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: 12[3]4 ]


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: CPC slams ban on Afghan envoy's press briefing


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:40:44 12/03/01 Mon

via ndn-aim


De: "Shahzad Ahmad"
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:55:28 +0500

Objet: Freedom of Speech

Dearest Friends

With the following news item, I actually had been wanting to share my grave concerns, views and wanted to present few facts about the freedom of speech here (in Pakistan) and all around the world...

Pakistani Govt. have stopped Afghani Ambassador from his daily press briefings respecting the third country law. This law tells that no country can say anything about second country in a third country. This is so called diplomatic norm, which I never seen practiced any where in the world. This has been done due to immense pressure from the American Authorities. In the mean time, USIS and US Embassy's Political Section Incharge (Jeofry Hawkins) has been allowed to propagate, do press briefings and whatever they want. I had thought that we live in a free country and we are free ppl, but this proved to be not true. I am particularly concerned about why we have to follow what Americans dictate us.

Pakistani Govt. on the directives from US authorities have banned the satellite channel telecasting Al-Jazeera Television in Pakistan. All the cable operators have been told unofficially to stop airing this channel as American authorities had shown their displeasure about this. I myself is not receiving this channel anymore...

This is not all, further adding to this misery, Govt. owned major ISP "PakNet" have blocked the website of Al-Jazeera TV and now PTCL is pushing other ISPs also to block this website. In addition, a friend of mine, informed me (though I myself have not done any research on this) that all major search engines have removed all the links pointing towards the website of Al-Jazeera TV. Isn't insane, if it is true?

Friends, this is one of the reasons that USA is a target of terrorists... This is how USA makes ememies... USA had itself been producing terrorists using these tactics... I can tell you that all above steps have ignated hate for Govt. and US among masses in Pakistan... Somebody tell them to not to be an evil policeman rather try to be friend... And this world will be altogether a different place...

Even my family members and friends have been stopping me from writing about all this, as they think that someday FBI or some agency in Pakistan will pick me up on charges for this... Though I am not yet frightened of this threat... ;))

All the peace loving civil society organizations, peace activists, human rights activists have condemned this step of Pakistani Govt. and have condemned the US Govt. for their directives.

We want to know the other side of story also. Let us all know what else is happening in Afghanistan other than a lot of successes, allied forces have been achieving... We wish to know that how many more kids are dying... We wish to know that how many more old ppl have lost their limbs... We wish to know that how the faces looks like when ppl are starving... We wish to know that how can children survive under tents or shadow of trees in this chilly weather... Yes we want to know this all... Please let us know...

War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate...


Shahzad Ahmad
Pakistan

--------------------
NEWS ITEM
CPC slams ban on Afghan envoy's press briefing
Courtesy: The Dawn

ISLAMABAD, Nov 7: The Citizen's Peace Committee (CPC), Islamabad-Rawalpindi chapter, affiliated with the Alliance for Peace and Justice, criticized the government's action of banning press briefings by the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan , Abdul Salam Zaeef.

The decision has been taken by the Foreign Office under pressure from the United States, as a direct consequence of reports that have been issued at these briefings of civilian casualties due to US-led coalition bombings.

The CPC said the US Information Service (USIS) had stepped up its propaganda war. "All newspapers and international media are getting daily handouts from the office of the public affairs department of the US embassy in Islamabad, accusing the Taliban of lying and exaggerating human casualties", a CPC official said.

The peace organization said the US campaign in Afghanistan was one-sided, and that a number of international media networks like CNN, Fox and BBC were airing the US perspective on bombardment round-the-clock, he said.

It neither conforms to the norms of fairplay, nor does it behove the country that claims to be the custodian of democratic values and freedom of speech, he added.

He said the action of the Pakistan government to immediately buckle down before the US demand was also deplorable. "This is in sharp contrast to the response of Qatari government which resisted similar pressures from the same quarters regarding telecast of Osama bin Laden's statements on Al-Jazeera", he added.

The CPC said though it did not support the Taliban government in any way, it was absolutely essential that the issue of civilian casualties was not suppressed by this unilateral and typically authoritarian step of the US. There should be an international protest over the US demand and the Pakistan government's action, it added.

He demanded confirmation of the extent of civilian casualties and damages through independent UN teams.
Subject: Colombia: Bush/Pastrana Meeting-A Q&A on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:38:53 12/03/01 Mon

from Anne B..thanks!

