10/5/02
8:22:33 PM
Nearly Half Of All Americans Say First Amendment Goes Too Far
'Survey suggests many Americans see freedoms as obstacles in war on terror'
From the First Amendment Center:
"For the first time in the annual State of the First Amendment survey, almost half (49 percent) of those surveyed said the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees -- a 10-percentage-point jump from 2001, which suggests new public concerns in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks....
"'The stakes have risen for the First Amendment in the wake of September 11,' said Ken Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center. 'The results of our 2002 survey suggest that many Americans view these fundamental freedoms as possible obstacles in the war on terrorism.' In 2001, 39 percent of those surveyed said the First Amendment went too far in the rights it guarantees.
"'That's not to suggest a monolithic response to these core First Amendment values. In truth, Americans are of multiple minds about the 45 words drafted by James Madison,' Paulson said. 'While a majority says they respect the First Amendment, a significant percentage seems inclined to rewrite it.'...
"Additional findings:
"More than four in 10 said they would limit the academic freedom of professors and bar criticism of government military policy.
"About half of those surveyed said government should be able to monitor religious groups in the interest of national security, even if that means infringing upon religious freedom.
"More than four in 10 said the government should have greater power to monitor the activities of Muslims living in the United States than it does other religious groups.
"About 40 percent of those surveyed said they have too little access to information about the government's war on terrorism, compared to 16 percent who said there's too much. Forty-eight percent of those surveyed said there's too little access to government records, compared to just 8 percent who believe there's too much.
"The least popular First Amendment right once again was freedom of the press. Forty-two percent of respondents said the press in America has too much freedom to do what it wants, roughly the same level as last year.
"The survey also found, as in previous years, that many Americans are unable to name the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. The percentages of those responding who were able to identify individual freedoms:
"58 percent -- freedom of speech
"18 percent -- freedom of religion
"14 percent -- freedom of the press
"10 percent -- freedom of assembly/association
"2 percent -- freedom of petition..."
http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/members/issue.tmpl?articleid=09230214103786
10/5/02
7:59:10 PM
From: President George W. Bush
To: The Iraqi people
Re: A war of values
We SHELL not EXXONerate Saddam Hussein for his actions. We will MOBILize to meet this threat to vital interests in the Persian GULF until an AMOCOble solution is reached. Our best strategy is to BPrepared. Failing that, we ARCOming to kick your butt.
10/5/02
7:56:30 PM
Are we peace lovers or peace makers?
The following is a speech delivered by Anglican Bishop Peter Price at an anti-war rally in London on Saturday, Sept. 28:
I am frightened we are hurtling towards a war that will have unseen and unforeseeable consequences. For we will not only fight a wicked regime but enter a war that could devastate and destroy our friends. My mind goes back to a visit to Iraq in 1999. I was invited with others, including the Bishop of Coventry, to a lunch with a Christian family. At his table our host welcomed us, our Iraqi minders, secret police, and drivers. He took a large unleavened bread and broke it, sharing it with us and saying in Arabic: "Under God, we are all one, as we share this bread."
Before the meal ended he beckoned me for a quiet word in his garden, telling me in a few hastily grabbed moments what life was like. It was not good: His action that lunchtime put him and his family in danger. "I am making this garden for peace," he said. "It is on the site of a bomb crater. Come and sit down with me under this fig tree."
In that moment I reflected on the vision of the prophet Micah. "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, or ever again be trained to make war. But each one will sit down under his own vine and fig tree with no one to trouble him." Today I wonder what will happen to such people, to one who practices "loving his enemy" if war comes.
This march today represents people of all faiths and none. We represent people who believe war can at times be justified, and those who believe that war is always wrong. What unites us is a sense that preparations for war that could begin with a unilateral, pre-emptive strike is illegal, immoral, and unwise.
Let there be no mistake. We regard Saddam and his regime as a real threat to his own people, neighbouring countries, and to the world. Saddam must end the repression of his people, abandon his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and respect the legitimate role of the U.N. as it ensures that he does so. But our nations must pursue these goals in a manner consistent with moral principles, international law, and political wisdom.
We must be guided by the vision of a world in which nations stop seeking to resolve their problems by making war. Within the traditions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity there is teaching that obliges governments and citizens to work for the avoidance of war.
Today we are demonstrating for peace. But are we peace lovers, or peacemakers? We must not only demand of governments that they work for peace, but that we as citizens so change our attitudes that peacemaking becomes as natural as breathing. Demonstrations rarely change things immediately. What changes things is when people find in their heart a new resolve, a new courage to shape the world differently. War may come. The question is what will we do then? Do we simply shrug our shoulders and walk away, saying "We demonstrated in Hyde Park, but it failed?"
As a Christian, I follow Jesus of Nazareth who said, "Blessed are the peace makers"; not peace lovers. We all love the idea of peace. Today we are demonstrating for a new kind of world, but it will not come unless we work for it. We cannot be peacemakers only when war threatens.
True peacemaking is demanding. It demands new attitudes from governments and citizens; it demands we open our eyes to see all humanity as one and equal; it demands we recognize that a bomb dropped on an Iraqi, Palestinian, or Jew is as a bomb dropped on any of us; peacemaking demands no more unilateral actions by powerful nations; peacemaking demands the dismantling of all weapons of mass destruction.
To build lasting peace we need new international, political, judicial, and financial institutions; the ending of international debt. Peacemaking requires a revitalized United Nations; equality before international law; the ending of discrimination over the application of U.N. resolutions. Peacemaking demands we find common ground by moving to higher ground, rising above old arguments over just war and pacifism.
Today we give a simple message. Stop the war. Contain and disarm Saddam. But building world peace does not happen with slogans or rallies, but through citizens and governments that: Pray peace; think peace; speak peace; and act peace.
Jesus of Nazareth was the greatest peace activist of all, and he said "Blessed are the peace makers, for they shall be called the children of God."
Source: http://www.SoJo.net
10/5/02
7:32:52 PM
Fortunes Of War Await Bush's Circle After Attacks On Iraq
by Andrew Gumbel
The last time the United States went to war against Iraq, Dick Cheney did very nicely from it.
Having served as Defence Secretary, and basked in the reflected glory of the US military's surprisingly rapid advance across the desert sands to end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, he then managed to reap benefits of a very different kind once the war was over and he left government to become chief executive of Halliburton, the Texas-based oil services company.
When the United Nations relaxed its sanctions regime in 1998 and permitted Iraq to buy spare parts for its oil fields, it was Halliburton, under Mr Cheney's leadership, that cleaned up on the contract to repair war damage and get Saddam Hussein's oil pipes flowing at full capacity again. Two Halliburton subsidiaries did business worth almost $24m (£15m) with the man whom these days Mr Cheney calls a "murderous dictator" and "the world's worst leader".
Since taking over as George Bush's vice-president, Mr Cheney has severed all formal ties with his former employer, notably when he cashed in $36m in stock options and other benefits at the height of the market in August 2000. But Halliburton - currently struggling with a corporate accounting scandal that may or may not implicate Mr Cheney - could profit all over again if the much-threatened new war against Iraq comes to pass.
We can certainly expect more air strikes against the oil fields, possibly combined with a ground invasion. Then, when it is all over, someone is going to have to mop up the damage once again. Halliburton, with its previous experience and unparalleled political connections (not limited to Mr Cheney), would be in pole position for the job.
Nobody could justifiably accuse the Bush administration of wanting to wage war on Iraq solely as a favour to its friends in the oil business and the military-industrial complex. But many of the companies that stand to gain most from a war enjoy remarkably close ties to senior figures in the administration. And some of the President's closest confidants have shown extraordinary elasticity down the years in their attitudes to President Saddam, America's on-again, off-again public enemy number one.
Mr Cheney, who has gone from warmonger to dealmaker and back to warmonger, is just one example. Donald Rumsfeld, the current Defence Secretary, has repeatedly raised the spectre of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. But in 1983, when Mr Rumsfeld was President Reagan's special envoy to Iraq, he turned a blind eye to Iraqi use of nerve and mustard gas in its war with Iran, concentrating instead on forging a personal relationship with the Iraqi leader, then considered a valuable US ally.
Mr Rumsfeld was actually in Baghdad on the day the United Nations first reported Iraqi use of chemical weapons, but chose to remain silent, as did the rest of the US establishment. Five years later, he cited his ability to make friends with Saddam Hussein as one of his qualifications for a possible run at the presidency.
