VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1]234 ]


WAR/TERRORISM NEWS ARCHIVE
WAR/TERRORISM NEWS ARCHIVE
THIS FORUM WILL CONTAIN UNCENSORED NEWS AND EDITORIALS CONCERNING THE WAR AND TERRORISM. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTRIBUTE YOUR OWN NEWS AND/OR OPINIONS.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/moonotter/W.html

Subject: Navy Drops Plans for Bombing Range


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:25:16 12/03/01 Mon

Navy Drops Plans for Bombing Range
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011115/us/big_sur_bombs_2.html
Thursday November 15 6:04 PM ET

Navy Drops Plans for Bombing Range

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Navy has dropped plans to use an old military base between Big Sur and the Hearst Castle in California as a practice range for 3,000 bombing missions a year.

Rep. Sam Farr (news - bio - voting record), D-Calif., said the Navy decided that it would not save much money in reduced fuel costs, a major reason for considering Ft. Hunter Liggett, 40 miles south of Big Sur, as a bombing range.

``It's a great victory,'' Farr said Thursday, after getting word from Duncan Holaday, the Navy's deputy assistant secretary for installations.

Lt. Pauline Storum, a Navy spokeswoman, confirmed the decision. Navy fighter jets currently make 200 to 300 training runs a year at the base, she said..

The Navy had proposed a tenfold increase in bombing missions at the base, a 165,000 acre expanse amid the state's most remote and rugged coastal landscapes that newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst sold to the Army in 1940.

F/A-18 fighter jets from Lemoore Naval Air Station in the San Joaquin Valley and aircraft carriers off the California coast were to have swooped down on the oak woodlands and rolling hills, aiming 25-pound dummy bombs at a 500-foot bull's-eye painted on the ground.

The fort is only 76 miles west of Lemoore. Planes currently fly 227 miles to Fallon, Nev., and 159 miles to Superior Valley near Barstow, Calif.

Area residents protested the plans for the bombing range, complaining about the expected noise and the potential damage to tourism on the rustic coast..

Members of the Salinan Nation Indian tribe said that the area should be left alone because it is where their ancestors first lived. A group of 22 Benedictine monks said they did not want their silence disturbed at the nearby New Camaldoli Hermitage. And the National Park Service said endangered plants and animals, such as condors, should be protected.



Copyright © 2001 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Subject: Seizing Dictatorial Power


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:24:06 12/03/01 Mon

November 15, 2001

ESSAY

Seizing Dictatorial Power

By WILLIAM SAFIRE
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/15/opinion/15SAFI.html?todaysheadlines

WASHINGTON -- Misadvised by a frustrated and panic-stricken attorney general, a president of the United States has just assumed what amounts to dictatorial power to jail or execute aliens. Intimidated by terrorists and inflamed by a passion for rough justice, we are letting George W. Bush get away with the replacement of the American rule of law with military kangaroo courts.

In his infamous emergency order, Bush admits to dismissing "the principles of law and the rules of evidence" that undergird America's system of justice. He seizes the power to circumvent the courts and set up his own drumhead tribunals — panels of officers who will sit in judgment of non-citizens who the president need only claim "reason to believe" are members of terrorist organizations.

Not content with his previous decision to permit police to eavesdrop on a suspect's conversations with an attorney, Bush now strips the alien accused of even the limited rights afforded by a court-martial.

His kangaroo court can conceal evidence by citing national security, make up its own rules, find a defendant guilty even if a third of the officers disagree, and execute the alien with no review by any civilian court.

No longer does the judicial branch and an independent jury stand between the government and the accused. In lieu of those checks and balances central to our legal system, non-citizens face an executive that is now investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer or executioner. In an Orwellian twist, Bush's order calls this Soviet-style abomination "a full and fair trial."

On what legal meat does this our Caesar feed? One precedent the White House cites is a military court after Lincoln's assassination. (During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; does our war on terror require illegal imprisonment next?) Another is a military court's hanging, approved by the Supreme Court, of German saboteurs landed by submarine in World War II.

Proponents of Bush's kangaroo court say: Don't you soft-on-terror, due-process types know there's a war on? Have you forgotten our 5,000 civilian dead? In an emergency like this, aren't extraordinary security measures needed to save citizens' lives? If we step on a few toes, we can apologize to the civil libertarians later.

Those are the arguments of the phony-tough. At a time when even liberals are debating the ethics of torture of suspects — weighing the distaste for barbarism against the need to save innocent lives — it's time for conservative iconoclasts and card-carrying hard-liners to stand up for American values.

To meet a terrorist emergency, of course some rules should be stretched and new laws passed. An ethnic dragnet rounding up visa-skippers or questioning foreign students, if short-term, is borderline tolerable. Congress's new law permitting warranted roving wiretaps is understandable.

But let's get to the target that this blunderbuss order is intended to hit. Here's the big worry in Washington now: What do we do if Osama bin Laden gives himself up? A proper trial like that Israel afforded Adolf Eichmann, it is feared, would give the terrorist a global propaganda platform. Worse, it would be likely to result in widespread hostage-taking by his followers to protect him from the punishment he deserves.

The solution is not to corrupt our judicial tradition by making bin Laden the star of a new Star Chamber. The solution is to turn his cave into his crypt. When fleeing Taliban reveal his whereabouts, our bombers should promptly bid him farewell with 15,000-pound daisy-cutters and 5,000-pound rock-penetrators.

But what if he broadcasts his intent to surrender, and walks toward us under a white flag? It is not in our tradition to shoot prisoners. Rather, President Bush should now set forth a policy of "universal surrender": all of Al Qaeda or none. Selective surrender of one or a dozen leaders — which would leave cells in Afghanistan and elsewhere free to fight on — is unacceptable. We should continue our bombardment of bin Laden's hideouts until he agrees to identify and surrender his entire terrorist force.

If he does, our criminal courts can handle them expeditiously. If, as more likely, the primary terrorist prefers what he thinks of as martyrdom, that suicidal choice would be his — and Americans would have no need of kangaroo courts to betray our principles of justice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

November 15, 2001

THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

Senior Administration Officials Defend Military Tribunals for Terrorist Suspects

By ELISABETH BUMILLER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/15/politics/15TRIB.html?todaysheadlines

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — Top administration officials today defended a presidential order allowing military tribunals to try foreigners charged with terrorism as the Pentagon prepared for the potential transfer of immigrants detained by the Justice Department into military custody.

A senior administration official said that it was possible that immigrants held in the United States by the Justice Department in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks would be tried by military tribunal. Those trials could take place outside the United States or even on ships, the official said.

The order, signed by President Bush on Tuesday, gives the government sweeping powers to secretly and aggressively prosecute suspected foreign terrorists both here and abroad.

Justice Department officials have repeatedly refused to disclose the identities of those immigrants held or the charges against them. Justice officials said late last month that the total number of people detained — including many who have since been released — had surpassed 1,000, but this month officials said that they would no longer release a running tally.

"I had no idea they were going to try to use it for domestically detained people," said Kevin Ernst, a Detroit lawyer representing Farouk Ali-Hamoud, who was arrested for fraudulent immigration documents and held for 25 days in the Wayne County Jail before his case was dismissed last month. "It scares the hell out of me, I'll tell you that."

Vice President Dick Cheney defended Mr. Bush's order today, saying that terrorists were not lawful combatants and did not deserve the safeguards of traditional American jurisprudence.

"The basic proposition here is that somebody who comes into the United States of America illegally, who conducts a terrorist operation killing thousands of innocent Americans — men, women and children — is not a lawful combatant," Mr. Cheney said.

"They don't deserve to be treated as a prisoner of war," he added. "They don't deserve the same guarantees and safeguards that would be used for an American citizen going through the normal judicial process."

While the vice president assured his audience that the terrorist suspects would have "a fair trial," he suggested that they did not deserve one with the same protections afforded American citizens. A military tribunal, he said, "guarantees that we'll have the kind of treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve."

He spoke favorably of World War II saboteurs being "executed in relatively rapid order" under military tribunals set up by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. And he cited an earlier precedent, noting, "This is the way we dealt with the people who assassinated Abraham Lincoln and tried to assassinate part of the Cabinet back in 1865." Mr. Cheney, who was responding to a question after a speech at the United States Chamber of Commerce, was the most senior White House official to explain the rationale behind the president's order. Mr. Bush, who was at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., with President Vladimir Putin of Russia, has not spoken publicly about it.

The order continued to prompt an outcry from civil libertarians, who noted that military tribunals have not been used in this country since World War II. Laura W. Murphy, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Office, said that the organization was "deeply disturbed" by the order and called on Congress to exercise oversight powers before the "Bill of Rights in America is distorted beyond recognition."

Bush administration officials said today that they first considered the idea of military tribunals about a week after the Sept. 11 attacks. Officials said that a debate then ensued between the Pentagon and Justice Department over who should determine who is a suspected terrorist and therefore subject to trial by tribunal.

Finally, officials said, it was Mr. Bush who insisted that he, not Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld or Attorney General John Ashcroft, be given that power.

Administration officials said that the Pentagon and Justice Department were preparing today for the possibility of moving some detainees to military custody, examining such details as where the detainees might be held and how many judges would sit on any tribunal.

"They are researching, preparing and looking at the administrative procedures that would have to be followed to take into custody a suspected terrorist held by justice," an administration official said.

The idea of military tribunals came to the attention of the White House via William P. Barr, a former attorney general in the first Bush administration, who first conceived of them as a way to try the two men charged with blowing up a Pan Am jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

In the preparations for that trial, Mr. Barr was the chief of the Justice Department's office of legal counsel. In an odd twist, that office also happened to occupy the same suite where the World War II saboteurs were secretly tried under Roosevelt — memorialized today by a plaque on the wall.

"It's part of the lore of that office," Mr. Barr said.

Scotland, which does not have the death penalty, was not interested in joining with the United States in military tribunals, Mr. Barr said, so the idea was dropped. But shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Barr contacted senior officials at both the White House and the Justice Department, suggesting they might take a look at the old files.

"All I did was remind them about it," Mr. Barr said. "The idea sells itself.."

This time people were very interested, particularly as they faced the prospect of what to do should Osama bin Laden or his associates in Al Qaeda be captured. Administration officials have said they did not want a long, public American trial of Mr. bin Laden that could turn him into a martyr or cause further terrorism in his name.

In the weeks after Sept. 11, officials at the Pentagon and Justice and State Departments worked on a draft of the president's order. Late last week, officials said, the draft began circulating. On Tuesday, the president signed it.

Experts in military law say the tribunals would severely limit the rights of a defendant even beyond those in military trials, and said that the tribunals did not provide for proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But White House officials said the tribunals were necessary to protect potential American jurors from the danger of passing judgment on terrorists. They also said the tribunals would prevent the disclosure of government intelligence methods, which normally would be public in civilian courts.
Subject: U.N. Afghan Aid Shipment Leaves Port


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:22:54 12/03/01 Mon

U.N. Afghan Aid Shipment Leaves Port
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011115/wl/attacks_afghan_aid_6.html

TERMEZ, Uzbekistan (AP) - The first substantial U.N. aid shipment across the Amu-Darya River left Uzbekistan on Thursday for a port in northern Afghanistan (news - web sites), authorities said.

The shipments mark the reopening of a vital aid corridor into northern Afghanistan, allowing passage of critical food and winter supplies to some of the country's most impoverished regions.

A barge loaded with 220 tons of wheat flour left the port of Termez on Thursday, delayed by security concerns over reports of shootings and looting in Afghanistan.

Earlier, a smaller test shipment of 55 tons of U.N. aid supplies arrived at the Afghan port of Hairaton on Wednesday.

The wheat flour, provided by the World Food Program, was headed for a camp of 2,000 families of internally displaced people on the road from the border to the main northern town of Mazar-e-Sharif, the first city to fall to the anti-Taliban forces.

Trucks were to arrive at Hairaton, 11 miles up the river, to bring the 220-ton shipment to the camp.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it was his understanding that a key land bridge between Uzbekistan and Mazar-e-Sharif also ``is open and that supplies are starting to come in that way.''

``This is exactly the right time of year to start getting some supplies in to help those that don't have the food or the clothing or the blankets to make it through the winter,'' he said Thursday at a national security conference in Washington.

The U.N. is also working to build up storage facilities in Mazar-e-Sharif to handle what could eventually be a massive influx of aid.

WFP spokesman Michael Huggins said the United Nations (news - web sites) hopes to start shipping supplies across the river at full capacity by the end of the week, making three barge trips a day.
Subject: Aid worker: 'We were really scared'


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:21:42 12/03/01 Mon

>+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= >QUICKNEWS MAIL >from CNN.com >Top stories as of: Thursday, 15 Nov 01, 07:31:01 AM EST >+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= >=> As violence escalates, war-ravaged Afghans suffer. >=> One journalist and her crew risk their lives to bring us >=> the conflict in Afghanistan. CNN Presents Unholy War, >=> Sunday, 7 p.m. EST. Visit http://www.cnn.com/presents >+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

TOP STORIES-- ......Aid worker: 'We were really scared' ......Fight rages for control of Kandahar

WORLD NEWS-- ......U.S. to call for Israeli withdrawal, sources say ......Aid workers freed from Afghanistan ......Death toll from Algeria floods could rise to 1,000

U.S. NEWS-- ......Aid workers 'rescued' from Afghanistan ......Crash probe eyes turbulence, tail section evidence ......Bush officials defend military trials in terror cases

BUSINESS from CNNmoney-- ......U.S. stocks push higher ......Packard Foundation to cast deciding vote ......Applied Materials misses by a penny

Sports from CNN/SI-- ......History-making Nets down Pacers, improve to 6-1 ......Johnson wins third straight NL Cy Young ......Carter puts on a show, but Raptors fall to Kings

