bill is backed by the president and House Republican leadership; the second is backed by House Democrats.

Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.

For more information, please visit http://www.Citizen.org

10/30/01
7:11:43 PM

Public Citizen

Privatization Not a Cure-All for Ailing Water and Sewer Systems, Study Finds

Eliminating Public Control Can Lead to Higher Costs, Inadequate Maintenance, Stunted Economic Growth and Lost Accountability

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Communities that privatize their water and sewer systems run the risk of suffering higher costs, subpar maintenance, lost accountability and local control, stunted economic growth, wasteful duplication of services and other problems, a report by Public Citizen reveals.

The report, Water Privatization - A Broken Promise, shines the light on the dark side of water privatization, which is seldom disclosed by corporations vying to take over public water and sewer systems, or by outside consultants advising local governments to surrender control of these utilities to private, for-profit companies under the guise of improving efficiency.

Currently, a number of cities are considering privatization, including New Orleans, Pittsburgh and Stockton, Calif. If New Orleans were to privatize, it would be the largest public works privatization in U.S. history. The contract could last 20 years and cost the city an estimated $1 billion. Many of the pitfalls of privatization have either been dismissed or ignored by New Orleans officials.

But experience shows that serious problems can arise. Lee County, Fla., for example, has reclaimed control of its water system after experiencing a host of problems with its contractor. And Atlanta is conducting an in-depth performance evaluation in the wake of numerous problems attributed to that city's private water contractor.

"The solution to poorly run water systems and aging infrastructure lies in more government accountability, not less - which is exactly what privatization brings," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "Citizens must hold their elected officials to higher standards. Privatization is a cop-out, pure and simple."

For the report, Public Citizen analyzed records and talked to officials in 20 municipalities that privatized their water systems. Their experiences show that privatization can be a risky proposition. Consider:

· In Lee County, Fla., county officials in October 2000 chose to return its water and sewer systems to public control after an audit revealed serious problems with the private contractor. Equipment was not in maintained in acceptable working condition. Hazardous waste was poorly handled and reported. Preventive maintenance was performed late and some work was not done at all. After public control was restored, the county's utility director estimated the company's failure to properly maintain infrastructure would cost citizens more than $8 million.

· In Pekin, Ill., private operations brought a 204 percent water rate increase over 18 years - significantly higher than increases in Illinois cities with public water systems. Infrastructure repairs were not performed on a timely basis. During the 1998-1999 school year, service to two schools was cut off for a week, with teachers being notified by a note taped to the door just before students arrived. In response, city officials began to advocate reclaiming public control. The company - a subsidiary of American Water Works, the country's largest private water corporation - responded with an estimated $1 million public relations campaign, which succeeded in halting the initiative, at least temporarily.

· In San Francisco, many citizens have criticized the city's consulting contract with a Bechtel-led alliance, which was hired to do engineering work and hold down costs as the city began upgrading its water and sewer systems. Even before work began, the city's budget analyst found no evidence that money would actually be saved. A year into the contract, city engineers believed the alliance was doing little more than charging "outrageous" fees. A July 2001 city audit uncovered unauthorized expenses in the alliance's reimbursement requests.

· In Atlanta, which contracted out the operation and maintenance of its water system in 1998, the city soon began receiving complaints of slow service, broken fire hydrants and brown drinking water flecked with debris. A comprehensive audit of the company's performance is under way.

Water privatization, particularly of operations and maintenance, is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. Because no major, long-term contract has run its course, it is difficult to gauge whether cities could easily return their systems to public control after the contracts expire, especially considering the cities lose both the expertise and the personnel necessary to run these systems efficiently. However, if cities also sell the infrastructure associated with the system, rather than just contracting out its operations, it likely would be exceptionally difficult for them to reclaim control.

"By signing away city water and sewer systems, officials jeopardize long-term rate stability, proper equipment maintenance and economic development," Hauter said. "With the benefits of privatization remaining questionable, residents simply cannot afford such a risk."

Public Citizen is a non- profit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.

To read - Water Privatization - A Broken Promise, please visit:

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Water_Privatiz ation_-_a_Broken_Promise.pdf

10/30/01
7:07:05 PM

New Search Law Likely To Provoke Fourth Amendment Challenge

Terrorism Bill OKs 'Sneak-and-Peek'

by Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal, October 29, 2001

Among the likely court fights over Congress' terrorism package is one over so-called sneak-and-peek warrants, according to Fourth Amendment scholars and groups across the political spectrum.

The anti-terrorism package enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks contains a provision expanding the authority of federal law enforcement officers to conduct covert searches.

Unlike other provisions broadening law enforcement power, this one does not have a "sunset" or time limit attached that would allow the lawmakers to revisit its necessity at a later date. And like many other provisions, the sneak-and-peek language is not restricted to terrorism investigations.

"On the face of things, the connection between this provision and terrorism generally is tenuous," says criminal procedure scholar Tracey Maclin of Boston University School of Law. "It's not tied to cases in which national security or threats from foreign agents appear to be the focus of investigation. It can apply to any intrusion.

"It allows the government to go in, conduct a search and then not tell anybody that they've been in one's home."

Like much of the anti-terrorism package, what the Justice Department wants with covert searches is "partly necessary," says Stephen Saltzburg of George Washington University Law School, a member of the American Bar Association's Taskforce on Terrorism and Law.

"I think most people would agree that in some limited situations, these sneak-and-peek warrants make sense," he says. "It's the breadth that concerns people and they're not persuaded the government can do this for any kind of a warrant."

Because of that breadth, the law will be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, predicts Timothy Lynch, director of the Criminal Justice Project at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Prior to the anti-terrorism package, nothing in the criminal code authorized secret searches for physical evidence, says Rachel King, legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union. In fact, Rule 41(d) of the federal Rules of Criminal Procedure still requires officers conducting a search to "leave a copy and receipt at the place from which the property was taken."

The Supreme Court in 1977 held that an officer, absent exigent circumstances, must knock and announce his presence before serving a search warrant.

But delayed notice of searches has been authorized in two instances: The federal wiretap law -- Title 18 -- permits delayed notice for searches of oral and wire communications, as does the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for intelligence gathering.

"In terms of regular, run-of-the mill criminal searches for physical evidence, our position is they don't have any authority to do it," King says. "To me, it is the ultimate power grab."

The terrorism law permits delayed notice of a search if a court finds reasonable cause to believe that immediate notice of the warrant may have an adverse result on an investigation. The warrant must provide for giving notice within a "reasonable period," which could be extended by a court for good cause.

The Justice Department argued that the existing law is a mix of inconsistent rules, practices and court decisions that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It said the anti-terrorism provision resolves the inconsistency by establishing a uniform, statutory standard for all cases.

The department also relied on a 1990 decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In U.S. v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, the court upheld a covert search where no physical evidence was seized in a drug investigation. But the court said that certain safeguards are required for covert searches, such as a showing of reasonable necessity for the delayed notice.

The 9th Circuit, also in a drug case, earlier found a covert search unlawful under Rule 41 and under the Fourth Amendment because the warrant contained no provision for notice. A delay in notice, the court said, should not extend beyond seven days except upon a strong showing of necessity. The court allowed the evidence in under the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule. U.S. v. Freitas, 800 F.2d 1451 (1986).

Beyond a handful of court rulings, there is little authority to support secret searches, Saltzburg says.

"A fair statement would be that because the Supreme Court has a knock-and-announce rule, the court's assumption is most searches are not going to be secret," he says. But, he says, "I think there is a good argument to be made that it doesn't make sense to say you can delay notice on wiretaps but can't delay notice on any other physical search. That kind of distinction is arguably backward because tapes can go on for months and people have enormous interest in knowing about them."

Some critics across the political spectrum agree with Saltzburg that the covert-search provision might have been more palatable with restrictions.

"It should be tied to terrorism investigations," says Phil Kent, president of the conservative Southeastern Legal Foundation. "And the extraordinary power requested should be temporary."

In the end, Boston University's Maclin says, "It's all a question of how we view the Fourth Amendment. The amendment's essential purpose is to control the discretion of government officials to intrude in our lives. How many judges, particularly where criminal contraband is discovered, are going to say the government's request is unreasonable? They're not going to do it."

The Supreme Court has not focused on notice under the Fourth Amendment as much as it has on probable cause and reasonable suspicion, says Fourth Amendment scholar Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "As long as the police have probable cause or individualized suspicion to do this, the Court could say there's no reason to tell you," he says. "But I'd hope not. People ought to know what's taken from them so they can at least prepare a defense."

The problem may be getting a challenge before the Supreme Court, adds the Cato Institute's Lynch. "Having Congress codify this power strengthens the department's hand when the warrants are litigated. And if the department sees a potential legal challenge in front of them, they may offer plea bargains to eliminate the threat.

"That's why we find this so worrisome. It may take 10 years or more before this power is invalidated."

Source: http://www.Law.com

10/30/01
7:02:48 PM

A tricky problem for Commander Solo, the American psy- ops aircraft currently trying to teach Afghans that some yellow is good -- like the packages containing the American airdrops of food in the MRE (Meals Ready to East) bags. But some is bad -- like the yellow casings around cluster bombs.

"We would like you to take extra care and not to touch yellow-colored objects thinking that they might be food bags," the airborne radio is now saying, according to BBC monitors. "This issue is highly important, especially in areas where bombs have been dropped. You should not forget and take additional care. Do not confuse the cylinder-shaped bomb with the rectangular food bag."

10/30/01
6:55:10 PM

TCGreens.org

Peter Miguel Camejo, Green, for California Governor

http ://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011030070303208.html

Karl Breyman: Strengthen Welfare to Work Efforts

http ://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011030064941689.html

Green Party Mayoral Candidate Calls on New Yorkers to Support Postal Workers

http ://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011029062258211.html

Firings and Bannings Continue at Pacifica

http ://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011026065926454.html

Suppression of war debate threatens democracy

http ://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011026064953120.html

"War on Terrorism" Threatens Civil Liberties

http ://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011024132532114.html

20,000 Criticize European Union in Belgium

http ://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20011024131700437.html

10/30/01
6:48:32 PM

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE

http://ens-news.com

ANTHRAX FORCES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OUT

By Cat Lazaroff

WASHINGTON, DC, October 29, 2001 (ENS) - The U.S. Supreme Court is meeting today in a borrowed appeals court room due to concerns over possible anthrax contamination of their regular court. It is the first time in the Supreme Court building's 66 year history that the nation's highest court has needed to meet outside its headquarters.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-29-06.html

TALKS TO FINALIZE CLIMATE RULEBOOK OPEN IN MEXICO

MARRAKECH, Morocco, October 29, 2001 (ENS) - Climate talks have resumed to finalize the procedures and institutions that will make the Kyoto Protocol fully operational. The world's governments are meeting here from today through November 9 to work out exactly how to reduce the emissions of six greenhouse gases that are linked to global warming.

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-29-01.html

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: OCTOBER 29, 2001

Hardrock Mining Rule Revisions Weaken Protections

Offshore Energy Production Headed for Gulf of Mexico

Pufferfish Gene Sequence Could Illuminate Human Genome

Partnership Aims to Improve Coastal Fisheries

Park Service Plans to Poison Wildlife, Group Charges

Yellowstone Grizzlies Doing Well

Californian Fined for Dumping Hazardous Wastes

USFWS Regional Director Receives Presidential Recognition

Grants Support Education in Environmental Sciences

Environomics Program Links Weather, Climate to Economy

For full text and graphics visit:

http://ens- news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-29-09.html

10/30/01
6:39:57 PM

Hartford, CT: 16 Peace Marchers Arrested, Including Green Organizer Antiwar protest in CT attacked

I thought people should know that yesterday, a demonstration against the war in Hartford, CT was attacked by police and 16 people were arrested. By all accounts this was unprovoked. Some have been charged with felonies (one with inciting a riot and one with conspiracy to incite a riot) and are being held on up to $25,000 bail. I am including a statement of solidarity and an eyewitness account of what happened.

A large march against war and racism was held in Hartford, Connecticut on Thursday, October 25th. The march was attacked by police and many were arrested. Our comrades and friends are being prosecuted for oppossing murder in Afghanistan. The Legal Update is not good. Many of those arrested face outrageous charges of riot, and other felonies. We are calling for Help Right Now. People are being charged with felonies and some bond as high as $50,000. To release them we need 10%. We must rise to the occassion and get them out of jail. The first thing we need is Money and Lawyers. Ideally we need a loan or donation for several thousand dollars. At least $20,000 will be needed now. Checks can be made to: Free Speech Legal Defense Fund 13 Farview Avenue Danbury, CT 06810

Please call 203-744-0763 ask for Ernie to let him know of donation (as mail is slow and we want our people out NOW!) Ideally we need thousands right now. If you can make large donation, your loan will be repayed by fundraising of small donations, but without a large donation or loan, it will take weeks or months to get the money together. That means friends in jail for weeks or months.