This Bush administration has been much more upfront about the role of oil in its deliberations on Iraq than the last Bush administration. That is partly a matter of circumstance: since the 11 September attacks, the stability of Middle Eastern oil states has been a big policy consideration. But it also reflects the fact that much of the Bush inner circle, including the President himself, is made up of former oilmen. The oil and gas industry has pumped about $50m to political candidates since the 2000 election.
There are also uncomfortably cosy ties between the government and the defence industry. Mr Rumsfeld's oldest friend, Frank Carlucci, a former defence secretary himself, now heads the Carlyle Group, an investment consortium which has a big interest in the contracting firm United Defense.
Carlyle's board includes George Bush Sr and James Baker, the former secretary of state. One programme alone - the Crusader artillery system -has earned Carlyle more than $2bn in advance government contracts. Carlyle's European chairman is John Major, who may have played a role in the Ministry of Defence's controversial recent decision to declare Carlyle the "preferred bidder" for a stake in its scientific research division.
None of these links is illegal, but that does not mean there is no conflict of interest. Messrs Bush, Cheney and friends have either sold their stock holdings or put them in a blind trust, meaning personal gain is off the agenda. But gain for their friends and family may well be a by-product of the looming war against Iraq.
Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=333400
10/5/02
7:29:00 PM
The Nation
As we don't need to tell you, the erosion of civil liberties has been one of the chief domestic byproducts of the war on terrorism.
On October 7, the First Monday program will stage grassroots events around the country bringing together students and community members to raise awareness of the importance of civil liberties and to discuss what can be done to ensure that they are safeguarded for the next generation.
First Monday is an organizing effort by the Alliance for Justice to bring attention to a critical public policy issue every year. The purpose of the campaign is to reach out to young people and mobilize them to become activists for change.
The Alliance for Justice produces a annual documentary film to coincide with the First Monday campaign theme. The new First Monday documentary, "Of Rights and Wrongs: The Threat to America's Freedoms," highlights individuals who have been affected by new laws and policies since September 11.
The film, also featuring Susan Sarandon, Howard Zinn, Roger Wilkins, David Cole and the music of Bruce Springsteen, will be shown at hundreds of events this Monday, October 7.
To find the closest First Monday event to you:
http://www.firstmonday2002.com/events.cfm
To order a copy of the film:
https://secure.afj.org/secure/fm2002/orderfilm.cfm
To find out more about the First Monday program:
http://www.firstmonday2002.com/
To find out more about the Alliance for Justice, a national association of environmental, civil rights, mental health, women's, children's and consumer advocacy organizations.:
And check out The Nation's special collection of articles on civil liberties since September 11:
http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=050103
10/5/02
7:27:49 PM
Greenpeace's Positive Energy
September 28 - October 4, 2002
Time for Greenpeace's Clean Energy Now! campaign's weekly good news update!!!
Inside This Edition:
- Clean Energy for San Diego
- Bill Signed Saving Solar Future in California
- Save the Date! Achieving Sustainability through Research and Action
Clean Energy for San Diego
San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy is following through with his energy independence goal he set at the start of his term. The San Diego City Council approved a pilot solar electricity project that will provide 20% of the Metropolitan Operations Center building's energy, while also reducing the City's energy bill by $10,200 a year. With the success of this project, the Greenpeace Clean Energy Now! campaign urges the Mayor to take the next step and champion a first-rate solar revenue bond that will make San Diego the nation's leader in solar energy.
Learn more about Greenpeace's campaign in San Diego.
http://www.cleanenergynow.org/california/sdsolaryes.html
To read more about the solar project, go to:
http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/solareclips/2002.10/20021001-10.html
Bill Signed Saving Solar Future
Thanks to you, solar energy is here to stay in California. Governor Davis finally signed Assembly Bill 58 into law, and your letters and calls to legislators were crucial in getting the bill passed. This legislation has huge implications for the solar economy in California, allowing large solar-based electricity generating systems to hook into the grid and receive retail electricity rates for the electricity produced--thereby making solar energy much more affordable. Your help in changing AB 58 to include large systems made Clean Energy campaigns in California easier to win.
To read more, go to:
http://www.cleanenergynow.org/features/ab58victory.html
Achieving Sustainability Through Research and Action
Join Second Nature's West Coast Education for Sustainability (EFS) Network at the November 14 -16, 2002 Best Practices Sustainability Workshop in Claremont, CA. The workshop will provide an opportunity for faculty, students, administrators and staff from colleges and universities to share their current "best practices" and learn about resources and strategies to help them build on and expand these activities. During the workshop participants will have the opportunity to meet with team members from their institutions and identify strategies to be implemented at their individual institutions. In addition, time will be made to identify large-scale collaboration opportunities among multiple institutions.
Register today at:
http://www.westcoastefs.org/highlights/highlights_workshops.html
The "Positive Energy" newsletter and our web site,
will give you good news about ways to achieve clean air, climate justice, and renewable energy solutions to our ongoing energy crisis.
Help Greenpeace spread the word. Forward this e-mail on to other caring individuals.
Want to do more? Become a Greenpeace member today! To give online, go to:
https://www.greenpeaceusa.org/join2/cen.htm
10/5/02
7:26:19 PM
DAILY GRIST
<http://www.gristmagazine.com>
TALK ABOUT THE WEATHER
Hurricanes, floods, forest fires, falling glaciers -- it's been a heck of a summer for climate news. In this month's "This Just In," climate correspondent Leonie Haimson looks at the latest natural and political goings-on regarding climate change. In the U.S., plaintiffs ranging from the city of Boulder, Colo., to maple syrup producers in Vermont have sued the U.S. Export Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for providing billions of dollars in financing and insurance for energy projects over the past 10 years without assessing the projects' impact on global warming. Meanwhile, the tiny country of Tuvalu is considering filing its own suit against Australia and the U.S. for contributing to rising sea levels that may swallow the island nation entirely in the next 50 years. Haimson also rounds up the latest stats on the weather, in --you guessed it -- our "How's the Weather?" section. Get up-to-date info on climate change, only on the Grist Magazine website.
only in Grist: This just in -- the latest news from the climate front -- in our Heat Beat section <http://www.gristmagazine.com/heatbeat/thisjustin100402.asp?source=daily>
only in Grist: How's the weather? -- taking the Earth's temperature -- in our Heat Beat section <http://www.gristmagazine.com/heatbeat/weather100402.asp?source=daily>
join The Gristmill: Air your thoughts on the changing weather in our discussion forum <http://www.gristmagazine.com/gristmill>
SMOKY SIGNALS
The superintendent of Yosemite National Park announced yesterday that he would retire rather than accept a transfer to Great Smoky Mountains National Park, where he would have been called upon to oversee two controversial projects opposed by environmentalists and others. One project involves building a road across the largest undeveloped wilderness in the eastern U.S. to enable area residents to reach old, remote cemeteries; the other is a land-swap that would allow members of the Cherokee Tribe to develop 168 acres of meadowlands inside the southern park entrance. For decades, the proposed projects have pitted the likes of Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) against the National Park Service, environmentalists, and some community leaders. The Bush administration now appears poised to back the projects. David Mihalic, the Yosemite superintendent, opposed the projects 15 years ago when he was deputy superintendent of the Smokies park; now, he says, "It would be hard for me to go out and put a fresh face on it and say let's have a discussion."
straight to the source: Washington Post, 04 Oct 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=535>
do good: Take action to shore up the Smokies <http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/forests.asp?source=daily#road>
do good: Take action to save America's most endangered parks <http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/forests.asp?source=daily#endangparks>
NETHER NETHERLAND
For those in the know, the Netherlands are all but synonymous with responsible urban planning. From mass transit to mass cycling, from sustainable building to species protections, the country has raised the bar for the rest of the world. Now, though, politics in the Netherlands is shifting precipitously to the right -- and many fear that progressive urban planning could fall by the wayside. Low-income, state-subsidized housing once accommodated 70 percent of the populace; it currently houses a mere 30 percent. Meanwhile, increased road development is leading to urban sprawl, shopping centers are springing up along freeways like mushrooms, and American-style living has taken root in parts of the country. Harm Tilman, editor of de Architect magazine, says that the old-style, socially conscious development model is being rewritten, and that, "Land has become a market commodity."
straight to the source: Christian Science Monitor, Jane Holtz Kay, 03 Oct 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=536>
only in Grist: Dutch treat -- the Netherlands tackles nitrogen pollution with a game -- in our Main Dish section <http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/ness051002.asp?source=daily>
GOPHER IT!
