9/5/02
1:29:58 PM
Planet Ark World Environment News
Diesel fuel exhaust likely to cause cancer - US EPA - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17613/story.htm
Ex-EPA chief attacks Bush's utility pollution rules - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17610/story.htm
Time running out for Maryland snakehead fish - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17620/story.htm
Warmer climate blurring British seasons - report - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17607/story.htm
UK poll reports switch from Esso fuel, Esso denies - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17600/story.htm
UN sounds alarm for great apes at Earth Summit - SOUTH AFRICA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17618/story.htm
Palau faults Earth Summit on global warming - SOUTH AFRICA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17617/story.htm
FACTBOX - Earth Summit deal on water and sanitation - SOUTH AFRICA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17606/story.htm
Protest interrupts Powell speech at summit - SOUTH AFRICA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17595/story.htm
FACTBOX - Biodiversity and fish deals at the Earth Summit - SOUTH AFRICA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17604/story.htm
FACTBOX - Key points agreed at Earth Summit talks - SOUTH AFRICA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17598/story.htm
ANALYSIS - Earth Summit won't save planet, but might help - SOUTH AFRICA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17603/story.htm
Mandela highlights forgotten AIDS issue at summit - SOUTH AFRICA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17601/story.htm
Earth Summit bogged down in complex argument - SOUTH AFRICA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17599/story.htm
Aircraft used to battle Moscow fires, smog - RUSSIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17605/story.htm
"Free Willy" killer whale turns up in Norway fjord - NORWAY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17619/story.htm
Italy's Enel to build 9 wind farms totalling 141MW - ITALY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17596/story.htm
Hungary Paks nuclear plant plans to extend lifespan - HUNGARY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17602/story.htm
German wind generation to rise 25pct in 2002 - firms - GERMANY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17597/story.htm
Euro MEPs press ahead with waste recycling law - FRANCE http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17615/story.htm
FEATURE - Galapagos islanders watch cruise ships pass by - ECUADOR http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17609/story.htm
Environmentalists applaud Canadian parks plan - CANADA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17614/story.htm
Canada's Kyoto pledge reignites Alberta's anger - CANADA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17612/story.htm
Environmental groups back Amazon protection plan - BRAZIL http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17611/story.htm
Australia PM says hasn't ruled out ratifying Kyoto - AUSTRALIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17608/story.htm
Scientists say rare sable antelope is not extinct - ANGOLA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17616/story.htm
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS PICTURES:
CHINA: A Chinese Villager Living Along the Yangtze River Transports Water Near Yichang http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/17624
CHINA: A Chinese Veterinarian Cleans a Panda Cub in Wolong http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/17621
RUSSIA: Pigeons Fly in Moscow's Red Square Obscured by Smog http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/17622
INDONESIA: Indonesian Motorists Wear Masks Against Haze on Borneo http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/17623
9/5/02
1:26:30 PM
UK Rabbi warns of Israel's 'tragic path'
Britain's chief rabbi has taken the unprecedented step of warning that Israel's stance towards Palestinians is incompatible with Judaism. Read more at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2218571.stm
9/5/02
1:25:25 PM
Platform in place for a nonviolent intifada?
Search for Common Ground (SFCG), the world's largest conflict prevention and resolution NGO, released last week a survey conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) of the University of Maryland to determine the attitudes of Palestinians and Jewish Israelis on the potential for nonviolent methods in the Palestinian intifada.
*80% of Palestinians would support a large-scale non-violent protest movement and 56% would participate in its activities.
*62% of Palestinians think that a new approach is needed in the intifada.
*If a Palestinian were killed in the course of committing nonviolent resistance, a near unanimous 88% would regard that person as a martyr - in most cases, no less than a suicide bomber.
*78% of Israeli Jews believe that the Palestinians have a legitimate right to seek a Palestinian state, provided that they use nonviolent means.
*56% of Israeli Jews also feel this way about the Palestinians' right to oppose the expansion of the settlements.
To read the full report, go to:
http://www.sfcg.org/Documents/SFCGPoll.pdf
9/5/02
1:23:15 PM
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.... And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
William Shakespeare
9/5/02
1:20:28 PM
Public Citizen issued this press release today:
Sept. 4, 2002
Groups File Reply Brief in Case Against EPA's Yucca Mountain Standards, Seek Stronger Radiation Protection Rule
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Seven environmental and public interest organizations suing the federal government over its weakening of groundwater standards for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump have asked the court to require the government to strengthen a rule regarding how to measure contamination from the dump. The request, contained in a reply brief filed jointly with the state of Nevada late Tuesday to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is part of a legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) radiation standards for the proposed storage of nuclear waste at the site.
The proposed high-level nuclear waste dump would sit atop an underground aquifer that area residents rely on for drinking water. National and Nevada-based environmental and public interest organizations contend that the EPA illegally weakened groundwater protection standards at Yucca Mountain to allow the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to proceed with its flawed plan to create a national nuclear waste dump at the site. The case has been consolidated with a similar lawsuit brought by the state of Nevada.
A primary issue is the compliance boundary - the distance from the proposed repository within which no limit will be placed on the amount of radioactive contamination in the groundwater. In its Yucca Mountain rule, the EPA changed that distance from three miles to more than 11 miles, so a cap on the amount of contamination that can seep from the dump would begin only at a line drawn 11 miles from the dump.
In a response filed last month, the EPA said its congressional mandate to establish a site-specific standard for radiation protection at Yucca Mountain gave it the right to weaken the rule as it did. But in the reply brief yesterday, the groups maintained that EPA's action undermines the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
"The EPA's Yucca Mountain rule assumes the proposed repository will leak and inappropriately allows the DOE to rely on dilution in order to meet national standards. The agency should not be permitted to misuse its discretionary powers to undermine the Safe Drinking Water Act in this way," said Geoff Fettus, attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, lead petitioners in the case.
"The Yucca Mountain 'house of cards' rests on a regulatory structure that has been ridiculously weakened by the Bush administration," said Lisa Gue, senior energy analyst with Public Citizen, another petitioner. "By taking this issue to court, we are challenging the EPA's presumption that public health and the environmental regulations can be sacrificed for nuclear industry interests."
The DOE's controversial Yucca Mountain site recommendation won congressional approval in July. The agency must now apply for a license to construct and operate a nuclear waste dump from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The licensing process will assess projected compliance with the EPA radiation protection standards.
9/5/02
1:18:04 PM
DAILY GRIST
<http://www.gristmagazine.com>
OVER AND OUT
"The Bush administration won this ballgame 44-0." That was how Brandon MacGillis, a spokesperson for the Washington, D.C.-based National Environmental Trust, summed up the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which wraps up today in Johannesburg, South Africa. Like MacGillis, many greens saw the 10-day conference as a step backward or, at best, a stalemate, with human rights and environmental organizations fighting to prevent governments from weakening existing international agreements. One triumph, however, did occur during the final hours of the summit: Russia confirmed that it would ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in the near future, a step that would bring the treaty into effect for the 80-plus countries that have signed on. The U.S. does not number among those nations -- which is one reason why Secretary of State Colin Powell, who led the U.S. delegation in Johannesburg, was booed and heckled incessantly during a five-minute speech he gave at the summit today. Unfazed, Powell said he was confident that the hecklers did not represent the majority opinion, and he defended his country's much-maligned resistance to establishing target dates for meeting the summit's goals by saying that concrete actions were more important than paper agreements.
straight to the source: New York Times, Associated Press, 04 Sep 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=431>
straight to the source: Washington Post, Jon Jeter, 04 Sep 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=432>
only in Grist: The privatization man is a very bad man -- dispatches from Johannesburg -- by Liza Grandia <http://www.gristmagazine.com/dearme/grandia090302.asp?source=daily>
only in Grist: Beginning in the beginning -- dispatches from Johannesburg -- by Thomas Brendler <http://www.gristmagazine.com/dearme/brendler090302.asp?source=daily>
do good: Take action to tell Bush to tackle global warming <http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/climate.asp?source=daily#kyoto>
RHODE ISLAND LEAD
Rhode Island has taken eight paint manufacturers to court in a first-ever attempt by a state to hold companies accountable for decades of child lead poisoning. Rhode Island, which has one of the highest rates of such poisoning in the country, is claiming the manufacturers created a public nuisance by selling the paint. The paint companies counter that problems stem from improper maintenance, and that landlords, not manufacturers, should be held liable. Other states are following the dispute closely and are poised to initiate similar lawsuits if Rhode Island is successful. Lead paint was banned nationwide in 1978, when it was shown to cause health problems in children, such as learning disabilities, neurological damage, and even death. Last year, 8.1 percent of Rhode Island children under the age of six had elevated lead levels.
straight to the source: Providence Journal, Associated Press, 04 Sep 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=433>
FIRE HIM
Allan Fitzsimmons, the man chosen by the Bush administration to head its wildfire prevention program, does not believe in ecosystems and says the extinction of threatened and endangered species would not be a crisis. Fitzsimmons was tasked last week with reducing fire danger on Interior Department lands through the newly formed Healthy Forests Initiative, but environmentalists say the appointment confirms their fears that the initiative is just a smokescreen for expanding logging on public lands. President Bush wants logging companies to thin forests, theoretically to reduce fire danger, in exchange for the right to harvest commercially valuable trees. Under the White House plan, forest protections would be suspended and it would be harder for environmentalists to sue to block thinning. Fitzsimmons, a free-market policy analyst aligned with libertarian and conservative think tanks, has written papers calling ecosystems human constructs and criticizing those who try to "accommodate nonexistent ecosystem needs."
straight to the source: Seattle Times, Gannett News Service, Faith Bremner, 31 Aug 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=434>
SIN DIESEL
Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust probably triggers a wide range of respiratory illnesses and causes lung cancer, according to a study released yesterday by the U.S. EPA. Based on decades of research, the study found "persuasive" evidence that the diesel engines operating on highways, farms, and construction sites around the country are hazardous to human health. The same conclusions have been reached before by various world health organizations and California agencies, but still, the new study lends urgency and credibility to efforts by the EPA and others to improve emissions standards for large trucks and buses under the Clean Air Act. In May, a federal appeals court upheld a Clinton-era regulation that would cut particulate matter from the diesel-powered vehicles by 90 percent and nitrogen oxides by 95 percent beginning in 2007. The Bush administration has largely stood by tougher emissions standards as well, despite heavy opposition from truck manufacturers and fuel refiners.
straight to the source: Washington Post, Eric Pianin, 04 Sep 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=435>
only in Grist: Are gas or diesel engines more polluting? -- astute advice on all things environmental -- in our Ask Umbra column <http://www.gristmagazine.com/ask/ask081502.asp?source=daily#diesel>
do good: Take action to send kids to school in clean buses <http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/autos.asp?source=daily#schoolbus>
HOOPA IT UP!