Also ... ......POLITICS from AllPolitics ......SCI-TECH ......HEALTH ......ENTERTAINMENT ......Get involved with Chat and Message boards http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY

~~~~~~~~~~~ TOP STORIES ~~~~~~~~~~~

> AID WORKER: 'WE WERE REALLY SCARED'

Eight Western aid workers, locked in Afghan prisons and fearing for their lives, were freed by anti-Taliban fighters and spirited to safety aboard U.S. helicopters Thursday.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/15/gen.aid.workers/index.html

> FIGHT RAGES FOR CONTROL OF KANDAHAR

Anti-Taliban forces continued to make swift and significant gains in Afghanistan, with heavy fighting reported here, but there were reports Thursday that the Taliban still control this key city.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/14/ret.afghan.attacks/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~ WORLD NEWS ~~~~~~~~~~~

> U.S. TO CALL FOR ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL, SOURCES SAY

The Bush administration is expected to call for a major Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories next week when Secretary of State Colin Powell delivers a speech on U.S. Mideast policy, senior administration sources and diplomats familiar with the speech's contents have told CNN.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/14/powell.mideast/index.html

> AID WORKERS FREED FROM AFGHANISTAN

President Bush said eight Western aid workers were rescued Wednesday more than three months after being detained by the Taliban.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/14/gen.war.against.terror/index.html

> DEATH TOLL FROM ALGERIA FLOODS COULD RISE TO 1,000

Rescuers feared the death toll from Algeria's devastating flash floods could rise to 1,000 -- nearly twice the current official toll -- as emergency teams sifted on Wednesday through tons of thick mud and debris.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/africa/11/14/algeria.floods.reut/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~ U.S. NEWS ~~~~~~~~~~~

> AID WORKERS 'RESCUED' FROM AFGHANISTAN

More than three months after being detained by the Taliban, eight Western aid workers were flown from Afghanistan to Pakistan by U.S. military helicopters, U.S. officials told CNN on Wednesday. All were reported in good condition.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/14/gen.aid.workers/index.html

> CRASH PROBE EYES TURBULENCE, TAIL SECTION EVIDENCE

Investigators looking into whether turbulence from the takeoff of another plane contributed to Flight 587's crash said Wednesday the American Airlines jet was closer to the leading jet than first believed.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/14/new.york.crash/index.html

> BUSH OFFICIALS DEFEND MILITARY TRIALS IN TERROR CASES

Defending President Bush's decision to allow military tribunals -- not civilian courts -- to try non-U.S. citizens accused of terrorism, Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that terrorists "don't deserve the same guarantees and safeguards" of the American judicial system.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/11/14/inv.military.court/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~ BUSINESS from CNNmoney ~~~~~~~~~~~

> U.S. STOCKS PUSH HIGHER

U.S. stocks closed higher for the second day in a row Wednesday as investors took a small leap of faith, buying in hopes that the quarterly results from Hewlett-Packard, stronger than expected retail sales and progress in the war against terrorism will help get the economy rolling.

..... http://www.cnn.com/money/2001/11/14/markets/markets_newyork/

> PACKARD FOUNDATION TO CAST DECIDING VOTE

Opposition from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation could deal a death blow to Hewlett-Packard Co.'s proposed $20 billion takeover of Compaq Computer Corp.

..... http://www.cnn.com/money/2001/11/14/deals/column_hp/

> APPLIED MATERIALS MISSES BY A PENNY

Applied Materials Inc., the world's biggest maker of semiconductor-manufacturing equipment, Wednesday reported an 82 percent drop in its fourth-quarter profit, missing Wall Street expectations by a penny.

..... http://www.cnn.com/money/2001/11/14/technology/amat/

~~~~~~~~~~~ Sports from CNN/SI ~~~~~~~~~~~

> HISTORY-MAKING NETS DOWN PACERS, IMPROVE TO 6-1

Jason Kidd and Keith Van Horn made sure there wouldn't be another comeback for the Indiana Pacers.

..... http://www.cnn.com/cnnsi/basketball/nba/news/2001/11/13/nets_pacers_ap/

> JOHNSON WINS THIRD STRAIGHT NL CY YOUNG

Randy Johnson didn't have to share this award with Curt Schilling.

..... http://www.cnn.com/cnnsi/baseball/mlb/news/2001/11/13/nl_cy/

> CARTER PUTS ON A SHOW, BUT RAPTORS FALL TO KINGS

With only fragments of their familiar rhythm, the Sacramento Kings have found unusual ways to win without Chris Webber.

..... http://www.cnn.com/cnnsi/basketball/nba/news/2001/11/13/raptors_kings_ap/

~~~~~~~~~~~ POLITICS from AllPolitics ~~~~~~~~~~~

> SEN. STROM THURMOND RETURNS TO HOSPITAL

Sen. Strom Thurmond, the Senate's oldest and longest serving member, has temporarily moved into Walter Reed Army Medical Center but will continue to come to work in the Senate each day, according to the South Carolina Republican's spokeswoman.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/14/strom.thurmond/index.html

> MIAMI ELECTS POLITICAL NEWCOMER AS MAYOR

Miami voters elected as their next mayor Tuesday a political rookie who fought unsuccessfully to keep Elian Gonzalez in the United States.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/14/politics.miami.reut/index.html

> HOUSE OKS FUNDS FOR ABANDONED BABY SAFE HAVENS

States would be able to tap into millions in federal dollars to create "safe havens" for abandoned infants under a measure passed by the House Tuesday.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/14/congress.children.ap/index.html

> FLORIDA RECOUNT STUDY: BUSH STILL WINS

A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

..... http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

~~~~~~~~~~~ SCI-TECH ~~~~~~~~~~~

> COMDEX: THE SUITS CAN USE THE TABLET PC

Microsoft's chairman Bill Gates promoted the tablet PC during his Comdex keynote address for a second year, even though the machines aren't expected to be ready for another year.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/11/14/corporate.tablet.idg/index.html

> COMDEX: SONY'S 'INVISIBLE' NETWORK

One big happy network. Sony's Kunitake Ando is calling for enough love among the competitors (love of paying customers, at least) to create an "invisible" network of seamless computing -- a "ubiquitous value network," he calls it. To get his point across in a keynote address at Comdex Fall 2001, he brought along actors Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst of the upcoming Sony film release, "Spider-Man." And from the Las Vegas stage, he announced new corporate liaisons.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/11/12/comdex.sony.keynote/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~ HEALTH ~~~~~~~~~~~

> LAST INHALATION ANTHRAX PATIENT GOES HOME

Postal worker Leroy Richmond was at home Wednesday, the last of six inhalation anthrax survivors to be released from the hospital.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/11/14/rec.last.anthrax/index.html

> ARTIFICIAL-HEART PATIENT SUFFERS STROKE

The first patient in the world to receive a self-contained artificial heart has suffered a stroke, doctors said Wednesday.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/11/14/artificial.heart.stroke/index.html

> STUDY: WOMEN MAY HAVE ANTI-STRESS HORMONE

A study has found young women are better able to cope with stress than young men, leading researchers to suggest there may be such a thing as a female "anti-stress" hormone.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/11/14/stress.hormones.ap/index.html

> BIOTERROR FEARS TAX STATE HEALTH RESOURCES

The past few months have left Colorado health officials swamped. Routine research is being shelved, scientists are being reassigned and grant writing is just a memory.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/11/14/rec.health.agencies.ap/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~ ENTERTAINMENT ~~~~~~~~~~~

> DENNIS MILLER: A RANT WITH A VIEW

Writer, comedian, and NFL sportscaster Dennis Miller doesn't just march to his own drummer, he marches to his own orchestra -- complete with trumpets, a string section and percussion. Miller's biting observational humor is featured on his award-winning HBO series "Dennis Miller Live" and in his books of rants, the fourth of which, "The Rant Zone" (HarperCollins), has just been published.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/books/11/14/dennis.miller/index.html

> WARNER PREPS MASSIVE 'POTTER' ROLLOUT

Warner Bros., though frantically seeking to manage through-the-roof box office projections for "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," hopes to bow its hugely anticipated release in an unprecedented number of theaters on Friday, Variety reports.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/14/film.harrypotter.reut/index.html

> COLLECTION FROM 'FIFTH BEATLE' SUTCLIFFE TO BE AUCTIONED

A retrospective devoted to Stuart Sutcliffe -- a founding member of the Beatles who helped shape the look of the band, forged a promising career as an artist and died at 21 -- went on display Tuesday at a London art gallery.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/News/11/13/britain.fifthbeatle.ap/index.html

> AWARD-WINNING FILM LOOKS AT LIFE UNDER TALIBAN

As the world's attention is focused on Afghanistan, a feature film about life under the Taliban has become a runaway success in Europe.

..... http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/12/kandahar.film/index.html

========================================================= = Please send comments or suggestions by going to = = http://www.cnn.com/feedback/ = = To unsubscribe from Quick News mail, go to = = http://www.cnn.com/EMAIL = =========================================================

> Copyright 2001 Cable News Network Inc. < > An AOL Time Warner Company <
Subject: White House Push on Security Steps Bypasses Congress


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:19:38 12/03/01 Mon

from Anne B..thanks!


White House Push on Security Steps Bypasses Congress
November 15, 2001
By ROBIN TONER and NEIL A. LEWIS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/15/national/15CIVI.html?ex=1006830902&ei=1&en=1852b8d8735e9d4a



WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 - The Bush administration has moved swiftly in the last few weeks to expand its national security authority and law enforcement powers in ways that are intended to bypass Congress and the courts, officials and outside analysts say.

Administration officials say the recent executive branch orders - which allow the government to use military tribunals to try foreigners charged with terrorism, permit the questioning of thousands of mostly Middle Eastern men who have recently entered the United States, slow down the process for granting visas to Muslim men and monitor communications between some people in federal custody and their lawyers - are necessary legal weapons in the war against terrorism.

"Foreign terrorists who commit war crimes against the United States, in my judgment, are not entitled to and do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution, particularly when there could be very serious and important reasons related to not bringing them back to the United States for justice," Attorney General John Ashcroft said at a news conference today, alluding to the use of military tribunals. "I think it's important to understand that we are at war now."

And speed is of the essence, administration officials say, arguing that even a wartime Congress would not move fast enough to help the authorities counter new terrorism threats.

But some lawmakers say they are increasingly concerned about such a unilateral approach to issues fraught with constitutional implications. They note that Congress has offered little resistance to most of the administration's security-related requests since the attacks, producing an antiterrorism law that Mr. Ashcroft demanded in the unusually short period of six weeks.

Now, said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, lawmakers are learning about major policy shifts in the newspapers. "We're really not being consulted at all," he said, "and it's hard to understand why."

It is not only Democrats who have qualms about the administration's approach. Representative Bob Barr, Republican of Georgia and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, "I'm not aware that they're consulting at all."

Mr. Leahy added in an interview tonight: "We have tried to bend over backwards to give bipartisan support, because most of us have been here for some period of time, and we know that kind of unity gives credibility to what we're doing, and also makes a very concerned American population less concerned. They've got to realize that simply going it alone like this isn't making people feel more secure, it's making them feel more concerned."

Mr. Leahy expressed particular concerns about setting up a military tribunal to try suspected terrorists, suggesting that it could send "a message to the world that it is acceptable to hold secret trials and summary executions without the possibility of judicial review, at least when the defendant is a foreign national."

Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, also said today that he had constitutional concerns over the administration's decision to allow special military tribunals to try foreigners charged with terrorism. Mr. Daschle said he supported the goal of swift justice for terrorists, but wanted to ensure that it was done without undermining constitutional protections.

But the administration is clearly convinced that it has public opinion on its side. And even the six weeks Congress took to produce the antiterrorism bill was too protracted in the view of White House officials and administration lawyers.

One senior Justice Department official, referring to the Sept. 11 attacks in explaining why the administration is reluctant to expose new policies to time-consuming Congressional debate, said, "People here are imbued with the idea that this shouldn't be allowed to happen again, and that has made us impatient."

Another Justice Department official said the approach was to strengthen as many policies as possible that did not require Congressional approval.

"We have a top-to-bottom review going on right now on our policies, all our guidelines and directives," this official said. "We're moving full speed ahead to effect the formal shift in direction of the department and the executive branch to be aimed at prevention of future terrorist acts."


Justice Department lawyers are reviewing and recommending changes in directives on how to deal with undercover operations, foreign intelligence and confidential informants, the official said.

Administration officials today insisted that all of the changes they had instituted over the last few weeks were not only constitutional but merely a revival of powers that had been used in past times of crisis.

The policy changes, like the creation of military tribunals for terrorist offenses also reflected immediate, pragmatic concerns over how to prosecute the fight against terrorism, the officials said.

One administration official said today that people in the government were keenly aware of the deeply unsatisfying outcome in the trial this year of two Libyans charged in the bombing of Pan American Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which one low-level operative was convicted and another acquitted. "This was not an outcome we would want here," one of the Justice Department officials said.

George J. Terwilliger III, a former deputy attorney general in the first Bush administration, said today that he believed the government was not expanding its legal authority as much as dusting off little-used powers.

"All of these actions are well within the boundaries of the Constitution, but it's just officials acting more aggressively," Mr. Terwilliger said. "There is a range of permissible activities, and we're using more of that range than we do in times of peace."

Prof. Phillip B. Heymann of Harvard Law School, a former deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton, said he believed that the government wanted the military tribunal because of a fear that it might not be able to convict Osama bin Laden or other suspected terrorists in civilian courts.

Administration officials said military tribunals would be better able to protect confidential information.

But Mr. Heymann said that some terrorists, notably those charged in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, had been successfully prosecuted in civilian courts with a law that allows classified information to be used in a trial without being disclosed to the public. Similarly, the administration said the tribunals would allow for the protection of witnesses and jurors, but Mr. Heymann said that countless Mafia and drug cartel trials had been conducted where both witnesses and jurors were protected.

"I understand that if we got bin Laden and he were acquitted it would be a staggering event," Mr. Heymann said. "But the tribunal idea looks to me like a way of dealing with a fear that we lack the evidence to convict these people."
Subject: Aid for Afghan People


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:18:26 12/03/01 Mon

From: Glenn Welker

Dear Friends of 9-11peace.org,

Thank you for being part of our immensely popular online
petition. Over 500,000 of us from 190 countries signed, and
I'll tell you more about how our message was delivered to
world leaders below.

Unfortunately, we need to act again, now. According to the
United Nations, over 900,000 Afghans are starving to death
as we speak. Another 6.6 million are in danger of dying
within the next few months. When winter arrives in under
two weeks, relief organizations will be unable to get aid
to many Afghan refugees. Please, please call on your
country's leadership to do everything in their power to get
aid to the Afghan people NOW. You can do so very easily at:

http://www.9-11peace.org/aid.php3

There's more information about this potential humanitarian
disaster below. But first, if you don't want to hear from
us again, just go to:

http://www.9-11peace.org/optout.php3


WHAT WE'VE DONE

In early October, we delivered over half a million online
signatures from 190 countries to:
* U.S. President Bush;
* NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson;
* European Commission President Romano Prodi.

In Great Britain, MP Lynne Jones and three other Members of
Parliament delivered the petition by hand to Prime Minister
Tony Blair. Media around the world wrote about our effort,
from the Chicago Sun-Times to the South China Morning Post.


WHAT WE CAN DO NEXT

Call on world leaders to make aid to the Afghan people a
priority:

http://www.9-11peace.org/aid.php3

The prolonged bombing has worsened the plight of the Afghan
people because aid organizations haven't been able to get
food and medicine into the country. The food dropped by the
US is woefully inadequate for the 7 million Afghans who rely
on aid.

With the Northern Alliance's capture of most of Northern
Afghanistan, aid organizations may finally be able to bring
large quantities food and medicine into the country. But
unless the US and its allies facilitate the delivery,
hundreds of thousands of people may die.

It's crucial that world leaders hear from us now. They need
to know that we are counting on them to prevent the imminent
starvation of millions of innocent people, and that this
should be one of the highest priorities for the next few
weeks. They need to know that we don't want to have to
explain to our grandchildren why our countries allowed one
of the largest mass starvations in history to take place.
Tell them now:

http://www.9-11peace.org/aid.php3

Some facts about the aid crisis:

* The UN estimates that 7.5 million Afghan refugees rely on
food and medical aid to survive.