Twelve ethanol plants in Minnesota signed on to an unprecedented agreement with state and federal EPA officials earlier this week, agreeing to pay pollution fines and update their emissions-reduction technology. An official at the U.S. EPA said ethanol plants across the country would be expected to follow the lead of the Minnesota plants. A spokesperson for the plants said the industry had a "heartfelt desire to be good environmental neighbors," while a spokesperson for one of the plants called the agreement a preemptive measure to avoid court battles after two years of local complaints about odors and pollution. Plant owners will shell out $19,000 to $39,000 apiece in fines and install equipment costing between $1 million and $2 million, with the goal of reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds by 95 percent. The agreement was welcomed by some environmental groups, but upset St. Paul officials and some city residents who complained that the deal could undermine a lawsuit that they have filed against a polluting plant in the city.
straight to the source: St. Paul Pioneer Press, Charles Laszewski and Tim Nelson, 04 Oct 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=537>
straight to the source: Minnesota Star Tribune, Tom Meersman, 03 Oct. 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=539>
only in Grist: A foul wind doth blow in St. Paul -- a week in the life of Andy Driscoll, Citizens Alliance for a Safe Environment <http://www.gristmagazine.com/dearme/driscoll051302.asp?source=daily>
ORANGE YOU GLAD?
The District Attorney's office in conservative Orange County, Calif., is beefing up its environmental crime division to become one of the most rigorous eco-SWAT teams in the nation. While resources for pursuing environmental criminals have been dwindling in many other areas in the state, Orange County has tripled its budget in the last three years and now has a team that includes 10 attorneys handling nearly 100 cases. In one of the office's highest-profile cases, prosecutors are seeking millions from six oil companies, including Shell and Amoco, for leaky storage tanks beneath gas stations that are contaminating groundwater. District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, who took office in January 1999 and spearheaded the aggressive pursuit of environmental crimes, said, "I didn't want to be sitting around 10 or 15 years from now thinking 'We could still have a real environment if the D.A. would have prosecuted some of these violations.'"
straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Seema Mehta, 04 Oct 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=538>
10/5/02
7:15:59 PM
Senate filibuster being organized on Bush war resolution, 10-2
Sen. Robert Byrd is considering a filibuster against the war resolution of the Administration. His office is taking a poll on whether he should do this. Please call Sen. Byrd (1-800-839-5276) and ask him to filibuster the war resolution. Please also call your U.S. Senator and ask them to support a filibuster. You may use the same 800 number.
We need to swamp these offices to urge them on. A filibuster may be the only impediment to the war plans and it may spark demonstrations of support in DC and around the country. Finally please circulate this to others so that it can be widely distributed.
Sacramento-Yolo Peace Action
909 12th St., # 118
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 448-7157 phone
(916) 448-7159 fax
sypeaceact@jps.net
10/5/02
7:13:13 PM
SciTech Daily Review
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/supergoop021002.html
Liquid magic: An unpreposessing grey goop can activate robots' hands, cushion artificial joints and stabilize tall buildings
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020923/020923-19.html
Geneticists are homing in on the musk that lured Tennyson's Maud into the garden, the same smell that set Shakespeare's Juliet musing on names: the scent of a rose
http://sciam.rsc03.net/servlet/cc?lJpDVVZEsHkhNJoLFpoNnDJhDgSE0EA
Random movements induced by the nervous system may keep humans balanced
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992864
A new internet worm, called BugBear, is spreading across the world and marks a worrying trend in virus design, say experts. The worm contains a Trojan horse program that can collect private information stored on a computer and send it to a hacker
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2290380.stm
The internet is the best source for news of the environment, according to an online poll of more than 25,000 respondents in 175 countries, and environmental concerns far outweigh respondents' fear of terrorism
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/01/international/americas/01BRAZ.html
The Yanomami Indians have lived precariously in the most remote reaches of the Brazilian jungle for thousands of years. Now they are facing a threat to their very existence as a people: the Brazilian Army (registration required)
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1373046
On the sixth day, post-modernism: A suburban school board in Georgia has declared that evolution is just another theory, and a surprising percentage of scientifically-minded Americans agree with them
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14079
Farmers are joining the fight against global warming with a move to no-till farming
10/5/02
7:04:13 PM
Across The Rubicon
by Michael C. Ruppert
There is not much joy this month in seeing that events over the last year have unfolded exactly the way I said they would. Having just returned from my 25th and 26th lectures since last November in New Haven, Conn. and at nearby Wesleyan University, I look back and see that for seven months I have been publicly stating that we would be invading Iraq by fall 2002.
I see that since last December, and in every lecture since my first at Portland State University, I have said clearly and unequivocally that we are witnessing a sequential war to control the largest reserves on a planet that is running out of oil.
I look back at our economic analyses and the two warnings we published on Sept. 9, 2001 and July 8, 2002 and see that the U.S economy is behaving exactly the way we predicted it would behave. And from our stories last month on Iraq and Saudi Arabia I see politics being played as a kind of theater of the absurd, as all of the pieces fall into place for a swift invasion of Iraq and a likely simultaneous occupation of Saudi Arabia's oil fields.
And there is no glee at all in the fact that, as we had clearly stated as early as mid-September of last year, that Afghanistan, which had virtually no opium growing on Sept. 11, is once again the world's leading producer. The great heroin epidemic we predicted is now flooding across Russia and Western Europe.
I note with little satisfaction that plans for mass vaccinations are moving ahead even as the federal government announces on the one hand a plan for "voluntary" immunization of the population within days of an alert, while at the same time pushing MEHPA (The Model Emergency Health Powers Act) through state legislatures. MEHPA would make it a crime -- possibly a felony -- to refuse those same "voluntary" vaccinations. And the punishment would be carried out by the states.
And a recent AP story headlined "Evidence Contradicts Bush 9-11 Denial," following on the heels of dramatic testimony by the charismatic and eloquent 9-11 widow Kristen Breitweiser, along with ever more damning revelations in the joint House Senate 9-11 intelligence committee have proved that FTW's allegations a year ago of foreknowledge were more than justified. Strange, isn't it, that it has now been classified as to what the president was told before the attacks? If he knew what we now know the intelligence agencies knew, he is at the very least a proven and untrustworthy liar. Bush's known actions before, during and since the attacks are impeachable offenses. Perhaps some brave member of Congress will ultimately take to the floor and say so.
Anything is possible as the economy approaches a near-certain meltdown this October, which may well see the Dow below 6000 after devastating third quarter earnings reports become official and the explosion of a $50 trillion derivatives bubble occurs. I can see no better combination of factors than a bloody war, threats of or actual terrorist attacks, and draconian health legislation that will allow for the immediate confiscation of property and the uncontested quarantine of anyone as convenient methods to control an angry population that may soon be going hungry and cold. President Bush has made it clear that he wants the Homeland Security Act -- with all of its suppressive powers -- signed before the Iraqi invasion and, as of Oct. 1, we will have the Northern Command in place that will place both Mexican and Canadian troops under U.S. command.
There has been some hope that dramatic last ditch efforts in the U.N. and elsewhere, together with an increasing number of significant protests both in the U.S. and Europe might derail the plans for war. They may actually delay the invasion for a short while, but that's all. A wise analyst will follow the troops rather than the rhetoric. The massive buildup for the invasion has continued unabated. These troops cannot remain so heavily forward-deployed for long without being used. Recent convenient deployments to Yemen and Djibouti only confirm my previously-stated suspicions that Saudi Arabia is just as much a target as Iraq.
The Asia Times, in a story published Sept. 30, also confirms the position taken by FTW about eight weeks ago that the move against Iraq and Saudi Arabia is a move to break the back of OPEC and drastically reduce prices by increasing production from the only two countries in the world that can open oil taps wider. This position was also noted on a Sept. 28 Fox News show by former CIA Director James Woolsey, who has had a habit of addressing FTW themes in interviews. Woolsey noted that Iraq is currently exporting only 1 million barrels of oil a day and that this could be increased by 3- to 4 million barrels per day as a price "control" measure. When asked if Saddam might scorch the earth and attempt to destroy his oilfields Woolsey replied, "Saddam is capable of anything." He then implied that the U.S. was prepared for that contingency by recalling that Saddam had tried that tactic in 1991, and the U.S. had quickly restored production. "But we could do the same thing again," said Woolsey and "get the fields online quicker than anyone thought."