In a movement that could change the course of U.S. land management, Native Americans are pushing for laws that would give them veto power over development projects on historically sacred sites. Despite fierce opposition to granting Native Americans such power, especially on non-reservation land, the legal push has made some headway: A bill is nearing passage in California, support is growing for similar legislation in Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court ruling prohibiting logging on a sacred site of the Hoopa tribe in Northern California -- even though the land is privately owned by a non-native person. The trend has been spurred on by fears among Native Americans that the Bush administration's emphasis on maximizing domestic energy sources could lead to drilling and digging on sacred lands. Among the threatened lands they hope to protect: the Zuni Salt Lake in New Mexico and sacred trails on what was once Quechan tribal land in Indian Pass, Calif.
straight to the source: Christian Science Monitor, Brad Knickerbocker, 04 Sep 2002 <http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=436>
9/5/02
1:15:43 PM
Greenpeace True Food Network
September Newsletter
Greenpeace and the GE-Free Markets Coalition are gearing up for a National Week of Action for the Supermarket Campaign slated for October 26 to November 2.
Leading up to the Week of Action, activists will call for True Food by phoning local supermarkets to let them know that we want do not want to eat genetically engineered food. Read on for details.
Inside this Edition: - National Week of Action - Find out how you can get involved!
- Call for True Food! Call your supermarket CEO- It's Easy!!
- National Academy of Scientists Find GE Animals Threaten Health, Environment
- Farming Solutions - New web site details sustainable farming successes
-- National Week of Action: Oct. 26 to Nov. 2
Consumers have the power to shift the market away from genetically engineered food toward a more sustainable and safe food supply. That's why from Oct. 26 to Nov. 2, Greenpeace and the members of the GE-Free Markets Coalition will be at supermarket stores across the country demanding an end genetically engineered food.
We are working now with local activists to help set up an event in your area. We are looking across the country for people who want to kickstart an event in their area.
It's easy. Just send us an email with the following information:
- Your name
- Your town
- The supermarket chain in your area
- Tell us if you can be the point person in your area and include your mailing address so we can send you materials.
- If you can't be a point person, but want to get involved, let us know. We will try to connect you with other local activists.
Send your emails to: geteam@sfo.greenpeace.org
--Call For True Food
We have nine weeks to build up the pressure on supermarket CEOs to get out of the business of selling unlabelled, risky genetically engineered food.
You can join us by joining in the "Call For True Food."
Once a week, for the next nine weeks, people across the country will call their supermarkets to demand an end to the use of genetically engineered food. By calling once a week, we can keep the pressure on while we prepare for what promises to be the largest "Week of Action" yet.
Send us an email at: geteam@sfo.greenpeace.org and let us know if you can join in the weekly "Call For True Food." It only takes five minutes a week and together we can generate thousands of phone calls.
Here are the phone numbers of the supermarkets that are currently targeted by the GE-Free Markets Coalition:
Shaw's/ Star Markets 1-888-431-7429
Safeway (They own Vons, Pavilions, Genuardi's, Randall's, Tom Thumb, Dominicks's, Carr's, Eagle Quality Center and Pak N' Save.) 1-800-723-3929
Food Emporium 1-800-837-9237
Publix 1-800-242-1227
Food Lion 1-800-210-9569
If you do not have any of these stores in your area, you can still participate! Simply call the 1-800 number of the store in your neighborhood.
Let the operator know that you are a concerned shopper. You are calling because you want the supermarket to stop its use of genetically engineered ingredients in its store brand products just as Whole Foods, Wild Oats and Trader Joe's have done.
Please pass this email on to your friends and family. Make your first Call for True Food today!
--New National Academy of Scientists Report Warns of Health, Environmental Risks of GE Animals: Greenpeace Demands Halt to Genetic Engineering of Animals
A study by the National Academy of Scientists (NAS) warns that use of genetic engineering to create animals could contaminate the food supply, creating new risks for public health and the environment. The health risks include contamination of the food supply with engineered chemicals, pharmaceuticals and genetically engineered growth hormones, according to the study.
Find out more:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/press_releases/2002/08202002.htm
A Massachusetts company, AF Protein, has already submitted an application to FDA for approval to sell genetically engineered salmon. Last year, Greenpeace protested at the company's development facility, and called on FDA to deny any application for commercial sale of gene altered fish. Dozens of other fishing organizations and scientists have called for a moratorium on GE fish, including the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Canada's leading scientific body the Royal Society, and Jean-Michel Cousteau, President of Ocean Futures. Maryland is the only state to have a moratorium on the production of GE fish.
For more information on genetically engineered fish, go to:
Yet Another Example of Bush's Corporate-Friendly Routine: Biotech Industry Pushes Ahead without Safety Testing
The White House has released a new proposal to regulate genetically engineered crops. Under the Bush Administration's corporate-friendly "guidance," the biotechnology industry will be allowed to push ahead with new genetically engineered crops even if the crops have not been safety tested.
Tell President Bush to keep genetically engineered crops out of our food supply!
The comment period ends September 30th, so send your letter today.
http://www.truefoodnow.org/bin/takeaction.fpl?action_id=144
9/5/02
1:13:58 PM
Dear WildAlert subscriber,
This issue of WildAlert contains an update on the President's forest fire plan as well as a call to action to protect a rare stand of redwoods in northern California.
1. UPDATE - PRESIDENT'S FIRE PLAN
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) is expected to offer the President's plan as an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill. The amendment would exempt our federal forests from environmental protections in the name of firefighting. This is not just a cynical move, but a dangerous one, since it removes the focus from where it should be: On protecting homes and communities from wildfire.
The Senate has begun to debate the Interior bill, but a very busy schedule this week may slow them down. If you haven't yet sent a message to your Senators, it's not too late to do so. Take action from:
http://tws.ctsg.com/wac/index.asp?step=2&item=1827
2. REDWOODS NEED YOUR HELP The last remaining stand of old-growth redwoods was slated to become decks and hot tubs when the U.S. Interior Department and the State of California acquired it from a private timber company in May 1999. Today it is the heart of the Headwaters Forest Reserve in mountainous far-northern California.
A plan has been drawn up for how this special area will be managed for years to come. The two agencies in charge have created a good plan, but they need to know that the public strongly supports the plan and that they shouldn't give in to use groups that would like to weaken it. The deadline for comments is Friday, September 6, so please take action now at
http://www.wilderness.org/takeaction/?step=2&item=1830
BACKGROUND
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the California Department of Fish and Game are accepting comments on their plan to manage the Headwaters Forest Reserve. The plan's preferred alternative is a good one and deserves support. Some use groups are arguing against it and for inclusion of horse-back riding and bicycling -- recreational uses that have not taken place within the area in the past and are incompatible with the reserve's purpose. The agencies need to know that the public strongly supports its preferred management plan and that they shouldn't weaken.
ABOUT HEADWATERS
The never-harvested redwood stands within the Headwaters Forest Reserve cover just over 3,000 acres in the rugged 7,400-acre reserve.
Though small, its ecology is unique and valuable. The Reserve boasts:
-a highly intact, functioning old-growth forest ecosystem with large redwoods and Douglas firs;
-a very diverse mix of plant species in the forest understory;
-nesting sites for threatened marbled murrelets and spotted owls; and,
-undisturbed headwater stream habitat for salmon and steelhead.
The legislation that created the reserve directed the BLM to "conserve and study the land, fish, wildlife and forests occurring on such land, while providing public recreation opportunities and other management needs." The order here is important, subordinating recreational use to the ecological health of the reserve.
A STANDARD FOR GOOD MANAGEMENT
The BLM and the California Dept. of Fish and Game released the draft management plan for the reserve in May and are accepting public comments on it until Friday, September 6. The plan proposes an ecologically sound and biologically sensitive approach for caring for the Reserve. And it begins to set a welcome standard for how the BLM must manage the new monuments and other protected areas it is responsible for.
The Reserve plan, the agencies note, aims to "restore and maintain its ecological integrity and to study its ecological processes so as to improve that management. Recreation and other necessary management activities will be contained as necessary to be consistent with the primary goal."
The plan would prohibit equestrian and bicycling use, neither of which occurs there now, as "incompatible with the emphasis at the Reserve." That prohibition has prompted opposition from cycling and equestrian groups. While both uses certainly have a place on our public lands, they-and all other recreational use-must bow to the threshold purposes of the Reserve. The Humboldt County region offers ample opportunities for both activities and there are plans to increase them.
TAKE ACTION TODAY
Please tell the BLM you support its preferred alternative in the draft Headwaters Forest Reserve management plan. It is important to make the following points:
-You support the preferred alternative, a balanced and ecologically sound approach to protecting the values of the Reserve, including its recreation management provisions.