* Of these, 900,000 face imminent starvation.

* Nearly 20% of those struggling to survive are children
under 5.

* Recent bombing attacks have damaged the warehouses of the
International Red Cross as well as the United Nations World
Food Programme. The agencies' staff, laborers and truckers
are now afraid to load, unload or transport food inside
Afghanistan.

* Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam International, and
officials in the UN have all called for a stop in the
bombing so that aid can be delivered before it's too late.

More information about the aid crisis in Afghanistan is
available at the website above.

Thank you. Many lives are at stake, but if we act now, we
can change the face of this conflict.

Sincerely,

Eli Pariser
9-11peace.org
November 14, 2001
Subject: Bush's war at home a creeping coup d'ιtat


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:17:12 12/03/01 Mon

--- smithorg WSWS News & Analysis North America

Bush's war at home a creeping coup d'ιtat
By the WSWS Editorial Board
7 November 2001

In the period since the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the United States has undergone a radical transformation in the structure of the government, in the relationship between the people and the police and armed forces, and in the legal and constitutional framework.

The White House has assumed vast new powers for internal repression, establishing by executive order an Office of Homeland Security that is not subject to either congressional oversight or any vote on the personnel appointed to run it. An all-encompassing political police agency is coming into being, through the passage of an "anti-terror" law that effectively amalgamates the FBI and CIA and abolishes the longstanding separation between overseas spying and domestic policing.

Side by side with the bombing of Afghanistan, the Bush administration has declared that there is a second front in the war, the war at home. The federal government issues vague and unsubstantiated "terror alerts," which fuel anxiety while providing no protection to the public. Government spokesmen urge the population to get used to measures like random police searches and roadblocks as a permanent feature of life. National Guard troops patrol the airports, harbors, bridges, tunnels and even the US Capitol.

Fundamental constitutional safeguards the right of habeas corpus, the right of the accused to know the charges against them, the right of arrested persons to see a lawyer, even the presumption of innocence have been set aside for millions of immigrants from the Middle East and Central Asia. The right to privacy has been all but abolished for the entire population, with government intelligence agencies given the green light to plant bugs and wiretaps, monitor financial transactions, and conduct other forms of spying, virtually at will.

If the average American had been shown on September 10 a picture of the United States as it is today, the response would likely have been "This is not the America I know. This looks more like a police state."

The bitter irony is that such a sweeping attack on democratic rights has been perpetrated in the name of a war to defend "freedom" and "democracy" against terrorism. But neither the Bush administration, nor its Democratic Party collaborators, nor a compliant and complicit media bother to explain the following contradiction the United States government never secured powers such as these at any point in the twentieth century. Not in World War I, World War II or the Cold War, when the antagonists were powerful and heavily armed states, was such a radical restructuring of the governmental and legal framework carried out. Why is this happening today, when the alleged enemy is a small band of terrorists operating out of caves in one of the poorest countries in the world?


The anti-terrorism law

One of the key elements of the assault on civil liberties is the new "anti-terrorism" act, which was rushed through Congress and signed into law only five weeks after the terror attacks. The law defines terrorism in such a way as to include political activity and speech previously protected by the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. It provides wide-ranging authority for police agencies to carry out secret searches, conduct expanded electronic surveillance, and indefinitely detain terrorism suspects. Non- citizens, including legal permanent residents, can be denied reentry to the US for expressing political views, and can be deported for having even the most incidental association with organizations designated as "terrorist" by the government. Attorney General John Ashcroft last week expanded the number of groups so designated from 46 to 74.

Among the most ominous provisions of the law is the abolition of the "firewall" between foreign and domestic intelligence agencies. The Central Intelligence Agency now has the authority to share information with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and thereby collaborate with the FBI in conducting domestic surveillance and preparing criminal prosecutions. The FBI is likewise authorized to share with the CIA information collected during grand jury proceedings, without a court order, giving the US spy agency access to domestic intelligence it had been barred from receiving in the past.

An article in the November 4 Washington Post carried the ominous headline, "An Intelligence Giant in the Making Anti-Terrorism Law Likely to Bring Domestic Apparatus of Unprecedented Scope." It noted that the media focus on the electronic surveillance and wiretapping provisions of the new legislation deflected attention from other provisions of the bill that will fundamentally alter the operation of US intelligence-gathering agencies. According to the Post, one of the most significant aspects of the law is that it "empowers the government to shift the primary mission of the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence."

The law reverses legal reforms enacted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which segregated the FBI's criminal investigation function from its intelligence-gathering operations against foreign spies and international terrorists. The Post comments, "the bill effectively tears down legal fire walls erected 25 years ago during the Watergate era, when the nation was stunned by disclosures about presidential abuses of domestic intelligence- gathering against political activists."

These changes go beyond a mere quantitative expansion of certain investigative powers. They constitute a basic restructuring of the police and intelligence apparatus to vastly expand its scope and reach.

In recent days, federal officials have urged the lifting of legal restraints on state and local police powers. Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson lamented that Justice Department agents "don't have enough eyes and ears" to monitor terrorist suspects, and said restrictions on local police departments "need to be looked at."

Many local police departments are already scrapping rules on intelligence-gathering that were established to protect First Amendment rights. The Los Angeles Police Commission voted last month to relax intelligence restrictions adopted in the early 1980s, following disclosures that police were monitoring anti-war protesters, liberal politicians and other political dissidents. Other big city police departments are moving to revive the surveillance methods utilized by "Red Squad" operations of the past.


Terrorizing the public

On October 29, the government issued its second general terrorism alert in less than three weeks. Declaring that major terrorist attacks against the US or US interests around the world were in the offing, Attorney General Ashcroft was utterly vague as to the likely targets, methods or perpetrators. He provided no information to support the claim of imminent danger. He gave no instructions as to how the public was to respond to the alleged danger. However, he issued an advisory to 18,000 state and local police agencies to "continue on highest alert and to notify immediately the FBI of any unusual or suspicious activity."

Instructing the public to accept extraordinary measures, such as random stops or searches by police or National Guard troops, or questioning by FBI agents, Ashcroft said, "We ask for the patience and cooperation of the American people, if and when they encounter additional measures undertaken by local law enforcement or federal law enforcement authorities and others who are charged with securing the safety of the public."

As an immediate consequence of the alert, National Guard troops were deployed in a number of states at transportation centers, water supplies and nuclear power plants. These are in addition to the troops who have patrolled major airports since the September 11 events.

At week's end, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt announced that Congress, with bipartisan support, was authorizing the posting of armed soldiers at the Capitol building. The Supreme Court subsequently announced it would bar the public from its hearings.

The government claims that the "terror alerts" have been issued in order to warn and protect the public. But with no specific information provided about the imminent threat when and where the terrorists might strike what is public expected to do? Their vacuous character demonstrates that these alerts are essentially fraudulent. Their real purpose is to accustom the population to invasions of privacy, the dismantling of constitutional safeguards, and a general militarization of society. The authorities want people to accept as a normal state of affairs the deployment of armed troops at airports, public buildings, bridges, border checkpoints and in the streets.

The Bush administration has seized on the anthrax attacks as an additional means of bludgeoning the public into accepting such far- reaching restrictions on civil liberties. Although the evidence so far made available suggests that extreme right-wing elements of the Timothy McVeigh stripe are the most likely suspects, the White House and the media constantly suggest that Osama bin Laden is responsible for the anthrax attacks, depicting his Al Qaeda network as a pervasive and all-powerful threat.

Periodic alerts such as those issued October 11 and October 29 are intended to facilitate the consolidation of the new apparatus of internal repression. On October 29, the same day as the most recent alert, President Bush presided over the first meeting of the Council of Homeland Security. This new and unprecedented body includes in addition to former Governor Tom Ridge, who has been named the director of the Office of Homeland Security the vice president, the attorney general, the secretaries of defense, treasury, transportation and health and human services and the heads of the CIA and FBI. The powers of this council as well as those of the Office of Homeland Security are vague and undefined, and therefore virtually unlimited.

Following that meeting, Bush announced the establishment of yet another agency with unspecified police powers the "foreign terrorist tracking taskforce," headed by Ashcroft. The establishment of this task force is part of a new border policy that will enable the government to more easily bar entry to immigrants alleged to have terrorist connections, and to carry out a general crackdown on those applying for or holding student visas.


Mass arrests among immigrants

These far-reaching changes come under conditions where the national security dragnet initiated after September 11 is expanding, with the number of people rounded up now standing at more than 1,100. While federal officials will not say how many of these detainees have been released, a Justice Department spokesperson said "a majority" of them are still in custody. The roundup of these individuals has been shrouded in secrecy, with the government providing no information about the detainees' identities, where they are being held, why they are being detained, and what charges, if any, are being laid against them.

Many are held in solitary confinement. The whereabouts of some suspects are unknown to family members, and others either have no legal representation or have been denied contact with their lawyers. Much of the legal action against those in custody is taking place in secret court proceedings, with court documents sealed to the public. All of this is being done to shield the operations of federal, state and police agencies from public scrutiny.

The Justice Department has rejected appeals from civil liberties groups and some congressmen for information about the detentions, without giving any explanation for its blackout. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, commented that the government's conduct in the investigation is "frighteningly close to the practice of `disappearing' people in Latin America."

Following each of the two national alerts against terrorism since September 11, the number of those rounded up by the government has risen sharply, tripling in the past few weeks. One of the main purposes of the alerts is to signal state and local police to step up their surveillance activities and round up more suspects.

While the mass murder at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is the pretext for the mass arrests, not a single one of those detained has been charged with any offense related to the September 11 attacks. Even the Justice Department claims that at most 10 or 12 of those detained are suspected, but not proven, of having links to the hijackers. The vast majority of the arrests have another purpose, unrelated to any investigation of the terrorist attack to intimidate the immigrant population and accustom the American people as a whole to methods previously associated with police-military dictatorships.


A "war on two fronts"

Government officials have emphasized that the anti-terror measures adopted in recent weeks should not be regarded as temporary. At a briefing on October 29, Ridge declared, "We want America to be on the highest alert. And from time to time, we may issue the same general alert again."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a column in the November 1 edition of the Washington Post, baldly stated that not only should the American people accept an open-ended war against terrorism, but they must "prepare now for the next war a war that may be vastly different not only from those of the past century but also from the new war on terrorism that we are fighting today." In other words, America is going on a war footing, not for the duration of a specific conflict in Afghanistan, but indefinitely. Consequently, the domestic police measures being taken now by the government must also be accepted as a permanent state of affairs.

One catch phrase has more and more routinely appeared in the statements of Bush administration officials America is fighting "a war on two fronts." Announcing his terrorism alert last week, Ashcroft stated "I trust the American people to be able to understand in this context the conflict, where there is a front overseas and there is another front here in the United States."

Ridge said the following day, "We are engaged in a two-front war against terrorism." In an October 31 speech urging passage of his economic stimulus plan, Bush repeated this mantra "For the first time in our nation's history, part of the battle front is here at home."

Precisely what is meant by this "war on two fronts" is never explained. But in light of the extraordinary security measures taken by the government since September 11, references to a battle on the "home front" take on a chilling significance. With their attempt to create an atmosphere of fear and hysteria over impending terrorist threats, authorities want to identify anyone rounded up in their investigation as the enemy, whether or not there is evidence against them. The same methods will be used against those who oppose the war against Afghanistan and other policies of the government, domestic or foreign.


Before and after September 11

The government's actions in the period since September 11 constitute the most serious and sustained attack on civil liberties in US history. No one should believe that this is merely a reaction to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Such measures have long been sought by the most right-wing sections of the ruling elite, who have seized on the tragic events of September 11 to realize their political agenda at home, just as they are using them to launch a US military intervention in oil-rich Central Asia.

These sweeping changes are the culmination of two decades of political reaction and attacks on democratic rights, which have seen a steady buildup of the repressive forces of the state two million Americans in prison, thousands on Death Row, legal restrictions on the rights of defendants, expanded powers of police spying and electronic surveillance. This has been accompanied by the emergence of a fascist-minded right wing with little popular support, but enormous influence in the Republican Party, in Congress, and now in the White House.

Those who want to claim that the recent escalation of the onslaught on civil liberties is simply a response to September 11 ignore the critical fact that the Bush administration came to power on the basis of an unprecedented assault on the most basic of democratic rights the right to vote. The drive by Bush and the Republican Party to hijack the election and take power, despite having lost the popular vote nationally, was consummated in a ruling by the right-wing majority on the US Supreme Court, which halted a legal recount in the pivotal state of Florida, handing the presidency to Bush. A government that takes power by methods of fraud and conspiracy must rule through the same methods.

This is an administration committed to a domestic and foreign policy tailored to the interests of the wealthiest and most privileged layer in American society. It is also an administration of enormous crisis. Prior to the terror attacks, the Bush administration was showing clear signs of internal disarray. Its already narrow social base of support was eroding under the pressure of a deepening economic slump, both in the US and globally.

The Republicans had lost control of the Senate, and on the international front, the Bush administration was increasingly isolated, with nominal allies as well as enemies opposing its aggressive and unilateralist posture. The events of September 11 were seized on by those who run the Bush administration as a welcome opportunity to shore up the government and rally public support by launching a military attack on the alleged perpetrators, while preparing for an upsurge of social struggle over rising unemployment, worsening slump and the government's pro-corporate policies by expanding and restructuring the police powers of the state.

The Bush administration's domestic "anti-terror" campaign must serve as a sharp warning. After the Florida debacle of November and December 2000, there were complacent commentaries in the press declaring that, unlike many other countries, the bitter political struggle in the United States did not end with tanks in the streets. Now the tanks are in the streets, and soldiers surround the Capitol, in what might be called a slow-motion coup d'ιtat.

All of the traditional norms of bourgeois democracy in the US are in question. The Bush administration expresses the contempt for democracy that pervades powerful sections of the American corporate and financial oligarchy, as well as their fascistic allies in the Christian right, the gun lobby and the militia movement. They are determined to go as far as they can in establishing an authoritarian regime. Such concepts as the separation of powers between the three branches of government and legislative oversight of the executive branch are being tossed aside in the effort to vastly expand the police powers of the federal executive.

It is worth noting that at the height of the anthrax scare, in mid- October, congressional Republicans favored shutting down Congress and adjourning indefinitely, the better to give Bush, the FBI, the CIA and the military a free hand, both abroad and at home.

The Bush administration's war on democratic rights has exposed the inability of the Democratic Party to offer any serious opposition to the extreme-right forces that dominate the Republican Party. Within hours of the September 11 attacks, the Democrats pledged unconditional support to the Bush White House, declaring that political dissent was no longer permissible. The Democratic leadership not only lined up to give Bush an open-ended mandate to wage war abroad, it insured the passage of his "anti-terror" bill, suppressed any investigation of the unexplained intelligence failure that allowed the September 11 attacks to take place, and sanctioned the trashing of constitutional safeguards in the ongoing police dragnet.