As the invasion plans appear more and more unstoppable, the heavy shuttle diplomacy taking place in the Arab world between Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states indicates that the OPEC/Muslim world sees the plan also. They want to slow the U.S. down and prevent the invasion. While staving off an inevitable collapse of the U.S. economy by drastically reducing oil prices (including heating oil and fuel for power generation) just before winter, the Bush Administration would also gut the national incomes of most countries in the region. Our immediate economic instability would be immediately transferred to the Middle East. The Saudi monarchy, awaiting the imminent passing of King Fahd, must see this clearly. The civil war between Princes Abdullah and Sultan that looms from that event alone might turn into anarchy if the Saudi government is suddenly unable to meet the domestic financial obligations that keep it in place.
What seems clear to me now is that the administration has thought through all of these contingencies and has prepared for them. The administration's arrogance is as frightening as its power. I have recently learned from trusted sources on Capitol Hill that the Armed Services committees have quietly begun planning for a reinstitution of the draft. That harkens back to my June 2000 essay, "When the Children of the Bull Market Begin to Die." The eventual drafting of our youth is to me as much a certainty as anything else I have written about thus far. Reserve units, now having been called up for more than a year, are nearing the breaking point. A bloody and protracted war -- something the rest of the world may now be hoping for -- will overextend our military, and the draft will be essential as the criminals occupying the Executive Branch desperately attempt to make their grasp meet their reach. I think that there is better than a 50-50 chance that nuclear weapons will be used on the battlefield by either the U.S. or Israel within the next six months.
Russia and China wait as close to the sidelines as possible. China will be the ultimate endgame as it competes with growing demand for dwindling supplies of energy. And should the U.S. stumble, China will exert herself even more on the world scene.
I am reminded of where this country was in 1967-68 as the U.S. government, faced with massive domestic riots over civil rights and anti-war protests, found that it had 550,000 troops overseas and not enough at home to keep the peace. It was then that the assassinations of MLK and RFK became both inevitable and necessary. As yet, no leader of such stature had emerged, and I don't know if one will. Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, ousted by a clever and well executed plan, was one hope. But the ruling elite's science of population and political control has come a long way since the 1960s.
Most of our critics, notably David Corn of The Nation and self-anointed media critic Norman Solomon, have gone silent as both our reporting and predictions have been completely validated by events. And both Corn and Solomon have also revealed themselves to be agents of the U.S. State Department run by Colin Powell and career covert operative and criminal Richard Armitage. Last November in a story published on Alternet Corn wrote, "I had been dispatched to Trinidad by the U.S. State Department to conduct a two-day seminar on investigative reporting for local journalists (your tax dollars at work!)..." And just recently Norman Solomon of the Institute for Public Accuracy traveled with sitting congressman Nick Rahall and others on what CNN described as an official delegation to meet with officials of the Iraqi government.
I make these points because it seems to me that the learning curve of activism has not matched that of the oppressor. It is true that the Internet may prove itself to be the saving grace of mankind. But I look back at all the dedicated activists of the last 30 years and ask what have they accomplished? Human rights are worse. The environment is worse. Globalization is batting near 1000. Military spending has skyrocketed. And there seems to be nothing that can stop the empire's progression. (That is what I labeled it in January 2001).
Visionaries like Catherine Austin Fitts (www.solari.com) continue to demonstrate how our government is not a government but a criminal enterprise run for the benefit of corporations and syndicates. Her writing about alternative economic models that succeed without killing attracts far too little attention. And while FTW is growing, we are constantly short of funds as we continue to provide the most accurate reporting, analysis and predictions in the marketplace of ideas.
This is all because most of the people in this country still avoid the hard realities and try to cure symptoms rather than the causes of this great illness that envelops our country. Just recently I was in Washington, D.C. and attended several seminars at the Congressional Black Caucus. One seminar, on COINTELPRO, the FBI's domestic suppression operation of the '60s and '70s, featured Martin Luther King III who said, "We are a sick nation. Every day we are getting sicker."
I could not agree more.
But Julius Caesar has crossed the little river called the Rubicon with his legions and is heading toward Rome. The Republic is dead. And throughout human history it was at these times, when answers were hard to find and darkness seemed unstoppable, that a part of the human spirit persisted -- "I will not give up. I will not go quietly. I will not surrender." It was at these moments that faith demonstrated its true power, that courage found itself in the heart, and that the human race justified its existence in the universe.
Source: http://www.copvcia.com
10/5/02
6:47:30 PM
Planet Ark World Environment News
EPA, Justice announce Minnesota ethanol settlement - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18033/story.htm
Republicans float new plan to drill Alaska refuge - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18036/story.htm
High PCB levels reported in Alaska islanders - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18037/story.htm
Thousands flee as Hurricane Lili roars to US coast - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18038/story.htm
Groups debate US plan on antibiotics for animals - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18040/story.htm
Scientists break genetic code of malaria mosquito - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18045/story.htm
UK offshore wind farms get green light, 20 mln stg support - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18042/story.htm
Record breaking buzzard has bird lovers buzzing - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18044/story.htm
ADB says to raise annual lending to India to $2 bln - PHILIPPINES http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18035/story.htm
Norwegian whalers catch record 634 whales in 2002 - NORWAY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18046/story.htm
Court rules $10 mln in damages for Galapagos spill - ECUADOR http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18039/story.htm
EU will miss Kyoto target-top energy economist - BELGIUM http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18034/story.htm
Southern Africa seeks help for hunger, AIDS - ANGOLA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18041/story.htm
Chinese animals fly to Kabul bound for shabby zoo - AFGHANISTAN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18043/story.htm
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS PICTURES:
UK: Britain's Environment Minister Meacher Dries Himself off after Taking Swim in Sea During Labour Party Conference in Blackpool http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/18050
SINGAPORE: A Dirigible Flies Past a Haze-Shrouded Singapore Skyline http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/18047
PHILIPPINES: Miss Earth Contestants Plant Tree Saplings in Manila http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/18048
AFGHANISTAN: Lion and Two Pigs Donated to Zoo Arrive at Kabul Airport http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/18049
10/5/02
6:46:13 PM
DAILY GRIST
<http://www.gristmagazine.com>
TURTLE POWER
For endangered sea turtles, it's a hit-or-miss existence on Mexico's Baja Peninsula. Species protection is the exception rather than the rule in the region; catching or eating sea turtles has been illegal in Mexico since 1990, but government enforcement is patchy at best, and turtle meat is a staple of the local culture. That's a problem not just for Mexico, but for the whole world, because sea turtles come from as far away as Japan to feed in the peninsula's rich waters. Recently, fishing cooperatives in small villages up and down the Baja coast have banded together to begin protecting sea turtles and discouraging their consumption. Deborah Knight reports from Baja, only on the Grist Magazine website.
only in Grist: Threatened sea turtles find allies in Baja -- in our Main Dish section <http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/knight100302.asp?source=daily>
TALK AMONGST YOURSELVES
You have passionate feelings about sea turtles and are dying to discuss the above-mentioned article with someone -- but your coworkers (or spouse or parents or children) think you're utterly insane and would rather talk about the Diamondbacks. What's a loquacious environmentalist to do? Announcing The Gristmill, Grist Magazine's brand-spankin'-new discussion forum, where you can grind your axe, vent your spleen, ask that burning question, pat us on the back, and generally talk to each other about whatever environmental issues are on your mind (not just sea turtles). Thanks to informed and interested readers like yourself, The Gristmill is about to become (we guarantee it) the authoritative space for defining the issues and strategies of a new wave of environmentalism. Pack some food for thought and come join us in The Gristmill, only on the Grist Magazine website.
join The Gristmill: Come grind your axe in Grist Magazine's discussion forum <http://www.gristmagazine.com/gristmill>
HOMELAND INSECURITY
Despite all the hype about guaranteeing "homeland security," the Bush administration has scrapped plans to impose strict regulations to protect chemical plants from possible terrorist attacks. The decision, which was confirmed yesterday by U.S. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, came after months of administration infighting and heavy lobbying efforts against new rules by the chemical industry. Whitman and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge favored the idea of new regulations, whereas officials in other agencies argued that the EPA would be overstepping its authority by using the Clean Air Act to force chemical plants to identify and resolve serious security breaches in producing and storing hazardous materials. Environmentalists and others fear that plants storing large amounts of chlorine and other toxic chemicals are tempting terrorist targets; at least 30 such facilities are located near heavily populated areas.