To demand the release of CT political prisoners call: Mayor Mike Peters 860- 543- 8500 City Manager Borgess # 860- 543-8520 Deputy Mayor Jim Wright # 860-543-8524

Solidarity and mutual aid are not just words, but actions. stay posted to

http://www.madhattersimc.org

The plan was to gather at Bushenell park, march through the streets (at rush hour) to Senator Lieberman's office and implore him not to support the war on Afghan citizens. In meetings to plan the event it was clear; this was to be a peaceful protest. On our side, it was.

After the short rally we made our way through the streets. Were we blocking cars as we walked through the streets? Yes. We took the streets to get a certain level of attention that the mass media has refused to give promoters of peace. However, we were moving. Our intention was never to block an intersection. Our intention was to get to Lieberman's office. We did not make it.

Within minutes of the march police cars screeched around every corner. They ran their sirens and yelled to us to get on the side walk. After about three blocks of this, they had apparently had enough. They forced us on the side walk, splitting us up on either side of the street. Then they would not let us go any further. We went on the sidewalk when they told us too. I have been at rallies and marches where certain people have chosen to instigate the police, push against them, refuse to move they are told to move. I am not against this choice though I don't choose to make it myself. However, there was no one pushing, instigating, throwing anything or even threatening the cops.

One man Vic, a green party organizer in his forties, paced back and forth with a percussion instrument. Remember, at this point everyone was on the sidewalk. I have no idea what made the cops do this but suddenly Vic came flying through the crowd to the ground. Four cops were on him kicking him and using their clubs. He screamed "Wait my glasses. I neeed my glasses!" The others moved toward Vic and the cops pepper sprayed crowd. As Vic was taken to the police car, he was bleeding from the side of his head.

We were watching all of this happening,when the some more cops came to us and said that anyone on the side walk would soon be arrested. A woman turned around to look at the cop who made the anouncement and she was immediatly arrested. 15 people were arreseted at that moment.

The rest of us, moved up the block in shock. We gathered at the corner in front of the Old State House to figure out what to do. Two people facilitated the meeting. One of the facilitator's name was Adam. We decided not to go to Liebermans office but to get in our cars and drive to the police station in supoport of our detained brothers and sisters. We ended the meeting and dispersed to our cars. Just then three cops pushed by me and grabbed Adam who was walking a few steps ahead. A woman screamed out "why are you taking him??" One of the cops yelled over his shoulder "Conspiracy to insight a riot." This for the person who faclitated a discussion in which we decided to leave the area.

After about four hours outside the police station we got word that the sixteen arrested would not be out tonight. Adams bail was set at 25,000 dollars and we believe the rest had bail set at 15,000. So far the charges seem to be pretty serious and completely outragous.

We will be at 101 Lafayette st. tomorrow to show court room solidarity. We will also hold a press conference tomorrow afternoon.

As the cops were beating, pepper spraying and arresting, we chanted "This is not a police state. We have the right to demonstate." But I am rethinking that.

This undeclared war is being called "Operation Freedom." It is also being called the "War against Terrorism." Yet we bomb Iraq on weekly basis. Unicef estimates that 4,500 Iraqi children die every month due to US enforced sanctions. 7.5 million Afghan people will soon die of disease or starvation if they aren't killed by bombs first. And a group of American citizens are beaten, sprayed and arrested for practicing our right to assemble. Freedom, terror, a free reign of terror...

10/30/01
6:34:50 PM

Quote from this article below: "If people would only realize that if one leads a life in cooperation with nature and not against it, then nobody in the world need die of starvation."

Friday, August 24, 2001

By Reuters

RAMINGSTEIN, Austria -- In the coldest part of Austria, a farmer is turning conventional wisdom on its head by growing a veritable Garden of Eden full of tropical plants in the open on his steep Alpine pastures.

Amid average annual temperatures of a mere 39.5 Fahrenheit, Sepp Holzer grows everything from apricots to eucalyptus, figs to kiwi fruit, peaches to wheat at an altitude of between 3,300 and 4,900 feet.

Once branded a fool, fined and threatened with imprisonment for defying Austrian regulations that dictate what is planted where, he is now feted worldwide for creating the only functioning "permaculture" farm in Europe.

Permaculture, an abbreviation of permanent culture, is the development of agricultural ecosystems which are complete and self- sustaining.

"Once planted, I do absolutely nothing," Holzer told Reuters. "It really is just nature working for itself -- no weeding, no pruning, no watering, no fertilizer, no pesticides."

His 110 acres of land in the mountainous Lungau region in the province of Salzburg are classed by European Union directives as unfit for agricultural cultivation due to the steep gradient and poor soil.

When Holzer inherited the farm -- then 44.5 acres -- 39 years ago, it was only used for the grazing of the family's cows and sheep. He carved terraces out of the steep inclines --like the ancient Incas and Maya of South and Central America --to stop erosion and trap rainfall.

He rejected the use of pesticides and fertilizers, which he considered poisonous, and the concept of monoculture --the cultivation of just one plant type over an expanse of land --because he believed it sapped the soil of all nutrients.

Instead he began growing a host of timber and fruit trees, shrubs and grasses all mixed up together.

"Everyone said I was mad and I had to pay numerous fines because the authorities said that it was illegal to plant such a combination," Holzer said.

"When I bought this patch of land off a farmer, it was not fit for the cows and sheep grazing on it. People scoffed that I was neglecting my land -- but now they come to harvest cherries from June to October."

"This is the worst type of soil, which just goes to prove that there is no bad soil, just bad farmers," he added.

PROOF IS IN EATING OF PUDDING

Most of the plants Holzer and his wife Vroni grow at his "Krameterhof" holding are not meant to flourish in Alpine conditions, according to experts.

In winter, the temperature can fall to below minus 22 degrees Fahrenheit and a blanket of snow lingers into May. Snow can even fall in the height of summer.

Holzer said he found agricultural textbooks and his own years at agricultural college virtually useless.

"I followed their advice initially, but my trees started dying off. I then realized that I had to eradicate from my memory all that I'd learnt at college," he said.

Enlightenment came one winter during one of Holzer's routine moonlight strolls, when he noticed that the only apricot tree faring well in the harsh winter conditions was one he had forgotten to cut back according to ministerial regulations.

Unlike the pruned trees whose main lower branches snapped off under the weight of snow, the "neglected" tree's branches were intact.

Their unrestricted length had allowed them to droop with the tips touching the ground for support while the snow slid off, Holzer found. Allowing natural vegetation to grow around the trunk provided further support and nourishment for the tree.

"If people would only realize that if one leads a life in cooperation with nature and not against it, then nobody in the world need die of starvation," he said.

LET NATURE TAKE ITS OWN COURSE

Holzer's philosophy is that nature knows best and needs negligible interference from Man.

"We're born into paradise, but are destroying its foundation, the soil. The soil can look after itself, there's no need for Man to tamper with it."

Giant stone slabs pepper the landscape and serve as incubators by absorbing the sunlight and giving off warmth. The trees do their part as well in keeping the ground warm. Fallen foliage helps keep frost from reaching the roots. Tree stumps dot the plantations to regulate irrigation. Like a sponge they soak up water and later distribute it. Animals too have a role in the Holzer ecosystem. Scavenging pigs till the soil in place of a tractor, while grass snakes were reintroduced to keep voracious slugs and mice in check.

Holzer is modest about his achievement which has led to projects in more than 40 countries and lectures on "the elimination of poverty in agriculture." He has rejected suggestions that he should have his method of permaculture patented.

"I would consider that as theft from nature. It's not my possession, I got it from nature and have an obligation to pass this knowledge on," the bearded 59-year-old said.

INSPIRATIONAL, BUT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE?

Holzer says his method of organic farming produces a much higher quality of crops than conventional farming, and at a fraction of the cost and effort. He says his rare strain of grain contains 12 times the goodness of conventionally grown grain and as a result fetches a price 100 times higher.

His success means that he no longer lives directly off the crops in his sprawling garden, or the rare fish in his Alpine ponds and lakes. People pay to pick their own fruit from his land, experts visit to study "Holzer Permaculture," and the man himself regularly holds seminars when not in a far-off country such as Colombia solving chronic problems of the soil. And only one thing has so far stumped the man with green fingers.

"Bananas," he said with a shrug of his burly frame. "They froze. It's no surprise as they need an average temperature of 30 degrees. But I'm still working on it."

10/30/01
6:26:23 PM

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS: FLIGHT 93, FIGHTER JETS, AND THREE MILE ISLAND

Was Flight 93 Shot Down Over Pennsylvania? If So, Was It Because It Was Targeting Three Mile Island?

BuzzFlash has followed the events surrounding Flight 93, the United Airlines 757 that crashed in Pennsylvania, since the September 11 attacks and a number of theories have emerged over how and why that hijacked plane went down in a wooded area near Stony Creek Township, in south central Pennsylvania. However, we hesitated to post speculation until now.

Recent news sources have reconfirmed the possibility that the hijackers of Flight 93 intended to ram the plane into the Three Mile Island nuclear facility, a mere 10 minutes from the crash site, and that instead of plummeting into the ground on its own, Flight 93 was actually shot out of the air by U.S. fighter jets.

As the Sunday Times of London reported on October 21, 2001:

"[Flight 93} then made a series of sharp turns before going into a steep descent. Aviation experts say that at this point there were three nuclear power stations between the plane and Washington and directly in its line of flight: Three Mile Island, Peach Bottom and Hope Creek."

"Investigators cannot understand why the plane would have descended so early, unless its intended target was much nearer than Washington. The descent could have been an error by one of the hijackers, but if so, they cannot understand why the plane did not then climb again once control was regained."

http://commondreams.org/headlines01/1021-05.htm

In a recent San Francisco Chronicle column, journalist Harley Sorensen postulated that the reason the public has seen so little of Vice President Cheney since September 11 is that he may have issued the order that prompted fighter jets to shoot down Flight 93.

http://ww w.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2001/10/22/hsorensen.DTL

Sorensen argues that "friendly fire" could be why the government is keeping the flight recorders out of public scrutiny or why the names of fighter pilots, seen in the area of Flight 93 before it crashed, have not been released.

Lending credibility to Sorensen's claim was a Cheney busy with crisis presidential duties while Bush was in an elementary schoolroom, even after Andrew Card told him of the first attack.

Additionally, during Cheney's first post-September 11th appearance -- a September 16th interview with Tim Russert -- he spoke of the procedures used to protect Washington and the decision made "hypothetically" to shoot down rogue aircraft.

"We’d, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time. It doesn’t do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don’t give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it’s appropriate."

"Yes. The president made the decision, on my recommendation as well, wholeheartedly concurred in the decision he made, that if the plane would not divert, if they wouldn’t pay any attention to instructions to move away from the city, as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out."

http://stacks.msnbc.com /news/629714.asp

The Guardian similarly reported Cheney's efforts that day and of the fate of Flight 93:

"The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, was reported to be in the war room in the basement of the White House, from where he was coordinating the administration's response to the terrorist attacks."

"In Pennsylvania, United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757 en route from Newark, New Jersey to San Francisco, crashed about 80 miles south [east] of Pittsburgh. Its flightpath triggered fresh alerts in the capital before the plane went down."

http://w ww.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4254916,00.html

However, based on the information available to the general public, BuzzFlash thinks Cheney had to consider a disaster much more dangerous than an already-evacuated White House or the President's weekend playground in Maryland.

Well within a projected path of Flight 93 were three U.S. nuclear facilities and one which was less than 60 miles from where Flight 93 crashed -- the icon of U.S. nuclear mishaps, the Three Mile Island nuclear facility.

The possibility of terrorists targeting nuclear facilities is not something new. Tom Ridge, in his pre-Homeland Security position as Governor of Pennsylvania, reacted to a post September 11 threat (which turned out to be a hoax) by installing a National Guard defensive parameter around the state's nuclear facilities.