The political collapse of the Democratic Party is the culmination of a protracted process of adaptation to the most right-wing sections of the ruling elite. In their craven response first to the Republican impeachment conspiracy, and then to the theft of the 2000 election, the Democrats already demonstrated their inability and unwillingness to defend democratic rights.

While for the moment, the vast majority of those caught up by the government's dragnet are immigrants of Middle-Eastern and Central Asian descent, it is only a matter of time before these anti- democratic methods will be used more widely. The wholesale attack on democratic rights can only be halted through the independent organization of the working class, which unites all sections of the working population immigrant and US-born in a political struggle against the financial oligarchy and its political representatives.
Subject: Press Release -- Protest vs. War & Military Tribunals


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:15:56 12/03/01 Mon



MEDIA ADVISORY -- November 14, 2001
NYC-- Larry Holmes (212) 633-6646
Brian Becker (202) 904-7992
Houston -- Gloria Rubac (713) 503-2633


NEW YORK ANTI-WAR DEMONSTRATION: UNION SQUARE, 5:00 P.M.

STOP THE BOMBING & OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN STOP RACIAL PROFILING OF ARAB & MUSLIM PEOPLE

On the eve of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month, thousands will demonstrate in U.S. cities against the Bush administration's bombing of Afghanistan and his executive order, signed yesterday, which drastically increases the racial profiling campaign directed against Arab Americans.
"Bush said he launched this war to fight terrorism, and dropped cluster bombs on civilians," said Sara Flounders, co-director of the International Action Center, one of the members of the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition. "We know not to believe him when he says that the military tribunals and racial profiling tactics he has ordered are anti-terrorism tactics, either. The U.S. is using the appearance of victory in Afghanistan to vastly increase its ability to oppress people overseas and here at home."

Already over 1,000 people have been detained without due process, and the FBI has proposed the idea of legalizing torture tactics against them.

"With no public debate, Bush has ordered secret military tribunals -- kangaroo courts, really -- where all of the basic tenets of due process are thrown out the window," Flounders said. The order states that the tribunals do not provide for proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and would not require strict rules of evidence.

"The Justice Department has also ordered the FBI and police agencies to pick up and question 5,000 men, most from Middle East countries, who have entered the country legally in the last two years."

Flounders said that Bush's order should upset anyone who is against the administration's increasing attack on immigrants and civil liberties. Under the order, the president himself is to determine who is an accused terrorist and therefore subject to trial by secret tribunals.

Anti-war protesters in New York have already announced plans to demonstrate against Rumsfeld appearance here at "Ground Zero" as an exploitation of the city's grief designed to promote the continued bombing raid against the world's poorest country. Texas anti-war demonstrators will confront George Bush at his stop in Houston to promote "arms control" — after dropping fuel-air explosives and cluster bombs on Afghanistan. Other rallies are scheduled in San Francisco; Washington D.C.; Baltimore; San Diego; New Jersey; Seattle; Manchester, England; campuses; and a dozen other cities.
-30-

------------------
Send replies to iacenter@action-mail.org

This is the IAC activist announcement
list. Anyone can subscribe by sending any message to
Subject: 10 Downing Street - Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:14:43 12/03/01 Mon

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/news.asp?NewsId=3025&SectionId=30

NEWSROOM
News
Behind the News
Speeches
Press Notices

Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States
[14 November 2001]

Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States

The Government has published a further document summarising both the public and newly declassified material linking Usama Bin Laden and the Al Qaida network to the terrorist atrocities of 11 September 2001. It updates the document published by the Prime Minister on 4 October. The update has been produced to remind people why we are engaged in this action, and to publish new information.

To read the executive summary of the updated evidence document choose
any of the following links:

- Word format

- Text format

- PDF format

- HTML version

To read the updated evidence document in full choose any of the following links:

- Word format

- Text format

- PDF format

- HTML version

This document can also be viewed in Urdu (FCO website)

Copies of the executive summary and updated evidence document can also be found on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office & UKonline websites.

LINKS AND FURTHER INFORMATION

War on Terrorism - Key Information

Campaign objectives to defeat International terrorism (Arabic version)

Register for e-mail updates - choose "International" as your preference

Back to Newsroom


Subject: Activists held up by Immigration


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:13:14 12/03/01 Mon

Activists held up by Immigration
http://ottawa.cbc.ca/editorServlets/View?filename=protest011114

Ottawa - Anti-globalization protesters are upset with Canadian Immigration officials, after they held two American women at the Ottawa Airport Monday night.

The two women came to train activists in non-violent protest tactics for the G-20 summit on the weekend.

A writer and activist named Starhawk was released, but her computer was confiscated.

The protesters say Lisa Fithian of San Francisco is still being held.

David Robbins, a trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians, says security concerns are being used against protesters.

"The Sept. 11 political climate is being used, in part, as a smoke screen to repress activists and to make it harder for them to get their messages out," says Robbins.

Immigration officials refused to confirm or deny reports they are holding Fithian. But they say, if it is the case, a hearing will be held by Thursday.

The activists say Immigration authorities appear to be concerned about Fithian's criminal record.

A person with Global Democracy Ottawa says any convictions were related to Fithian's participation in protests.


RELATED ARTICLES:

ROADS BLOCKED: G-20 SECURITY TIGHTENS UP
Police now say they will close several downtown Ottawa streets to pedestrians and cyclists &-; as well as to traffic &-; for this weekend's G-20 summit. FULL STORY
http://ottawa.cbc.ca/editorServlets/View?filename=g20secure011112


ACCOMMODATION TRICKY FOR G-20 PROTESTERS
Ottawa activists say it's proving difficult to find accommodation for all the protesters coming to town this weekend for the G-20 summit. FULL STORY
http://ottawa.cbc.ca/editorServlets/View?filename=protesthost011114
Subject: Recorder shows struggle to control Flight 587


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:11:57 12/03/01 Mon

Recorder shows struggle to control Flight 587
Last Updated: Tue Nov 13 22:13:30 2001
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/view?/news/2001/11/13/data_crash011113

NEW YORK - Information from the cockpit recorder revealed the crew of American Airlines Flight 587 struggled to control the plane moments before it went down.

Investigators continue to piece together what went wrong aboard the plane. The cockpit tape revealed the airframe rattled twice after takeoff. Two minutes into the flight, the co-pilot said he had lost control of the plane.

Transportation officials hope to synchronize the cockpit recorder with the flight data recorder, which was found earlier on Tuesday. So far, they are working on the theory that the crash was not caused by a terrorist attack but was a mechanical accident.

The flight data recorder was found near a large piece of fuselage, close to the four homes destroyed in the crash. Data recorders track the actions of the engine and instruments.

The flight data recorder is being sent to Washington where investigators will work with a French team from Airbus on Wednesday to study the recording.

The Airbus A300 slammed into a community in Queens, New York, Monday morning, raising fears that it was another terrorist attack.

The flight carried 251 passengers and nine crew headed to the Dominican Republic. New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said on Tuesday that 262 bodies had been recovered.

He also said there were five people missing from the Rockaway community where the plane crashed.

Recovery workers brought in flood lights to work through the night at the crash site.

The head of the National Transportation Safety Board said that an assessment based partially on the information from the recorder points to an accidental cause resulting from mechanical failure.

"The communications from the cockpit were normal up until the last few seconds before the crash," said Marion Blakey, head of the NTSB. "At this stage, we believe that all indications are that it was an accident."

"Initial inspection shows no evidence of any sort of internal failure of engines. They all appear to be in one piece," said NTSB member George Black at a Tuesday afternoon news conference.

Black added investigators flew over the debris scattered in Jamaica Bay and are "fairly satisfied" they have the major parts of the plane.

NTSB investigators have been looking closely at the plane's two General Electric CF6-80C2 series engines for clues to what caused the airliner to suddenly drop from the sky Monday minutes after takeoff. The plane was headed to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic.

Two engines separated from the fuselage, indicating the plane broke up soon after takeoff, the NTSB said.

The plane's CF6-80C2 engines have been under scrutiny since a report in early 2000 suggested they may have "an unsafe condition" after reports that engine failures sent metal fragments flying.

General Electric, parent company of the engine maker says the engine is "phenomenally reliable."

Written by CBC News Online staff

INDEPTH: Crash of Flight 587
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/flight_587/

RELATED STORY: 225 bodies recovered from NYC crash
http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/11/12/plane_011112
Subject: Power struggle looms in Kabul UN tries to rein in Alliance; U.S. and Britain might send troops; Canada ready to pitch in


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:10:27 12/03/01 Mon

November 14, 2001

Power struggle looms in Kabul UN tries to rein in Alliance; U.S. and Britain might send troops; Canada ready to pitch in

Steven Edwards National Post,
with files from Southam News
http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20011114/784987.html

UNITED NATIONS - Alarmed by reports of reprisal killings in Afghanistan, the United Nations raced yesterday to develop a plan to control the Northern Alliance and prevent a struggle for power among the new masters in Kabul.

The world body was caught in a storm of diplomatic activity as it sought to catch up to the sudden military success of the Northern Alliance, which entered the capital yesterday on the heels of the fleeing Taliban regime.

Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, dispatched one of his senior Afghanistan envoys to the city to arrange for a return of UN civil affairs officers to watch over the minority ethnic groups that make up the Alliance.

Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary, did not rule out the possibility that American and British troops might be sent to Kabul to deal with short-term trouble.

In Washington, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defence, said some U.S. special forces troops are already in the Afghan capital, but too few to monitor or police the entire city.

Mr. Straw also said a search was on for countries to contribute to an international military force that could keep Alliance forces in line if security deteriorates in Kabul.

Canadian officials said Ottawa is anxious to be a part of a force that would monitor the Alliance and help escort humanitarian supplies.

The United States and its allies are concerned that efforts to establish a broad multi-ethnic government in Afghanistan will be derailed if the Alliance -- made up mainly of Uzbek and Tajik forces -- seeks vengeance against supporters of the mainly Pashtun Taliban.

Previous clashes between the rival ethnic groups have resulted in bloody reprisals. Yesterday the UN said as many as 600 people had been killed or executed since the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif fell to the Alliance on Friday.

Similar killings in Kabul could halt the recent success of the U.S. military campaign and undermine Washington's campaign to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his terrorist network.

"We have had discussions about the behaviour of the Northern Alliance and told them they are there on trust for the people," Mr. Straw said.

Mr. Straw spoke after addressing a UN Security Council debate on Afghanistan, at which Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN lead envoy for the country, outlined the world body's extensive proposals for a future Afghan government.

His plan calls for a two-year transitional government backed by a multinational security force.

He said Afghanistan's many ethnic groups should be brought together "as early as humanly possible," and said they should meet with the Northern Alliance.

The goal would be to convene a provisional council that reflects the country's ethnic diversity, chaired "by an individual recognized as a symbol of national unity" -- a clear reference to Afghanistan's exiled king, Zahir Shah.

The 87-year-old former monarch has lived in Rome since he was ousted from power in 1973. Though seen by some as a unifying figure, Iran, which ousted its own monarch in 1979, is understood to oppose his involvement in a future Afghan government.

Under Mr. Brahimi's proposal, the council would put together the transitional government. A tribal council would draw up a constitution and a second gathering would approve it and create a permanent Afghan government.

Mr. Brahimi said massive political and financial resources would be needed to turn around the "collapsed and destitute state" of Afghanistan so it was no longer a breeding ground for terrorists and illicit drug production.

A government ruled by Afghans "would be far more credible than one run by UN or [other international officials] parachuted in," he said.

There is broad opposition among UN members to the prospect of a UN peacekeeping force. Such forces have often run into trouble when asked to impose peace rather than monitor an already negotiated agreement.

Pervez Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, called yesterday for all forces to withdraw from Kabul to make way for a different type of UN-backed force.

"Kabul should remain a demilitarized city," he said after a brief meeting with Bulent Ecevit, the Turkish Prime Minister, in Istanbul.

Mr. Musharraf said Pakistan and Turkey could participate in an international peacekeeping force sent under a "UN umbrella."

The force would be approved by the Security Council but controlled by the coalition of countries that provided troops.

Mr. Straw spoke of a similar force that would be composed entirely of Muslim troops.

Abdullah Abdullah, the Northern Alliance Foreign Minister, said Alliance forces entered Kabul to maintain order and do not intend to rule the country, although the Alliance wants a role in the future government.

He welcomed UN involvement and called on all Afghan groups to come to Kabul to discuss a future administration, adding, "Taliban excluded."

Northern Alliance leader Burhanuddin Rabbani, who as Afghan president was driven from Kabul by the Taliban in 1996, said he would return to Kabul tomorrow.

The UN said it had corroborated reports of a possible massacre of Taliban soldiers in Mazar-e-Sharif, the first major prize taken by the rebels.

"Over 100 Taliban troops, who were young recruits hiding in a school, were killed by Northern Alliance forces on Saturday after 6 p.m.," said Stephanie Bunker, spokeswoman for the UN's refugee agency, in Islamabad, Pakistan. "It was not clear whether the Taliban died fighting or if they were captured and executed."

The International Red Cross said its workers were burying hundreds of people, including many who died in the fighting, but the organization did not specify whether the dead were civilians or militiamen.

Officials in Ottawa said logistical obstacles remain to Canadian participation in any force in Afghanistan. But they said Ottawa is taking a hard look at being a part of any deployment and is engaged in urgent discussions with other members of the anti-terrorism coalition led by the U.S. about how they might play a role.

"We all know that the Northern Alliance is not representative of the overall population," said John Manley, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

"The future government of Afghanistan has to be representative of all elements of the population. That's what we've all been saying since the beginning."
Subject: Letters Free of Anthrax at BIA in Albuquerque


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:08:49 12/03/01 Mon

Wednesday, November 14, 2001

Letters Free of Anthrax at BIA in Albuquerque

By Jackie Jadrnak
Journal Staff Writer
http://www.abqjournal.com/paperboy/text/news/505487news11-14-01.htm

No sign of anthrax has shown up on tests of letters that sparked an early end of the work day for Bureau of Indian Affairs employees last month, according to the state Department of Health.

The department's Scientific Laboratory Division ran tests on 35 envelopes, and all of them were negative for anthrax, spokeswoman Jackie Campo said Tuesday.

The letters raised a scare among workers in Albuquerque on Oct. 31 after they received an e-mail from BIA headquarters telling them the mailing had been processed through the Brentwood postal facility in Washington, D.C.

That building was closed last month after two workers died of inhalation anthrax. The experience raised concerns that the anthrax spores might have attached to other mail handled there.

The BIA said the mailing, which was related to a court case, was sent to the homes of 11,000 employees nationwide. It warned workers later that the letters may have come into contact with anthrax.

The BIA office at 615 First NW in the Plaza Maya Building sent workers home early Oct. 31 after receiving the e-mail notice. Isleta Pueblo Elementary School, run by the BIA, also canceled classes the following day because workers there had received the letter.

But state health workers said the chances were small that anyone risked developing anthrax from receiving those letters. No cases have been reported in the state in several years.

Health department workers also had taken samples from Albuquerque's main post office to check for anthrax. Results from those tests probably will be available Friday, Campo said.