straight to the source: Washington Post, 03 Oct 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=530>
SLEEP WITH THE FISHES
At least 20,000 chinook salmon and other fish have died in Northern California's Klamath River in the last two weeks, but federal officials are unwilling to attribute the deaths to the Bush administration's decision to divert water away from the river this year and into an irrigation project in southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Steve Williams said fish health began to improve on Saturday, well before emergency releases of water from Oregon's Upper Klamath Lake reached the California "dead zone." He and other federal officials say that fact suggests that low water flows weren't responsible for the fish kill, which biologists call the largest in memory. But environmentalists, Native American tribes, and fishing groups discount that notion, saying the death rate began to decline simply because the majority of fish were already dead by Saturday. To call attention to their cause, the salmon advocates joined together yesterday with Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) to deliver 500 pounds of dead chinook to the Interior Department's offices in Washington, D.C.
straight to the source: New York Times, Dean E. Murphy, 03 Oct 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=531>
straight to the source: Portland Oregonian, Michael Milstein, 03 Oct 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=533>
only in Grist: 12-step salmon recovery program -- a cartoon by Suzy Becker <http://www.gristmagazine.com/ha/ha020402.asp?source=daily>
YOU CAN JUDGE A FOOD BY ITS LABEL
In a big step for the organic food industry, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is poised to roll out an official "USDA Organic" seal and launch a long-awaited national standard to replace the existing hodgepodge of state and private certification systems. Food will have to contain 95 percent organic ingredients to be eligible for the label, a move that should put an end to the current, er, creative labeling practices of some food companies. Some small farmers are concerned that the 95 percent rule will actually lower the bar for big organic farmers, but most say that, all in all, they're glad the feds are wising up to the importance of mainstreaming organic food. Sales of organic foods in the U.S. are growing by about 20 percent annually and are expected to surpass $11 billion this year.
straight to the source: Seattle Times, Jake Batsell, 02 Oct 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=532>
GULF WAR SYNDROME
Environmental damage in Kuwait stemming from Gulf War activities was far more severe than originally thought, according to a U.N.-financed study whose preliminary results were released yesterday. The study found that pollution from torched oil wells not only filled into the sky, but also seeped into the ground; further, the salt from seawater used to douse the fires contaminated groundwater aquifers to the point that the water from them is no longer potable. The soil suffered, too: A hardened layer of sand and oil covered 135 square miles, nearly twice the area originally estimated to have been damaged. Iraq has racked up a total of $50 billion in environmental claims from its neighbors, and U.N. officials say the new findings will likely inflate the $17 billion claim already submitted by Kuwait for environmental damage.
straight to the source: Planet Ark, Reuters, Stephanie Nebehay, 03 Oct 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=534>
10/5/02
6:43:10 PM
FCNL LEGISLATIVE ACTION MESSAGE - October 3, 2002
The following action items from the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) focus on federal policy issues currently before Congress or the Administration.
TOPIC: OPPOSE WAR AGAINST IRAQ
On October 2, White House and congressional negotiators agreed on compromise text for a joint resolution that would give the President broad authority to wage war against Iraq. The compromise joint resolution was introduced in the Senate by Sens. McCain (AZ), Warner (VA), Bayh (IN), and Lieberman (CT) as S.J.Res. 46. The same day, the House International Relations Committee began considering the measure, introduced as H.J.Res. 114. Both the House and Senate are expected to vote on a final resolution within the next week. Amendments, substitute resolutions, or further changes to the text may still be possible when the resolution comes to the full House and Senate for a floor vote.
The Bush Administration has demonstrated that it is committed to going to war, despite numerous unanswered questions regarding the short- and long-term consequences for national and international security. Congressional leadership is urgently needed to slow the rush to war and prevent unilateral, preemptive U.S. military action against Iraq.
ACTION: Please contact your senators and representative this week. Urge them to vote "no" on ANY resolution that would authorize the President to wage war against Iraq. Congress need not and should not support the Bush Administration's rush to war. The UN Security Council must be given time to pursue renewed weapons inspections and other diplomatic alternatives. The United States has no compelling reason to authorize war now. The costs of unilateral, preemptive U.S. military action are too high. If your representative or senators are in town over the weekend, set up a visit with their local offices and personally express your opposition to a preemptive war against Iraq.
USE FCNL'S WEB SITE TO MAKE LETTER-WRITING EASIER: Start with the sample letter posted in our Legislative Action Center, personalize the language, then email or fax your message directly from our site. You can also print it out and mail it. To view the sample letter, click on the link below, then enter your zip code and click <Go> in the <Take Action Now> box.
Here is the link: <http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=620516>
To find the phone numbers of your district offices, click on the link below, then select your state and click <Go>. Select your member and click <Go>.
Here is the link: <http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/>
BACKGROUND: Despite a number of changes from the original White House draft resolution, the compromise joint congressional resolution would still provide the President with a blank check to take preemptive, unilateral military action against Iraq, when and how he deemed necessary. The compromise text does express support for diplomatic efforts through the UN Security Council, but it is not binding in this regard. Unlike the original White House resolution which extended authorization for military action to the region, the compromise text authorizes U.S. military action only against Iraq. The compromise text requires the President to certify to Congress that diplomatic efforts had failed prior to or within 48 hours of launching war against Iraq and to report on progress every 60 days. However, the President would have full discretion to declare the failure of diplomacy at any time he chose and to wage war without further congressional approval. The compromise resolution does not condition a U.S. war against Iraq on approval from the UN Security Council or other multilateral support. For the full text of the compromise joint resolution, click here:
<http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_war_joint-resltn10202.htm>
FCNL recognizes that a majority in Congress are likely to support the resolution. However, the more members who vote "no," the weaker the congressional mandate for war and the greater the opportunity to deter the U.S. military offensive and give time for UN weapons inspections to succeed.
CONTACTING LEGISLATORS
Information on your members is available on FCNL's web site:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdi r
CONTACTING THE ADMINISTRATION
White House Comment Desk: 202-456-1111
FAX: 202-456-2461
E-MAIL: president@whitehouse.gov
WEB PAGE: http://www.whitehouse.gov
President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
This message supplements other FCNL materials and does not reflect FCNL's complete policy position on any issue. For further information, please contact FCNL.
Mail: 245 Second Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795
Email: fcnl@fcnl.org
Phone: (202) 547-6000
Toll Free: (800) 630-1330
Fax: (202) 547-6019
Web: http://www.fcnl.org
10/5/02
6:36:13 PM
The Nation
On the most important issue of the campaign season--Bush's war in Iraq--the President and leading Democrats are singing a duet after President Bush gained strong congressional support yesterday for a bipartisan resolution authorizing the use of military force.
For the full report, read the latest installment of David Corn's Capital
Games: http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=111
And check out The Nation's regularly-updated antiwar page for activist ideas, links, organizing resources and Nation articles by Jonathan Schell, Dilip Hiro, Richard Falk and many others:
http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=040307
10/5/02
6:29:20 PM
United States Media Begins Preparing The Public For Mass Slaughter In Iraq
by Bill Vann, September 28, 2002
In the midst of the Bush administration's drumbeat for an invasion of Iraq, the government and the media have begun to prepare public opinion for a massive slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as substantial American military casualties.
For the most part, both the Bush administration and the media have portrayed an invasion as a simple matter of taking out" Saddam Hussein and "liberating" a grateful Iraqi people. Such a feat, they maintain, will be accomplished with satellite-guided precision bombs destroying a few presidential palaces and bunkers, while leaving the general population largely unscathed.
A few retired senior military officers -- undoubtedly expressing deep misgivings within the Pentagon's uniformed command -- have attempted to throw cold water on this scenario, warning that the war could prove protracted and bloody. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee September 23, Gen. Joseph Hoar, who was the senior US commander in the Middle East after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, cautioned that US invaders could confront 100,000 Iraqi troops with thousands of artillery pieces defending Baghdad.
Affirming that US forces would ultimately conquer the city, Hoar continued: "But at what cost? And at what cost as the rest of the world watches while we bomb and have artillery rounds exploded in densely populated neighborhoods?"
In house-to-house fighting, he warned, "you could run through battalions a day at a time ... because of casualties," adding that such combat would resemble "the last 15 minutes of Saving Private Ryan."
Articles appearing in three of the most influential national US newspapers Friday took up the question of a "nightmare scenario" of urban warfare in Iraq. With the Bush administration preparing to launch the most powerful military machine on the face of the earth against a backward and relatively defenseless country, all three papers sounded a remarkably similar theme: if slaughter does take place, the blame will rest with the Iraqis.
A USA Today article based on sources in the Pentagon cited plans for a "lightening" war against Iraq involving massive air power, air-dropped troops seizing key facilities, and the wholesale surrender of the Iraqi military.
The article cautions, however: "It's possible that the Iraqi leadership would try to create the conditions for ... street-by-street gun battles."