From: "Human Rights Watch"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 8:04 PM
Subject: Colombia: Bush/Pastrana Meeting


Colombia: Bush/Pastrana Meeting
A Q&A on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia

(New York, November 6, 2001) This week President Andrés Pastrana will visit the United States on a trip that includes a scheduled meeting on November 11 with President George W. Bush. His agenda will include discussions about the new war on terrorism as well as continued U.S. funding for counternarcotics efforts in Colombia.

Currently, the U.S. Congress is negotiating a proposed aid package for FY 2002. A bill passed by the House of Representatives on July 24 included approximately $510 million for Colombia, most of it security assistance for counter drug battalions and other equipment to detect and stop the shipment of cocaine and heroin. On October 24, the U.S. Senate cut the Bush Administration proposal for the Andes by $184 million, much of it from the Colombia account. The Senate also included new limits on how money could be spent, including human rights conditions that require effective measures by the Colombian government on breaking persistent links between the Colombian military and illegal paramilitary groups.

The issue of U.S. support for Colombia's military is critical. Human Rights Watch has found evidence that the U.S. violated the spirit of its own laws and in some cases downplayed or ignored evidence of ties between the Colombian armed forces and paramilitary groups in order to continue funding abusive Colombian military units. In a recent report, "The 'Sixth Division': Military-Paramilitary Ties and U.S. Policy in Colombia," Human Rights Watch detailed evidence of ties between paramilitaries and Colombian military units deployed in the U.S. antinarcotics campaign in southern Colombia, showing that Colombian troops vetted, funded, and trained by the U..S. were continuing to mix freely with other units that maintain close ties with paramilitaries.

This occurred in the case of the U.S.-trained First and Second Counternarcotics Battalions. On their first joint deployment in December 2000, these battalions depended heavily on the army's Twenty-Fourth Brigade for support and logistical assistance, particularly with regard to intelligence, civic-military outreach, and psychological operations. Yet there was abundant and credible evidence to show that the Twenty-Fourth Brigade regularly worked with and supported paramilitary groups in the department of Putumayo. Indeed, the Twenty-Fourth Brigade hosted counternarcotics battalion troops at its facilities in La Hormiga - a town where, according to witnesses, paramilitaries and Colombian Army troops were indistinguishable.

Human Rights Watch supports strong human rights conditions on security assistance to Colombia aimed at severing the ties between the Colombian security forces and illegal paramilitary groups. It is critical that these conditions not be subject to a waiver. Colombia's Government needs to see that the United States is serious about holding them to promises to clean up the country's dismal human rights record.


The full Q & A can be found at
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/americas/colombia-qna.htm.

For more information on human rights and the civil war in Colombia,
please see:

The "Sixth Division" Military-paramilitary Ties and U.S. Policy in
Colombia (HRW Report, September 2001) at
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/colombia/

Colombia: Beyond Negotiation: International Humanitarian Law and its
Application to the Conduct of the FARC-EP
(HRW Report, August 2001) at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/farc/
Subject: FBI May Aid in Propaganda Fight


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:36:55 12/03/01 Mon

FBI May Aid in Propaganda Fight
--------------------

By GEORGE GEDDA
Associated Press Writer

November 7, 2001, 11:06 AM EST

WASHINGTON AP) -- The Bush administration may ask the FBI to help Pakistani authorities enforce limits on dissemination of propaganda by Islamic militants.

The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlin, was planning to meet Wednesday with FBI Director Robert Mueller to discuss the idea.

In an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press, Chamberlin said Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has banned the use of loudspeakers at mosques for political propaganda.

"What bedevils him is that he needs a far more effective police force to enforce that ban, and this is where we can help," she said, adding that Pakistan is eager for a U.S. role.

Since Pakistan decided to back the U.S. anti-terror campaign following the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. links with Pakistan have undergone a dramatic increase, with American pledges of more than $1 billion in direct or indirect aid.

Before the attacks, the aid relationship was minimal because of U.S. sanctions, many of which have since been lifted.

Among other initiatives, U.S. government agencies are working on a border control project "to help the Pakistani government's capabilities in monitoring smuggling activity across the border," Chamberlin said.