Copyright 2001 Albuquerque Journal
Subject: Order hides papers from researchers


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:07:30 12/03/01 Mon

from Erth...thanks!


Editorial

Order hides papers from researchers
By The Journal editorial board
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com

History and open government were dealt a blow earlier this month when President George W. Bush issued an executive order that allows presidents and former presidents to prevent public access to presidential papers. The executive order turns the 1978 Presidential Records Act on its head by making it easier to hide presidential records from public scrutiny.

The 1978 law required presidential libraries to make presidential records available to the public after a period of 12 years. A former president could seek to block disclosure of confidential papers with the decision left to the archivist of the United States. If the archivist ruled against the confidentiality claim, the former president could take the matter to court.

Bush's order lets sitting presidents, former presidents and their heirs block access to documents from researchers. With the order, the archivist's role has been removed altogether, and the burden of proving their claim in court has now been shifted to the historian or researcher.

The administration argues that the order makes the release of presidential papers "more orderly and sympathetic," but that argument is without merit. The order makes it more difficult, not easier, to gain access to presidential records.

The suspicion in Washington is that Bush signed the order to avoid embarrassing many of his senior advisers who also served in the Reagan and Bush senior administrations.

The 1978 law had ample safeguards to prevent disclosure of confidential or national security matters from reaching the public. Bush's executive order increases secrecy and makes the job of writing history more difficult. Bush should rescind his order, and if he fails to do so, Congress should override it.
Subject: "Why (42.5) Needs to Spin the War"


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:04:03 12/03/01 Mon

VIA NDN-AIM

"Why (42.5) Needs to Spin the War"

DAVID CORN, for AlterNet


"Don't worry. You'll be safe. We know how to take care of terrorists here."

So said the chuckling immigration officer at Port of Spain the other day. I had been dispatched to Trinidad by the U.S. State Department to conduct a two-day seminar on investigative reporting for local journalists (your tax dollars at work!), and the first Trini I encountered could not resist needling the Americans.

The next day, amid talk of the Freedom of Information Act, finding sources, and Internet-assisted-reporting, one of the fifteen island journalists asked me and my colleague, Bonnie Goldstein, a former investigative producer for ABC News, what we thought of the U.S. media's coverage of the September 11 attacks. Before we could respond, several participants volunteered their opinions.

"The first day was fine, then it was too much, too much."

"Hysterical."

"It was, 'oh, poor, poor us.'"

"Like the United States was the only country ever to be hit by terrorism."

"Self-pity, plenty of self-pity."

A consensus formed: a self-indulgent America was excessively obsessed with its own suffering.

And this was coming from our friends -- reporters who live in a city overflowing with KFC restaurants and who had, on their own accord, come to the information office of the U.S. embassy desperately seeking pointers from American journalists. They were not insensitive to the horror of September 11, but neither were they overly sympathetic to America's pain and fear or deferential to U.S. concerns.

This exchange might have served as a focus group for the White House, as Bush presses his (latest) new initiative to sell overseas the war against terrorism. After a month of bombing, the Administration seemed to conclude it was, as the media cliche went, "losing the PR battle." The Bush White House was not admitting this in public. But others were saying so. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told a newspaper he saw "danger signs" the West was falling behind in this part of the struggle. Various commentators issued similar warnings.

The war-worriers cried that Bush was not only losing ground in the Muslim world but that he also was slipping in Europe.

Bush's actions showed he agreed. In speeches he started comparing the Taliban and al Qaeda -- the "evildoers" -- to the "fascist totalitarians" of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The goal was, as several White House reporters put it, to "demonize" Osama bin Laden. Bush opened rapid-response centers in Washington, London and Pakistan to counter Taliban reports. He sent Karl Rove, his chief political strategist, to Hollywood to take a meeting with studio execs and discuss what the flix-folks can do to bolster America's wartime image. And he hired Charlotte Beers, an advertising honcho once dubbed the Queen of Madison Avenue, to pull together a message operation to pitch the war -- partly via a television and advertising campaign to influence Islamic opinion.

Beers, famous within advertising circles for having handled the Uncle Ben's rice account, serves as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. She told Andrea Mitchell, "I dislike that phrase selling because that's way too arrogant for where we are now. I think the best we can do is open a dialogue of mutual respect and understanding. I'd actually be very satisfied with that."

A dialogue? That's not a very high standard for an ad exec. In another interview, she noted, "What we haven't felt the need to communicate is what is the value system [of the United States] ... What are our beliefs? What do the words 'freedom' and 'tolerance' mean? We are having people who are not our friends define America in negative terms. It is time for us to reignite the understanding of America."

In other words, people elsewhere have America pegged wrong. And that is the fault of the foes of the United States. What does the Administration have in mind to turn this situation around? A Bombing for Tolerance campaign? Ads with Michael Jordan attesting to the goodness of America? (The slogan: "Be like us.") Will Bush intensify Operation Demonization and start referring to bin Laden as the anti-Christ? Movies that show Middle Eastern terrorists plotting mass murder against the decent civilians of the West? (That base has been covered.)

This is not to make light of the seriousness of the massacre committed on September 11 by people who are indeed evil or to diminish the threat of further violence that still exists. But talk of reselling the war kicks up a question Bush and his advisers have not addressed in public: why have they had such a tough time closing the sale?

Bush could not have had an easier set-up. A villain out of a James Bond film unleashes murder and mayhem against thousands of civilians -- including many from countries other than the United States. He essentially acknowledges his culpability and threatens more of the same. He calls for uprisings against various Arab states. He is protected by a regime of totalitarian, misogynistic, extremists who maintain official relations with only three other nations in the world.

How could Bush be outflanked by this foul individual? How much more can bin Laden be demonized? (He's Lucifer and he has nuclear weapons!) Shouldn't a just war, a good war, be largely self-evident? No spinning required? In recent days, pundits, commentators, and administration officials (the latter speaking off the record) have asserted that Washington needs to find and promote Islamic voices that can present the case for the war. As former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke said, "We need to use authentic and credible Muslims, clerics and religious leaders and political speakers ... speaking in their own terms, not just President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, to make clear to the people in the Middle East and the whole Muslim world ... to make clear to them what's going on." But this advice ignores a sad reality: such persons have not felt compelled to spout ringing endorsements of Bush's war. What might be the reasons for this?

Here's a partial answer with two pieces: throughout much of the world, America has no credit to draw upon, and, beyond that, Bush has so bungled the meta-framework of this war that PR efforts may be useless at this point. When you're the only superpower left standing, large portions of the rest of the world may feel resentment and not possess a charitable attitude toward you. But the United States's decision to share only a meager slice of its tremendous wealth with other nations, its my-way-or-the-highway approach to certain international matters, its rapacious consumption of a disproportionate amount of global resources (see SUVs), its occasional heavy-handed interventions on behalf of less-than-exemplary regimes -- all of this has left it little good will in the bank of international sentiment. It rescued Europe six decades ago. But there's been a lot of oil under the bridge since then.

Among my new friends in Trinidad, I sensed a bit of satisfaction that America received a dose of comeuppance. We're sorry, of course we are, yes, but why did you believe you were entitled to protection from the dangers of the world order that you have helped shape, that you benefit from so greatly, and that you claim to lead? So when the United States requests help from others, many are not eager to fall in.

Moreover, Bush has presented his war in a manner that exacerbates rather than ameliorates ambivalence (or antagonism) toward America.

He and his aides keep saying either you're with us or against us. In other parts of the world, this sort of talk might sound bullying, which can reinforce perceptions of U.S. arrogance. The notion that the United States is fighting for freedom, as Bush continually insists, ought to come across as laughable to anyone abroad with a sense of history. Washington has a long record of supporting governments that opposed freedom (Chile, Argentina, the Philippines, Cuba, Nicaragua, South Africa, Greece, Iran, among others). Now it makes common cause with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, nations that do not offer freedom to all their citizens. And it maintains a close relationship with Israel, which denies freedoms to non-Jews within its borders. The United States is not fighting for freedom. It is not fighting for tolerance. (If so, it would send troops into Saudi Arabia). It is fighting to protect itself and to destroy a small group of barbaric individuals who also threaten other nations. That's not a minor thing. But a honest depiction of what was under way might carry more resonance than the phony rhetoric Bush pushes -- and which will be enshrined in sophisticated, celebrity-laden commercials.

As for the civilian casualties in Afghanistan, they indeed are a PR nightmare, and they should be. But is it possible that civilian deaths are even more upsetting when they occur under a false flag?

The problem is not just message. It's deeds -- past and present. This is hardly a radical view. As the subversive Wall Street Journal reported this past week, the Administration's call "for a united front against terrorism" is "gaining little credence" in the Muslim world because U.S. policies "are perceived as biased" and "anger at America serves as a lightning rod for social, economic and political dissatisfaction." The paper quoted a diplomat from a pro-U.S. country, who observed, "So far, the United States is treating this as an advertising and public-relations campaign. To capture the hearts and minds of people, one has to tackle those issues closest to their heart.

The U.S. has to convince people of the integrity and fairness of its policies." The diplomat noted that "the kinds of things Arabs and Muslims are looking for" include "a demonstrated willingness to pressure Israel to moderate its policies toward the Palestinians ... and a policy toward Iraq that targets" Saddam Hussein "without penalizing the Iraqi people."

Holbrooke gripes that "our message isn't getting through because we have bad messages and bad messengers." No doubt. Yet how effective can the policy be, if it is so difficult to explain?


David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation.
Subject: Bush and Putin Agree to Reduce Stockpile of Nuclear Warheads


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:02:47 12/03/01 Mon

Bush and Putin Agree to Reduce Stockpile of Nuclear Warheads

By DAVID E. SANGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/international/14PREX.html?todaysheadlines=&pagewanted=all

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia pledged today to cut their nuclear stockpiles by roughly two-thirds over the next decade, leaving each side with fewer than 2,200 warheads.

But the two nations still seemed far apart on missile defenses, with Mr. Putin resisting American efforts for a quick agreement that would allow Mr. Bush to conduct tests that would violate the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty.

At the start of three days of meetings in Washington and Crawford, Tex., Mr.. Bush told Mr. Putin today that the United States would unilaterally reduce its nuclear arsenal to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads.

While he did not immediately respond to Mr. Bush's announcement, Mr. Putin stressed in a speech tonight at the Russian Embassy that he, too, planned deep cuts.

"Russia declares and reiterates its readiness to make considerable reductions in strategic arms," he said. "We propose a radical program of further reductions of strategic offensive arms by at least three times, to a minimal level necessary for maintaining strategic balance in the world. We no longer have to intimidate each other to reach agreements."

The cuts suggested by each side, while not in any formal agreement, appeared to mark a milestone in strategic relations between the two countries, swiftly achieving deep weapons cuts that used to take years to negotiate.

Russia's current arsenal contains about 5,800 warheads; the reduction Mr. Putin indicated would cut that to about 1,500. The Russians, who cannot afford to maintain their current nuclear arsenal, have stated that number before.

The Russian president, clearly concerned about verifying cuts and making sure no successor to Mr. Bush reverses course, appeared to insist, however, on written agreements. Russia, he said at the news conference, was "prepared to present all our agreements in a treaty form" — exactly what Mr. Bush wants to avoid.

At the embassy, Mr. Putin reiterated his belief in treaties, while appearing to leave room to agree to let the administration pursue missile tests so long as it does not abandon the ABM treaty outright.

It remained unclear whether the differences reflected a gulf that cannot be bridged, or were part of a choreographed scenario to damp expectations about their meeting in Texas.

In a brief conversation after Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin spoke, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell seemed to acknowledge that the talks on amending the ABM Treaty would take longer than he hoped, and perhaps had hit serious obstacles. He warned against expecting the kind of quick accord that Mr. Putin seemed to hint at in recent days.

"You got the public statement that you are going to get and live with for some time," Secretary Powell said. Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, echoed the sentiment, joining the conversation to say, "Don't expect any particular agreement at a particular time."

Mr. Bush has made no secret of his view that the ABM Treaty — and by implication other arms control treaties — are outdated relics of the cold war.. Today, he repeated his distaste for "endless hours of arms control discussions," and suggested that his oral commitment to reduce American arms levels should be sufficient in a new relationship based on trust. With an arch voice, he added, "If we need to write it down on a piece of paper, I'd be glad to do that."

Mr. Putin, at the Russian Embassy, took a markedly different tack. "Indeed, today the world is far from having international relations based solely on trust," he said. "That is why it's so important today to rely on the existing foundation of treaties and agreements in the arms control and disarmament areas."

Their first four-hour meeting at the White House seemed somewhat more tense and formal than their last three sessions this year.

Nonetheless, Mr. Bush characterized today's session, the first of a three-day summit meeting, as "a new day in the history of Russian- American relations, a day of progress and a day of hope."

By the time they met with reporters in the East Room this afternoon, the two leaders sought to emphasize that their four meetings this year had turned them from competitors into allies, and they announced steps to tighten economic links and smooth Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization, which China joined last weekend.

Mr. Bush promised to speed through Congress legislation taking Russia and other former Soviet republics off the list of countries that are subject to economic sanctions under the cold-war-era Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was aimed at nations that restricted emigration of Jews and others. "We intend to dismantle conclusively the vestiges of the cold war," Mr. Putin said.

But the show of warmth could not mask the many indications that despite the agreements and a common belief in the need to fight terrorism, the long-awaited meeting here and at the Bush ranch in Crawford on Wednesday and Thursday may fall short of optimistic expectations.

Mr. Putin had talked extensively before his arrival about his willingness to make compromises that might amend the ABM Treaty, or at least find a way around the restrictions that prevent the United States from proceeding with tests of its antimissile systems.

"We have different points of view about the ABM Treaty," Mr. Bush declared after the meeting, though he said the two men planned to discuss it further at the ranch. Other officials said they were unable to resolve impediments that had stymied American and Russian negotiators in long sessions in the last three days.

The United States now has between 6,000 and 7,000 weapons deployed, depending on how the weapons are counted. That is down sharply from more than 15,000 strategic warheads at the height the cold war. The Start II treaty, which has never been fully carried out, mandates cuts to around 3,000 weapons.

But Mr. Bush said his own review of America's nuclear posture, completed last week, had led him to conclude that the United States could eliminate more than two-thirds of its weapons. By giving a range of numbers, rather than one specific figure, he essentially opted not to resolve a dispute with the Pentagon about exactly how many weapons would be required a decade from now.

He also slightly changed the way weapons are counted: A statement issued by the White House referred to operational nuclear weapons — a figure that would seem to exclude the hundreds being refurbished or inspected at any given time.

Not surprisingly, much of the discussion at the White House was dominated by talk of military strategy in Afghanistan, how to contain the Northern Alliance if it continues to sweep south and ousts the Taliban, and how a post-Taliban government could be established in Afghanistan.

The discussion in itself illustrated how far the two countries have traveled since 1989, when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan after a decade of cold war conflict against Afghan warriors financed and armed by the United States.