As ABC News reported on October 22, threats against nuclear facilities have been enormously underestimated:

"Daniel Hirsch, president of the Los Angeles- based nuclear watchdog group, the Committee to Bridge the Gap, recently told reporters gathered at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. that nuclear reactors are "among the most high-value targets that we have in the United States."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/strike _nukesafety011022.html

Furthermore, Sorensen's suggestion that Flight 93 was brought down by "friendly fire" is not an entirely new idea. On September 11, witnesses to the crash were calling local media and informing them that U.S. fighter jets had something to do with the plane coming down:

"The Federal Aviation Authority is denying reports from Pittsburgh radio and television that U.S. fighters shot down the commercial airliner which crashed 80 miles outside of Pittsburgh. 1610 GMT, 091101."

http://www.stra tfor.com/home/reports/010911.htm

Additionally, as reported in the Guardian, phone calls made by one of the passengers on Flight 93, moments before it crashed, indicated that there was an explosion on the plane prior to its impact into the Pennsylvania countryside:

"At 9:58am, an emergency dispatcher had answered a telephone call from a man who said he was a passenger locked in a bathroom on United Airlines flight 93. 'We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked," he told the dispatcher, while repeatedly insisting that the call was not a hoax. The plane was 'going down', he said. He had heard some sort of explosion and said there was white smoke coming from the aircraft. Then the dispatcher lost him."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550539,00.html

We already know that jet fighters had been scrambled immediately following the crash of Flight 175 into the second World Trade Center tower at 9:05am. By the time Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:40am, almost half an hour before Flight 93 hit the ground at 10:05am, U.S. News and the Washington Post reported that fighter jets were already flying over D.C.:

"So after the attack on the Pentagon, U.S. F-16 fighter jets circled over Washington, awaiting presidential orders to shoot down any passenger plane that looked like it was seeking a new target. And there were 2,200 planes in the nation's skies -- all carefully monitored by Vice President Cheney and senior White House officials -- right after the attacks began."

http: //www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/010914/misc/terror.htm

"At 9:40, the FAA closed down flight operations across the country, the first time in U.S. history that has happened. No planes could take off; all planes in the air had to land as soon as possible."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14362- 2001Sep11.html

"Because of the attacks in New York, the Federal Aviation Administration had ordered all departing flights canceled nationwide, and any planes already in the air were to land at the nearest airport. The Pennsylvania crash came after the order was issued."

http://www.fo xnews.com/story/0,2933,34186,00.html

Additionally, Flight 93's debris field covered anywhere from three to six miles and, as CNN reported, pieces of the plane were found six to eight miles from the main impact area:

"Authorities also said another debris site had been cordoned off six to eight miles away from the original crash debris site."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.terrorism/index.ht ml

"A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake.

"More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash.

"State police and the FBI initially said they didn't want to speculate whether the debris was from the crash, or if the plane could have broken up in midair."

http://fyi.cnn.co m/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/

A FBI agent at the scene said the debris was "paper and thin nylon" and probably carried to the another location on "wind currents." The NTSB said only that it was "probable" that the secondary debris fields were from Flight 93.

Our own phone calls to the NTSB, concerning the size of debris fields from planes that crashed versus those that broke apart in mid-air resulted in more questions than answers.

NTSB Public Affairs representative, Terry Williams, told BuzzFlash that there are no two debris fields that look alike, due to the many variables involved in a plane crash.

The Three Mile Island nuclear facility is 59 miles east north east of where Flight 93 hit the ground.

Flight Paths of the Four Hijacked Airlines:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp -srv/nation/graphics/hijack091101.htm

Map of Harrisburg, PA:

http://www.mapquest.com/cgi- bin/ia_find?link=btwn/twn- map_results&zoom_level=4&uid=u0i2g6t868d4kiza:2xdwa294zg&a photo=0&SNVData=3mad3-g.fy%28a1su4b_%29z85g0a%3bah7- %3d%3a%193wlqyy5%2bO4o5uj%3aLT%3d%3a%10F%3da1su4b_%29z85g0a_1.lq%286,q ej%7cynbgmej,fwgf-d&pcat=&zlgif.x=1

Considering the speed of the smallest 757, Mach 0.80 (or about 590 miles per hour and 9.8 miles a second), even if Flight 93 was flying at half-speed (the plane was reported to be frequently changing directions), the plane was within 12 minutes of the Three Mile Island nuclear facility.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757- 200/product.html

As City Pages reported on October 17, the prospect of Flight 93 careening into a nuclear facility has far more lasting effects than even the total destruction of the WTC attacks:

"An incident of radiological terrorism has the potential to dwarf the attacks in New York and Washington. 'There would be fewer immediate casualties,' Hirsch said, 'But it could result in 10,000 to 100,000 latent cancer deaths, and render an area the size of a state uninhabitable for generations.'"

"Two weeks after the attacks, an NRC spokesman admitted [nuclear power] plants were not designed to withstand a strike from a fuel-laden commercial airliner."

http: //www.citypages.com/databank/22/1089/article9878.asp

If the hijackers were considering nuclear facilities among their target list or, more importantly, the government did indeed take down Flight 93 because it was headed towards Three Mile Island, why is no one talking about it?

As Foreign Policy In Focus, a Washington think tank, said in their October 2001 briefing, a negative view of nuclear facilities on U.S. soil might not be positive for a Bush- Cheney energy plan:

"Following the attack, U.S. nuclear power plants and weapons facilities were put on high alert. Yet nuclear technologies are key to the Bush administration’s plans to radically rework the nation’s security and energy policies: allowing for national missile defense by scrapping key elements of nuclear arms control, and crafting an energy strategy that casts a revived nuclear power industry as a major player. Terrorism is not the only danger. It is time to examine all the risks the U.S. is running by assuming that such dangerous technologies can be permanently kept under control, despite the limits inevitably imposed by the fallibility of human beings who design, build, and operate them."

http://www.fpif .org/briefs/vol6/v6n34nukes.html

An additional theory of the crash of Flight 93 comes from reports of the phone calls made before it crashed. Passenger Jeremy Glick, as reported by CNN, called his wife and told her "that one of the hijackers 'had a red box he said was a bomb, and one had a knife of some nature.'"

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.vi ctims.html

Whether Flight 93 came down as a valiant effort by its passengers, as many have speculated, because of a terrorist bomb or by "friendly fire" from an F-16 with a mission to protect nuclear reactors or Washington air space, we may never know.

At the very least, BuzzFlash thinks the issues surrounding the crash of Flight 93 and the susceptibility of nuclear facilities to attacks has been conveniently swept under the rug of post-September 11th news coverage. More importantly, BuzzFlash thinks that these questions are being ignored by the administration because of two politically sensitive issues:

The public's reaction to the knowledge that 103 nuclear facilities across the United States are incredibly lethal weapons, simply by existing, and that those facilities are unprepared for a terrorist act of the magnitude of those taken against the WTC and the Pentagon, and A Bush administration energy policy -- in particularly Cheney's secret energy policy meetings -- that expects to boost our dependence on nuclear energy by subsidizing the current nuclear industry and subsidizing the creation of more nuclear targets. Even if Flight 93 wasn't headed toward the Three Mile Island nuclear facility, which it strongly appears may have been the case, we were just lucky this time.

http://www.BuzzFlash.com

http://199.96.2. 183//BuzzScripts/Buzz.dll/Sub2

10/30/01
6:12:01 PM

Letter to Health and Human Services Sec. Tommy Thompson by Laura Flanders

Dear Mr. Secretary,

Congratulations on your deal with the Bayer Corporation of Germany. The newspapers all seem very excited. You got Bayer to give you a cut price on their famous anti-anthrax drug, Cipro. Bayer has agreed to sell the administration 100 million tablets at 95 cents a piece, instead of their usual $4.67 a pill. Congress will only be paying Bayer $95 million, instead of almost half a billion dollars. That's great!

I did have one question. It's about India. Last week, the government of India offered to give the United States $1 million worth of generic Cipro as a gift to help us with the anthrax scare. That would buy some 10 million tablets in India, where Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals sells their version of the same antibiotic for around 10 cents a pill. Ten million tablets could treat more than 833,000 people absolutely free! Wouldn't that be helpful?

The Indian government's offer did not receive much media attention even though it ran on several news wires, but I urge you to track down India's External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh and take him up on his offer on our behalf.

Under your deal, Bayer cut the price of Cipro for the government, but it hasn't cut the price for private citizens who might need to buy some down the road.

I know, I know, nobody should be taking Cipro -- or ciprofloxacin, as it is called when Bayer doesn't make it -- unless they have good reason to believe they may have been exposed. But you've said the United States needs enough medicine to treat some 10 million people if the threat worsens -- and that probably doesn't even count folks, like the governor of New York, who misguidedly take it "just to be sure."

The usual treatment requires 120 pills per person; that's 1.2 billion pills. That's a lot of Cipro, and it's unclear if Bayer can even produce that much in a short time. In fact, it seems you are already dealing with shortages, if the government's recent response to events is any clue.

When those two postal workers died of anthrax after handling Senator Daschle's mail, a whole lot of government employees had good reason to get frightened. I know there are various drugs available to treat some kinds of anthrax, but the government chose Cipro to give to postal workers, and gave some out free of charge. Good for you.

We're still a bit concerned. The postal workers in Washington were given only ten days worth of Cipro. Your colleagues on Capitol Hill were given a sixty-day supply. Is that because there are shortages of Cipro, Mr. Secretary? If Cipro's the drug you think is best in these circumstances, wouldn't it be great to have a cheaper supply -- and a whole lot of free pills -- for those who are at risk, so that everyone who needs it could get the same professionally- approved standard dose?

If we bought the pills from India, we'd only pay $20 to treat a person with a complete ciprofloxacin therapy. The government could get the same number of pills they're getting from Bayer at one-tenth of the price, and could even resell to citizens who would otherwise have to pay 28 times as much. The Bush administration's always telling us that government should be frugal, and our national budget is suddenly bleeding red ink. Don't savings like these make sense?

Besides, Mr. Thompson, from what you've said in the past about welfare, I know you are a big believer in competition and the free market. You said women who'd been receiving welfare in your home state of Wisconsin were getting soft because of too much government aid.

Bayer owns the patent on Cipro until 2003 (a drug, by the way that was pushed through the FDA by government studies and the military's endorsement), and that that patent protects their monopoly in the U.S. market. But in this emergency situation, I think Bayer should have to compete -- just like those Wisconsin women had to! -- Even with firms in India, who can produce the same product more cheaply, and get it to us fast.

We're pretty scared out here, Mr. Secretary, and we care a lot more about protecting people than corporate patents right now. Don't you?

Laura Flanders is a journalist and broadcaster, host of the Laura Flanders Show (formerly on KWAB/RadioForChange) and author of "Real Majority, Media Minority: The Cost of Sidelining Women in Reporting." Her Spin Doctor Laura columns appear daily on WorkingForChange. You can contact her at

MailTo:laura@lauraflanders.com

10/30/01
5:03:25 PM

U.S. Planes Bomb A Red Cross Site For Second Time

By Elizabeth Becker and Eric Schmitt

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 - American warplanes bombed and largely destroyed the same Red Cross complex in Kabul that they struck 10 days ago, an error the Pentagon admitted tonight, saying it occurred because military planners had picked the wrong target.

The bombing took place just after a detailed review by Pentagon and Red Cross officials of the places where the relief agency has installations in Afghanistan. That meeting, which followed the first bombing of the Red Cross compound, was designed to prevent exactly what happened today.

One of the American aircraft that had been ordered to hit the Red Cross supply warehouses missed its target and hit a residential neighborhood instead. The attack on the Red Cross buildings by two Navy fighter- bombers and two B-52's, came in two waves today, first in the early morning darkness and again shortly before noon, using satellite-guided bombs that wrecked and set ablaze warehouses storing tons of food and blankets for civilians.

The Pentagon said tonight that it "sincerely regrets" the strikes on the neighborhood and the Red Cross complex, which had been put off limits by military planners after the bombing of the same complex on Oct. 16. At that time, the Pentagon said it was unaware that the buildings were used by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

But since then, the Pentagon sent a representative to the relief organization's headquarters in Geneva to ensure that such mistakes would never happen again. They exchanged detailed information on Red Cross' sites in Kabul and on the movements of relief trucks that might look like military targets.

A statement issued by the United States Central Command Tampa, Fla. which is in charge of the war and manages the selection of targets, attributed the latest mistake to "a human error in the targeting process."

In other words, the pilots dropped their bombs where they were instructed, and the bombs mostly hit the targets at which they were aimed. The bomb that struck the residential neighborhood did so, the Central Command said, when the guidance system malfunctioned on an FA-18 jet.

The Red Cross seemed stunned by the Pentagon's admission today. "Whoever is responsible will have to come to Geneva for a formal explanation," said Kim Gordon- Bates, the Red Cross spokesman there. "Firing, shooting, bombing, a warehouse clearly marked with the Red Cross emblem is a very serious incident. It is a serious thing. It cannot be accepted, especially since we went through the notification of our facilities twice. Now we've got 55,000 people without that food or blankets, with nothing at all. Recognizing an error does not exactly solve the humanitarian problem."

Red Cross officials said there were no casualties from the attack on the Kabul complex. But it all but wiped out the relief agency's sole complex with supplies of food and blankets for 55,000 disabled Afghans in Kabul.

The United States has said that the Afghan people are not the enemy, and that it is taking great pains to strike only military targets.

Strikes on military targets entered their 20th day today, with bombers operating in and around Kabul and Kandahar.

Every day the Pentagon reports how many food rations it has air- dropped into Afghanistan. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that 800,000 of these packets had been dropped so far.