The Washington Post similarly warns in its article: "Iraq's military likely would respond to a US invasion by attempting to lure American forces close to Baghdad and other large population centers, where Iraqi commanders believe their soldiers would be less vulnerable to air strikes and civilians would be more willing to fight for the government, according to senior government officials and diplomats here."
The idea that the Iraqi military is setting out "to create the conditions" for street fighting or "to lure American forces close to Baghdad" is curious, to say the least. The Bush administration is loudly demanding UN and congressional approval for an unprovoked "preemptive" invasion of Iraq for the purpose of overthrowing its government and assassinating its president. Clearly, such goals cannot be achieved without storming, occupying and subduing Baghdad and other major cities.
The Post claims that the danger of urban warfare arises from a new "strategy" that the Iraqi military devised based upon the experience of the 1991 Gulf War. "During that war, US ground forces were able to easily overrun Iraqi troops, whose trenches and bunkers provided little cover from American artillery and bombs," the article states. "Now Iraqi officials have indicated that they would fight a very different war by shielding their soldiers in cities and trying to draw US forces into high-risk urban warfare."
Iraq's generals would be criminally irresponsible if they placed their forces in the open desert so that they could be slaughtered from the air. But the principal change in strategy from the first Gulf war stems from Washington's military objectives. In 1991, the US war was conducted for the ostensible purpose of expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The war now being prepared is aimed at conquering Iraq and establishing a US protectorate to rule that country and administer its oil wealth. Such a "regime change" is virtually inconceivable without urban warfare.
The story goes on to quote an unnamed diplomat as saying that the Iraqi army preferred to stay in the cities so that it "can mix with the civilian population." The diplomat added: "If soldiers start sniping from apartment buildings filled with people, what can the Americans do? They can't very well blow them up."
The obvious implication is that Iraq's military is prepared to use the population of Baghdad as "human shields," taking advantage of the Pentagon's supposed principled aversion to inflicting casualties on civilians.
Similar assertions were made in a column by Nicholas Kristof entitled "Fighting Street to Street" published in the New York Times on the same day. "American restraint is Iraq's ace going into the war," Kristof writes. "Iraq knows that the United States cannot bomb schools, mosques and residential neighborhoods, and so it has plenty of places to hide its army. In the last gulf war, we were able to destroy an enemy that was out in the open desert, but this time Iraq seems intent on a different approach."
The same theme was featured on that evening's NBC news report, with a former general warning that Saddam Hussein planned to deploy 15,000 crack Republican Guard troops for urban fighting in Baghdad, and a reporter predicting that such combat would unavoidably result in thousands of Iraqi deaths, military and civilian alike, as well as heavy US losses.
This is war propaganda, pure and simple. Those who write such lines know that they are turning reality inside out to further the predatory aims of the US government.
Who says that the US "cannot bomb schools, mosques and residential neighborhoods," or that if American units are fired upon from Baghdad apartment buildings, they won't just "blow them up"? Avoiding the slaughter of civilians at all costs is not part of the Pentagon's military doctrine; avoiding casualties among your own forces is.
Every major intervention by the US military has involved deliberate attacks on defenseless civilian populations. From the carpet-bombing of Hanoi to the My Lai massacre, the US waged a war in Vietnam that claimed the lives of two million people, most of them unarmed civilians.
In the 1989 invasion of Panama -- improbably cited by US officials as a model for the "regime change" they hope to accomplish in Iraq -- as many as 4,000 civilians were killed when the US bombed a crowded working class neighborhood.
In the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, thousands of civilians were killed and wounded. Targets included passenger trains, farming villages and non-military factories.
The last gulf war saw the targeting of a bomb shelter in the Baghdad district of Al-Amariya, killing 288 civilians, most of them women and children. And, the more recent invasion of Afghanistan has seen repeated war crimes against the civilian population.
There is little doubt that in the first days of an assault on Baghdad --the best efforts of military censors notwithstanding -- images will be broadcast of distraught people digging for their loved ones through the rubble of apartment buildings demolished by US bombs or cannon fire.
The stories appearing in the press today are aimed at preparing for the horror and revulsion that will be felt in the US and around the world over the inevitable carnage that will accompany an invasion of Iraq. The press is seeking to convince people in advance that they should not believe what they will see with their own eyes -- the mass murder of Iraqi civilians by the US military.
When these killings take place, the coordinated line from the White House, the Pentagon and the media will be that it is Saddam Hussein's fault, not that of the US invaders. The civilians were killed because they were used as "human shields." Or, it was not US bombs at all, but a misfired Scud missile or Iraqi anti-aircraft shells that caused the devastation. Everyone knows that "American restraint" would not permit such atrocities, but "the Iraqis do not place the same value on human life as we do." These are the shop-worn and racist lies used in every war of aggression.
The media is deliberately misleading the public on every issue, from the real aims that are being pursued in the war buildup against Iraq -- oil, not "weapons of mass destruction" -- to the criminal methods that will be used to accomplish them. This campaign of lies and misinformation is the surest indication that the war that the Bush administration wants is aimed at benefiting only the ruling corporate elite at the expense of the vast majority of working people in America and all over the globe.
Source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/iraq-s28.shtml
10/5/02
6:22:54 PM
The President's Real Goal In Iraq
by Jay Bookman
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.
And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.
Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.
Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.
To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.
It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."
In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.
"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."
The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.
"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "
Familiar themes
Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.
It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.
It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.
It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.
That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.
Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.
'Constabulary duties'
Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."
To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."
To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.
More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.
The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.
Effect on allies
The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.
The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.
One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.
Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.
"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.
"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."
Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.
For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.
"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."
Costly global commitment
Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.
Kagan is more blunt.
"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."
The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.
The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.
Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.
Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?
If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.
That's what this is about.
Source: http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html
10/5/02
6:17:49 PM
Making Connections...
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running and robbing the country. That's our problem."
- Howard Zinn
---
Global Military Expenditures 2002
Global military expenditures currently exceed $800 BILLION!
The top military spenders are:
United States $343.2 Billion
Russia* $60
China* $42
Japan $40.4
United Kingdom $34
Saudi Arabia $27.2
France $25.3
Germany $21
Brazil $17.9
India $15.6
Italy $15.5
South Korea $11.8
*Based on 2000 funding (most recent year available)
Global Priorities
For approximately 30% of Annual World Military Expenditures (~$810 billion), all of the following could be accomplished***:
o Eliminate Starvation and Malnutrition ($19 billion)
o Provide Shelter ($21 billion)
o Remove Landmines ($4 billion)
o Build Democracy ($3 billion)
o Eliminate Nuclear Weapons ($7 billion)
o Refugee Relief ($5 billion)
o Eliminate Illiteracy ($5 billion)
o Provide Clean, Safe Water ($10 billion)
o Provide Health Care and AIDS Control ($21 billion)
o Stop Deforestation ($7 billion)
o Prevent Global Warming ($8 billion)
o Stabilize Population ($10.5 billion)
o Prevent Acid Rain ($8 billion)
o Provide Clean, Safe Energy: Energy Efficiency ($33 billion), Renewable Energy ($17 billion)
o Stop Ozone Depletion ($5 billion)
o Prevent Soil Erosion ($24 billion)
o Retire Developing Nations Debt ($30 billion)
For more information, please visit: http://www.worldgame.org
Sources: Center for Defense Information, Council for a Livable World, International Institute for Strategic Studies, US State Department, US Central Intelligence Agency
10/5/02
6:14:36 PM
U.N. Credibility at Stake Over Iraq, Warn Diplomats
by Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS - The credibility of the United Nations is being seriously undermined by a U.S. decision that may eventually lead to a unilateral military attack on Iraq, U.N. diplomats, U.S. academics and Middle East experts warn. ''This is a crucial test for the survival of the world body,'' laments a long-time Asian diplomat. ''The American determination to go it alone challenges the very foundation on which the world body was built,'' he adds.
U.S. President George W. Bush has threatened to go to war - with or without authorization by the Security Council, the only international body empowered to declare war or peace - unless Iraq lets U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country and abides by a number of resolutions the U.N. adopted after the 1990s Gulf War. The United States has introduced a new resolution in the Security Council that is widely believed to permit an invasion if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein does not meet U.S. demands. It has yet to be made public. If Bush does go to war unilaterally, say diplomats, the Security Council will be reduced to a politically impotent body. John Quigley, professor of international law at Ohio State University, says the United Nations risks becoming irrelevant no matter what it does.