An administration official said Congress has provided $73 million for this purpose. The official, asking not to be identified, said the funds will be used for rotary and fixed wing aircraft, sensors, communications and night vision equipment and training.

In addition to curbing the flow of militants and armaments into Afghanistan, the administration also hopes to control heroin flows from Afghanistan to Pakistan. The heroin eventually winds up in markets in Europe and elsewhere. The Taliban-led regime in Afghanistan derives income through taxes, the official said.

"There has been a sea change in our cooperation," said Chamberlin, who took over as ambassador a month before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Musharraf, she said, "wants to reduce the influence of extremism. He views Pakistan as a victim of violence, as a victim of terrorism itself. This is what he would like to tackle, to get control and eliminate it within Pakistan."

For the former general, who seized power in a coup in 1999 and has since appointed himself president, joining the U.S.-led coalition is "a way of cauterizing the violence spreading from Afghanistan into Pakistan," Chamberlin said.

Protests by small groups of militants over the U.S. military's use of several bases in Pakistan has raised concern that Musharraf's hold on power could be threatened if extremism spreads.

But Chamberlin says Musharraf enjoys broad backing.

"He has the support of his people, he has the support of his intellectuals, of the four major political parties, he has the complete support of a very professional and loyal army, he has the support of the silent majority, who are fed up with the culture of violence that has spread to Pakistan from Afghanistan," she said.

President Bush plans to meet this weekend with Musharraf on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. Bush rarely dines with foreign leaders but has made an exception for Musharraf, reflecting the importance he attaches to the Pakistani leader's support.

Copyright (c) 2001, The Associated Press

--------------------

This article originally appeared at:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-attacks-chamberlin-intvu.1107nov07.story
Subject: Interview with Noam Chomsky


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:35:53 12/03/01 Mon

Entrevista con Noam Chomsky
{in English}
ACTUALIDAD : NACION
http://semana.terra.com.co/1012/actualidad/ZZZ4F9TFWRC.asp


El analista político Noam Chomsky respondió a unas preguntas relacionadas con las implicaciones del ataque terrorista del pasado 11 de septiembre. Entrevista en inglés.

SEMANA: ¿What kind of war is the war against terrorism?

Noam Chomsky: The war against terrorism is by no means new. For example, more than 15 years ago Nicaragua brought charges to the World Court accusing the US of terrorism. The Court ruled in favor of Nicaragua, condemning the US for "unlawful use of force" (i.e., terrorism) and ordering it to desist and pay substantial reparations. The US dismissed the Court with contempt, reacting to this orders by escalating the attack. The official State Department response to the Court was that since the world does not agree with us, we will determine for ourselves what lies within the "domestic jurisdiction" of the US, in this case, a terrorist war against another country. Nicaragua continued to follow the rule of law, asking the Security Council to intervene, as it did, with a resolution calling on all states to observe international law, vetoed by the US. Nicaragua brought the resolution to the General Assembly several times, where it passed unanimously (apart from the US and Israel, and one year, El Salvador). Of course, the US war against Nicaragua (not to speak of the wars of the US-backed client states against their populations at the same time) was far more severe in its consequences even than the huge atrocity on Sept. 11.

This is by no means the only case. Planes based in Florida began bombing Cuba in October 1959, and the officially organized state terrorist operations (Operation Mongoose) in the following years were far more extreme. And the same is true for a great many other cases. You can find a fair sample in a scholarly study _Western State Terrorism_ (A. George, ed., Blackwell-Polity 1990). And there has been a great deal more since.

As generally recognized, the worst kind of terror is state terror, and the terror of paramilitaries to whom terror is often delegated by state authorities. The matter is not unfamiliar in Colombia.

The war against terrorism continued through the 1980s particularly. In December 1987, the UN General Assembly passed a very strong resolution condemning terrorism in all its forms and calling on all states to cooperate in ending this plague of the modern age. It was passed unanimously, only Honduras abstaining -- except that the US voted against it, alone with Israel, so it is vetoed from history. Their reasons were that the resolution endorsed the right of people to struggle against "racist and colonialist regimes" and "foreign military occupation," a right that the US and Israel (alone) do not recognize. They had in mind at the time particularly South Africa, but the principle applies elsewhere, for example, to Israel's US-backed military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, now entering its 35th year of brutality. And complete illegality -- again, as recognized by the entire world with the exception of the US and Israel.