This bombing of the Red Cross complex has renewed fears that relief agencies are losing the race to bring in food and medicine to stave off a crisis this winter.

It has also reopened questions for these groups about their ability to work in the middle of war.

In a statement issued in Geneva, the Red Cross said that shortly before noon on Friday, its Afghan staff members saw the attack, which it said directly hit two buildings and started a fire at a third.

As was the case in the previous incident, it said the buildings had been marked with large red crosses on white backgrounds, about 10 yards square, on each roof.

The Red Cross also said it was alarmed by seizures of its supplies by armed groups, evidently associated with the Taliban government. Armed men occupied and looted its offices in Mazar-i-Sharif three days ago, stealing computers and vehicles, the Red Cross said. Complaints to local authorities and to Taliban representatives in Pakistan have gone unheeded, it said.

"It was already nearly impossible to reach the hungry people in Afghanistan," said Abby Spring of the United Nations' World Food Program. "Now we'll have to move heaven and earth to bring in enough supplies to reach the central mountains before the snow falls."

It is just such confusion that led Oxfam America, a relief organization that is working inside Afghanistan, to renew its call today for a halt in the bombing.

All relief agencies were asking both sides in the conflict to respect international law, which guarantees safe passage for relief supplies and protection for workers distributing the food, blankets and medicine.

At stake is not only the welfare of some 200,000 Afghans in the mountains, but the success of the American war strategy to convince the Afghan people that the United States does not view them as the enemy.

"There has got to be ways to move supplies through, or the humanitarian crisis will overwhelm our military achievements," said Kenneth H. Bacon, president of Refugees International and a former Pentagon spokesman.

Raymond Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America, said, "The issue of humanitarian access is critically important now and all we see is piecemeal attempts to get food to different areas, no overall system for getting food distributed around the country where it's desperately needed."

Earlier predictions of a vast refugee crisis have proved incorrect because Afghans either do not have the wherewithal to flee or have concluded from experience in earlier wars that abandoning their homes for camp in Pakistan can be worse than staying put.

Farmers in particular have much to lose now. October is harvest time for fruit orchards and planting season for winter wheat. Even if they have little food or fuel, by abandoning their fields and homes they could jeopardize their livelihood for years to come. "Many Afghans have already gone through the ordeal of leaving for Pakistan, staying and then coming back, said François Grunewald, an agronomist with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. "The most difficult part is coming back and finding your house, your fields in miserable condition, and you have re-create your life out of nothing."

Neighboring nations like Iran and Pakistan are cooperating in attempts to get food into Afghanistan to make sure that they too do not face a refugee crisis.

But the relief agencies say the problems are inside the country, where they say they feel under siege on all sides. The Taliban, the agencies say, is confiscating warehouses, food, medical supplies, jeeps, trucks and radios in Kandahar, Mazar-i- Sharif and Jalalabad.

Cooperation with the United States to open new routes for food - by river barge or through airlifts depends on the military's ability to guarantee safe passage.

Pentagon and State Department officials met with relief agencies this week to discuss airlifts and airdrops.

Taliban officials in some Afghan cities have returned a few confiscated buildings and some supplies.

"It's very challenging, but it's not hopeless yet," said Nicholas de Torrente, president of Doctors Without Borders, the international relief agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/27/international/a sia/27MILI.html?searchpv=past7days

10/30/01
4:53:03 PM

10 Reasons To Stop Bombing Afghanistan

by Don Hazen, AlterNet

Despite almost universal agreement that America "needs to do something" in response to terrorism, our heavy bombing of Afghanistan increasingly looks like a bad idea. While virtually all of us feel that strong steps should be taken to apprehend anyone behind the massive murders on September 11, when you add up all the facts, the pulverizing of a battered country just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Instead, by bombing Afghanistan, we are ...

1. Creating new terrorists. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent civilians have already been killed by U.S. bombing in pursuit of Osama bin Laden. The Pentagon has confirmed numerous instances of "collateral damage," including a 2,000-pound bomb that struck a residential area near Kabul.

The United States' perceived disregard for collateral damage may lead many to conclude that we are waging a war against Muslims writ large. In so doing, we are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of people who are necessary in the fight against terrorism.

2. Generating refugees. Our attacks on population centers are causing a huge refugee problem that neighboring countries can't handle. By October 12, 350,000 people had amassed in the northern Panjsher Gorge and over 150,000 had fled to the provinces of Tahor and Badakhshan. United Nations officials predict that 1.5 million will leave their homes, risking mass starvation in the brutal Afghan winter to escape the bombings.

Moreover, the U.N. refugee agency has been forced to halt work at six planned refugee camps on the Pakistan border because of opposition from Afghan tribal groups. Food convoys that previously entered Afghanistan by truck have been forced to indefinitely halt their shipments.

3. Ushering in regime as bad as the Taliban. The bombing campaign may well usher into power the Northern Alliance, a group some say is even more brutal than the already brutal Taliban. To many, this is a proposition fraught with peril. During their brief time in power from 1992 to 1996, the Northern Alliance scored poorly in the peaceful governance and human rights departments. And while intense efforts are underway at forming a broad pan-Afghan political coalition of anti-Taliban parties, some veteran diplomats and intelligence officers are skeptical that such a confederation would survive after a victory over the Taliban.

4. Increasing drug flow from Central Asia. A corollary to #3 -- if the Northern Alliance takes power, experts predict a new flood of heroin across the globe. According to U.N. officials, Afghanistan produces about 75 percent of the world's opium, which is used to make heroin.While the Taliban government attempted to slow down heroin production in large parts of Afghanistan (and largely succeeded), the Northern Alliance has continued to distribute heroin to help fund their efforts. If our bombing campaign helps ousts the Taliban, opium growth and sales will instantly soar.

5. Aiming at the wrong target. The suicidal hijackers who crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon where all from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. Rich Saudis fund and encourage the violent, fundamentalist breed of Islam from which the hijackers came. The religious schools that breed the radical mujahdeen, including many who have joined the Taliban Army, are mostly in Pakistan. Iraq and Iran fund and support terrorists. In other words, the terrorists are spread across many nations and not all harbored in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, numerous experts link the September 11 hijackers to an Egyptian group, Gama'at al-Islamiyya. Founded by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, currently serving a life sentence for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Gama'at al-Islamiyya is best known for the November 1997 massacre of 62 tourists at the Temple of Luxor in Egypt and the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981.

6. Destabilizing Pakistan. Our bombing raids are destabilizing Pakistan, our reluctant ally with nuclear capabilities to the South and East of Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, has presented his country as wholly allied with the U.S. against terrorists, but in fact many of his top officials remain dependent on a little-known but powerful fundamentalist party called Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam. Known more simply as JUI, this group helped incubate the Taliban -- and it may now spark civil war in its home country.

7. Turning bin Laden into a media superstar. By focusing huge amounts of energy on demonizing and pursuing one person (despite the existence of thousands of terrorists in the al Queda network), we have made Osama bin Laden larger than life.

Among many groups, bin Laden is viewed as a strong and powerful person who has evaded U.S. capture in the three years following his suspected involvement in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. People's affection for him lies not in his alleged terrorist activities, but in the strong anti-American sentiment that grips this part of the world. If our bombs finally strike him, or he is otherwise killed, he will become a celebrated martyr of the Muslim world.

8. Unfairly punishing a helpless population. To bring one man and his small band of followers to justice, we are heaping devastation on a powerless population that is already completely impoverished by war. Nobody in Afghanistan voted the Taliban into power in 1994; they seized and now maintain power by force. To "pressure" the Afghan people with a deadly bombing campaign, when they have no political power anyway, defies America's sense of fairness.

9. Being lured into a trap. Afghanistan is historically a quagmire, the only Central Asian country never conquered by Europeans. From 1979 to 1989, the Soviet Union poured untold monies and lives down the drain in an unwinnable guerilla war against Afghanistan. By being sucked into investing huge resources to find bin Laden, we could find ourselves stuck, ambushed and preoccupied, while terrorists go on with their work from many other Muslim countries.

10. There are smarter ways of fighting terrorism. Call it what you want -- "blowback," the law of unintended consequences, bad karma -- but we continue to dismiss the long-term impact of our powerful desire to find bin Laden. Lots of smart, experienced people suggest that the large-scale, clumsy, overkill approach of the U.S. military is the opposite of what we need to contain terrorism and find bin laden.

Why not treat terrorists like the criminals they are, building a long-term, world-wide coalition to stop terrorism that includes the U.N. and world court? If we use the media more effectively instead of operating in secret, and invest the billions of dollars we are spending to pulverize Afghanistan to address social and economic needs around the globe, we will be on a more productive path toward making the world safer from terrorism.

Source: http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11764

10/30/01
4:49:13 PM

Starvation in Afghanistan Will Produce 1,000 Bin Ladens

by Stanley Heller

The Bush Administration is not taking the threat of Afghan starvation seriously. On October 17 six respected aid agencies begged for a stoppage in the bombing until they could supply the destitute Afghans for the winter. Their request was turned down. James Dao in the New York Times [October 20] stated that "as many as 7.5 million people could be at risk for starvation by the end of the year".

What will the long term consequences be if 100,000 or 500,000 Afghans die this winter? Will the universal reaction be, "It's all Bin Laden's fault"? Not a chance. President Bush will be sowing a hatred that will come back to haunt us. We will be killing one Bin Laden and growing 1,000 new Bin Ladens in his place.

Jonathan Schell reported in The Nation [11/5/2001] that on October 12 Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and now the United Nations commissioner for human rights, sounded a sharp, warning. She called for a halt to the bombing of Afghanistan in order to permit humanitarian aid--above all, food--to be sent into Afghanistan before the winter snows cut off access to the population. "It is a very, very urgent situation," she noted. "It is very hard to get convoys of food in when there is a military campaign.... You have millions of people, they say up to 7 million, at risk." And she asked, "Are we going to preside over deaths from starvation of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people this winter because we did not use the window of opportunity?"

On the 17th Oxfam International, Islamic Relief, Christian Aid, CAFOD, Tear Fund and Action Aid called for the bombing halt. In their press release they noted:

* Some 400,000 people are thought to be already having to survive on wild vegetation and essential livestock

* Two million people do not have enough food aid to last the winter, and of those, 500,000 will be cut off by snow by mid November

* Millions more are on the move and we just do not know the scale of their need. The UN says 5.5 million people are short of food

* UN food stocks within Afghanistan are now down to just two weeks' supply (9,000 tonnes).

The Guardian (UK) [10/14] reported that A "climate of fear" prevents truckers and labourers loading or unloading food, driving deep into Afghanistan, or staying overnight in Afghan towns.

"We have 1000 tonnes of food stuck in Quetta in Pakistan," said Islamic Relief director Dr Hany el Banna. "It is enough for 50,000 people but we need 60 trucks and we cannot find truckers to take it in because of their fears."

The worst affected area, Hazarajat, in the central highlands of Afghanistan, had received none at all and people would start dying soon said Sam Barratt spokesman for the of the humanitarian organization Oxfam.

The Bush Administration has turned down the pleas of the aid agencies and has instead launched air drops of ready to eat meals. But that's no solution. The amounts that could be flown in can't possibly match what was trucked in. On October 10 the Nobel Peace Prize winning Doctors Without Borders said in a statement, "What is needed is large scale convoys of basic foodstuffs, rather than single meals designed for soldiers." Dr Jean-Hervé Bradol, speaking from Pakistan for the group said the affects of the airdrops would probably be "minimal".

The Clinton administration was blind to the effects on civilians of it sanctions on Iraq. The hundreds of thousands of deaths were explained away as "Saddam's fault". Americans bought it. It didn't seem to matter that the deaths caused intense anger in Arab and Muslim countries. They were powerless, so who cared. Then comes the 911 catastrophe. Looking back at Bin Laden's videos we notice that mixed in with his religious rantings are angry comments about the deaths in Iraq. Was he sincere? Who knows? Does what happened in Iraq justify the atrocity against the Twin Towers? Absolutely not. But we are fools if we think U.S. actions in Iraq and other Mideast hotspots didn't help produce the rage which Bin Laden harvested for his own sick plans.

It's a law of human society that massive injustice creates a powerful reaction, some wise, some confused, some heroic and some monstrous. If the U.S. war on Afghanistan leads to widespread starvation we will be planting the seeds of future and momentous grief not just for Afghanistan, but for America and the world.

10/30/01
4:44:42 PM

The British War Against The War

by Andrew Rowell

"What has struck me since I have started to speak out against the war is that I've been inundated by phone calls, emails and letters from all around the country. Voters are saying 'Thank God there are people who will say in parliament what people like me feel outside,'" says Alan Simpson MP. "I think the public disquiet is far greater than parliament admits."