Today, Mr. Putin suggested that the joint consultation and action of the last two months was a model for a new military relationship, not only with Washington but also with NATO, the organization created to contain the Soviet Union. "We consider that there are opportunities for an entirely new mechanism," Mr. Putin said, that included "joint decision-making, and coordinated action in the area of security and stability."

Mr. Bush agreed that "NATO members and Russia are increasingly allied against terrorism, regional instability and other threats of our age, and NATO must reflect this alliance." But neither leader publicly mentioned the possibility of eventual Russian membership in NATO, something Mr. Putin discussed at their first encounter, in Slovenia earlier this year.

They still had significant divergences over the campaign in Afghanistan.

Mr. Bush warned the Northern Alliance to halt the widely reported executions of wounded and captured Taliban soldiers. Mr. Putin took a different tack, suggesting that the Taliban were getting what they deserved. "We tend to forget now the atrocities by the Taliban," he said.

He suggested that some of the reports of executions by the Northern Alliance in the Kabul area were manufactured, and he noted that the alliance would have little reason to rampage in its traditional strongholds in the north.

The two men moved gingerly on sensitive issues like Russia's military action in Chechnya and Mr. Putin's use of the tax authorities to crack down on some independent — and critical — Russian media.

Instead, the administration convinced Mr. Putin to sign on to a "Russian-American Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue," which they said would involve journalists and media executives in both countries to "explore ways to improve the conditions necessary for media to flourish as a business in Russia." It was cast entirely as a business advisory group, while the White House clearly intended it to focus on press freedom.

"It was as far as they were willing to go," a senior administration official said.

Another statement by the White House concerned American efforts to help Russia improve security for its nuclear material and to dismantle nuclear warheads. Before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the White House had modestly cut those funds.

Now, however, officials fear that Russia and other former Soviet republics are the most likely source of smuggled uranium or plutonium that could fall into the hands of terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, who has often discussed his desire to develop nuclear weapons. Today, the administration turned out a listing of how it wanted to expand assistance soon.

Among the most interesting of today's announcements was one on Russia's plans to pass laws necessary to open its economy in coming months, a major step toward qualifying for membership in the World Trade Organization.
Subject: Bush to Subject Terrorism Suspects to Military Trials


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:00:50 12/03/01 Mon

IMMIGRATION

Bush to Subject Terrorism Suspects to Military Trials

By ELISABETH BUMILLER and DAVID JOHNSTON
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/national/14DETA.html?todaysheadlines

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — President Bush signed an order today allowing special military tribunals to try foreigners charged with terrorism. A senior administration official said that any such trials would "not necessarily" be public and that the American tribunals might operate in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

At the same time, the Justice Department has asked law enforcement authorities across the country to pick up and question 5,000 men, most from Middle Eastern countries, who entered the country legally in the last two years.

Both actions are part of a sweeping government effort to expand the investigation into Al Qaeda's network and clear the way for the more aggressive prosecution of anyone charged with terrorism.

Mr. Bush signed the order allowing for the military tribunals shortly before leaving this afternoon for his ranch in Crawford, Tex. White House officials said the order did not create a military tribunal or a list of terrorists to be tried. Instead, they said, it was an "option" that the president would have should Osama bin Laden or his associates in Al Qaeda be captured. If the tribunals were created, it would be the first time since World War II that such an approach was used, officials said.

Under the order, the president himself is to determine who is an accused terrorist and therefore subject to trial by the tribunal. The order states that the president may "determine from time to time in writing that there is reason to believe" that an individual is a member of Al Qaeda, has engaged in acts of international terrorism or has "knowingly harbored" a terrorist.

In order to make such a finding, the president needs information, and obtaining information about Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorist acts is the goal of the Justice Department's effort to find and interview the 5,000 men, department officials said.

The people being sought are not believed to be terrorism suspects, and they will not be placed under arrest, the officials said. The interviews are intended to be voluntary.

Nonetheless, officials at the American Civil Liberties Union condemned the Justice Department effort, as well as the executive order allowing military tribunals.

Steven Shapiro, the national legal director of the A.C.L.U., called the effort to interview the 5,000 men a "dragnet approach that is likely to magnify concerns of racial and ethnic profiling."

Laura W. Murphy, the director of the A.C.L.U. Washington National Office, described the order regarding tribunals as "deeply disturbing and further evidence that the administration is totally unwilling to abide by the checks and balances that are so central to our democracy."

White House officials said the tribunals were necessary to protect potential American jurors from the danger of passing judgment on accused terrorists.. They also said the tribunals would prevent the disclosure of government intelligence methods, which normally would be public in civilian courts.

"We have looked at this war very unconventionally," said Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, "and the conventional way of bringing people to justice doesn't apply to these times."

The idea of using tribunals has been suggested by some lawyers outside the government as well.

"It's the most pragmatic way and it's the most legally correct way to adjudicate terrorist war crimes," said Spencer J. Crona, a Denver probate lawyer and the co-author of a 1996 article in the Oklahoma City University Law Journal arguing the merits of military tribunals to try terrorists.

Mr. Crona and his co-author, Neal A. Richardson, a deputy district attorney in Denver, have continued to promote the idea, most recently in an opinion article in September in The Los Angeles Times. Mr. Crona added that terrorists are not "mere criminals" but enemy agents engaged in war crimes against Americans.

But experts in military law said the tribunals would severely limit the rights of any defendant even beyond those in military trials. The tribunals, they said, did not provide for proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and would not require strict rules of evidence like those in military and civilian courts.

"The accused in such a court would have dramatically fewer rights than a person would in a court- martial," said Eugene R. Fidell, the president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

Mr. Fidell said he expected the order to be challenged in court, adding, "It establishes a court that departs in important respects from core aspects of American criminal justice."

Mindy Tucker, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said tribunals would not "preclude any Justice Department options" but would be an "additional tool."

"These are obviously extraordinary times and the president needs to have as many options as possible," Ms. Tucker said.

In signing the military order, a highly unusual act by a president, Mr. Bush invoked his constitutional authority as commander in chief as well as the resolution authorizing military force passed by Congress on Sept. 15. Congress has not passed a formal declaration of war, and military law experts said one was not necessary for Mr. Bush's order.

White House officials said that there was precedent for the military tribunals and that they had been approved by the Supreme Court, first in 1801. Those accused of plotting the assassination of Abraham Lincoln were also tried and convicted by a military court, Bush administration officials said.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, White House officials said, had German saboteurs tried by a military court in World War II; six of them were executed.. The Supreme Court upheld the proceeding, saying that people who entered the United States to wage war were combatants who could be tried in a military court.

"What would you do if you caught bin Laden?" one administration official said tonight. "This is an additional option that is being provided by this order."

Administration officials said a long, public trial might turn Mr. bin Laden into a martyr, and could cause further terrorism in his name.

The names of the 5,000 people that the Justice Department wants to interview were compiled from immigration and State Department records of people who entered the United States since Jan. 1, 2000, on tourist, student or business visas. Only men aged 18 to 33 with these visas who are living in the United States are on the list.

The names of the countries whose citizens have been placed on the list were not made public, but most are Middle Eastern nations thought to have harbored followers of Mr. bin Laden or to have been used by Al Qaeda as a staging base for activities in the United States.

Ms. Tucker, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said she hoped some of the men would help the government thwart further attacks.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamic advocacy group based in Washington, expressed concern about the plan and said the government should publish guidelines for these interviews, including the right of those being interviewed to have legal representation.

"This type of sweeping investigation carries with it the potential to create the impression that interviewees are being singled out because of their race, ethnicity or religion," said Nihad Awad, the group's executive director.

On Capitol Hill, the issue of who is entering the country illegally was in the forefront today, with senators sharply questioning a senior official of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who acknowledged that immigration agents were not required to conduct criminal background checks on immigrants caught crossing the border illegally.

The official, Michael A. Pearson, the executive associate commissioner for field operations, said agents could use their discretion as to whether such a person should be detained or let go pending further action.

Mr. Pearson said that 12,338 undocumented immigrants were arrested for illegal entry along the nation's northern border in the last fiscal year, and that two-thirds of them agreed to return voluntarily to their home countries.. But he was not able to account for the 4,400 people who did not choose to return home voluntarily.

Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate's permanent subcommittee on investigations, responded, "I find that disturbing, to put it mildly."

Questioned by Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, Mr. Pearson said it was true that the I.N.S. had no ability to verify that illegal immigrants who were let go but told to leave the country actually did leave.

Ms. Collins replied, "If there's no system for checking if the individual has actually left in the 30 days as promised, isn't it likely they are not leaving?"

Mr. Pearson said, "That could certainly be the case."
Subject: Bush Orders : Terror Trials by Military


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:58:39 12/03/01 Mon

Truthout: http://www.truthout.com/11.14A.Terror.htm

November 13, 2001

Bush Orders : Terror Trials by Military

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 6:29 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush signed an order Tuesday that would allow the government to try people accused of terrorism in front of a special military commission instead of in civilian court.

The order, signed by Bush before he left for Crawford, Texas, gives the administration another avenue to bring the Sept. 11 terrorists to justice, White House counsel Albert Gonzales told The Associated Press.

``This is a new tool to use against terrorism,'' Gonzales said in a telephone interview. He said there were precedents in World War II and the Civil War.

The White House was to release the order late Tuesday.

Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court judge who is the president's top lawyer, said a military commission could have several advantages over a civilian court. It is easier to protect the sources and methods of investigators in military proceedings, for example, and a military trial can be held overseas.

Gonzales said there may be times when prosecutors feel a trial in America would be unsafe.

``There may not be a need for this and the president may make a determination that he does not want to use this tool, but he felt it appropriate that he have this tool available to him,'' the lawyer said.

The order is the latest effort by the administration to toughen the nation's laws against terrorists.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration pushed through Congress an anti-terrorism bill that Bush said was vital but civil liberties groups said went to far, violating Americans' constitutional rights. It expands the FBI's wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority and imposes stronger penalties for harboring or financing terrorists. The measure also increases the number of crimes considered terrorist acts and toughens the punishments for committing them.

Under the new order, Bush could establish a military commission in the future by asking the secretary of defense to establish the rules for one.

``This does not identify by name who should be exposed to military justice,'' Gonzales said. ``It just provides the framework that, should the president have findings in the future, he could'' order Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to establish such a commission.

Gonzales said there is precedent for such panels.

President Franklin Roosevelt had World War II saboteurs tried by military commission, as did President Lincoln during the Civil War, the lawyer said. Indeed, Lincoln assassination plotters were tried and convicted by military court, he said.

``This is a global war. To have successful prosecutions, we might have to give up sources and methods'' in a civilian court. ``We don't want to have to do that.''

Gonzalez said: ``Any individual subject to the order would be given a full and fair trial, pursuant to the secretary of defense.''

The administration has been considering both military and civilian trial options. In either scenario, any suspect would retain rights to a lawyer and to a trial by jury.

The military proceedings would give the government greater latitude, according to one military law expert. New York attorney Victor St. John said last month, ``A military court would probably have more control over things like media coverage and location. There is certainly a greater sense of security and formality that might keep things from dissolving into a circus.''
Subject: After battle, two soldiers find some spiritual healing -Native Vets Did and Are Doing Their Duty


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:57:38 12/03/01 Mon

After battle, two soldiers find some spiritual healing
Native Vets Did and Are Doing Their Duty
BY JODI RAVE LEE
Lincoln Journal Star
http://www.journalstar.com/nebraska?story_id=4765&past=

VERMILLION, S.D. - In the early morning before the sun breaks the horizon, a spirit horse brought back the two combat veterans' souls.

"I could hear it, smell it, feel its breath when it snorted and feel the breeze when it left," said Jim Brown of the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska. "I could hear his hooves on the ground."

In the daylight, there were no hoofprints; instead, only solace. After nearly 30 years of post-traumatic stress disorder, Brown and his friend Clifford Martell reunited with their spirits during a wakte gli, or Lakota healing ceremony for warriors.

Today Brown, behavioral health director for the Bemidji (Minn.) Area Indian Health Service, and Martell, director for the Family Living Center at the Leech Lake Tribal College in Cass Lake, Minn., know peace.

The ceremony proved to be powerful, said Martell, a Dakota: "That's when I learned to love. That's when I learned to cry." Each summer for the past four years, the vets have participated in the wakte gli near the Vermillion River in South Dakota.

Brown, an Army soldier, and Martell, a Marine, shared their story Oct. 19 at the Red Road Gathering, a Native healing conference that takes place each fall on the University of South Dakota campus.

The ceremony was difficult, but the men were strong, said Gene Thin Elk, a spiritual leader and an organizer of the Red Road Gathering.

"They walked through the valley of hurt and pain and came out on the other side. They came out with something powerful. They came out with forgiveness." Brown and Martell both served in Vietnam during the late 1960s and were among 42,000 Native men who fought there for America.

According to the U.S. Defense Department, of those numbers, 90 percent were volunteers.

Reliving the battle The men shared their healing story with those at last month's gathering. "I was a Marine," Martell said. "I was a good Marine. I was a sniper. I was a good sniper. That was my job, to kill. Like so many others, those lives that we take stay with us and remain with us for quite some time.

They eat away at our soul when we barely had any." Even though he returned from the jungle, the battle wasn't over. Vietnam was thousands of miles away, but the memories weren't. They became more real for both men during powwows.

When the traditional dancers dressed for a powwow, it was almost like preparing for war. They put on an eagle feather bustle instead of battle fatigues. They placed a porcupine roach piece on their head instead of a helmet. They wore a bone breastplate instead of a flak jacket. They carried a fur-wrapped staff instead of an M-16 machine gun.

Dressed in their new armament, Brown and Martell proudly wore their regalia into the dance arena. "When we were out there, we'd reminisce," said Martell. Once there, the men found a circle of friends - other veterans who shared their battle stories - each recounting time spent in the hot jungle.

But when the powwow was over, sadness set in. "When the powwow was done and everyone left, that was an unbearable feeling," said Brown.

A normal life After their tour of duty in Vietnam, the men were welcomed home. It's common for Native veterans of all wars to receive high honors and recognition in their communities.

Despite the accolades given a modern-day warrior, the men stepped back into a world that wasn't the same. They drank, fought, sabotaged relationships. Brown said he was "drinking for all the wrong reasons, drinking to get drunk. There was so much pain within me.

My spiritual world wasn't with me yet. I drank to pass out. I did so many terrible things in Vietnam, to kids, to women, to prisoners." He said he did what he was trained to do. "I was going to survive. I was a warrior.

They taught us how to kill - some of us did a damn good job at it." His tour of duty ended in 1968. "When we came home, no one taught us how to live, how to feel," said Brown.

"Coming home was probably the hardest thing I had to do." Although he openly talked about Vietnam, he said he was ashamed. His life was stymied by dysfunction, he said.

"What did it get us? Not a thing but to feel worse about who we are." He quit drinking in 1972 and later worked as an alcohol and drug treatment counselor in Sioux City, Iowa. No matter. "I thought I knew spirituality through AA (Alcoholics Anonymous)," said Brown.