Without continuing, there is nothing new about terrorism, or the struggle against it. There is, however, something dramatically new about the terrorist atrocities on Sept. 11, not in scale, regrettably, but in the direction in which the guns were pointing. For the US, it is the firt time since the War of 1812 that the national territory has been under threat, let alone attack. For Europe, much the same is true. It has had devastating wars, but those involved Europeans slaughtering each other. The rest of the world is expected to be the victim, not the agent, of terrorism and atrocities. So there is some truth to the claim that the awesome crimes of Sept. 11 are new in history.

SEMANA: ¿Will the people and the US government be willing to sacrifice individual liberties to fight the new menace?

N.CH: Why a "new menace"? The Reagan administration came into office in 1981 announcing, loud and clear, that the prime security threat to the US was "international terrorism," and proceeded to combat it by massive terror, not only in Central America but in much of the world. As for your other question, a cycle of violence and counterviolence tends to strengthen the most harsh and brutal elements among the adversaries, a very familiar dynamic. They commonly exploit to achieve their own agendas. Nothing new or surprising about that. In the US, that will mean attempts to induce more regimentation and obedience and curtail civil liberties, but I doubt that they will be very successful. The more dangerous consequence is the escalating cycle of violence itself, which could lead to horrifying consequences, from which the rest of the world will not escape.

Why do these terrorists hate the US?

The answers are not obscure. They were reviewed, for example, by the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 14), surveying attitudes of "Moneyed Muslims" in the mid-East region: bankers, professionals, businessmen with close linked to the US. They gave many reasons, including Washington's consistent opposition to democratic tendencies and the barriers it places against independent development as a result of its insistence on "propping up oppressive regimes." But primary among the reasons are those that are "well-known," as the Journal put it: The long-standing US support for Israel's military occupation, now in its 35th year, with its takeover of land and resources and harsh oppression of the population; a stand that contrasts vividly with the US sanctions and bombing that have devastated Iraqi society (while strengthening Saddam Hussein -- Washington's friend and ally through his worst atrocities, as is also "well-known").

These and similar policies elicit bitterness and resentment, which is far more extreme among the great mass of poor and oppressed people, who also see the wealth of the region flowing to the West while the US supports corrupt and brutal dictatorships that serve the needs of US wealth and power. The Bin Laden network has other motives. The "Afghanis" as they are called (many of them, like Bin Laden, not Afghans) were recruited, trained and armed by the CIA and Pakistani intelligence for the war against the Russian military occupation, which they won. After that, they ignored Russia, apart from their participation in the struggle of the Chechens (as in Afghanistan, carrying the war into Russia, with terrorist actions). Their primary enemy is Saudi Arabia and other corrupt states of the region, and they turned against the US particularly when permanent US military installations were established in Saudi Arabia in 1990. Bin Laden has repeatedly explained that for him this is even worse than the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, because of the significance of Saudi Arabia, the guardian of the holiest Islamic shrines.

Since the terrorists have made their reasons clear and explicit, and since the reasons why they have a reservoir of support are also well-known, there should be no difficulty in answering your question. The answer was put succinctly by British correspondent Robert Fisk, the most respected journalist in the region for many years. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia - paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally - hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more.
Subject: Behind the USA Patriot Act


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:34:20 12/03/01 Mon

"The new anti-terrorism bill signed on Oct. 26 grants law enforcement authorities sweeping new surveillance powers. But it also may allow for the mistreatment of immigrants, the suppression of dissent and the investigation of innocent Americans."

Behind the USA Patriot Act http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11854 Ann Harrison, AlterNet November 5, 2001

------------------------------------------------------------------- Editor's note: This is the first in a series of two articles on the USA Patriot Act by Ann Harrison. The second will explore what is known about the identity and conditions of the 1,147 people detained in the anti-terrorism investigation.

Since launching their no-holds-barred investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI has released an astonishing amount of information about the men who they have identified as the hijackers. There are photographs of them passing through airport security and peering into ATM machines. The FBI has records of their cell phone calls, their cash transfers, air travel, credit card purchases, car rentals, email messages and hotel bills.