''If the Security Council caves into American pressure to adopt a resolution that the United States can construe to authorize military action, it will have done what most members think improper, and will have facilitated mass killings of Iraqis by the United States,'' he told IPS. Quigley argues that the better course would be for the United Nations to decline to adopt a U.S.-drafted resolution. ''Only in that way can the organization maintain its integrity.'' Since the 191-member General Assembly - rather than the Security Council - really represents the will of the international community, Quigley says the Assembly should invoke the ''Uniting for Peace'' resolution of 1950, which allows the U.N.'s highest policy making body to recommend action by member states against another member state.
But because the international community overwhelmingly opposes military action against Iraq, the United States is not likely to risk that vote at the General Assembly, he says. As a result, the 15-member Security Council has been under heavy U.S. pressure for a resolution that will virtually give that country a ''blank check'' for a "regime change" in Iraq. So far, the United States is backed by only one other veto-wielding permanent member - Britain. The remaining three permanent members, France, China and Russia, have expressed strong reservations over the draft U.S.-sponsored resolution. France, a long-time American ally, said Monday that ''any action whose stated goal from the outset is regime change would be against international law and open the way to all sorts of abuses''. Of the 10 non-permanent members in the 15-member Security Council, the United States is expected to receive support from Norway, Bulgaria, Singapore, Colombia and Ireland.
The other five non-permanent members - Mexico, Mauritius, Cameroon, Guinea and Syria - are being heavily lobbied by the United States, mostly in their respective capitals. The United States needs nine positive votes to adopt a resolution in the Security Council but it also has to avoid any vetoes. The situation is ''fraught with dangerous implications extending far beyond the region,'' says former Indian ambassador Chinmaya Gharekhan, an adviser to one-time U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. ''Will the world witness the first authorized or unilateral use of force to topple a head of state?'', he asks. Naseer Aruri, chancellor professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, said no one in the United States is considering the forthcoming war as a form of U.N. action under chapter seven of the body's charter, which authorizes the use of military force under the auspices of the Security Council.
''Instead, this is treated as an American war, or even a George W. Bush war. This is a profound challenge to the credibility of the U.N. system and to the office of the secretary-general,'' he told IPS. The United Nations, he argued, is increasingly seen as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, ''if not indeed a tool in the hands of George Bush to help him divert public attention in the United States away from severe domestic problems to the issues of war and patriotism''. Aruri also said the General Assembly should convene under the 1950 "Uniting for Peace" resolution to consider sending a multinational force to Iraq to resolve the problem of disarmament for good. ''Anything short of taking drastic action to preserve the integrity of the United Nations will place the post-World War II system in great jeopardy,'' he added. Phyllis Bennis, Fellow of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies, said the U.S. effort to win support in the Security Council is already leading to the kind of over-the-top bribes and threats that characterized the run-up to the passage of resolution 678 authorizing war against Iraq in 1990.
At that time, she said, every impoverished country on the Security Council, including the former Zaire, Ethiopia and Colombia, was offered free or extra-cheap oil, courtesy of Saudi Arabia and the exiled Kuwaiti royals, orchestrated by the United States. Ethiopia and Colombia were also offered new arms packages, after years of being denied military aid, because of war and human rights violations, she added. The only two countries that voted against the 1990 resolution authorizing a war against Iraq were Cuba and Yemen. But minutes after Yemen said ''no'', the U.S. ambassador turned to the Yemeni diplomat in the Security Council chamber, and said: ''That will be the most expensive vote you would ever cast.'' Three days later, said Bennis, the U.S. cut its entire 70 million dollar aid budget to Yemen.
10/5/02
6:11:17 PM
President Bush wants another war on Iraq. A huge number of Americans are passionately opposed to war, but if Bush can secure other countries' support, he will attack anyway. It's time to make your voice heard. More than 200,000 Americans have already joined our online petition opposing a war on Iraq. Now it's crucial for people worldwide to speak up too. We'll take your message to national and world leaders.
Speak up at http://www.moveon.org/nowarworld/
There is an October 26 National March to Stop the War Against Iraq being organized by volunteers from around the country who are handing out tens of thousands of flyers, putting up thousands of posters and organizing buses, vans and car caravans to come from their area. Check out their web site at
http://www.internationalanswer.org for more details.
There is also a mass protests against the U.S. government planned for October 6
Details at http://www.notinourname.net
See also:
The Case For Regime Change
http://www.rense.com/general30/case.htm
WAR DOMINATES THE AGENDA
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=154
Congress Overwhelmed With Anti-War Calls (AND MORE!)
Black Day For Blair As Party Revolts
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.03B.black.blair.htm
Bush's Press Secretary: Administration Welcomes Hussein Assassination
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.03C.Assassination.htm
Did D.C. Police Go Too Far? Legal Experts Debate Legality of Mass Arrests
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.03D.dc.to.far.htm
Democratic Congressman Asserts Bush Would Mislead U.S. on Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.03F.mcdermott.htm
400,000 Protest Against War in UK
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.01E.400.000.uk.htm
Byrd Reveals US Shipments of Biological Weapons to Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.30A.byrd.wmd.htm
New Book; "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.30Ab.intv.wrp.htm
10/5/02
6:05:58 PM
SciTech Daily Review
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/SciTech/reuters20021002_479.html
Scientists have opened a new front in the sluggish war against malaria by mapping the genome of both the malaria parasite and the mosquito that carries it
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020923/020923-7.html
If you go down to the woods today beware of thieving flowers -- as vegetal vampires stalk South American forests
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-fi-autos28sep28,0,2737561.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dscience
In a rare expression of unity from an otherwise cutthroat industry, the world's automakers have pledged to work together on global safety and environmental standards for cars. But it may be a bit early to begin the celebrations (registration required)
http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns236323
With a little help from Olivia Judson, fictitious advice columnist Dr Tatiana brings us a catalogue of vices that would bring a blush to the cheeks of even the most depraved Homo sapiens
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/pheromones.html
In a field of research where the opinions of experts range from gung-ho boosterism to outright skepticism, and where accusations of data fudging and sexism fly, some truths about pheremones are finally becoming clear
10/5/02
5:48:17 PM
The Upside Down Thomas Friedman
by Ravi Mosur, YellowTimes.org, October 3, 2002
In the September 18, 2002 issue of the New York Times, an editorial written by Thomas Friedman began by explaining why Iraq is not going to terrorize the U.S. by dropping nuclear or biological weapons. Then he goes on to say that we should invade "Iraq only if we think that doing so can bring about regime change and democratization."
Invade Iraq!?! After using half his column stating why there is no threat to the United States from Iraq, he nevertheless advocates invading Iraq, while ignoring the U.N. charter prohibiting any military action except in self-defense.
Perhaps Mr. Friedman's asserted love for democracy, law, and the international community is not as deep as he claims it to be.
Further into the editorial, Mr. Friedman continues his patronizing sermon: "What the Arab world desperately needs is a model that works - a progressive Arab regime that by its sheer existence would create pressure and inspiration for gradual democratization and modernization around the region."
May I advise Mr. Friedman that there were such regimes in the Middle East? One example is Iran under Mosaddeq in 1953. What happened to it, Mr. Friedman? Why did the U.S. deliberately go about working to dismantle it? If the U.S. loves democracy so much, why did the U.S. support the dictator Shah of Iran? Why did the U.S. enthusiastically support Saddam Hussein in his wars against Iran and repression at home? Why did the U.S. enthusiastically support the dictator and mass murderer Suharto in another Muslim country, Indonesia?
Are these more mistakes of foreign policy, Mr. Friedman?
How many of the governments installed by the U.S. (as if it has some God-given right to do so) around the world have been democratic, Mr. Friedman? How many have been rank dictators of the lowest breed? Why should we believe any of your words, when your deeds are the exact opposite? What shred of credibility could you possibly have after your long history of military interventions on behalf of despotic tyrants around the world? As recently as in April of this year, the U.S. establishment enthusiastically and unanimously applauded the military coup against democratically elected Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Why should we believe that this time, the U.S. will make an about-face and settle for a democratic government in oil-rich Iraq?
The following fragment from the editorial by Mr. Friedman takes the cake: "...young men who are full of rage, because they are raised with a view of Islam as the most perfect form of monotheism, but they look around their home countries and see widespread poverty, ignorance and repression. And they are humiliated by it, humiliated by the contrast with the West and how it makes them feel, and it is this humiliation - this poverty of dignity - that drives them to suicidal revenge."