Last week he launched Labour Against The War, a group of MPs opposed to the bombing of Afghanistan. Dissent inside parliament has been muted since the bombing started, but is now growing. "There are actually far more people expressing unease than in any of the conflicts of the past," the 53 year-old Labour MP for Nottingham South says.

But these views have not gone down well with Labour's hierarchy. One of Simpson's fellow dissenters, Paul Marsden, the MP for Shrewsbury, was told by Labour's chief whip that "war is not a matter of conscience." Simpson disagrees. "War is always a matter of conscience. It never has been the case that there was a party mandate in favour of a war." Marsden and Simpson have been likened by the Government and the whips office to appeasers of Nazi Germany.

"My reaction to that is simple. It's always unhelpful that the language of debate slips into the language of abuse and most of my political life, one way or the other, has been involved in anti-Nazi campaigns. The thing about that kind of language is that it demeans parliament. If we are defending democracy, we also have to be willing to practice it."

He says: "Some of the unease is over whether there is actually a military strategy and some is due to the fact that it may not make any sense at all to think that you can bomb an ideology in the way that you can fight a war with a country."

Others in the Parliamentary Labour Party, he says, are deeply concerned about "the sheer scale of deaths that are going to take place in Afghanistan this winter" through starvation. These "avoidable civilian deaths" would be on a "scale that vastly outstrips the equally innocent civilian lives that were lost in the terrorist attacks in America" and may lead to further violence against the West.

The danger, he argues, "is then that we recruit more terrorists than we have killed, we create regional instabilities across Central Asia and the Middle East which themselves will spawn fundamentalist rather than secular and democratic regimes."

Simpson, a man famous for being a thorn in the Labour leadership's side, applauds Blair for working so closely with America. But he hoped that Blair would act as a restraining voice, putting arguments for a strategy to counter terrorism not be based on gung-ho militarism. Blair has failed to restrain Bush, he says.

"There should be an immediate cessation of the bombing," Simpson argues. "The overriding imperative is to get food into Afghanistan to ensure that over seven million people don't starve this winter."

Simpson admits that he doesn't know whether bin Laden is guilty or not, but says that if he is to be brought to justice, the first step would be "for the so-called incontrovertible evidence to be shown to an independent international panel of judges". The agenda has to be one of justice not vengeance. "Just claiming he is guilty is not sufficient to make him guilty".

He says that the Western allies should have got a UN mandate for the specific pursuit of bin Laden. "At the same time, we should have been making it clear we want bin Laden tried before an international criminal court, preferably before judges of his own faith. Nothing would be a more devastating blow for his own network if they were to be found guilty and condemned in a court by their own faith."

Simpson argues that the current crisis should force us to build a different internationalism. "This may be an important time for re-founding the United Nations on the sort of the terms it was supposed to be based 50 years ago."

He argues that the UN is essentially a puppet for the US government. "It has never had the primacy of place that allowed it to take any significant action other than at America's bidding," he says.

He also believes that the anti-globalisation movement offers answers to the problems of global terrorism. "Many of the regions of poverty, despair and hopelessness that terrorists recruit from are found in precisely those areas stripped of wealth, stripped of influence and stripped of prospects," he says.

"This conflict is part of the consequences that this rapacious global free-for-all has dragged us into -- and it is going to get worse. The big challenge for the international community should not be how we generate a rapid increase in world trade, based on driving wages lower and profits higher and enriching northern corporations at the expense of southern citizens".

"The fundamental question we have to answer is how we set a different agenda in which the development rights of the South can be met by recognising their own needs and at the same time allowing more localised agendas of economics to re- emerge within our own countries".

He says that the world still has to address environmental issues if we want to survive this coming century. "And that is very far away from the agenda set by the USA and UK."

If we don't start putting citizens before corporations, Simpson says bluntly, "we will inevitably be drawn into wars, conflict, large scale population migration and a century of real turmoil".

Labour Against The War: latw@gn.apc.org.

Andy Rowell is a freelance UK-based journalist with ten years experience writing on environmental, political and health issues.

Source: http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11815

10/30/01
4:44:00 PM

The British War Against The War

by Andrew Rowell

"What has struck me since I have started to speak out against the war is that I've been inundated by phone calls, emails and letters from all around the country. Voters are saying 'Thank God there are people who will say in parliament what people like me feel outside,'" says Alan Simpson MP. "I think the public disquiet is far greater than parliament admits."

Last week he launched Labour Against The War, a group of MPs opposed to the bombing of Afghanistan. Dissent inside parliament has been muted since the bombing started, but is now growing. "There are actually far more people expressing unease than in any of the conflicts of the past," the 53 year-old Labour MP for Nottingham South says.

But these views have not gone down well with Labour's hierarchy. One of Simpson's fellow dissenters, Paul Marsden, the MP for Shrewsbury, was told by Labour's chief whip that "war is not a matter of conscience." Simpson disagrees. "War is always a matter of conscience. It never has been the case that there was a party mandate in favour of a war." Marsden and Simpson have been likened by the Government and the whips office to appeasers of Nazi Germany.

"My reaction to that is simple. It's always unhelpful that the language of debate slips into the language of abuse and most of my political life, one way or the other, has been involved in anti-Nazi campaigns. The thing about that kind of language is that it demeans parliament. If we are defending democracy, we also have to be willing to practice it."

He says: "Some of the unease is over whether there is actually a military strategy and some is due to the fact that it may not make any sense at all to think that you can bomb an ideology in the way that you can fight a war with a country."

Others in the Parliamentary Labour Party, he says, are deeply concerned about "the sheer scale of deaths that are going to take place in Afghanistan this winter" through starvation. These "avoidable civilian deaths" would be on a "scale that vastly outstrips the equally innocent civilian lives that were lost in the terrorist attacks in America" and may lead to further violence against the West.

The danger, he argues, "is then that we recruit more terrorists than we have killed, we create regional instabilities across Central Asia and the Middle East which themselves will spawn fundamentalist rather than secular and democratic regimes."

Simpson, a man famous for being a thorn in the Labour leadership's side, applauds Blair for working so closely with America. But he hoped that Blair would act as a restraining voice, putting arguments for a strategy to counter terrorism not be based on gung-ho militarism. Blair has failed to restrain Bush, he says.

"There should be an immediate cessation of the bombing," Simpson argues. "The overriding imperative is to get food into Afghanistan to ensure that over seven million people don't starve this winter."

Simpson admits that he doesn't know whether bin Laden is guilty or not, but says that if he is to be brought to justice, the first step would be "for the so-called incontrovertible evidence to be shown to an independent international panel of judges". The agenda has to be one of justice not vengeance. "Just claiming he is guilty is not sufficient to make him guilty".

He says that the Western allies should have got a UN mandate for the specific pursuit of bin Laden. "At the same time, we should have been making it clear we want bin Laden tried before an international criminal court, preferably before judges of his own faith. Nothing would be a more devastating blow for his own network if they were to be found guilty and condemned in a court by their own faith."

Simpson argues that the current crisis should force us to build a different internationalism. "This may be an important time for re-founding the United Nations on the sort of the terms it was supposed to be based 50 years ago."

He argues that the UN is essentially a puppet for the US government. "It has never had the primacy of place that allowed it to take any significant action other than at America's bidding," he says.

He also believes that the anti-globalisation movement offers answers to the problems of global terrorism. "Many of the regions of poverty, despair and hopelessness that terrorists recruit from are found in precisely those areas stripped of wealth, stripped of influence and stripped of prospects," he says.

"This conflict is part of the consequences that this rapacious global free-for-all has dragged us into -- and it is going to get worse. The big challenge for the international community should not be how we generate a rapid increase in world trade, based on driving wages lower and profits higher and enriching northern corporations at the expense of southern citizens".

"The fundamental question we have to answer is how we set a different agenda in which the development rights of the South can be met by recognising their own needs and at the same time allowing more localised agendas of economics to re- emerge within our own countries".

He says that the world still has to address environmental issues if we want to survive this coming century. "And that is very far away from the agenda set by the USA and UK."

If we don't start putting citizens before corporations, Simpson says bluntly, "we will inevitably be drawn into wars, conflict, large scale population migration and a century of real turmoil".

Labour Against The War: latw@gn.apc.org.

Andy Rowell is a freelance UK-based journalist with ten years experience writing on environmental, political and health issues.

Source: http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11815

10/30/01
4:43:01 PM

The British War Against The War

by Andrew Rowell

"What has struck me since I have started to speak out against the war is that I've been inundated by phone calls, emails and letters from all around the country. Voters are saying 'Thank God there are people who will say in parliament what people like me feel outside,'" says Alan Simpson MP. "I think the public disquiet is far greater than parliament admits."

Last week he launched Labour Against The War, a group of MPs opposed to the bombing of Afghanistan. Dissent inside parliament has been muted since the bombing started, but is now growing. "There are actually far more people expressing unease than in any of the conflicts of the past," the 53 year-old Labour MP for Nottingham South says.

But these views have not gone down well with Labour's hierarchy. One of Simpson's fellow dissenters, Paul Marsden, the MP for Shrewsbury, was told by Labour's chief whip that "war is not a matter of conscience." Simpson disagrees. "War is always a matter of conscience. It never has been the case that there was a party mandate in favour of a war." Marsden and Simpson have been likened by the Government and the whips office to appeasers of Nazi Germany.

"My reaction to that is simple. It's always unhelpful that the language of debate slips into the language of abuse and most of my political life, one way or the other, has been involved in anti-Nazi campaigns. The thing about that kind of language is that it demeans parliament. If we are defending democracy, we also have to be willing to practice it."

He says: "Some of the unease is over whether there is actually a military strategy and some is due to the fact that it may not make any sense at all to think that you can bomb an ideology in the way that you can fight a war with a country."

Others in the Parliamentary Labour Party, he says, are deeply concerned about "the sheer scale of deaths that are going to take place in Afghanistan this winter" through starvation. These "avoidable civilian deaths" would be on a "scale that vastly outstrips the equally innocent civilian lives that were lost in the terrorist attacks in America" and may lead to further violence against the West.

The danger, he argues, "is then that we recruit more terrorists than we have killed, we create regional instabilities across Central Asia and the Middle East which themselves will spawn fundamentalist rather than secular and democratic regimes."

Simpson, a man famous for being a thorn in the Labour leadership's side, applauds Blair for working so closely with America. But he hoped that Blair would act as a restraining voice, putting arguments for a strategy to counter terrorism not be based on gung-ho militarism. Blair has failed to restrain Bush, he says.

"There should be an immediate cessation of the bombing," Simpson argues. "The overriding imperative is to get food into Afghanistan to ensure that over seven million people don't starve this winter."

Simpson admits that he doesn't know whether bin Laden is guilty or not, but says that if he is to be brought to justice, the first step would be "for the so-called incontrovertible evidence to be shown to an independent international panel of judges". The agenda has to be one of justice not vengeance. "Just claiming he is guilty is not sufficient to make him guilty".

He says that the Western allies should have got a UN mandate for the specific pursuit of bin Laden. "At the same time, we should have been making it clear we want bin Laden tried before an international criminal court, preferably before judges of his own faith. Nothing would be a more devastating blow for his own network if they were to be found guilty and condemned in a court by their own faith."

Simpson argues that the current crisis should force us to build a different internationalism. "This may be an important time for re-founding the United Nations on the sort of the terms it was supposed to be based 50 years ago."

He argues that the UN is essentially a puppet for the US government. "It has never had the primacy of place that allowed it to take any significant action other than at America's bidding," he says.

He also believes that the anti-globalisation movement offers answers to the problems of global terrorism. "Many of the regions of poverty, despair and hopelessness that terrorists recruit from are found in precisely those areas stripped of wealth, stripped of influence and stripped of prospects," he says.

"This conflict is part of the consequences that this rapacious global free-for-all has dragged us into -- and it is going to get worse. The big challenge for the international community should not be how we generate a rapid increase in world trade, based on driving wages lower and profits higher and enriching northern corporations at the expense of southern citizens".

"The fundamental question we have to answer is how we set a different agenda in which the development rights of the South can be met by recognising their own needs and at the same time allowing more localised agendas of economics to re- emerge within our own countries".

He says that the world still has to address environmental issues if we want to survive this coming century. "And that is very far away from the agenda set by the USA and UK."

If we don't start putting citizens before corporations, Simpson says bluntly, "we will inevitably be drawn into wars, conflict, large scale population migration and a century of real turmoil".

Labour Against The War: latw@gn.apc.org.

Andy Rowell is a freelance UK-based journalist with ten years experience writing on environmental, political and health issues.

Source: http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11815

10/30/01
4:38:55 PM

The Drug War: Back To The Stone Age

Think General McCaffrey Is Wrong?