-You support the recommendation for Full-Recontour Watershed Restoration and Moderate Intensity Forest Restoration, requiring that roads be removed from the Reserve to the extent possible. Roads impact natural patterns of runoff and sediment production and they break the continuity of forest stands. The marbled murrelet and the northern spotted owl rely on this healthy habitat.
Please submit your comments no later than September 6, 2002. You can send a letter to the BLM directly from
http://www.wilderness.org/takeaction/?step=2&item=1830
If you prefer, you can email comments to Headwaters@jsanet.com or mail them to"
Headwaters
P.O. Box 188677
Sacramento, CA 95818-8677
For a full list of Action Items, visit
http://www.wilderness.org/whatcan/takeaction.htm
9/5/02
1:06:11 PM
Albert Interviews Chomsky On Iraq
By Noam Chomsky
Various questions are circulating among people worried about war. On Sept 1, 2002, Michael Albert put a dozen of these to Noam Chomsky, via email. Here are the first three questions and his responses...the whole interview will appear in the October issue of Z Magazine.
1. Has Saddam Hussein been as evil as mainstream media says? Domestically? Internationally?
He is as evil as they come, ranking with Suharto and other monsters of the modern era. No one would want to be within his reach. But fortunately, his reach does not extend very far.
Internationally, Saddam invaded Iran (with Western support), and when that war was going badly turned to chemical weapons (also with Western support). He invaded Kuwait and was quickly driven out.
A major concern in Washington right after the invasion was that Saddam would quickly withdraw, putting "his puppet in [and] everyone in the Arab world will be happy" (Colin Powell, then Chief of Staff). President Bush was concerned that Saudi Arabia might "bug out at the last minute and accept a puppet regime in Kuwait" unless the US prevented Iraqi withdrawal.
The concern, in brief, was that Saddam would pretty much duplicate what the US had just done in Panama (except that Latin Americans were anything but happy). From the first moment the US sought to avert this "nightmare scenario." A story that should be looked at with some care.
Saddam's worst crimes, by far, have been domestic, including the use of chemical weapons against Kurds and a huge slaughter of Kurds in the late 80s, barbaric torture, and every other ugly crime you can imagine. These are at the top of the list of terrible crimes for which he is now condemned, rightly. It's useful to ask how frequently the impassioned denunciations and eloquent expressions of outrage are accompanied by three little words: "with our help."
The crimes were well known at once, but of no particular concern to the West. Saddam received some mild reprimands; harsh congressional condemnation was considered too extreme by prominent commentators. The Reaganites and Bush #1 continued to welcome the monster as an ally and valued trading partner right through his worst atrocities and well beyond.
Bush authorized loan guarantees and sale of advanced technology with clear applications for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) right up to the day of the Kuwait invasion, sometimes overriding congressional efforts to prevent what he was doing. Britain was still authorizing export of military equipment and radioactive materials a few days after the invasion.
When ABC correspondent and now ZNet Commentator Charles Glass discovered biological weapons facilities (using commercial satellites and defector testimony), his revelations were immediately denied by the Pentagon and the story disappeared. It was resurrected when Saddam committed his first real crime, disobeying US orders (or perhaps misinterpreting them) by invading Kuwait, and switched instantly from friend to reincarnation of Attila the Hun.
The same facilities were then used to demonstrate his innately evil nature. When Bush #1 announced new gifts to his friend in December 1989 (also gifts to US agribusiness and industry), it was considered too insignificant even to report, though one could read about it in Z magazine at the time, maybe nowhere else.
A few months later, shortly before he invaded Kuwait, a high-level Senate delegation, headed by (later) Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, visited Saddam, conveying the President's greetings and assuring the brutal mass murderer that he should disregard the criticism he hears from maverick reporters here.
Saddam had even been able to get away with attacking a US naval vessel, the USS Stark, killing several dozen crewmen. That is a mark of real esteem. The only other country to have been granted that privilege was Israel, in 1967. In deference to Saddam, the State Department banned all contacts with the Iraqi democratic opposition, maintaining this policy even after the Gulf war, while Washington effectively authorized Saddam to crush a Shi'ite rebellion that might well have overthrown him -- in the interest of preserving "stability," the press explained, nodding sagely.
That he's a major criminal is not in doubt. That's not changed by the fact that the US and Britain regarded his major atrocities as insignificant in the light of higher "reasons of state," before the Gulf war and even after -- facts best forgotten.
2. Looking into the future, is Saddam Hussein as dangerous as mainstream media says?
The world would be better off if he weren't there, no doubt about that. Surely Iraqis would. But he can't be anywhere near as dangerous as he was when the US and Britain were supporting him, even providing him with dual-use technology that he could use for nuclear and chemical weapons development, as he presumably did.
10 years ago the Senate Banking Committee hearings revealed that the Bush administration was granting licences for dual use technology and "materials which were later utilized by the Iraq regime for nuclear missile and chemical purposes." Later hearings added more, and there are press reports and a mainstream scholarly literature on the topic (as well as dissident literature).
The 1991 war was extremely destructive, and since then Iraq has been devastated by a decade of sanctions, which probably strengthened Saddam himself (by weakening possible resistance in a shattered society), but surely reduced very significantly his capacity for war-making or support for terror.
Furthermore, since 1991 his regime has been constrained by "no fly zones," regular overflights and bombing, and very tight surveillance. Chances are that the events of Sept. 11 weakened him still further. If there are any links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, they would be far more difficult to maintain now because of the sharply intensified surveillance and controls.
That aside, links are not very likely. Despite enormous efforts to tie Saddam to the 9-11 attacks, nothing has been found, which is not too surprising. Saddam and bin Laden were bitter enemies, and there's no particular reason to suppose that there have been any changes in that regard.
The rational conclusion is that Saddam is probably less of a danger now than before 9-11, and far less of a threat than when he was enjoying substantial support from the US-UK (and many others). That raises a few questions. If Saddam is such a threat to the survival of civilization today that the global enforcer has to resort to war, why wasn't that true a year ago? And much more dramatically, in early 1990?
3. How should the problem of the existence and use of weapons of mass destruction in the world today be dealt with?
They should be eliminated. The non-proliferation treaty commits countries with nuclear weapons to take steps towards eliminating them. The biological and chemical weapons treaties have the same goals. The main Security Council resolution concerning Iraq (687, 1991) calls for eliminating weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems from the Middle East, and working towards a global ban on chemical weapons. Good advice.
Iraq is nowhere near the lead in this regard. We might recall the warning of General Lee Butler, head of Clinton's Strategic Command in the early 90s, that "it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires other nations to do so."
He's talking about Israel of course. The Israeli military authorities claim to have air and armored forces that are larger and more advanced than those of any European NATO power (Yitzhak ben Israel, Ha'aretz, 4-16-02, Hebrew). They also announce that 12% of their bombers and fighter aircraft are permanently stationed in Eastern Turkey, along with comparable naval and submarine forces in Turkish bases, and armored forces as well, in case it becomes necessary to resort to extreme violence once again to subdue Turkey's Kurdish population, as in the Clinton years.
Israeli aircraft based in Turkey are reported to be flying reconnaisance flights along Iran's borders, part of a general US-Israel-Turkey policy of threatening Iran with attack and perhaps forceful partitioning. Israeli analysts also report that joint US-Israel-Turkey air exercises are intended as a threat and warning to Iran. And of course to Iraq (Robert Olson, Middle East Policy, June 2002). Israel is doubtless using the huge US air bases in Eastern Turkey, where the US bombers are presumably nuclear-armed. By now Israel is virtually an offshore US military base.
And the rest of the area is armed to the teeth as well. If Iraq were governed by Gandhi, it would be developing weapons systems if it could, probably well beyond what it can today. That would very likely continue, perhaps even accelerate, if the US takes control of Iraq. India and Pakistan are US allies, but are marching forward with the development of WMD and repeatedly have come agonizingly close to using nuclear weapons. The same is true of other US allies and clients.
That is likely to continue unless there is a general reduction of armaments in the area.
Would Saddam agree to that? Actually, we don't know. In early January 1991, Iraq apparently offered to withdraw from Kuwait in the context of regional negotiations on reduction of armaments, an offer that State Department officials described as serious and negotiable. But we know no more about it, because the US rejected it without response and the press reported virtually nothing.
It is, however, of some interest that at that time -- right before the bombing -- polls revealed that by 2-1 the US public supported the proposal that Saddam had apparently made, preferring it to bombing. Had people been allowed to know any of this, the majority would surely have been far greater. Suppressing the facts was an important service to the cause of state violence.
Could such negotiations have gotten anywhere? Only fanatical ideologues can be confident. Could such ideas be revived? Same answer. One way to find out is to try.
Source: http://www.ZNet.org
9/4/02
2:16:29 PM
General Ashcroft's Detention Camps Time To Call For His Resignation
by Nat Hentoff, Village Voice, September 4 - September 10, 2002
Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional and public-interest law at George Washington University Law School in D.C. He is also a defense attorney in national security cases and other matters, writes for a number of publications, and is often on television. He and I occasionally exchange leads on civil liberties stories, but I learn much more from him than he does from me.
For example, a Jonathan Turley column in the national edition of the August 14 Los Angeles Times ("Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision") begins:
"Attorney General John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants' has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace." Actually, ever since General Ashcroft pushed the U.S. Patriot Act through an overwhelmingly supine Congress soon after September 11, he has subverted more elements of the Bill of Rights than any attorney general in American history.
Under the Justice Department's new definition of "enemy combatant"—which won the enthusiastic approval of the president and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld—anyone defined as an "enemy combatant," very much including American citizens, can be held indefinitely by the government, without charges, a hearing, or a lawyer. In short, incommunicado.