"I didn't know shit. You call Ground Zero New York. For me, Ground Zero was right out there when I stepped out the door." As Martell spoke to the Red Road group, he advised those trying to heal:

"Don't hold it in. When you do, you end up like us. It tears you apart." He recalled how one day he "broke down and cried," and went to Brown's house. Both knew they needed help.

The healing journey About six years ago, Brown, who used to live in Vermillion, began talking with the Sun Dance community and Thin Elk, a cultural adviser on the University of South Dakota campus. He asked about using ceremonies to help warriors recover from traumatic battle experiences.

Thin Elk told the men to come to South Dakota for the wakte gli and the Red Road Gathering. "It was the best thing in my life," said Martell. "I can't explain it."

Part of their healing involved going "up on the hill" for typical four-day stretches each summer for the past four years. During that time, they prayed and fasted. "When I went to the hill, there was no negotiating," said Brown. "It was just me and the Creator . . . for me, that's the best therapy."

Native people could get better if they relied on the old ways, said Thin Elk: "We have powerful ceremonies." Each year on the hill, the men continued to heal and learn something different. Those experiences led a spirit horse to Brown, then Martell.

The vision scared Brown at first, he said, because the horse typically takes spirits to the other side - and does not bring them back. Before the horse came, Brown had a particularly fitful night. He remembers feeling like he was back in Vietnam, back in the jungle.

A Vietnamese grandma and grandpa visited him, too - to smile and forgive him. That night on the hill, he would also lock and load his weapon for the last time, letting the clip drop to the ground. "I heard a voice say: 'Clear your weapon. You're home.' "

Reach Jodi Rave Lee at 402-473-7240 or jrave@journalstar.com.

BY KEVIN ABOUREZKLincoln Journal Star http://www.journalstar.com/nebraska?story_id=4765&past=

It was supposed to be a milk run, a routine supply mission of a patrol unit in the field. But the muggy, Vietnamese afternoon spiraled out of control as Matt Jones' chopper crashed to the ground. The crash killed the pilot and mortally wounded the co-pilot and second gunner. Jones, with few medical supplies and little training, did what he could for his buddies for two hours until enemy soldiers forced him to take to the jungle.

The 53-year-old Kiowa-Otoe-Missouri described those two hours as the worst of his life. "That disturbed me more than when I extracted wounded," Jones said. "During that time, (the gunner) passed away. Thirty minutes later, the pilot died. About that time I started hearing the Vietnamese language being spoken."

In Vietnam, more than 42,000 Natives fought the communist North Vietnamese. More than 90 percent of Native men and women who fought in Vietnam were volunteers, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.

Native veterans number about 190,000 today, and Native people have the highest record of service per capita when compared to other racial groups, according to government figures.

They joined the military, in many ways, to fulfill the warrior tradition of their ancestors and to gain the respect of American society.

Ken Amen, 27, would agree.

The Omaha Native enlisted in the Army in March. He is now on alert to be shipped to the Middle East. With a cousin, great-grandfather and several uncles having served in the military, Amen said it seemed only natural for him to join.

"I still feel it's our country, and that's what I defend," he said.

Amen said he attended a powwow at the Lincoln Indian Center a few months ago in which he wore his Army coat and tie. He remembers a white veteran of World War II telling him he was proud to see young people still willing to serve in the military.

"For a brief moment, race was put aside, and we had something in common," Amen said. Native people have great respect for their veterans, who often become tribal leaders, Jones said. "For a Native person, warrior status is probably the highest status you can get," he said. His people's tradition of military service guided him through Vietnam, Jones said. It also guided him through the alcoholism that nearly destroyed him years later.

It was an affliction that started with the fear of a 19-year-old boy lost in the misty jungles of Vietnam. Shortly after two friends died near his downed helicopter, Jones set off on an 18-day journey through the jungle back to American lines with the enemy unit following.

Jones eventually stumbled into an ambush by American soldiers. The G.I.s, thinking he was part of a larger North Vietnamese patrol unit, waited until he and the three enemy soldiers behind him walked into their ambush zone. Recognizing Jones as an American, they opened fire on his pursuers, killing all three.

"I played a little cat-and-mouse for 18 days with those guys," he said last week, sighing as if fresh from the jungle canopy. "I got four of them."

When Jones returned to the States, he tried to forget the things he saw in Vietnam. Still, the fear and grief he tried to suppress continued to haunt him, driving him to drink, until his wife divorced him in 1984. It was a wake-up call for Jones, who sobered up with the help of his family and Native cultural traditions.

Jones remembers with fondness the support his uncle gave him. The old Korean War veteran would listen to him and share his own war experiences.

Because so many Native people are veterans, Native soldiers tend to have plenty of emotional and psychological support, Jones said, support he couldn't have done without.

"Our people talk about their experiences in war," he said. "I think that has helped us heal a lot better."

Reach Kevin Abourezk at 402-473-7237 or kabourezk@journalstar.com.
Subject: The New Political Terrain in the US by C Clarke Kissinger


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:51:35 12/03/01 Mon

-----Original Message-----
From: Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:52 AM
To: Recipient List Suppressed
Subject: The New Political Terrain in the US by C Clarke Kissinger


The New Political Terrain in the U.S.
in the Aftermath of September 11

By C. Clark Kissinger

Since the September attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it has been commonplace to say that "the whole world has changed," or at least in the United States "everything has changed." But what exactly has changed? What does it mean for all our futures? And will we even be allowed to talk about it?

The Great Round-Up

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.


Pastor Martin Niemoeller

One dramatic aftermath of September 11 has been the sweeping scale of the arrests and detention without charges. Government agents descend upon communities, and people are bundled into cars and taken away.

As of this writing, the number of people in detention is well over 1,100. The detainees seem to fall into three categories. One group consists of those arrested for immigration offenses. Only a few of these people are thought to be connected in any way with terrorist activity. Most were just swept up in the dragnet or turned in by suspicious neighbors. They are being held in INS facilities awaiting deportation.

The second group consists of people picked up as possible abettors of terrorist crimes, as well as those arrested on unrelated charges in the course of the investigation. They are being held in various facilities all over the country.

Typical of these people is Bader al-Hazmi, an Egyptian doctor doing a residency in radiology in Texas. His story was recently profiled in the New York Times Magazine. Dr. al-Hazmi was snatched from his home in San Antonio by FBI agents, who flew him to New York where he was held for 13 days without charges. His only crime was having a name spelled similar to that of one of the alleged airplane hijackers who flew into the World Trade Center.

Finally, there is a very small group of people being held, who are believed to have some connection with the World Trade Center attack. Where the authorities don't have any proof yet, these people are being detained as "material witnesses." Most of these prisoners are believed to be held in the federal government's Metropolitan Correctional Center in lower Manhattan. MCC, as the facility is known, has been the high-security holding tank for dozens of people from other countries picked up over recent years and held indefinitely on secret evidence that even their lawyers cannot see.

Although there have been some releases, the total number of persons still held in secret detention is not known because the government refuses to release names and locations.

In addition, immediately after September 11, many political prisoners all across the country, ranging from religious anti-war activists like Father Philip Berrigan to former Black Panther Sundiata Acoli to active Muslim inmates, were thrown into "administrative segregation" (i.e., locked down and isolated from the general prison population). Many of them were cut off from contact even with their attorneys for weeks.

The absence of public outcry against these mass roundups and lockdowns has been appalling. It is as if the government need only pronounce the magic word "terrorist," and all objections melt away. Yet the whole point of Martin Niemoeller's famous quotation is that the only way to stop a police state is to spring to the defense of its very first victims, no matter how unpopular they may be.

We are prone to think of these mass round-ups as something without precedent and an aberration within a free society provoked by extraordinary circumstances. Unfortunately they are not, and the precedents are infamous.

Two that come to mind are the Palmer Raids of 1919-1920 (named after then Attorney General Palmer), when federal agents staged simultaneous raids across the country to arrest thousands of aliens considered by the government to be dangerous anarchists and communists. Hundreds were summarily deported. Even more chilling was the throwing of 110,000 U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps during World War 2. Not a single Japanese-American was ever charged with any act of disloyalty.

Both the Palmer Raids and the mass internment of Japanese-Americans were done by executive order and without legislative authority. What is unprecedented in the current situation is that the government now proposes to enact that authority.

Sweeping New Police-State Legislation

....the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.


George Orwell, in his novel 1984

Some very dangerous new legislation has been jammed through the Congress. Known as the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001," the final version passed the Senate on a vote of 98 to 1 and the House on a vote of 357 to 66.

This legislation is the love child of President Bush and the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle. The effect of the new legislation is to sweep away remaining vestiges of the Fourth Amendment protection against search and seizure. It will vastly expand the federal government's powers as follows:

It will grant authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to "computer fraud." It permits the disclosure of supposedly secret grand jury testimony to federal police agencies. It permits "roving wiretaps"-- authority to tap any phone used by the target of a wiretap warrant. It permits the search warrant seizure of voice mail messages, allows subpoena of temporarily assigned e-mail addresses, and "permits" internet service providers to disclose the e-mail of their customers "to protect life and limb."

It goes on to permit "sneak and peek" searches, where a search warrant is executed but the target of the search is not informed until later. That is, your home can be searched while you are at work and they don't have to tell you about it. It has a ton of provisions to monitor bank accounts, supposedly to stop money laundering and the transfer of money to terrorists. And it mandates financial institutions to report "suspicious activities," while granting such institutions immunity from law suits for doing so.

The new law amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require a consumer reporting agency to furnish all information in a consumer's file to a government agency authorized to conduct investigations of terrorism. It allows the FBI to request telephone toll records. It amends the General Education Provisions Act and the National Education Statistics Act to provide for disclosure of students' records to the Attorney General.

It provides for the mandatory detention until deportation of any citizen of another country certified by the Attorney General as a suspected terrorist or threat to national security. The pro-government media reported that this new legislation allows for detention for seven days without charges. What the new law actually allows is the holding of any alien for up to six months, solely at the discretion of the head of a government security agency. Then this period of detention may be repeatedly extended every six months without any new review. It also allows terrorism crimes by members of organizations to be used to shut down those (otherwise legal) organizations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law.

Finally, it establishes regional "computer forensic laboratories," and provides temporary authority to withhold from Congress reports on intelligence and intelligence-related matters.

On October 31, the Justice Department announced new regulations concerning federal prisoners. Henceforth, any federal prisoner suspected of terrorism or any act of "violence" will no longer be allowed to have private meetings with their lawyers. All conversations between lawyers and these prisoners will be monitored. At the same time, the government is considering the use of "seditious conspiracy" charges. This requires very little in the way of proof; it only requires that one defendant make a deal with the government to testify that he "conspired" with the other defendants.

These actions by the federal government have been supplemented by new state and local legislation. For example, a few days after September 11 the New York state legislature hustled through a series of vague new laws with Draconian penalties. In New York state, "hindering" the prosecution of a terrorist can now get you 20 years to life.

The New York Times Magazine ran a major article on the development of face recognition software, and reported on the use in London of video cameras that watch all public areas for wanted persons. Everywhere security is tightened. For weeks in New York, there were police checkpoints on the major bridges checking IDs. Amtrak announced that you would have to produce a photo ID to buy a train ticket. And numerous calls were made for the establishment of a national ID card that would contain encoded personal information which could be read by police.

For the first time that I can remember, there is open discussion in the media of the need for the government to use torture to extract information from suspects. This has now come up in Newsweek magazine, the Fox News Channel, CNN, ABC Nightline, and The Wall Street Journal.

None of this has much to do with actually stopping terrorist attacks on innocent civilians, but it does have a lot to do with what the government is planning for the future.

War Powers--At Home and Abroad

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or individuals.


from the September 15 Joint Resolution of Congress

This is an incredibly broad mandate of military power to the president. It goes beyond the Tonkin Bay Resolution which gave Lyndon Johnson a free rein to start the war on Vietnam (which lasted for 12 years). Because of that tragic experience, in 1973 the congress passed the War Powers Act that is supposed to restrict the power of the president to start wars on his own. That law requires the president to report back to congress within 60 days of putting troops in any situation that may result in armed conflict and get congressional approval to continue.

How does that apply here? It doesn't, because in another part of the same September 15 resolution, the congress gave Bush the authorization to continue in advance! He doesn't need to come back for further congressional authorization. Only one member of congress, Rep. Barbara Lee, had the courage to vote against this transfer of power to the president.

The second thing to note here is that there is no distinction made between foreign and domestic. After the Civil War, the congress passed a law that the armed forces could not be used for domestic law enforcement. This sweeping new authorization appears to override that, and give the president the authority to deploy the military against organizations and individuals domestically.

As if to drive home that point, the administration promptly called up thousands of National Guard troops and began deploying them around airports and other installations. They are being deployed to carry out a police function and make the point that people should get used to seeing armed soldiers in the new America.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has appointed the Secretary of the Army, Thomas White, to direct the military's efforts against terrorism inside the U.S. White, who will continue as Secretary of the Army, favors creating a combat command for homeland security commanded by a four-star general.

Then on November 8, Attorney General Ashcroft announced "a wartime reorganization and mobilization of the nation's justice and law enforcement resources to meet the mission of the Department of Justice."

Some people have put a false hope in the so-called "sunset" provision of the new "USA Patriot" Act, that causes it to expire in four years unless renewed by congress. A more realistic assessment was given by Vice President Cheney, speaking to Republican governors on October 25. "Many of the steps we have now been forced to take will become permanent in American life," Cheney said. "I think of it as the new normalcy."

Better You Don't Know

The first casualty when war comes is truth.


Sen. Hiram Johnson

A few years ago, the media was trumpeting a wonderful new technology: private satellite photography. Through the marvelous medium of free enterprise, any of us would be able to log on to the internet and purchase current satellite photos of anywhere in the world. No longer would knowledge about events in far off places be the sole property of government.

So, what happened when the U.S. began using Stealth bombers against Afghanistan? The National Imagery and Mapping Agency of the Defense Department simply purchased all of the rights to pictures of Afghanistan taken by the world's best commercial imaging satellite! The purchase contract allows the Defense Department to keep the images secret forever. As Adam Clayton Powell III, vice president of the Freedom Forum, observed: "This sets a precedent for the government to buy up all of the capability of a technology that can be used for independent verification and basic reporting."

The next step taken by the government was to "ask" all the major networks not to broadcast the videotaped statements of Osama bin Laden. They all readily agreed. According to the New York Times: "The decision, the first time in memory that the networks had agreed to a joint arrangement to limit their prospective news coverage, was described by one network executive as a 'patriotic' decision." The government's excuse for this blatant act of censorship was that bin Laden might be sending secret messages in his recorded interviews.

The problem, of course, was that the Arab television network Al Jazeera was being broadcast all over the world via satellite, so the U.S. networks were unable to cut off bin Laden's statements (at least in Arabic). As the New York Times lamented in a later article, "As recently as a decade ago, such an agreement between the government and broadcasters might have prevented Mr. bin Laden from communicating by television with any followers in the United States. No more. The global village simply has too many pathways."