Wait Till You Meet John Walters, Bush's Choice For Drug Czar.

by Daniel Forbes

Last May, when President George W. Bush strolled into a Rose Garden ceremony to introduce John Walters, the man he had chosen to be his new drug czar, did anyone wonder why it had taken so long to announce a nominee for his unfilled Cabinet post? Walters was reportedly the first choice, and if one took the president's somewhat balanced statements on the Drug War at face value, Walters certainly seemed a surprising selection. After all, in January Bush had said, "I think a lot of people are coming to the realization that maybe long minimum sentences for first-time users may not be the best way to occupy jail space or heal people from their disease." DId the acknowledged problem drinker, who had spoken of prevention, treatment, and empathy during his presidential campaign, cringe just a bit as he present Walters, a bomb-'em-back-to-the Stone Age Drug War protege of William Bennett?

A clever and personable Republican apparatchik, Walters has been working in the trenches of right-wing social policy the heady days of the Reagan Administration. He served under Bennett the National Endowment for the Humanities from 1982 to 1985, then followed Bennett to the Department of Education from 1985 to 1988 while Bennett was its chief.. When Bennett became the first drug czar in 1988, Walters again tagged along.

He stayed with the Office of National Drug Control Policy until 1993, and briefly served as acting director,

For most of the Nineties, Walters kept a low profile, running a pair of conservative think tanks. in 199b, he co authored with Bennett and John DiIulio ( who worked briefly as head o Bush's faith-based social- welfare initiative ) one of the most controversial books of the last decade, decade, Body Count: Moral Poverty and How to Win America' War Against Crime and Drugs ( Simon Schuster ). The book raised a ruckus for its now-discredited warning that the deterioration of the social fabric was creating a generation of "super-predators," a class of underprivileged ( i.e.: black youth who had "a higher incidence serious drug use, more access to powerful firearms and fewer moral restraints than any such group in American history."

A quick look at Walters' record reveals ardent opposition to the drug law reform agenda.

He's against needle exchange programs.

Following the 1996 initiatives legalizing medical California and Arizona, Walters called for the federal government to strip prescription-writing privileges from doctors who advocated pot for patients.

Though Bush had said that sentencing discrepancies for crack and powder cocaine are ripe for review, Walters is against changing the rules.

Where drug policy intersects with foreign policy, he has been equally hawkish.

Between 1995 and 1999, the Peruvian air force, with U.S. military assistance, forced or shot down 123 planes suspected of ferrying drugs ( earlier this year, the Peruvians shot down a plane carrying American missionaries ); Walters has been a major cheerleader for the program and castigated the Clinton administration for briefly shelving the policy for review.

He favors the bitterly resented certification process, whereby the U.S. annually passes judgment on the anti-drug efforts of such countries as Mexico. He has also called for using the National Guard to catch smugglers.

Walters believes, too, that all federally funded drug treatment should be under supervision. According to William McColl, director of national affairs for the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, Walters has proposed that anyone who utilizes public alcohol and programs should face sanctions if they fail a drug test. This also applies to those who seek treatment voluntarily. He has been quoted as saying, The health people say 'No Stigma.' I'm for stigma."

"He's against anything but prohibition and incarceration," says David J. Theroux, president of the Independent Institute, an Oakland, California think tank.

He'll pursue policies more individuals are jailed in the inner city," says McColl.

Critics don't have to sift ancient sands to find the most damning blot on Walters' record.

Just this past March Walters declared in the Weekly Standard, "What really drives the battle against law enforcement and punishment however, is not a commitment to treatment but the widely held view that ( 1 ) we are imprisoning too many people for merely possessing illegal drugs; ( 2 ) drug and other criminal sentences are too long and harsh; and ( 3 ) the criminal system is unjustly punishing black men. These are among urban myths of our time."

Not only are Walters' facts wrong, but by stating his erroneous theories so clearly, he gave his critics ammunition to skewer his nomination.

The Coalition for Compassionate Leadership on Drug Policy comprising the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, the Justice Policy Institute and the National Black Police Association, among others formed last spring in response to the nomination of Walters, as well Asa Hutchinson, who was confirmed during the summer as head of Enforcement Administration CCLDP offers a point-by-point of Walters' charges.

Citing FBI statistics, the coalition says that of 1.6 million drug arrests in 1998, about seventy-nine percent were for possession. As to Walters' discounting of "long and harsh" sentences the group states that, there were "over 450.000 nonviolent drug offenders incarcerated, with an average federal sentence of seventy-eight months.

Walters' scoffing at racial bias, the coalition states, "African-Americans are rested for drug offenses six times the rate of whites." in fact, while blacks have been found to use drugs at blacks at the same rate as whites, more seventy percent of incarcerated drug offenders are black.

Walters' avowed positions fly in the face of the mood of the American people. Following last November's election, the Lindesmith Center noted, "In five out of six states, where drug policy issues were on the ballot, voters decided in favor of major changes regarding treatment instead of prisons for nonviolent offenders, medical marijuana for patients when recommended by a doctor; and civil-asset forfeiture law reform." What's more, according to Lindesmith, "Since 1996, seventeen out of nineteen initiatives an referendums have passed around the country in favor of drug-policy reform.

With attitudes about drugs in flux, why would it benefit the president to choose a drug czar so clearly resistant to new ideas?

Lindesmith's McColl speculates that the drug-czar post is a convenient place to stash a cultural conservative, thus shoring up right-win support. "Bush threw a bone to his right-wing base with this relatively low-profile Cabinet post," he says.

Walters' first Stint at ONDCP give a good indication of what he will do a drug czar. Mike Males, a senior searcher at the Justice Policy Institute has written that ONDCP's 1989 strategy, articulated by Bennett and Walters "specifically targeted drug 'use itself, not abuse or addiction. 'Casual users [were targeted] because it is their kind of drug use that is most contagious,' said the strategy document.

Since addicts "make the worst possible advertisement for new drug use," treating them got short shrift, as it has ever since. Walters has referred to treatment as "the latest manifestation of liberals commitment to a 'therapeutic state' in which government serves as the agent of personal rehabilitation." Walters however, will have to work to implement a treatment policy, because President Bush has pledged $1.6 billion for drug treatment in the next five years.

While acknowledging that is a "not insubstantial" amount, McColl says, "It won't affect demand."

So much for hard drugs what of marijuana?

Kevin Zeese, president of Common Sense for Drug Policy, believes that Walters doesn't differentiate ,between marijuana which he sees as a dangerous drug and heroin. Zeese adds hat there is some coerced, legally mandated treatment for marijuana users, and that it will likely increase under Walters' aegis. In fact, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, fifty-four percent of pot smokers in treatment in 1998 were referred by the courts.

Like most things in America, drug policy reform is reeling from the September 11th terrorist attacks.

It's a certainty that Walters will stress the links between terrorism and drug trafficking. But what he will mainly do is it all of his predecessors in the post have done: win fat annual increases in drug-fighting budget.

As Males writes, "Walters' record reveals the consummate double-talk skills necessary to fill the office's task of redefining disaster as success while simultaneously warning that worse disaster looms."

Source: http://www.mapinc.org/forbes.h tm

10/30/01
4:33:03 PM

Information Lockdown

by Bruce Shapiro

Viewers of the old spy spoof Get Smart will remember the Cone of Silence--that giant plastic hair-salon dryer that descended over Maxwell Smart and Control when they held a sensitive conversation. Today, a Cone of Silence has descended over all of Washington: From four- star generals to lowly webmasters, the town is in information lockdown. Never in the nation's history has the flow of information from government to press and public been shut off so comprehensively and quickly as in the weeks following September 11. Much of the shutdown seems to have little to do with preventing future terrorism and everything to do with the Administration's laying down a new across-the-board standard for centralized control of the public's right to know.

The most alarming evidence of the new climate emanates from the Justice Department. Investigators still hold in custody 150 of the 800 people rounded up in the aftermath of the attacks. (One detainee died in custody in New Jersey.) No charges have been filed, no hearings convened. The names of nearly all those still held remain classified, as do the reasons for their incarceration. Lawyers for some of the hundreds cleared and released have told reporters of questionable treatment of their clients--food withheld, attorneys blocked from access. Of the 150 who remain detained, only four presumed Al Qaeda suspects have been publicly named. FBI agents frustrated at the lack of progress in their interrogations of those four now mutter in the Washington Post about using sodium pentothal, or turning the suspects over to a country where beatings or other torture is used. The government's stranglehold on information about other arrests makes it impossible to know just how far agents have already gone down that road, or whether the dragnet was mainly a public-relations exercise.

Just as damaging as these detentions is an October 12 memo from Attorney General John Ashcroft reversing longstanding Freedom of Information Act policies. In 1993 then-Attorney General Janet Reno directed agencies to disclose any government information upon request unless it was "reasonably foreseeable that disclosure would be harmful." Ashcroft reverses this presumption, instead calling on agencies to withhold information whenever the law permits: "You can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions," he writes. Ashcroft is in effect creating a "born secret" standard; in the words of the Federation of American Scientists, the order "appears to exploit the current circumstances" to turn FOIA into an Official Secrets Act.

One after another, federal agencies are removing public data from their websites or restricting access to their public reading rooms. Caution is understandable, but OMB Watch and Investigative Reporters and Editors have both documented egregious examples that seem at best tangentially related to terrorism and more likely designed as butt-coverage for mid-level bureaucrats. The Energy Department has removed information from its web-posted Occurrence Reporting Program, which provides news of events that could adversely affect public health or worker safety. The EPA removed information from its site about the dangers of chemical accidents and how to prevent them, information the FBI says carries no threat of terrorism. More relevant than Al Qaeda, it appears, was hard lobbying by the chemical industry, which found the site an annoyance. The FAA pulled the plug on long-available lists of its security sanctions against airports around the country--depriving reporters of their only tool for evaluating the agency's considerable failures to enforce its own public safety findings. At the Pentagon, news has been reduced to a trickle far more constricted than anything during Kosovo, which in turn was more restrictive than during the Gulf War. So comprehensive is the shutdown that on October 13, presidents of twenty major journalists' organizations declared in a joint statement that "these restrictions pose dangers to American democracy and prevent American citizens from obtaining the information they need."

In the short run, the Cone of Silence did most damage at the Centers for Disease Control. Could the two (at this writing) Washington, DC, postal workers who died of inhalation anthrax have been protected by earlier treatment? Did any of the CDC's doctors or scientists recommend a course of antibiotics for postal workers along the trajectory of anthrax-laden letters? Who knows? With the CDC's staff muzzled, the public and postal workers alike were left with politicians as the conduits for contradictory and inadequate information about the risk.

The uncertain dimensions of the Al Qaeda threat make equally uncertain which information the government publishes might contribute to another attack and what to do about it. But it should be noted that the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks apparently involved data no more confidential than an airline schedule. The Administration's response has been to treat all information and press access as suspect--an approach that will subvert public confidence and undercut legitimate media scrutiny more than it will damage Al Qaeda. During Vietnam, the famous credibility gap resided at the Pentagon, with briefings and Congressional testimony at odds with battlefield evidence. Just weeks into this war, the Bush Administration is risking a new credibility gap roughly the size of the District of Columbia.

Source: htt p://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011112&s=shapiro

10/30/01
4:22:50 PM

FOIA Request

by THE CENTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES, ET AL.

FOIA REQUEST

October 29, 2001

Melanie Ann Pustay, Deputy Director Office of Information and Privacy Department of Justice Suite 570, Flag Building Washington, DC 20530-0001

We hereby request disclosure of the following information concerning the individuals "arrested or detained" in the words of Attorney General Ashcroft, in the wake of the September 11 attack and referred to by the President, the Attorney General and the FBI Director in various public statements.

1. The identities of each such individual, the circumstances of their detention or arrest, and any charges brought against them. In particular, please provide: (1) their names and citizenship status; (2) the location where each individual was arrested or detained initially and the location where they are currently held; (3) the dates they were detained or arrested, the dates any charges were filed, and the dates they were released, if they have been released; and (4) the nature of any criminal or immigration charges filed against them or other basis for detaining them, including material witness warrants and the disposition of any such charges or warrants.

2. The identity of any lawyers representing any of these individuals, including their names and addresses.

3. The identities of any courts, which have been requested to enter orders sealing any proceedings in connection with any of these individuals, any such orders which have been entered, and the legal authorities that the government has relied upon in seeking any such secrecy orders.

4. All policy directives or guidance issued to officials about making public statements or disclosures about these individuals or about the sealing of judicial or immigration proceedings.