Two American citizens—Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla—are currently locked up in military brigs as "enemy combatants." (Hamdi is in solitary in a windowless room.) As Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe said on ABC's Nightline (August 12):
"It bothers me that the executive branch is taking the amazing position that just on the president's say-so, any American citizen can be picked up, not just in Afghanistan, but at O'Hare Airport or on the streets of any city in this country, and locked up without access to a lawyer or court just because the government says he's connected somehow with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. That's not the American way. It's not the constitutional way. . . . And no court can even figure out whether we've got the wrong guy."
In Hamdi's case, the government claims it can hold him for interrogation in a floating navy brig off Norfolk, Virginia, as long as it needs to. When Federal District Judge Robert Doumar asked the man from the Justice Department how long Hamdi is going to be locked up without charges, the government lawyer said he couldn't answer that question. The Bush administration claims the judiciary has no right to even interfere.
Now more Americans are also going to be dispossessed of every fundamental legal right in our system of justice and put into camps. Jonathan Turley reports that Justice Department aides to General Ashcroft "have indicated that a 'high-level committee' will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps."
It should be noted that Turley, who tries hard to respect due process, even in unpalatable situations, publicly defended Ashcroft during the latter's turbulent nomination battle, which is more than I did.
Again, in his Los Angeles Times column, Turley tries to be fair: "Of course Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American citizens in World War II. But he can be credited only with thinking smaller; we have learned from painful experience that unchecked authority, once tasted, easily becomes insatiable." (Emphasis added.)
Turley insists that "the proposed camp plan should trigger immediate Congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties." (Emphasis added.)
On August 8, The Wall Street Journal, which much admires Ashcroft on its editorial pages, reported that "the Goose Creek, South Carolina, facility that houses [Jose] Padilla—mostly empty since it was designated in January to hold foreigners captured in the U.S. and facing military tribunals—now has a special wing that could be used to jail about 20 U.S. citizens if the government were to deem them enemy combatants, a senior administration official said." The Justice Department has told Turley that it has not denied this story. And space can be found in military installations for more "enemy combatants."
But once the camps are operating, can General Ashcroft be restrained from detaining—not in these special camps, but in regular lockups—any American investigated under suspicion of domestic terrorism under the new, elastic FBI guidelines for criminal investigations? From page three of these Ashcroft terrorism FBI guidelines:
"The nature of the conduct engaged in by a [terrorist] enterprise will justify an inference that the standard [for opening a criminal justice investigation] is satisfied, even if there are no known statements by participants that advocate or indicate planning for violence or other prohibited acts." (Emphasis added.) That conduct can be simply "intimidating" the government, according to the USA Patriot Act.
The new Steven Spielberg-Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report, shows the government, some years hence, imprisoning "pre-criminals" before they engage in, or even think of, terrorism. That may not be just fiction, folks.
Returning to General Ashcroft's plans for American enemy combatants, an August 8 New York Times editorial—written before those plans were revealed—said: "The Bush administration seems to believe, on no good legal authority, that if it calls citizens combatants in the war on terrorism, it can imprison them indefinitely and deprive them of lawyers. This defiance of the courts repudiates two centuries of constitutional law and undermines the very freedoms that President Bush says he is defending in the struggle against terrorism."
Meanwhile, as the camps are being prepared, the braying Terry McAuliffe and the pack of Democratic presidential aspirants are campaigning on corporate crime, with no reference to the constitutional crimes being committed by Bush and Ashcroft. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis prophesied: "The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people." And an inert Democratic leadership. See you in a month, if I'm not an Ashcroft camper.
Source: http://villagevoice.com/issues/0236/hentoff.php
9/4/02
1:57:38 PM
911 - THE BASIC QUESTIONS
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=32613
9/4/02
1:53:29 PM
EMS Update - Sept. 4, 2002
NGOs Respond to Powell Speech and U.S. Positions at World Summit In the most anticipated speech of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell defended the United States' opposition to specific commitments, saying action is more important than planning. In response, U.S. environmental NGOs at the Summit said the United States has obstructed progress and provided very little new money to help the cause of sustainable development.
Read complete press statements from U.S. NGOs:
http://www.ems.org/world_summit/statements.html
9/4/02
1:50:57 PM
The Nation
Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation, a powerful expose of the dark side of the All-American meal, became a nationwide bestseller and quickly shook up the industry it targeted. Now, in a new editorial from the most recent issue of The Nation, Schlosser looks at the largely unexamined consequences of the Bush Administration's drive to deregulate the meatpacking industry.
The White House and its Republican allies in Congress have allowed the meatpacking industry to gain control of the nation's food safety system, much as the airline industry was given responsibility for airport security in the years leading up to the September 11 attacks.
Schlosser argues that ConAgra's recent recall of 19 million pounds of potentially tainted beef could be just the tip of the iceberg if the industry is allowed to have its way. America's food safety system has been expertly designed not to protect the public health but to protect the meatpacking industry from liability. And it's getting worse with the immense cover being given by the Republican Party, which for more than a decade has thwarted Congressional efforts to expand the USDA's food safety authority.
The bottom-line, as Schlosser puts it, is that "anyone who eats meat these days should be deeply concerned about what our meatpacking companies now have the freedom to sell."
For the full story, check out:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020916&s=schlosser
And for more info on Fast Food Nation, including how to order a copy online, see this special page created by the people who brought us McSpotlight.com:
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/books/schlosser.html
Finally, please visit http://www.thenation.com for a range of new articles, editorials, columns and reviews. And, remember that you can email any article on The Nation website to friends, family and foes using the Email-To-A-Friend feature found by clicking on the "email" link in the box adjoining each published article.
9/4/02
1:47:39 PM
Don't be fooled by the argument about Iraq invasion plans
They're debating how and when
August 30, 2002
YET ANOTHER leading voice of the U.S. political establishment has told the Bush administration to slow down its race to war. James Baker III--the former secretary of state under Papa Bush and head of Dubya's smash-and-grab operation for stealing the 2000 election in Florida--wrote a featured op-ed article in the New York Times last weekend advising the White House against "going it alone" in an assault to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
The growing questioning of the Bush administration--most loudly from Republicans, not the Democratic "opposition" in Congress--is a sign of a real disagreement in Washington. But no one should think that this is a debate about war or peace. It's a question of how and when. Baker himself made this clear. "[R]egime change in Iraq is the policy of the current administration, just as it was the policy of its predecessor," he wrote. "That being the case, the issue for policymakers to resolve is not whether to use military force to achieve this, but how to go about it."
Make no mistake. James Baker and the Bush gang are old buddies, and they'll eventually agree on "how to go about it." During the months before the first Gulf War against Iraq in 1991, there were plenty of "voices of caution" in Washington. But after Papa Bush put together a propaganda campaign and got the United Nations (UN) to endorse Operation Desert Storm, the establishment "opposition" fell in line.
Those in the antiwar movement who had conceded ground to the "cautious" opponents of war--to "consult" with the UN or to "let sanctions work" before bombing, for example--ended up disoriented and weakened when their fair-weather friends jumped on the pro-war bandwagon.
Likewise, we shouldn't concede to establishment "doubters" today--as, for example, the editors of the liberal Nation magazine do when they ask in an editorial: "Why engage in a risky and potentially calamitous invasion of Iraq when the existing strategy of 'containment'Shas clearly succeeded in deterring Iraqi adventurism for the past 10 yearsS?"
"Containment" is an awfully generous description of what the U.S. has done to Iraq for the last decade--alternating new bombing campaigns with an iron regime of sanctions that has killed many times more Iraqis by starving the country of food and the most basic goods.
The question that we should be asking is this: By what right does the U.S. government claim to decide who will govern Iraq? This is democracy? The politicians may hyperventilate about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the U.S. government is guilty of violence and oppression on a vastly greater scale.
Antiwar activists will have a growing audience of people with doubts about Bush's war drive in the weeks to come. We have to start now to educate this audience about the history of Washington's imperialist adventures and its real aims in the Middle East. That's the way to turn the doubts into an active opposition that can stand up to the U.S. war machine.
http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/419/419_03_IraqPlans.shtml
9/4/02
1:45:53 PM
Ramsey Clark to UN Security Council re: Iraq
From: http://www.iacenter.org/rc_letter802.htm
*The following letter by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has been sent to all members of the UN Security Council, with copies to the UN General Assembly and Senator Biden of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
International Action Center
Founded by Ramsey Clark
July 29, 2002
Dear Ambassador,
Any remaining hope the peoples of the United Nations have to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war through the United Nations would be crushed by another United States attack on Iraq. Threats to attack, invade and overthrow the government of Iraq by President George Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, various cabinet officers and Pentagon officials have been routine for a year. The psychological warfare is itself a crime against peace and violates the U.N. Charter. Today's front-page headline story in the New York Times, "U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike As Iraq Option," is typical of the in terrorem intention of the threats. The danger to civilian life in Baghdad from such a strike would be enormous.
THE UNITED NATIONS MUST ACT TO PREVENT AN ATTACK BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST IRAQ
If the United Nations is unable to restrain the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council, from committing crimes against peace and humanity as well as war crimes against a nation that has already been violated by the U.S. beyond endurance, then what is the United Nations worth? At the very least, opposition to any attack or attempt to overthrow the government of Iraq by force must be publicly expressed by the United Nations.
THE UNITED STATES BOMBED DEFENSELESS IRAQ MERCILESSLY FOR FORTY-TWO DAYS IN 1991
The U.S. led and glorified the massive assault on Iraq in January and February 1991. The Pentagon announced it conducted 110,000 aerial sorties against the defenseless "cradle of civilization," dropping 88,500 tons of bombs. The widespread bombing destroyed the economic viability of the civilian society throughout the nation. It killed tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and others. A major part of the bombing was directed at civilians and civilian facilities. It was less accurate than the recent indiscriminate attacks in Afghanistan. U.S. bombs destroyed Iraqi water systems, electric power transmission, communications, transportation, manufacturing, commerce, agriculture, poultry and livestock, food storage facilities, markets, fertilizer and insecticide production, business centers, archeological and historical treasures, apartment houses, residential areas, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches and synagogues.