I see. Mr. Thomas Friedman has now become an expert psychologist. When Usama bin Laden discussed the World Trade Center attacks, he didn't discuss how humiliated the West made him feel. No, his justification for the attack was found in three reasons: U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, U.S. savage and murderous war against Iraq, and U.S. blind support for Israel in its occupation of Palestine. Does any of this ring a bell, Mr. Friedman? Does any of that sound like bemoaning some inherent failure of Islam in the face of the West?
The vast majority of Latin America hates the U.S. as well. What psychobabble are you going to invent to explain that hatred? Either you are utterly ignorant of Usama's statements - in which case you have no right to be writing in a national newspaper - or you are fully aware of it all, but simply lying through your teeth in coming to these asinine conclusions.
Perhaps Mr. Friedman should analyze what drives the United States to homicidal mass murder. Perhaps the United States is humiliated; humiliated that with all of its superpowers. all of its nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, cluster bombs, daisy cutter bombs, cruise missiles, and all the fancy death machines that the media is so in love with - the U.S. still doesn't have access to free oil. Perhaps the United States is humiliated that it still has to actually pay undeserving third world countries for all that oil that rightfully belongs to the only superpower in the world.
Mr. Friedman, you are no writer. Your analyses are so utterly empty that you have become a disgrace to the Pulitzer Prize your fellow cronies awarded to you. Please return it at your earliest convenience.
[Ravi Mosur is a 46-year-old high-tech computer industry worker who considers himself surrounded by elitist viewpoints. Ravi finds much satisfaction in looking for ways to promote the circulation of alternative media and viewpoints since the mainstream media are rapidly losing all credibility. He lives and works in the bay area of California in the United States.]
Ravi Mosur encourages your comments: mailto:mk_ravishankar@yahoo.com
Source: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=745
10/5/02
5:40:05 PM
Letter to Parents from Wife/Mother of Two Arrested at Pershing Park
by Chris Baden-Mayer mailto:chrisbaden-mayer@cox.net
Let me tell you what was done on Friday, September 27th. It was done in your name in your capitol city to your children.
They are so young and so idealistic that they still believe in the preposterous notions we taught them in kindergarten. They still believe in peace and justice. My Dear Fellow Americans,
Let me tell you what was done on Friday, September 27th. It was done in your name in your capitol city to your children.
They are so young and so idealistic that they still believe in the preposterous notions we taught them in kindergarten. They still believe in peace and justice.
They are so young and so energetic that they can still sing, dance, drum, march, build beautiful banners and puppets, create street theater, and yes, express rage.
They were doing all this for you. They are trying to tell you that you have lost your way. To point out to you that you are actually discussing as a rational proposition that we bomb a small country as a “preventative” measure. They want you to see that this proposition is the negation of every moral principle that stands between us and utter chaos.
They spoke to you with dancing and singing and beating on drums. (So young and so beautiful!) They obeyed the orders of the policemen, those policemen you taught them to run to if they were afraid. They followed the rules. “You have a right to speak freely and to assemble to express your grievances.” Isn’ t that the rule you taught them?
Let me tell you what the nice policemen did. They said, “don’t go over there with your protests. Come over here into the park.” Your children obeyed them. Then they said “Go further into the park. Stand close together. Do not move. No, you may not leave.” Then they bound their arms behind their backs with plastic straps, tight. Then they loaded them onto the buses, and transported them across the river. There they were kept, bound and seated, for fourteen hours. Some of them cried. Some pleaded. Mostly they sang songs and played games to encourage one another.
After midnight they were taken from the buses into the large gymnasium of a police training building. There they were strapped into plastic shackles: left-wrist-to -right ankle. They could not stand or kneel. They were kept in this position for another fourteen hours. Because they are young and strong and loving they kept one another’s spirits up.
The police are “the law” isn’t that right? The “law” told your children that they had to pay a fine and sign a paper admitting that they had “failed to obey”. If they didn’t they would be kept in the gymnasium in the painful shackles for two more days, until Monday. Perhaps because you raised them right, but more likely because the young are also vulnerable, they believed and signed.
I saw many of them sobbing as they left.
I was there to pick up my daughter on Saturday afternoon. along with her father, my husband. He was corralled and cuffed and transported from the park too. He was dressed in his best navy blue pinstripe business suit. He just came for an hour, the park being just a block from his office. He likes to go with her to encourage her to participate in these demonstrations “legally” so as not to go to jail. It has been so painful to us when she has been jailed in other protests. He’s “elderly” though he’d never answer to that description. He’s sixty-nine and a half. Bad knee. Poor circulation. Although he’d be quick to point out that he can still jog four miles or play a round of handball. He was shackled for fourteen hours as well. Left wrist to right ankle.
So my Dear Fellow American parents, I hope you have some tears left to shed for your children. We’ve shed so many this year. They are your better selves. They still believe that you can be “good”. If you do not allow them to speak, if you refuse to listen, what measurement will you use to judge the morality, or even the wisdom of your actions?Ignore these voices at your own peril. It is never the “other” who is our greatest threat. It is us.
http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=33217&group=webcast
10/5/02
5:37:51 PM
Planet Ark World Environment News
Blast, fire at Sithe's New Boston power plant - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18013/story.htm
USDA pays Conservation Reserve farmers $1.6 bln - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18028/story.htm
Congress leaders push negotiators for energy bill - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18027/story.htm
US Navy helps Spain probe whale stranding - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18026/story.htm
California water stocks in "good shape" going into 2003 - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18022/story.htm
Kuwait sees heavier Gulf War environmental damage - SWITZERLAND http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18030/story.htm
European epidemic killed 18,000 seals - scientists - SWEDEN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18019/story.htm
Spain's Endesa plans experimental renewables plant - SPAIN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18014/story.htm
FEATURE - Russian 'atomic city' builds future on nuclear dreams - RUSSIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18012/story.htm
Sailing-Anti-nuclear protesters greet French cup boat - NEW ZEALAND http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18016/story.htm
Japan's METI raps TEPCO for falsifying reactor data - JAPAN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18015/story.htm
Four dead, one missing in Japan typhoon - JAPAN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18025/story.htm
INTERVIEW - Farmer work in crop science key to beating hunger - ITALY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18018/story.htm
BP warns may discontinue East Java gas operation - INDONESIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18017/story.htm
Germany set to boost its offshore wind energy sector - GERMANY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18021/story.htm
Toxins put Arctic polar bears and humans at risk - FINLAND http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18010/story.htm
Lions kill villager in west Ethiopian rampage - ETHIOPIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18031/story.htm
Lili hits Cuba, heads toward US Gulf coast - CUBA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18024/story.htm
HK hopes smog control scheme can begin in three years - CHINA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18023/story.htm
EU shames Greece and Spain over dirty waste dumps - BELGIUM http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18011/story.htm
Africans seek WHO direction over GM relief aid - ANGOLA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18029/story.htm
China sends lions, bears to Kabul's decaying zoo - AFGHANISTAN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18020/story.htm
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS PICTURE:
USA: Eye of Hurricane Lili as Seen from Noaa Airplane Flying Above the Caribbean
http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/18032 World Environment News - October 3rd, 2002 from Planet Ark =============================================================
Here are today's Reuters 'World Environment News' headlines, proudly brought to you by Planet Ark.
Doing environmental research? Search our news archives at: http://www.planetark.org/searchhome.cfm
NEWS STORIES:
Blast, fire at Sithe's New Boston power plant - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18013/story.htm
USDA pays Conservation Reserve farmers $1.6 bln - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18028/story.htm
Congress leaders push negotiators for energy bill - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18027/story.htm
US Navy helps Spain probe whale stranding - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18026/story.htm
California water stocks in "good shape" going into 2003 - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18022/story.htm
Kuwait sees heavier Gulf War environmental damage - SWITZERLAND http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18030/story.htm
European epidemic killed 18,000 seals - scientists - SWEDEN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18019/story.htm
Spain's Endesa plans experimental renewables plant - SPAIN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18014/story.htm
FEATURE - Russian 'atomic city' builds future on nuclear dreams - RUSSIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18012/story.htm
Sailing-Anti-nuclear protesters greet French cup boat - NEW ZEALAND http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18016/story.htm
Japan's METI raps TEPCO for falsifying reactor data - JAPAN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18015/story.htm
Four dead, one missing in Japan typhoon - JAPAN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18025/story.htm
INTERVIEW - Farmer work in crop science key to beating hunger - ITALY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18018/story.htm
BP warns may discontinue East Java gas operation - INDONESIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18017/story.htm
Germany set to boost its offshore wind energy sector - GERMANY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/180