Much, if not all, of this information is contained in public records to which there is a constitutional and common law right of access. In addition, please release documents containing this information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

We do not believe that any of the requested information is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. We do not believe that the requested information - who has been arrested, the names of their lawyers or what charges have been filed -- properly could be classified for national security reasons and withheld on that ground. Nevertheless, to the extent that any of this information is marked classified, we request that you delete or redact such information and immediately provide us the remaining information. If you believe the identities of any of the detainees should be withheld on privacy grounds, please immediately provide information concerning whether the individual has requested that his or her name be withheld, and the legal basis for withholding the names of persons detained or arrested. In this connection, we note that there is an overriding public interest in knowing the activities of the government in detaining people in connection with the September 11 attack, as reflected in the statements by the highest government officials and that the identities of some of them have already been made known.

We make this request on behalf of the following list of organizations that work to protect the public's right to know, civil liberties and human rights.

Request for expedited processing.

We request that you provide this information as soon as possible as it meets all the criteria for expedited processing under the Act: The "information is urgently needed to inform the public concerning some actual or alleged government activity;" the requesting organizations are primarily engaged in disseminating information to the public; the subject of the detainees "is of widespread and exceptional media interest and the information sought involves possible questions about the government's integrity which affect public confidence," and the information is needed immediately to prevent "the loss of substantial due process rights" to individuals and "threats to their physical safety."

The exceptional interest in the government's activities in detaining several hundred people since the September 11 attacks is incontrovertibly evidenced by the multiple statements made by the highest government officials, beginning with the President, as well as the numerous media articles, a small selection of which are attached hereto. As public officials themselves have made clear, the arrests of individuals responsible for the terrible attacks last month and subsequent incidents is of the highest priority for the government.

At the same time, the unprecedented secrecy surrounding the detention of several hundred individuals, which has now lasted for several weeks, in itself raises questions about the detentions and creates the utmost urgency to inform the public. The curtain of official silence prevents any democra tic oversight of the government's response to the attacks.

In addition, there have been a growing number of reports which, if accurate, raise serious questions about deprivations of fundamental due process, including imprisonment without probable cause, interference with the right to counsel, and threats of serious bodily injury. See attached articles. Immediate disclosure of the requested information is necessary so that the public can be informed about the basis of these reports and in order to protect individuals against potential abuses.

In sum, this request is about federal government activity, it concerns a matter of current exigency to the American public, and the consequences of delaying a response would be to compromise a significant recognized interest. See Al-Fayed v. CIA, D.C. Cir. 2001.

We would appreciate your response as quickly as possible to our request. In view of the tremendous public interest in this issue, and the questions raised by the detention of hundreds of people without virtually any public information about them, we ask that you provide us responsive documents as soon as they are identified, and not wait until you have gathered all responsive documents. We would be happy to modify the request in order to limit the number of documents involved, as we are interested in obtaining the key information outlined above rather than all relevant documents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Please respond to Kate Martin, Director, Center for National Security Studies, 2130 H St., N.W., Suite 701, Washington, D.C. 20037, telephone (202)-994-7060.

Source: htt p://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=foia20011029

10/30/01
1:50:47 PM

How to Be Tough On Terrorism

by Robert B. Reich, The American Prospect

The righteousness of our cause shouldn't prevent us from asking why so many people around the world who aren't terrorists hate America and from seeking ways to reduce their hatred. Recognizing America's past failing in this regard isn't justifying terrorism. Finding means of ameliorating the hatred isn't appeasing terrorists. Rather, it's looking at terrorism's larger context --the soil in which it has taken root -- and examining our role in helping to create those conditions or allowing them to endure.

Here's where America's political and intellectual left and right seem incapable of reasoned debate. Much of the left is still bemoaning America's Cold War support of anticommunist dictators -- the shah, Mobutu, Somoza, Greek colonels, Korean generals, Pinochet, Marcos, Armas, the mujahideen -- and our nation's gruesome record advising them, training their death squads, schooling and equipping their torture specialists, and helping them squirrel away their vast wealth. Given this history, the post–September 11 effulgence of American flags, patriotic hymns, and "freedom and democracy" bromides offered by American politicians strikes many on the left as dangerously ahistoric if not downright hypocritical.

The right dismisses this sordid history as irrelevant to the current crisis and accuses anyone on the left who dwells on it as "blaming America" for terrorism. Both sides are wrong: the left for suggesting that this history should make us any less determined to fight Islamic extremism and the right for assuming that this record has no bearing on why much of the third world is hostile toward us. Of course, we must proceed against terrorists with full force. Yet it's also important to understand that our checkered history has shaped the understandings of many poor nations whose cooperation we need in order for that force to be effective and many of the world's poor who are both attracted to radical fundamentalism and repelled by American bullying.

This blaming-versus-understanding terrain is also where American backers and critics of Israel butt heads. Backers don't want to admit that part of the third world's animosity toward the United States comes from its unswerving support for an Israeli government that's been assassinating Palestinian leaders, bombing Palestinian towns, demolishing Palestinian homes, and expanding Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Critics, meanwhile, fail to acknowledge the immensity and randomness of the violence aimed at Israeli Jews, and their legitimate worries about surviving in a region whose hostile Arab population is growing quickly. Here, too, much of this debate is beside the point. It's time for the United States to pressure Ariel Sharon and Yasir Arafat to resume the peace process with an eye toward a separate Palestinian state on the West Bank. Indeed, the United States and the West may have to take a stronger role in creating that state. Without it, continued hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians will only further inflame the Muslim world.

Finally, we have to think through our responsibilities as the world's only remaining superpower. America-firsters insist that we have no obligation to anyone beyond our borders and should act only where our national interest is directly at stake. This entails expanding global trade, stabilizing the world economy through the International Monetary Fund, defending ourselves against missiles from rogue states, and fighting terrorism that threatens domestic security. Globalists say that we have more important moral duties: We must fight genocide wherever it breaks out; share our wealth and knowledge in order to save the lives of 50 million people a year -- 12 million of them children -- who will otherwise die of preventable disease or malnutrition; and bear our rightful share of the cost of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions, improving working and living conditions in the third world, and reversing the trend toward greater inequality between rich and poor nations.

Considering the larger context of terrorism, each of these positions has part of the truth -- but again, neither is sufficient. America-firsters are correct that the national interest is America's paramount concern, but globalists correctly focus attention on the many ways in which the United States can play a more constructive role in the world. Spreading prosperity and relieving human suffering are in our national interest to the extent that they reduce the anger felt by many of the world's poor toward rich and powerful America while creating opportunities for the poor to share the benefits of the global economy. It's the same lesson we learned from rebuilding war-ravaged Europe and Japan after the Second World War, when an emerging Soviet threat prompted us to take a broader view of national security. The terrorist threat should cause us to think no less generously. Identifying and responding to the root causes of terrorism in no way justifies the horror that terrorists inflict; nor should doing so be seen as a means of appeasing them. To the contrary, it's part of a long-term strategy to eradicate them. Ultimately, terrorism cannot be rooted out by anything other than its roots.

Britain's Tony Blair, who has offered the most eloquent justification for why we are at war against terrorism, promised during his first campaign for prime minister to be "tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime." It was possible and desirable to do both. It's the same with the current war, which must be fought on two fronts: We must be brutally tough on terrorism but equally tough on its causes.

Robert Reich, U.S. secretary of labor from 1993 to 1997, is University Professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis University, and founder and national editor of the American Prospect.

Source: http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/19/reich-r.html

10/30/01
1:23:23 PM

AlterNet Headlines

http://www.alternet.org

HOW TO BE TOUGH ON TERRORISM

Robert B. Reich, The American Prospect

The political debate about terrorism is stuck. The patriots' blind insistence on American right no matter what, clashes with the left's insistence on blaming the U.S.'s bad historical judgement. Robert Reich says both positions are inadequate and offers another way.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11813

DEMOCRATIC PARTY, R.I.P.

Laura Flanders, WorkingForChange.com

Bipartisanship is appropriate in wartime, but Democratic acquiescence didn't come in with the flights that hit the Trade Towers. It was there before Sept. 11.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11817

INFORMATION LOCKDOWN

Bruce Shapiro, The Nation

Never in the nation's history has the flow of information from government to press and public been shut off so comprehensively as in the weeks following Sept. 11. This has less do with preventing future terrorism than with the administration's desire to control the public's right to know.

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

THE DRUG WAR: BACK TO THE STONE AGE

Daniel Forbes, Rolling Stone With the confirmation vote for John Walters as drug czar coming this Thursday, it's time to take another look at his anti-drug reform policies.

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

ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES FOR ANTHRAX

Kate Garsombke, Utne Reader

With the anthrax scare growing every day, people are popping Cipro pills without a second thought. But believers in alternative medicine have a different idea for preventing widespread infection.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11814

WAR AGAINST THE WAR

Andrew Rowell, AlterNet

Last week a group of British parliamentarians formed to fight the bombing of Afghanistan. Among them is Alan Simpson MP, who argues, "We recruited more terrorists than we have killed."

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11815

TECHSPLOITATION: ONE MORE TERRORIST

Annalee Newitz, AlterNet

If you've broken into and "damaged" any Net-connected computer within the last eight years, you are now deemed a terrorist. Well, I am officially a terrorist.

http://www.alt ernet.org/story.html?StoryID=11818

10/30/01
1:13:32 PM

Peace By Precision

The time has now come for the anti-war movement to build its own broad-based coalition

by Gary Younge, The Guardian

It is strange how quickly and apparently seamlessly the abnormal fades into the routine. Some New Yorkers who would have struggled to imagine the Manhattan skyline without the twin towers now have difficulty picturing what it looked like on September 10. Similarly the bombing of Afghanistan, which was at first such a shock to the international system, is rapidly becoming a bloody, botched but banal fact of life. Slipping down the news agenda, behind Ireland, cannabis, citizenship lessons, crime and health, it is no longer considered news since little has really changed since the bombing started and the well of indignation from which heated debate has been drawn is not bottomless.

Meanwhile, human narratives that might provoke an intense emotional response are also lacking. There are no mobile phone transcripts of Afghan civilians bidding farewell to their loved ones as the cluster bombs rain down around them, no immediate images of the impact of the wayward missiles on unlucky suburbs. Unlike those who perished in the World Trade Centre, the dead in Afghanistan do not have names, only numbers. And, given the limited access to the area, even those are questionable. Like the continuous bombing of Iraq this assault is becoming just "something we do" - the constant infliction of misery on people in poor, distant lands. And while it is a living nightmare for those on the ground, for a complacent west, which can turn the page or change channel, it can soon be demoted to a running sore.

It is in these challenging circumstances that a peace movement must gather momentum. In Britain it has had a promising start. A 1,000-strong march in Sheffield on Saturday was the largest they have seen since the miners' strike; 70 people at a meeting in Blackburn on Thursday; weekly vigils from Frome to Newcastle. The demonstrations a fortnight ago were larger, more vibrant and confident than even the organisers expected. In London it was not just the size but the composition that was impressive - a mix of races, ethnicities and ages as well as a gender balance rarely achieved in popular protest here. The demonstration planned for November 18 promises to be even bigger. So far so good. But to build a movement that will achieve its ultimate aim - to force an end to the current military action - it will have to go much further.

To rally the faithful is one thing; to win over the waverers quite another. It is a task that will demand attributes that sadly do not come naturally to many on the left: persuasiveness, pluralism, flexibility and sensitivity. The campaign has to start from where people are, rather than where anti-war activists would like them to be. The overwhelming majority of the British public - about 74% - support military action. They do so not because they are warmongers or racists - although there are undoubtedly some among them - but largely because they believe that "something must be done" in response to the terror attacks in New York. Most have so far been presented with only two choices: either bombing Afghanistan or doing nothing.

The anti-war movement must remain clear and unequivocal in its response to September 11. With every call to halt the military action it should continue to condemn the bombing of the World Trade Centre, express sympathy, unconditionally and without qualification, for the victims and join the call to bring those proved responsible to justice. A critical appraisal of American foreign policy offers a context for the attacks but not a justification for them.

Similarly, the movement should aim to be as broad-based and non-doctrinaire as possible. An anti-imperialist critique certainly informs opposition to this war; but it should not be demanded as a prerequisite for those who wish to see an end to it. It is the "stop the war" movement; not stop all wars or stop a war. The movement must keep its eyes on the prize. But while it should be single-minded in its opposition to the bombing of Afghanistan and solid in its response to September 11, it ought to be flexible on just about everything else.

A ll alternatives to the current military action must be aired within it and articulated through it. From those who would like to see firmer evidence against Bin Laden before acting, to some who believe only global poverty is the source of the discontent, it must showcase the range of options that have been put forward. Some back a United Nations military intervention under international law; others want to take up the Taliban's offer of handing Bin Laden over to a third country; many want to put him before an international war crimes court; a few believe only a root-and-branch reform of US foreign policy will work. The anti-war movement should adopt none of these proposals but embrace all of them. It is not its job to be prescriptive about what course of action to take once the bombing has stopped. But to stop the bombing by exposing its futility and inhumanity and the sophistry of those who claim there is no alternative to it.