The Pentagon stated its casualties were 156. One third were from "friendly fire"; the rest were accidental. The U.S. had no combat casualties.
THE UNITED STATES FORCED THE IMPOSITION OF GENOCIDAL SANCTIONS ON IRAQ IN 1990
The U.S. crafted economic sanctions against Iraq which the Security Council approved on August 6, 1990, the 45th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima. Those sanctions are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people. This is the greatest crime against humanity, in the last decade of the most violent century in history. Each painful death of an individual wasting away?from malnutrition; Kwashiorkor; the rush of dehydration from contaminated water and from diseases was preventable. The sanctions continue to this time to cause hundreds of deaths each day. Every United Nations agency dealing with food, health and children--including FAO, WFP, WHO, UNICEF--has proclaimed the horror, magnitude and responsibility for this human catastrophe.
The great majority of the deaths caused by the sanctions are infants, children, the elderly, the chronically ill and emergency medical cases. These are the people most vulnerable to polluted water, malnutrition, and the lack of medicines and medical equipment and supplies.
U.S. claims that it is the Iraqi government that is responsible for deaths from shortages of food and medicine are false. The U.S. blocked oil sales by Iraq for six years before appearing to yield to humanitarian pleas to permit oil sales to purchase food and medicine. Since 1997, when sales began, it has effectively frustrated and delayed the Oil for Food program, which does not provide sufficient income at the levels approved to stop the daily deterioration of health and growing death rates in Iraq.
Before sanctions there was virtually no malnutrition in Iraq and free hospital, health services and medicines were a model for the region. Its present system of government distribution of available food staples is a model of fairness and efficiency, lacking only in quantity and variety of food.
UNITED STATES MILITARY AIRCRAFT HAVE ATTACKED IRAQ AT WILL FOR ELEVEN YEARS
The U.S. has engaged in air strikes against Iraq at will since March 1991, when the massive attacks averaging one aerial sortie every 30 seconds ended. Without losing a single plane, U.S. attacks have killed: cleaning personnel at the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad in a failed attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein; scores of people each year in attacks on radar stations in or near the U.S.-imposed no-fly zones; all the persons aboard a U.N. helicopter shot down by U.S. aircraft; and civilians from all walks of life, including the internationally famous artist and Director of Iraqis' National Center for Arts, Leila al Attar.
IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT TO THE U.S., COUNTRIES IN THE REGION OR OTHERS
The U.S. has falsely claimed that Iraq is working to develop weapons of mass destruction to attack the U.S., Israel, its neighbors and others. The U.S. claimed its 1991 attacks destroyed 80% of Iraq's military capacity. The U.N. inspection efforts claimed to discover and dismantle 90% of Iraq's post-1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, its peoples and resources are exhausted. It has a "stunted" generation of children under age 10 and a debilitated population at all ages. It is the victim of the worst crime against humanity in recent decades.
THE UNITED STATES IS THE GREATEST PURVEYOR OF VIOLENCE ON EARTH
Two of the highest U.N. officials responsible for U.N. weapons inspection within Iraq and a principle U.S. citizen participating in the inspections have resigned, denounced the sanctions and denied that there is a threat that Iraq will develop weapons of mass destruction.
The U.S. has more nuclear weapons than all other nations combined as well as the most sophisticated and numerous systems for the delivery of nuclear weapons, including the Trident II submarine fleet. It possesses the greatest stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and the most advanced and extensive research in mass destruction weaponry in the world. Military spending by the U.S. exceeds that of the nine next largest budgets for war combined. President Bush has repeatedly declared the right to strike first. The U.S. attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs and continues to justify those acts.
The U.S. has renounced treaties controlling nuclear weapons and their proliferation; voted against the protocol enabling enforcement of the Biological Weapons Conventions; and rejected the treaty banning land mines, the International Criminal Court and virtually every other international effort to control and limit war. The U.S. War Against Terrorism is a declaration of right by the U.S. to attack first?anyone, anywhere, on mere suspicion, or without excuse, unilaterally.
The U.S. wants to overthrow the government of Iraq and many others in violation of law. Unless restrained the chance for peace and global equality of economic, social, cultural and political opportunity among nations will be lost. Which government presents the greater threat to peace globally or for Mesopotania and its neighbors?the U.S. or Iraq?
AN ATTACK BY THE UNITED STATES ON IRAQ TO OVERTHROW ITS GOVERNMENT WOULD BE A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE U.N. CHARTER, THE NUREMBERG CHARTER AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
If, as promised so many times, the U.S. does attack Iraq to overthrow its government, it will be the most notorious, arrogant and contemptuous violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the Nuremberg Charter and international law yet experienced, or likely hereafter. Only absolute power unrestrained by any rule of law or standard of human decency openly taunts an intended victim as President Bush has taunted Iraq. Because the U.S. has committed historic injustices against Iraq, most during his father's presidency, and still seeks dominion in the region, President Bush, his Vice President and others in his administration hate Iraq and want finally to destroy it.
I am writing this letter to you; to each U.N. Representative of a Security Council Member; the President of the General Assembly; and President Bush. This is one of a series of letters describing and protesting U.S. and UN wrongs against Iraq. The threatened wrong addressed here is the worst. If twelve years after its devastating aerial assault and after twelve years of genocidal sanctions, the omnipresent risk and frequent fact of random attack with the ever present stalking by U.S. aircraft and endless threats against its helpless victim, the U.S. commits its coup d'grace on the people of Iraq to the silence of the U.N. and wealthy nations of the world, human shame and impotence will doom us to ever greater violence.
A U.S. ASSAULT ON IRAQ WILL CAUSE MORE AND GREATER VIOLENCE; URGENT ACTION BY THE UNITED NATIONS TO PREVENT A U.S. ASSAULT OF IRAQ IS REQUIRED
I urge you to immediately activate the United Nations, the General Assembly, the Security Council and all its agencies to denounce the continuing threats by the United States against Iraq, to demand immediate cessation of the threats and to warn the United States that an attack by it on Iraq will violate the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the friendship of all who seek peace and respect the dignity of humanity.
AN ATTACK BY THE U.S. ON IRAQ WOULD VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES REQUIRING IMPEACHMENT, TRIAL BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE AND CRIMINAL CHARGES IN FEDERAL COURTS AGAINST PRESIDENT BUSH AND ALL OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE
An attack on Iraq by the United States would also violate the Constitution and laws of the United States and expose President Bush to impeachment by the House of Representatives under the Constitution of the United States for the highest of crimes, those against peace and humanity, to judgment by the United States Senate and trial in federal court for crimes charged.
Unfortunately in recent years our Constitution has been more honored in the breach than in faithful observance of the rights it is intended to protect for all. But the effort to hold accountable any U.S. authority who participates in an assault against Iraq will be made here by those who love their country and for that reason insist that its acts be just.
Sincerely,
Ramsey Clark
International Action Center
39 W. 14th St., Suite 206
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646 fax: 212-633-2889
iacenter@iacenter.org
Read also:
Ramsey Clark: 'Act against coming war in Iraq'
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/iac0822.php
9/4/02
1:43:08 PM
USA: Government Secrecy and Corporate Crime
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=3710
When Corporations Rule the World
http://www.plough.com/pp/books/WhenCorporations.htm
In this updated edition of an international bestseller, Korten outlines the rampant development of a global economy over the last thirty years, the alarming concentration of power wielded by the corporations that fuel it, and its terrible cost. Noting that the quest for short-term profits is the main driver behind a market tyranny that is "extending its reach across the planet like a cancer, colonizing ever more of the planet's living spaces, destroying livelihoods, displacing people, rendering democracies impotent, and feeding on life itself," he argues that if we are to save ourselves and our planet from wholesale financial collapse, environmental destruction, and social chaos, we must eradicate the myth that consumerism is the path to happiness, and work instead for the creation of a society that nurtures cultural and biological diversity.
What to Do When Corporations Rule the World
http://www.yesmagazine.com/18Commons/korten.htm
An interview with David C. Korten
A planned 1,760 kilometre oil pipeline across Turkey involves an "extraordinary and outrageous" deal freeing oil companies from all regulation, a leading environmental group said today. (...) Other provisions in the HGA include unfettered access to water, regardless of the needs of local communities, and exemption from liability in the event of an oil spill or any other harm caused by the pipeline consortium. (...) The NGOs have slammed the agreement as "colonialist" and reminiscent of the discredited OECD proposal for a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) which was rejected in 1998.
Can't Change the Science? ExxonMobil Tries to Change the Scientists
http://www.corpwatch.org/action/PAA.jsp?articleid=2194
November Surprise?, Vacationing Bush Plots End of Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.23A.vv.november.htm
What War Looks Like
http://www.progressive.org/webex/wxzinn082802.html
American Support for War Against Iraq Declining, Poll Finds
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.24D.iraq.poll.us.htm
U.S. cool to allies' call for UN effort on Iraq (August 31)
http://www.iht.com/articles/69276.htm
Germany threatens a Kuwait pullout (August 31)
http://www.iht.com/articles/69282.htm
Top Ten Reasons Why the US Should Not Invade Iraq
http://www.voice4change.org/stories/showstory.asp?file=020830~gx.asp
The White House is planning to launch a war against Iraq. Yet there has been no real public or congressional debate about why an invasion is justified, no convincing explanation of why a war is needed. The international community is virtually unanimous in its opposition to an attack on Iraq, leaving the United States without allies. A full-scale war against Iraq would isolate the US from the rest of the world, undermine the effort against terrorism, and senselessly kill tens of thousands of civilians. The Bush Administration is determined to initiate an illegal and ill-considered invasion. We the people must be just as determined to stop a war that threatens to tear the world apart.