Unable to censor those abroad, the U.S. resorted to its time-honored custom of censoring those at home. First to feel the axe was Bill Maher from the late night TV program Politically Incorrect. Maher had suggested that people who flew airplanes into buildings should not be called cowards; that label belonged more to those who bombed people from a safe distance. He was immediately forced to apologize--for being politically incorrect on Politically Incorrect.

Next the censors went after the popular comic strip "Boondocks." When artist Aaron McGruder wouldn't toe the official line on the war--and had his lead character Huey run down the history of the CIA in Afghanistan--editors refused to publish the strip.

One of the major radio chains, Clear Channel, made a list of songs that were considered unpatriotic and suggested they should not be played on the air. (The entire collected works of Rage Against the Machine made the list.)

Journalists and college professors were threatened for voicing dissent.

Referring to the censorship of Bill Maher, Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer warned reporters in a White House press briefing that "people have to watch what they say and watch what they do." Then, as if to demonstrate the new climate expected of reporters, the official transcript of press briefing omitted that remark by Fleischer!

Next the censors went after dissenting internet sites. Not only were Arab language web sites hit, but so were sites supporting the Irish struggle. For example, Radio Free Erieann which broadcasts on WBAI in New York maintained an archive of its program at IRAradio.com. Cosmic Entertainment Co. which maintained the web site was "strongly advised" by their Internet Service Provider Hypervine to take the site down. Hypervine told Cosmic Entertainment that the newly created Office of Homeland Security can seize all assets of any company or person "that helps, supports, or does anything that can be called or labeled terrorism or is found to be connected to terrorism in any way or means possible."

Ideology and "Homeland Security"

A political and ideological program of "Resurgent America" is being cultivated and guided from the highest offices in the land. Its prominent themes--a "moral awakening of the nation" and the drive for America to be Number One in the world by force of arms--have a distinctly fascist aura and raise the specter of a police state.


from the founding statement

of Refuse & Resist!

Going beyond the censorship, there has been a vast ideological campaign to unite the country behind the war and police-state policies of the administration. TV networks endlessly broadcast banners across their news programs proclaiming "America Under Attack." The unmistakable message has been that "we are all in this together," "America is standing tall," "America is fighting back," and "You're either with us or you're against us."

In New York immediately after the attack on the World Trade Center, there was a massive organized campaign around patriotic themes. Firemen were sent to hang giant flags from the sides of buildings. Street vendors, who are normally harassed by the cops, were given free rein to peddle flags and patriotic ribbons. Initially, the patriotic display was linked to the rescue effort which everyone supported. But then, step-by-step, the theme was transformed to support for the war against Afghanistan (and other countries yet to be named).

A special team was assembled at the White House to write a "presidential" address for Bush to read to a joint session of congress on September 20. Immediately afterward we were told that his approval rating had shot up to 89%, and that everyone was now hot to bomb Afghanistan.

To reassure the U.S.'s Muslim allies and to win popular support for his war moves and police measures in the U.S., the President denounced vigilante attacks on Muslims and Arab people. At the same time, FBI and police were systematically profiling Arab people for arrest and detention. And in the popular media, reactionary talkshow hosts were venting American jingoism and anti-Arab propaganda.

Quite predictably, the result was a series of attacks against Arabs, mosques, and anyone who even looked like they might be Arab, such as Sikhs from India who wear turbans. Right-wing outlets like the Washington Times and the Jewish Defense Organization were busy publishing the names of left-wing groups and individuals who were "supporting the enemy."

The ugliness of all this was expressed most vividly by New York Mayor Giuliani in his October 1 address to the United Nations: "You're either with civilization or with terrorists. On one side is democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life; on the other is tyranny, arbitrary executions, and mass murder.... Let those who say that we must understand the reasons for terrorism come with me to the thousands of funerals we are having in New York City...." In other words, to even ask why this happened is to dishonor the innocent victims. So shut up.

The patriotism campaign escalated with the call by Education Secretary Ron Paige for all of the nation's 52 million school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance simultaneously on Friday, October 12. One major school district that refused to go along, Madison, WI, was made the focus of a national attack, and it eventually gave in.

As if to soften the hard edge somewhat, the compulsory patriotism campaign was given a thin veneer of humanitarian aid. While the children were all forced to pledge allegiance to the government that was raining bombs down on incredibly impoverished people in Afghanistan, at the same time the president asked them each to donate a dollar for aid to the Afghani children who were being bombed. Similarly, as the planes dropped their bomb loads, little yellow bags sporting American flags fluttered down bearing gifts of peanut butter, strawberry jam, and shortbread cookies.

Not surprisingly, after compulsory patriotism had forced open the school door, Christian religious observance was right behind.

In the current climate, dozens of schools districts across the South are openly defying the Supreme Court ban on prayer broadcast at school sporting events. In South Carolina, there is a bill in the legislature to turn the moment of silence that begins the school day into a moment of prayer--something else declared unconstitutional. In doing this, they are led by a White House that publicly touts prayer as an adjunct to state power and welcomes patriarchal Christian fundamentalists into its administration.

To lead this whole effort at home, President Bush announced the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and announced the appointment of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge to head the office. As the new Director of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge is a scary choice. Ridge, like Bush, is an ardent supporter of executions. While governor of Pennsylvania, he signed 220 death warrants, including two against Mumia Abu-Jamal. Ridge has selected as his deputy retired Admiral Charles Abbot. Abbot was deputy to General Wesley Clark during the recent war on Yugoslavia, and worked under Vice President Dick Cheney directing a domestic security review.

The whole effort seemed climaxed by the great Anthrax scare. There is still no evidence to connect the small number of Anthrax-bearing letters that were sent to the attack on the World Trade Center. But we do know that prior to the new scare, over 170 abortion clinics and doctor's offices in 14 states had received letters claiming to contain anthrax. Then in just the last few weeks, two hundred abortion clinics and pro-choice organizations have received FedEx packages containing a white powder and a threat of anthrax signed by the "Army of God." The Army of God is a domestic Christian-fascist organization. But reporting on this doesn't fit with the repeated calls by some in the administration who speculate on an Iraqi source for the anthrax, and call for extending the "war on terrorism" to an invasion of Iraq.

Why Do They Hate Us?

Americans are asking, "Why do they hate us?"

They hate what they see right here in this chamber....


President George W. Bush,

addressing a joint session of Congress

Americans are asking, why do they hate the United States? This is a very important question that people need to be discussing everywhere. But President Bush's answer is downright ridiculous. His claim is that people hate the U.S. because of its democratic form of government.

Now think about that for a minute. Can anyone really imagine that what makes people willing to kill themselves by flying planes into buildings is that we get to vote for George Bush or Al Gore (before the Supreme Court makes the actual decision)? Can we really imagine that there are people in Third World countries, gritting their teeth and hurling curses at America because sometimes the Senate is run by Trent Lott and sometimes by Tom Daschle? Not likely.

The answer seems to be more rooted in the enormous imbalance of wealth in the world, and the determination of the U.S. government to keep it that way by supporting every vicious local tyrant in the world willing to do the U.S.'s bidding--and then stabbing some of them in the back. Whoever was responsible for the attacks of September 11, it is clear that the current crisis is the inevitable and terrible outcome of these twisted alliances and the deep injustices resulting from U.S. domination in the Middle East.

Rather than seeking "justice," the government's aim seems more directed at recasting power relationships in South Asia and the Middle East and to maintain and increase U.S. domination of these vital oil-producing areas.

Yet what is offered to everyone is a devil's bargain: "If you will just give up all your civil liberties and join with us in a campaign to eradicate the anti-American infidels, we will protect you from the fallout from our actions in the world." This then becomes an avenue and justification for standing with the world's greatest power against untold millions of oppressed and exploited people of the world.

Personally, as a revolutionary internationalist I think the people of the world need to hear a different message from us. They need to hear that we know what this government is doing and why it is so hated by millions of people around the world. All those who seriously want justice need to reach out to the people of the world, to stand together against the crimes of this system, and to strengthen our resistance against every act of war and repression.

But regardless of how anyone analyses these questions, what has been brought home so tragically in the events of September 11 is that America can no longer find safety in some kind of "gated community" at the world level. Clearly there are people so angry with what the U.S. has done to their countries that they will stop at nothing to strike back. And what is needed now is great national debate, free of censorship and demagoguery by the administration, on who has caused this and how we should respond.

The Need to Resist

Some of us strongly believe in the principles and values to which this country has historically aspired; others of us find oppression and injustice to be rooted in these same principles. But ALL of us agree on the need to repudiate this new course of "Resurgent America." The transformation now taking place is not some periodic swing of the pendulum from "left" to "right," but a departure directly connected to preparations for war, repression of dissent, and promotion of U.S. global dominance and superiority over other people.....


from the founding statement

of Refuse & Resist!

Times of great danger are also moments when millions of people come into political life, begin to question what they are told, and are called upon to consider real choices. Getting voices of dissent and exposure out there into society is not so easy to do right now. To even have such a national discourse requires that we now fight for the space and the freedom to inform, debate, and protest. But we fail to do this at our own peril.

Most heartening have been the actions of thousands of people across the country who have spoken out in protest against the war and against the ugly climate of xenophobia and repression. Tens of thousands have marched against the bombing, ordinary people have gone to the defense of their Muslim neighbors, and organizations of lawyers and civil libertarians have exposed and denounced the new police-state measures.

The need now is to bring together all those who oppose these new policies, regardless of their views on many other issues. It is crucial to work together in support of the right to dissent and in defense of those who exercise that right in the coming period. People have to be mobilized to speak out, to take up this fight, and to build the resistance to all forms of repression.
Subject: Warning: Lawmakers will lock up the Net


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:49:53 12/03/01 Mon

Warning: Lawmakers will lock up the Net

By Robert Lemos ZDNet News
November 7, 2001 5:44 PM PT
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5099356,00.html

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--The computer and Internet industries need to work together to promote better security online, or lawmakers are likely to regulate the Web, a Washington, D.C., lobbyist said at the Trusted Computing conference Wednesday.

Congress has become impatient with the perceived lack of progress by industry, said Michael O'Neill, a partner with lobbyist firm Preston Gates Rouvelas Ellis & Meeds, adding that government-mandated security guidelines may be coming.

"Help yourselves," O'Neill told industry representatives at Microsoft's security forum. "Fix security soon, or Washington will do it for you." O'Neill represents the pro-encryption tech-industry group Americans for Computer Privacy.


Government regulation has always been a big fear of the technology industry. Under the Clinton administration, the Federal Trade Commission looked ready to step in to regulate companies' data-collection practices to guarantee baseline privacy for consumers. The Bush administration, however, has seemed to favor a more hands-off approach.

"The case has not been adequately made for regulation," Mozelle Thompson, one of five commissioners with the FTC, said during a morning keynote address in which he called for the public and private sectors to collaborate.

But Internet security affects more than consumers. Business and government data are also at risk, and that could lead to more pressure to legislate, O'Neill said, especially if terrorists use the Internet to conduct attacks.

"Internet regulation is likely," he said. "Sooner or later, unless more effort is put into computer security by industry, Congress is going to want action on security. Not because it might be effective, but because they need to do something."

Even before the Sept. 11 attacks, lawmakers were sounding out legislation with an aim to better secure the Internet. Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat and author of the controversial Security Systems Standards and Certification Act, has repeatedly warned that Congress may take a hand in security.

Yet many Internet industry representatives believe the government is not ready to consider regulation.

The issue is too complex right now to be legislated, said Tatiana Gau, senior vice president for integrity assurance at AOL Time Warner and a conference attendee.

"It is less clear right now what are good baseline standards for security," she said. "And the bar is going to constantly shift." Any legislation that attempted to create a standard for security would be outdated before it reached the president's desk, she added.

"People said privacy regulations were imminent a few years ago," Gau said. "And self regulation has shown that industry can be responsible about protecting itself and consumers."

Almost 200 industry representatives, policy-makers and security experts are meeting at Microsoft's Trusted Computing conference this week.
Subject: Afghanistan: Risk of reprisals


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:48:52 12/03/01 Mon

* News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International *

13 November 2001
ASA 11/029/2001
200/01


The civilian population of Afghanistan has again been put at risk by the failure of the international community to protect them, Amnesty International said today as the Northern Alliance reached Kabul and reports were received of the execution of captured fighters.

"The rapid advance of the Northern Alliance into Kabul
without any international arrangements to safeguard civilians is a clear indication that the military agenda has overtaken human rights concerns", Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International said.

"The Afghan population is at the mercy of armed political
groups with an appalling human rights record. We have the
gravest concerns for the people of Kabul who are now at high risk of reprisal attacks and killings." The Secretary General also expressed concern about the summary execution of soldiers adding, "Human rights abuses committed by the Taleban cannot be used to justify new abuses by the Northern Alliance; these killings must stop."

Highlighting in particular the responsibility of the US,
UK and Russia as permanent members of the UN Security Council, Irene Khan added, "Those countries which supplied arms to and supported the Northern Alliance are responsible for ensuring that the Alliance conducts itself within international humanitarian law and does not use its arms to commit further abuses. If there is bloodshed, the blood is also on their hands. They must fulfil their responsibility and ensure that civilians are protected, and ensure that the political future of Afghanistan is a fair and inclusive one, based on respect for human rights without discrimination."

Read Amnesty International's latest report on Afghanistan,
"Afghanistan, Making human rights the agenda" on the web at:
http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/asa110232001?opendocument
****************************************************************
You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the list subscription message may be removed.
****************************************************************
Past and current Amnesty
news services can be found at .
Visit for information about Amnesty International and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@amnesty.org if you need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of Amnesty International.
Subject: United Kingdom: Emergency legislation: trial not indefinite detention is the answer


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:45:40 12/03/01 Mon

* News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International *

13 November 2001
EUR 45/018/2001
200/01


Amnesty International UK has reacted with alarm to the UK
government's announcement that indefinite detention without trial
provisions are to be introduced in new proposed anti-terrorism
legislation ? to be published by the government today.

Amnesty International warned that the measures risk leading to
the imprisonment of innocent people without charge or trial.

Amnesty International UK Director of Communications Richard
Bunting said:

"People who carry out heinous crimes and human rights abuses such
as the horrific attacks on the USA on 11 September must be
brought to justice.

"If UK laws need tightening to allow the prosecution and trials
of such people, then they should be tightened, but without
undermining basic rights.

"The answer to well-planned acts of outrage is well-planned
policing, international co-operation, public vigilance,
surveillance and proper judicial procedures ? all in conformity
with international standards."

Amnesty International reminds the Government that 'internment'
measures have resulted in human rights violations and failed to
deter political violence in several parts of the world, including
in Northern Ireland.

Amnesty International has outlined its concerns in a submission
to the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee Short Inquiry into
the proposed Emergency Anti-terrorism Bill. The Committee is due
to question the Home Office on Wednesday 14 November 2001.

****************************************************************
You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main
text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting
Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the
list subscription message may be removed.
****************************************************************
Past and current Amnesty
news services can be found at .
Visit for information about Amnesty International
and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@amnesty.org if you
need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International.
Main index ] [ Archives: [1]234 ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.