Finally, it must have confidence in its own potential. A focused, responsive, sensitive anti-war movement can win. Thanks to the anti- globalisation movement and campaigns to defend asylum seekers, the British left starts with a heightened internationalist conscious ness. Efforts to stop the Gulf war came on the back of the poll tax demonstrations; this anti-war movement follows Seattle, Washington and Genoa.

Moreover, the consensus Tony Blair has built at home to support this war is as fragile as the coalition he has helped construct abroad. So far, nearly all of this opposition has come from outside parliament. But dissent among MPs is slowly growing and the larger the movement outside the Commons the more likely those inside will be to follow their conscience (or at least their commonsense) rather than their whips. As the recession continues to bite, people will increasingly question the value of spending millions on a murderous war with neither cogent objectives nor any clear timetable, when we could breathing life into the health service and fighting poverty at home.

The military campaign is vulnerable to public opinion and public opinion is volatile - support for military action may be widespread but belief in its ability to deliver is not. Few, even among those who are prosecuting it at the highest level, believe that the current strategy is working. Both winter and Ramadan are approaching (the first bringing famine, the second fasting and diplomatic tension); the Americans are rapidly running out of things to bomb; they do not seem any closer to defeating the Taliban or catching Bin Laden, have no coherent strategy for what to do even if they do catch him or what kind of Afghanistan they would want to build after they have finished destroying it.

Every day produces many reasons to oppose this war from the pragmatic to the principled, the military to the moral. But the growing disillusionment with the war does not translate into the dedicated pursuit of peace without political intervention from the peace movement. Activists should look at what the Pentagon has been doing and then do the opposite: be honest in their motivation, clear in their objectives and non-dogmatic in their approach.

g.younge@guardian.co.uk

Source: h ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,582444,00.html

10/30/01
12:56:32 PM

Planet Ark World Environment News

New Vietnam highway may cut through national park - VIETNAM http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13030/story.htm

UPDATE - White House sees support for bigger oil reserve - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13019/story.htm

Anthrax suspected in Baltimore postal worker - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13027/story.htm

UPDATE - New Jersey confirms first inhalation anthrax case - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13031/story.htm

World tin producers target illegal mining - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13026/story.htm

UPDATE - INTERVIEW - Norway urges UK to curb Sellafield emissions - NORWAY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13023/story.htm

UPDATE - Key climate change talks start in Morocco - MOROCCO http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13024/story.htm

UPDATE - EU presents united trade talks stance - LUXEMBOURG http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13021/story.htm

No end in sight for EU block on new GM foods - LUXEMBOURG http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13028/story.htm

Ship carrying Iraqi oil leaking in Kuwait - KUWAIT http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13020/story.htm

Kenyan greens condemn govt over forest plans - KENYA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13029/story.htm

German Stade nuclear plant in temporary shut- down - GERMANY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13032/story.htm

Protesters urge World Bank to halt oil funding - EU http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13025/story.htm

UPDATE - Brazil organic coffee tops Internet auction list - BRAZIL http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13022/story.htm

10/29/01
9:00:36 PM

The Nation

This morning, a group of civil liberties, human rights, Arab-American, public access and other organizations, including The Nation, demanded the release of information on the many people who have been jailed and detained since the September 11th terrorist attacks.

The groups objected to the curtain of official silence over the unprecedented detention of several hundred individuals for more than six weeks. They cited the growing number of reports that raise serious questions about deprivations of fundamental due process, including imprisonment without probable cause, interference with the right to counsel, and threats of serious bodily injury.

The groups demanded information from the FBI, the Justice Department and the INS under the Freedom of Information Act, and the constitutional and common law right of access to public records.

You can read the offical FOIA request and related material currently at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=foia20011029

And don't miss these two new web-only pieces -- posted recently and exclusively to The Nation website:

AL GIORDANO: Never Shut Up, New York

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=giordano200110 25

MATT BIVENS: Nuclear Power and Terrorism

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=bivens20011024

We've also re-posted a classic essay by Edward Said, originally published in the March 26, 1980 issue of The Nation, and newly available currently at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=archive&s=19800426said

10/29/01
8:27:03 PM

Fumigation of Colombia with Monsanto's Roundup Ultra

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am María Mercedes Moreno, a Colombian academic and activist against the War on Drugs and more precisely, against fumigation as an antinarcotics measure. I represent an organization called Mama Coca (http://www.mamacoca.org). I am contacting you because I think you might be able to counsel us on the possibility of suing Monsanto for Human Rights violations as of the use of its product Roundup Ultra (together with other ingredients) in aerial fumigation in Colombia; either that or the Colombian state for violating its peoples basic rights and for causing unrepairable environmental damage. We have done all in our power to move public opinion in Colombia but of course, pressure from the US authorities makes our appeals futile. We therefore need legal counselling and support in order to place our lawsuit at an international level. Our situation is desperate since the antinarcotics authorities are indiscriminately fumigating water sources and the peasants' staple food crops. I should tell you that, in order to eradicate the Coca crops, they pass over the same peoples, fields and rivers twelve times.

Colombian children are falling ill, doctors in the areas being fumigated report an increasing number of cancers and birth defects. The inhabitants of the areas being fumigated whom I have encountered show signs of severe eye irritation. Furthermore, Colombia, one of the most biodiverse countries in the world is in danger of becoming much like a desert. The region which is now under attack is the Amazon, one of the world's largest water reserves.

I am attaching just one of the pictures (Note from Jean: not included here) which testifies to what can be seen as of recent fumigation with Roundup Ultra mixed with the surfactant Cosmo-Flux 411F . What is not so easy to portray are the thousands of people being displaced by these repetitive fumigations nor those people who rush to protect their children however they can and to gather as much water as possible to save what they can. What's in store for the future if we don't act immediately?

I am also attaching the link (http://www.mamacoca.org/Carta_mary_robinson_fumigacion_aerea_en.h tm) to the letter to Mary Robinson for which we are collecting signatures so that you might better understand that we are doing all we can but seem to be getting nowhere considering the urgency of the situation.

Just last week one of our purest lakes (Laguna de Cocha) was fumigated. Apparently, there are dead trout by the dozens. That's the damage the eye can see...

The Colombian government is now accusing those of us who appeal against fumigation of being subversive elements instigated by the narcotics-financed insurgent groups. We are at a dead end and, although there is now a congressional initiative to counter fumigation measures, US pressure is too strong. The US goverment, through its representative in Colombia Ambassador Anne Patterson, states that ceasing fumigation is unacceptable. We cannot stand alone in this struggle. We need help desperately and hope that you might take up our cause which, from what I have read, you have already done.

Is there any way you can come to our aid? There seems to be no way to appeal to commonsense if we are to go on what Colombian rural dwellers are being subjected to. There must be some international instance to which we can appeal before it's too late for our children.

Thank for reading this long message and hopefully, you might give us a clue to what we can do.

Saludos,

María Mercedes Moreno Mama Coca

http://www.mamacoca.org

Bogotá tel.: 310 67 67 P

arís tel.: 01 39 59 48 93

10/29/01
8:24:26 PM

Burn This Bill

By Michael Valpy

Justice Minister Anne McLellan's claim in a letter this week to The Globe and Mail that her antiterrorism bill does not strip Canadians of their civil liberties is ridiculous.

Reid Morden, the former chief of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, says the agency doesn't need the legal powers McLellan proposes to give it, merely more human resources.

The Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a parade of constitutional and civil-rights lawyers, the national commissioners of privacy and information, the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the citizen oversight committee for CSIS, the former judge who sits watch on the military's Communications Security Establishment . . . you're hearing what they are saying.

They are saying the bill strips Canadians of their civil liberties. That it guts privacy and human-rights legislation, overrides Charter of Rights and Freedoms protection, puts political dissent at risk of being criminalized, gives the government and its police and spies exorbitant powers to eavesdrop on, investigate, detain and blacklist citizens. That it's unbalanced, that it threatens the innocent.

McLellan, a former constitutional-law professor who has morphed into a gnome of power, has not explained why the government's existing authority to deal with treason, the intimidation of Parliament and legislatures, sabotage, sedition, conspiracy, causing alarm to Her Majesty and other criminal acts is inadequate.

She has not explained why the government needs to abrogate protections of the Charter of Rights.

She has not explained why -- if it is a "war" we're fighting -- her antiterrorism bill is unambiguously intended as permanent legislation, a permanent change in the balance between individual rights and order in society, as Mount Allison University president Wayne MacKay told a Senate committee this week. (MacKay, former dean of law at Dalhousie University, was asked by the Senate to analyze the bill.)

This is insolence of office, taking away people's liberties without telling them why.

It leads to speculation -- as MacKay suggested in a conversation -- on whether the Justice Minister and her cabinet colleagues are really masters of this brief. Or whether they're feeling the cattle prod from a Bush administration that wants as many countries as possible with identical antiterrorism laws to constrain the international terrorist movement.

The U.S. bill at least has sunset provisions.

The bill before Britain's Parliament is reportedly more Draconian than Canada's. The British government has no written charter of rights to worry about; on the other hand, unlike Canada, it has a press that strenuously objects to the erosion of civil liberties.

The McLellan bill at very minimum needs four things done.

The Justice Department, as MacKay told the Senate committee, must submit a report to Parliament on why it thinks it cannot combat terrorism with the government's existing powers.

There must be judicial or parliamentary oversight on what names are placed on the government's list of subversive or terrorist individuals and organizations. McLellan's bill merely provides that CSIS submit names to the cabinet.

There must be sunset provisions.

The definition of terrorism contained in Section 83.01(b)(ii)(E) -- the jackboots section -- must go. It says terrorist activity means "to cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work ... "

Much civil dissent, MacKay says, has an "unlawful" element. Trespass, unlawful occupation, wildcat strikes, resisting arrest, obstructing justice? Terrorist activity, McLellan's bill says. Parts of the Quebec City protest? Terrorist activity, McLellan says.

As MacKay says, "If we give away our right to dissent, then terrorists have won in a different way -- destroying our political freedoms and free traditions."

Source: http://www.globeandmail.com

10/29/01
8:21:46 PM

RECOMMENDED READING

Media witchhunt Australian boxer for opposing US war (ABSOLUTE MUST READ!!!)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/box-o29.shtml

Humanitarian Crisis

http://www .oxfam.org.uk/atwork/emerg/afghanistan.htm

"Right now, 2.5 million people in Afghanistan have absolutely nothing left to eat. Three million more are on the brink of starvation.

NO WAR AGAINST AFGHANISTAN! Speech by Prof. Francis A. Boyle (Oct 18)

http://msane ws.mynet.net/Scholars/Boyle/nowar.html

"The Bush administration's war against Afghanistan cannot be justified on the facts or the law. It is clearly illegal. It constitutes armed aggression. It is creating a humanitarian catastrophe for the people of Afghanistan. It is creating terrible regional instability." CLIP Even the British government admitted the case against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would not stand up in court and as a matter of fact it was routinely derided in the British press. There was nothing there. Now I don't know myself who was behind the terrorist attacks on September 11. And it appears we are never going to find out. Why? Because Congress in its wisdom has decided not to empanel a joint committee of both Houses of Congress with subpoena power giving them access to whatever documents they want throughout any agency of the United States government including FBI, CIA, NSA, DSA. And to put these people under oath and testify as to what happened under penalty of perjury. We are not going to get that investigation and yet today we are waging war against Afghanistan on evidence that Secretary of State Powell publicly stated is not even circumstantial."

'President Putin doesn't know it yet, but I think American support will prove his death warrant'

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?stor y=3D100896

10/29/01
8:19:24 PM

Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE

<http: //www.gristmagazine.com/grist/default.asp?source=top>

MOROCCO, MO' TALK

Close to 4,000 people from 163 countries converged on Marrakech, Morocco, today for the beginning of a two- week conference on the Kyoto treaty on climate change. The opening was characterized by unusually heavy security, because the conference is the largest international gathering to be held since Sept. 11 and the first in a Muslim country. Delegates hope to forge a legally binding agreement to slow climate change, and will seek ratification of that agreement by 55 nations, including countries that together produce more than 55 percent of the industrial world's greenhouse gas emissions. Although the Bush administration has pulled out of Kyoto, it sent representatives to Marrakech to ensure that the terms of the final accord do not create indirect costs for the U.S. or set unwanted precedents.

straight to the source: New York Times, Andrew C. Revkin, 29 Oct 2001 <htt p://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/29/international/29CLIM.html>

CHINESE WATER TABLE TORTURE

What if the world's most populous nation runs out of water? Lester R. Brown, founder of the Worldwatch Institute and the Earth Policy Institute, takes a sobering look in Grist at the disappearing water table under the North China Plain, which produces over half of China's wheat and a third of its corn. The water scarcity could cause "catastrophic consequence for future generations," according to a World Bank report, as well as skyrocketing global grain prices. Read more on t