PDF version at http://www.globalexchange.org/september11/invadeIraq082702.html
Bush, Pentagon plot criminal war on Iraq
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/iraqus0829.php
A world crisis is rapidly developing. The form it takes right now is preparation for an all-out war against Iraq by the Bush administration and the Pentagon. The Pentagon is reportedly shipping huge amounts of military equipment from its bases in Europe to the Middle East, and the number of U.S. troops in the area is ballooning. CLIP
9/4/02
1:35:46 PM
SciTech Daily Review
Here's everything you always wanted to know about public-key encryption but didn't know anyone cryptic enough to ask
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/09/mann_g.htm
Choosing activities and family time over sack time seems natural for many parents, but the resulting lack of sleep is having disastrous consequences on children's health
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/020909/health/9sleep.htm
Creating viral workhorses: Emptied of their infectious nucleic acids, viruses make surprisingly adaptable tools for nanoengineers
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleID=000005F3-393F-1D6E-90FB809EC5880000
And what's your dog's phone number? Finland's trendiest hunting dogs can now carry on paws-free chats with their humans (registration required)
http://www.forbes.com/2002/08/28/0828tentech.html
In Qumran these days, it is hard to distinguish the sulphurous smell of the Dead Sea from the rotten stench of claims, counter-claims and accusations emanating from a nearby archaeological site
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2218763.stm
Investigating the Sirius "Mystery": We may never know exactly how the Dogon came by their knowledge of the Sirius system, but it's clear that they weren't told by amphibious aliens
http://www.csicop.org/si/7809/sirius.html
9/4/02
1:29:49 PM
TomPaine.com
Read our latest Op Ad on the op-ed page of today's New York Times or online at
http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/6307
AGENDA INTERRUPTED? HARDLY.
Looking Back At 9/11
The conventional wisdom is set, and most pols and pundits agree: 9/11 changed everything. But did it really?
According to President Bush, the terrorists hate our "love of freedom." But now, the president can declare any American an "enemy combatant" and detain them indefinitely without charges, counsel, or contact with anyone. Maybe he thinks the attackers will stop if we no longer have our Constitutionally protected freedoms.
An essay by Kenneth R. Olson, a Portland, Oregon-based writer and photographer. It's one of the essays we received after soliciting reflections on the theme "Agenda Interrupted? 9/11 One Year Later."
Read it online at: http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/6307
And check out these related stories, many of which are contributions from our readers:
LOOKING BACK TO SEE THE CHALLENGE AHEAD
by Howard Zinn
The "people's historian" says a new, energized citizens' movement could inspire a receptive public.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6266
THE PATRIOTISM WE NEED NOW
by Katrina vanden Heuvel
The Nation magazine's publisher offers a post-9/11 "Reconstruction Agenda."
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6265
OLD NEEDS, NEW PRIORITIES
by Ben Cohen and Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.
Progressive ice-cream executive and the representative for Illinois' Second Congressional District argue that the war on terror has needlessly distracted from domestic priorities.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6263
GENERATION INTERRUPTED: HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ON 9/11
by Students from San Benito High School
Students from John Hand's writing class in San Benito, Texas, write about their generation's priorities, worries, and dreams -- and how 9/11 interrupted their world.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6288
POEM: DRIVING TO NOVA SCOTIA ON THE MAINE TURNPIKE NEAR BRUNSWICK
by Gary Margolis, Pulitzer-prize nominee
"Where were going, we were put on hold."
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6273
DAILY LIFE INTERRUPTED: PRAYERS AND REMEMBRANCES
A Sound Portrait with Suzzy Roche
by Steven Rosenfeld
The 9/11 attack broke the rhythm of life for New Yorkers and prompted musician Suzzy Roche to channel her ongoing project -- putting prayers to music -- to use by offering solace for the suffering.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6228
IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME
by George Critch
A tugboat captain in NY harbor says that America's "insidious greed and inflated opinion of ourselves," made attack inevitable.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6291
THE AMERICAN CONSCIENCE OBSCURRED
by Robert F. Drinan
A Georgetown law professor deplores our nation's reaction to 9/11 and promotes a return to our idealistic and humanitarian aspirations.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6267
9/4/02
1:25:16 PM
THE WEEKLY SPIN, Wednesday, September 4, 2002
sponsored by PR WATCH http://www.prwatch.org
The Weekly Spin features selected news summaries with links to further information about current public relations campaigns. It is emailed free each Wednesday to subscribers. Feel free to forward this message to others.
THIS WEEK'S NEWS
1. Stauber Speaking at the "Fightin' Bob Fest' This Saturday
2. "Invade Iraq? Are you nuts?"
3. ACME Promotes Media Education
4. It's an Ad, Ad, Ad World
5. Smearing Teachers as Terrorists
6. Strange Bedfellows at UN World Summit
7. And The Winner Is ...
8. Insincere Apology for "Sex for Sam"
9. Project Censored
10. Saudis Seek The Best Image Money Can Buy
11. The Blowhard Next Door
1. STAUBER SPEAKING AT THE "FIGHTIN' BOB FEST' THIS SATURDAY
http://www.fightinbobfest.org/
The Center's executive director John Stauber will be one of many speakers featured this Saturday, September 7th, in Baraboo, Wisconsin, at the 'Fightin' Bob Fest.' For non-Wisconsinites and people who might have forgotten their democratic history, the Badger State's Fighting Bob LaFollette was a national leader in the early twentieth century Progressive movement that challenged corporate control of US policies and politics. The fest is an all day, goodtime family event organized in the tradition of the Chautauquas and dedicated to a resurgence in grassroots democracy and the common struggle for justice, peace, freedom and the public health and welfare.
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1031097686
2. "INVADE IRAQ? ARE YOU NUTS?"
http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal/special/31530.html
George Hesselberg, columnist with the Wisconsin State Journal, is fed up with all the government and media hype for war on Iraq. He excoriates the ignorance of US citizens as reflected in recent surveys but asks, "What do you expect in a country where ... the media seem to spend more money printing fast-fading flags and producing flag-waving promotions than on researching and reporting the actual degradation of rights, even the dissolution of rights, among citizens. ... Isn't it odd that government leadership is so rabidly intent on invading Iraq that it appears more attention is being paid to overthrowing a nation's psyche (our own) by zealous public relations than accumulating any solid evidence such an invasion is necessary? ... We wait and wait for someone in charge to ask: Invade Iraq? Are you nuts? We wait and wait for the media to stop showing deference and start showing some defiance. ... Is it a measure of cynicism if we think that this is an attempt to take everyone's attention away from endemic regulator-ignored corporate criminality? Or to keep people from noticing that a human-rights-stomping religious fanatic may be running the Justice Department?"
SOURCE: Wisconsin State Journal, September 3, 2002
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1031025601
3. ACME PROMOTES MEDIA EDUCATION
http://www.acmecoalition.org/summit.html
PR Watch editors Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber are among the supporters of a new activist coalition that aims to promote critical thinking about today's corporate-dominated mass media and encourage democratic reforms. Registration is still open for a founding summit that will be held from October 18-20, 2002 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, bringing together groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Center for a New American Dream, Commercial Alert, MediaChannel and Project Censored.
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2002.html#1031025600
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1031025600
4. IT'S AN AD, AD, AD WORLD
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020902-344045-1,00.html
"The next time an overly friendly blond sidles up in a crowded bar and asks you to order her a brand-name martini, or a cheery tourist couple wonder whether you can take their picture with their sleek new camera-in-a-cell phone, you might want to think twice," warns Daniel Eisenberg. "There's a decent chance that these strangers are pitchmen in disguise, paid to oh-so-subtly pique your interest in their product." Eisenberg examines the growing use of "stealth marketing" -- covert product placements. No longer content to place their products on TV shows and movies, marketers are planting shills in bars, restaurants and other places, blurring the line between advertising and real life.
SOURCE: Time magazine, September 2, 2002
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1030939200
5. SMEARING TEACHERS AS TERRORISTS
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082802.shtml
Did America's largest teachers union construct a subversive web site concerning September 11? This nasty slander against the National Education Association has been spreading across the Internet, sparked by a series of articles in the Washington Times. According to the initial piece by Ellen Sorokin, the NEA "is suggesting to teachers that they be careful on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks not to 'suggest any group is responsible' for the terrorist hijackings that killed more than 3,000 people." Subsequently, hundreds of web pages in the conservative echo chamber have amplified this accusation, complaining of "Terrorism In the Classroom" as "Educators Blame America and Embrace Islam." As Bob Somerby points out in the Daily Howler (and as you can see for yourself if you visit the NEA's web site), Sorokin's article was a "ludicrous slander" that pulled truncated quotes from an obscure page on the NEA's site, "misrepresented what the quotes plainly meant; and pretended that the NEA site was therefore bad anti-American."
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2002.html#1030852801
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1030852801
6. STRANGE BEDFELLOWS AT UN WORLD SUMMIT
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6283
Our latest issue of PR Watch exposed the gap between words and deeds at the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. Amid lofty-sounding proclamations, the Bush administration and business lobbyists are blocking measurable standards and accountability, while pausing for periodic photo opportunities with the same environmental, labor and human rights groups that they are working to neutralize. The most recent example involved a joint statement put out by Greenpeace and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD). As Tom Turner of Earthjustice observes, this is an odd collaboration, since WBCSD's members include "some companies generally considered environmental scofflaws -- Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum being the most prominent -- and it has had a difficult relationship with the environmental community since its founding several years ago."
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/August_2002.html#1030740819
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1030740819
7. AND THE WINNER IS ...
http://www.earthsummit.biz/index.html
Coinciding with the World Summit on Sustainable Development taking place in Johannesburg, the Green Oscars announced this year's winners. In the category of Best Green Actor for achievement in Corporate Greenwash, the award goes to BP, for their Beyond Petroleum rebranding campaign, and their "Oil is old news" ad. In the category of Best Blue Actor for achievement in Corporate Bluewash, the award goes to Nestle, for overcoming one of the worst corporate reputations out there and daring to show its face at the United Nations. In the category of Best Supporting Government for facilitating excessive corporate power, the award goes to the United States, for representing corporate interests in environmental treaty negotiations. And for the Lifetime Achievement Award for outstanding long-term achievement in environmental destruction and green PR, the award goes to Shell, for outstanding greenwash for over a decade. Congratulations go out to all the winners.
SOURCE: EarthSummit.biz
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/August_2002.html#1030668223
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1030668223
8. INSINCERE APOLOGY FOR "SEX FOR SAM"
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/239/business/Apologies_all_around+.shtml
The maker of Sam Adams beer is following the standard PR script for crisis management and offering a public apology for encouraging people to have sex in public places, including St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York. Following the public outcry which got two radio shock jocks fired, Boston Beer CEO Jim Koch now says, "We were not in control of the program, and it was never our intention to be part of a radio station promotion that crossed the line." It's hard to see how Koch could have been surprised, though, since this was the third year his company has sponsored the "Sex for Sam" contest (in which copulating couples are rewarded with trips to Boston for the company's annual beer fest). On the day that St. Patrick's was desecrated, Koch himself was in the studio of the radio show, acting as the contest's Grand Marshal. "Along with handing out bottles of Sam Adams to contestants who stopped by the studio to take a break from having sex in cabs, ATM vestibules, and the Disney Store, Koch also served as the contest's official 'celebrity' voyeur," notes thesmokinggun.com. "That meant if couples had sex in front of Koch, they were awarded 30 points (by comparison, sex in St. Patrick's Cathedral was worth 25 points)."
SOURCE: Boston Globe, August 28, 2002
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/August_2002.html#1030507202
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1030507202
9. PROJECT CENSORED
http://www.sfbg.com/36/48/project_censored1.html
Now in its 26th year, Project Censored is back with a new annual report on the biggest stories the major US news media have ignored or underreported. Stories awarded this dubious honor include:
* FCC Moves To Privatize Airwaves
* New Trade Treaty Seeks to Privatize Global Social Services
* United States' Policies in Colombia Support Mass Murder
* Bush Administration Hampered FBI Investigation into Bin Laden Family
* U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water System
* U.S. Government Pushing Nuclear Revival
* Corporations Promote HMO Model for School Districts
* NAFTA Destroys Farming Communities in U.S. and Abroad
* U.S. Faces National Housing Crisis
* CIA Double Deals In Macedonia
SOURCE: San Francisco Bay Guardian, August 28, 2002
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1030507201
10. SAUDIS SEEK THE BEST IMAGE MONEY CAN BUY
"The Saudi government has spent millions of dollars on well-connected lobbyists and national television advertisements since Sept. 11 in a drive to improve its image among Americans and is poised to spend more as the anniversary of the events approaches," The New York Times' Christopher Marquis reports. "In all, the Saudis have hired several public relations firms and have already spent more than $5 million, according to new Justice Department filings. These firms include one of Washington's most prominent, Patton Boggs, which received $170,000 in the first six months of this year, according to the filings. ... The Saudi government has also hired Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, a firm founded by Robert W. Strauss, the former head of the Democratic National Committee, paying out $161,799 in the first half of 2002, the filings show. Frederick Dutton, a former special assistant to President John F. Kennedy and a longtime adviser to the Saudis, received $536,000 to help manage the Saudis' handling of the aftermath of Sept. 11 -- and he has a continuing contract with that government." It is common for countries to hire U.S. lobbyist, but prior to September 11, the Times reports, the Saudis spent relatively little on lobbying. "In the first half of 2001, the kingdom spent only $256,770 on two lobbying firms. By contrast, during the same period, Israel spent $5.1 million on eight firms and Japan spent $24.6 million on 58 firms," Marquis writes.
SOURCE: New York Times, August 28, 2002
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1030507200
11. THE BLOWHARD NEXT DOOR
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020826.html
Fox TV pundit Sean Hannity has a book out, titled Let Freedom Ring. Spinsanity.org analyzes its rhetoric, calling it "a poorly researched effort full of blatant falsehoods and highly distorted versions of the truth. ... Hannity seems on the brink of becoming America's leading conservative pundit. Let Freedom Ring is troubling evidence that Hannity won't let a little thing like truth get in the way of his rapid ascent."
SOURCE: Spinsanity.org, August 26, 2002
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/August_2002.html#1030334403
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1030334403
9/4/02
12:59:56 PM
Father Insists Alleged Leader Is Still Alive
by Kate Connolly, The Guardian, September 2, 2002
The father of Mohammed Atta, the alleged ringleader of the September 11 attacks, said in an interview published yesterday that his son was still alive.
"He is hiding in a secret place so as not to be murdered by the US secret services," Mohammed el-Amir Atta, 66, told the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag. He also vehemently denied that his son - believed to have flown the first plane into the World Trade Centre - had taken part in the atrocities, blaming them instead on "American Christians".
The interview painted a picture of a tortured man who has not come to terms with his 33-year-old son's death or with the huge crime laid at his door. He said he feared the US would try to poison him.
Speaking from his Cairo home, Mr Atta described hearing about the attacks after returning from a holiday on the Red Sea on the evening of September 12. "My daughter called and said she was going to drop in. She stood at the door and said 'turn on the TV'," he said. Amid images of the jets crashing into the Twin Towers, he saw his son's passport photograph.
"As I saw the picture of my son," he said, "I knew that he hadn't done it. My son called me the day after the attacks on September 12 at around midday. We spoke for two minutes about this and that.
"He didn't tell me where he was calling from. At that time neither of us knew anything about the attacks."
Mr Atta said he did not condone the attacks, but could understand the hijackers' motivation. "Every day our Palestinian brothers are being murdered, their houses destroyed. If their relatives were to fly a plane into the Empire State Building I couldn't hold it against them," he added.
Mr Atta called his son a "gentle and tender boy", who enjoyed reading history and geography books and was nicknamed "Bolbol", or nightingale, by his parents.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,12361,784541,00.html
9/4/02
12:26:51 PM
Project Censored 2001
by AlterNet Staff, AlterNet, September 3, 2002
Most people would agree that our world has changed dramatically over the past year. In the eye of our immediate political tornado is a growing drum beat for an invasion of Iraq; rampant corporate corruption; the erosion of civil liberties; a crashing stock market; pedophile priests and the anniversary of 9/11, the most traumatic American news event in at least 50 years.
Into this twister drops Project Censored's picks for news stories most ignored in 2001. These stories, most from a year or more ago, would have seemed more relevant if the juggernaut of recent history had not transformed our political landscape. And what seemed undercovered in 2001 is, in many cases, front and center today.
Still, the Project Censored list released this past week from its headquarters in Northern California's Sonoma State University campus, serves as a fascinating chronicle of recent political history. The stories the students and faculty have put forward (ranked by a team of progressive celebrity judges who read the top 25) certainly have the ring of familiarity -- media ownership concentration; the privatization of water, death squads in Columbia, the Bush family and bin Laden, inhumane sanctions in Iraq, the return of nukes, the privatization of education, the negative effects of NAFTA, the housing crisis in the U.S. and CIA shenanigans in Macedonia.
One might ask, would any well-informed person consider these stories in any way "censored"? But that would be missing Project Censored's point, says project director Peter Phillips: "We define censorship as any interference with the free flow of information in American Society," he says. "Corporate media in the United States is interested primarily in entertainment news to feed their bottom-line priorities. Very important news stories that should reach the American public often fall on the cutting room floor to be replaced by sex-scandals and celebrity updates."
Phillips' broad definition of censorship includes the fact that these stories often emerge and disappear only to lurk below the surface, often for months or years, before being noticed by our less than fearless corporate media. Today, in 2002, some of the stories that made it onto Project Censored's list are getting a lot of exposure -- the topic of the #2 story by Maude Barlow, the chilling trend toward the privatization of global water resources, was recently featured in a four-part series in the New York Times.
A striking feature of this year's lineup is that several of the inclusions come from British sources, including the London Guardian, and the Ecologist, where Barlow's story appeared. Over the years, but particularly since 9/11, many domestic media mavens know that they can't get a full picture of international news without regularly reading the Guardian, the Independent and checking in with BBC radio and TV. In fact, one of the media success stories of 2002 is Greg Palast's book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," which is selling briskly in the U.S. Palast, an American writing in Britain, is one of the authors of the No. 4 story (also from the Guardian), about the Bush administration's ties to the Saudis and the bin Laden family.
It's useful to keep in mind that the media, as much as any other institution, reflects a certain reality of the public. A University of Washington Report cited by A. Clay Thompson found that post-9/11 media coverage became a virtual showcase for traditional American values, and overwhelmingly "shifted blame away from the U.S., emphasized the U.S. role as the only superpower on the international stage and demonized the enemy."
But lately, the media has established a toehold in maturity, energetically covering corporate scandals, the atrocities in Afghanistan and the failures of health care. The corporate media is no monolith; it swings and sways to myriad pressures, with journalists often trying hard to get their stories out while lobbyists and corporate owners push to shape the story in their interests. Journalism is in many ways a combat zone.
But no matter whether the media is acting as a lapdog or a watchdog, one story that virtually never gets any coverage is the massive concentration of media ownership and the effect that media lobbyists, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), have on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and by extension what consumers of U.S. media read, watch and listen to.
When Bush appointed Michael Powell to be head of the FCC, broadcasters must have thought they died and went to heaven. Powell, the son of Secretary of State Colin, seems intent on deregulating the media system as much as humanly possible. This is the theme of Project Censored's No. 1 story, corporate takeover of the airwaves. Certainly given the stakes and the media's inability to cover itself, one can't quarrel with the choice. Media ownership and deregulation could rank as the No. 1 ignored story every year.
Project Censored focused its beam on the narrow issue of the radio spectrum, the subject of Jeremy Rifkin's story in the London Guardian. Brendan Koerner's Mother Jones story was a comprehensive overview on the entire picture of media deregulation and San Francisco's feisty Media Alliance publication Media File also weighed in on the subject.
Jeffrey Chester, director of the Center for Digital Democracy and arguably the nation's most knowledgeable person on media reform, commends Project Censored for putting communications policy at the top of its list, but still suggests that the public would be better served with a sense of the bigger picture.
"It's not just the proposed privatization of radio (wireless) spectrum," Chester says. "The FCC is now engaged in several inter-related efforts that will harm communities and our democracy. They include new proposed policies that extend the monopoly power of cable and telephone companies onto the Internet itself. Soon the Net will be operated like any cable system, with the pipe owner determining every Web site's digital destiny. Proposals to commercially annex wireless spectrum are a part of a corporate strategy to monopolize as much of the digital age as possible."
Sources: Jeremy Rifkin, London Guardian, April 28, 2001; Brendan Koerner, Mother Jones, September 2001; Dorothy Kidd, Media File, May 2001.
#2. GATS' For-Profit Model Threatens to Gobble Up World's Water The world is under attack, and not in the most conventional modes. A little-known agreement called the General Agreement on Trade in Services, or GATS, a byproduct of the World Trade Organization (WTO) threatens to open the world's public services to corporate takeover. That means community services such as water, health care, education, libraries, museums and much more, turn into lucrative investments in the hands of global corporations.
Think it can't happen? It already has. In the spring of 2000, the Bolivian government sold off the city of Cochabamba's public water system to San Francisco-based Bechtel "in the name of economic efficiency," writes author Maude Barlow. Several furious protests ensued until finally the government agreed to return the water supply to public control.
If you think the U.S. is immune to such episodes, you're mistaken. In New Orleans, negotiations are underway to privatize the city's water supply. The $1 billion deal would be the largest private water contract in U.S. history. And Barlow writes that Rick Scott, president of Columbia, the world's largest for-profit hospital corporation, "has publicly vowed to destroy every public hospital in North America," saying doctors, "are not 'good corporate citizens.'" Merrill Lynch has already predicted public education will be privatized.
Source: Maude Barlow, The Ecologist, Feb. 2001.
#3. U.S. Policy Funds Human Rights Abuses in Colombia In October 2001, Human Rights Watch released a report revealing the ugly truth about U.S. involvement in Colombia. The report contained evidence that the Colombian military was working closely with rightwing paramilitary death squads such as the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). In other words, the third largest recipient of U.S. aid and a close ally in the war on drugs was using American dollars to fund groups known to be responsible for more than 70 percent of human rights abuses in Colombia's civil war.
It was a startling revelation that would have made news on most days, especially since the State Department had designated the AUC as a "foreign terrorist organization," charged with kidnapping, pillaging and the massacre of hundreds of civilians. But few media outlets covered the report.
Jim Lobe, one of the journalists who covered the story, says the war on terrorism has also "conspired to substantially reduce attention to paramilitary, as opposed to guerrilla abuses." FARC and other leftist guerillas are labeled "terrorist" groups within this global us v. them narrative, while crimes committed by government-sponsored death squads are brushed aside. According to Lobe, journalists have bought into this flawed narrative mainly due to their own view of Latin American nations as inherently violent.
The lack of media attention became less excusable in February, when the Bush administration announced its plans to expand its cooperation with Colombia. The White House requested $98 million in new Pentagon training and equipment for the Colombian military, in a new initiative to recruit Colombia as an ally in the global war on terror.
Sources: Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Counterpunch, July 1, 2001; Jim Lobe, Asheville Global Report, Oct. 4, 2001; Dan Kovalik and Gerald Dickey, Steelabor, May 2001; Rachel Massey, Rachel's Environment & Health News, Dec. 7, 2001.
#4. Bush Administration Ordered FBI Off Bin Laden Trail Shielding the Saudi royal family and their friends from bad press is a veritable presidential tradition, as Greg Palast learned when he launched an investigation into why the FBI took its agents off the trail of bin Laden family members residing in the U.S. Drawing on information he uncovered in classified FBI documents, Palast reported that bin Laden's brother, Abdullah bin Laden, who lived in Washington, was a suspect in terrorist activities as long ago as 1996 but high-up intelligence officials pressured the FBI to discontinue its surveillance. "There were always constraints on investigating the Saudis," an intelligence source told Palast, who broke the story just two months after 9/11. Those restrictions were tightened considerably when George W. Bush took office.
Both the Bush and the bin Laden families have significant holdings in the Carlyle Group, the enormous private investment firm that has grown bloated off U.S. defense contracts. It seems as if the U.S. government is more in the business of protecting the Saudis and its own oil interests than of finding the perpetrators of 9/11. Change is in the wind, however; recent public opinion polls show that Americans are growing increasingly disenchanted with Saudi policy -- and perhaps, by extension, Bush's financial ties to the royal family.
Sources: Greg Palast and David Pallister, The Guardian, Nov. 7, 2001; Rashmee Z. Ahmed, Times of India, Nov. 8, 2001; Amanda Luker, Pulse, Jan. 16, 2002.
#5. U.S. Destruction of Iraqi Water Supply The Persian Gulf War ended more than a decade ago, but for many Iraqi citizens, the real misery had just begun. Thomas J. Nagy uncovered documents of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that the United States government, after destroying the Iraqi water system, sanctioned the country from improving their water with purification equipment and importing chlorine.
The six documents Nagy discovered confirm that the Pentagon and the U.S. government fully understood the consequences of their decision to degrade the water supply. One document plainly states, "conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks," and another says, "the main causes of infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea, dysentery, and upper respiratory problems, are poor sanitation and unclean water. These diseases primarily afflict the old and young children." This blatant act of inhumanity is in direction violation of the Geneva Convention, which expressly prohibits destroying the source of a civilian population's ultimate survival.
While spotlighting a critical issue, Nagy's story illustrates an area in which Project Censored could stand improvement, which is the potential for piggybacking off its selected stories to related topics currently in the news. Surfacing a story about Iraq's tainted water supply at the same time that Bush's planned attack on Iraq is in the news almost daily, seems like a missed opportunity to create some journalistic synergy. Besides, Iraq's water woes pale by comparison to the damage an invasion could do to the country.
Source: Thomas J. Nagy, The Progressive, Sept. 2001
#6. Renewed Threat of Nuclear Warfare
In the summer of 2001, Stephen Schwartz, founder of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, warned his readers that an influential group of right-wing analysts, scientists and members of Congress were "quietly paving the way for a nuclear revival." Schwartz wrote: "They want to build a variety of new and improved warheads, including a new generation of highly accurate, ground-penetrating, bunker-busting beauties."
Few reporters paid attention at the time. But the following year, when the Los Angeles Times leaked the details of the Pentagon's plans to revamp its nuclear policy, it became apparent that the threat of nuclear war was more serious than ever. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) emphasized developing "usable" lower-yield weapons and expanding the number of scenarios under which the United States might use or threaten to use nuclear arms.
Over the past six months, the threat of nuclear warfare has received far greater attention. The mainstream media has paid close attention to the Bush administration's decision to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and has attacked the Bush-Putin missile accord as dangerous and ineffective. But as Schwartz points out, this attention has been "episodic" rather than sustained, primarily due to the lack of controversy. "There has been no sense in the public or Congress that this is wrong," he says. "What is required is a massive reeducation effort."
Source: Stephen I. Schwartz, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July 2001.
#7. Public Schools Become Guinea Pigs for HMO Model
Public schools ain't so public anymore. For over a decade, private, for-profit educational management (EMO) companies have billed themselves as the saving grace for America's failing school systems by promising to cut costs and raise standards. All this while padding shareholders' wallets.
But EMOs like Edison Schools, Inc. have proved unsuccessful thus far. Studies cited by Barbara Miner in her Multinational Monitor article "Business Goes to School" found that EMO schools are not besting traditional public schools. And return on private investment has been nonexistent.
The business media has followed the ups and downs of EMOs closely over the years. Edison made Wall Street Journal headlines this summer for losing its $39 million contract with the Dallas school board. Some investors have even sued Edison for misreporting revenue. Vanishing hopes of profitability may now be scaring away some investors who once thought EMOs would do for schools what HMOs did for health care.
Sources: Barbara Miner, Multinational Monitor, Jan. 2002; Frosty Troy, Progressive Populist, Nov. 15, 2000; Dennis Fox, North Coast Xpress, Winter 2000; Linda Lutton, In These Times, June 2001.
#8. NAFTA Impoverishes Small Family Farmers
In June of 2001, Public Citizen released a report graphically illustrating the failure of NAFTA to increase the income of farmers. Not only did American farms lose nearly $18 billion in annual revenue, but Mexican farmers' income fell 17 percent. Canadian farmers, who were told to expect a $1.4 billion increase in income, found their bank accounts $600 million emptier. The NAFTA/Farm report perfectly represents the larger goal of NAFTA, the transfer of wealth from small, independent operators to multinational conglomerates. As over 33,000 small American farms went out of business, agribusiness giants such as ConAgra and Archer Daniels Midland had significant earnings gains. From 1993 to 2000, ConAgra's profits grew 189 percent from $143 million to $413 million; and Archer Daniels Midland's profits nearly tripled between 1993 and 2000 from $110 million to $301 milli