Now that the hunt is on for accomplices who could be planning more attacks, law enforcement officials have sought the legal authority to collect even more information about the minutiae of their daily life. The new anti-terrorism law signed into law on Oct. 26 grants law enforcement authorities sweeping new surveillance powers that are not limited to terrorism investigations but also apply to criminal and intelligence investigations.

The new law, known as the USA Patriot Act, reaches into every space that Americans once imagined was private. For instance, police can now obtain court orders to conduct so called "sneak and peak" searches of homes and offices. This allows them to break in, examine and remove or alter items without immediately, if ever, presenting owners with a warrant detailing what they were entitled to do and where.

This seismic shift in the government's power of search and seizure also extends to the examination of records. Authorities can browse medical, financial, educational or even library records without showing evidence of a crime. The law overrides existing state and federal privacy laws if the FBI claims that the information is connected to an intelligence investigation.

In addition, credit reporting firms like Equifax must disclose to the FBI any information that agents request in connection with a terrorist investigation, without the need for a court order. In the past, this was only permitted in espionage cases.

Biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris scanners, will become part of an "integrated entry and exit data system" to identify visa holders entering the United States. Face recognition technology is now being installed in several U.S. airports.

The legislators who rushed these provisions through the House and Senate say that law enforcement authorities need this data to help track down terrorists and prevent future attacks. "We were able to find what I think is the appropriate balance between protecting civil liberties, privacy and ensuring that law enforcement has the tools to do what it must," said Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) in a statement following the passage off the bill.

But civil liberty groups have been alarmed by this legislation since it started whisking its way through Congress. Jim Dempsey, deputy director of the Washington D.C.-based Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), says he is particularly concerned about the provision in the law that allows the FBI to share with the CIA information collected in grand jury investigations. The 1947 National Security Act states that the CIA should have no domestic police or subpoena powers. But Dempsey says CIA agents could now use their close relationship with the FBI to essentially fill in subpoenas provided by prosecutors. "To do this with no prior judicial approval is a fundamental change in the way we have set up our police agencies and set them apart from our foreign intelligence agencies," said Dempsey. "And it was done with very little debate."

Legislators who voted for the USA Patriot Act pointed out that the most controversial surveillance sections will would expire in 2005. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced that a four-year expiration date "will be crucial in making sure that these new law enforcement powers are not abused."

Dempsey says the CDT is hoping there will be a Congressional review prior to any extension of the provisions. But he, and many others, have pointed out that these so-called "sunset provisions" do not apply to the sharing of grand jury information, giving the CIA the permanent benefits of grand jury powers.

The so-called "sneak and peak searches" are permanent as well. And further, the sunset provisions do not apply to ongoing cases. This means that intelligence investigations, which often run for years, would continue to operate under the law even if provisions are not extended past 2005. Also exempted are any future investigations of crimes that took place before this date.

Internet surveillance via "pen register" devices, which capture phone numbers dialed on outgoing telephone calls, and "trap and trace" devices, which capture the numbers of incoming calls, are also exempt from the sunset provisions. These orders were originally used to provide investigators with telephone numbers dialed by suspects. They can now be used to monitor email addressing information and Web pages visited, in some circumstances without judicial oversight. Investigations approved by the secretive FISA intelligence court would also not require notification.

Lee Tien, senior staff attorney for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, notes that this type of surveillance requires mere certification with no evidence that the person being monitored is involved in criminal conduct or is a suspected member of a terrorist organization. While this online surveillance requires a judge's approval, the law mandates that the judge must approve every request and is not required to evaluate how the order was carried out.

Tien said he will be working with other online civil liberties groups to get the government to notify targets of pen/trap surveillances and increase judicial oversight. "The potential for pen/trap surveillance on the Internet is enormous," says Tien.

The new law also permits any U.S. attorney or state attorney general to order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore Internet surveillance system, which also has the capacity to capture the contents of email messages. The agency says the public must trust that investigators will not review this information.

Unlike trap and trace orders, Carnivore requires that investigators set up an audit trail which includes what information was gathered, by whom and when. But Tien notes the court is not required to review the information and make sure that it complies with the terms of the certification. "No one has that oversight role," says Tien.

While the government has the power to snoop, citizens who engage in similar activities now fall under the government's new definition of terrorists. The current definition of terrorism has been expanded to include hacking into a U.S. government computer system or breaking into and damaging any Internet-connected computer. Prison terms of between five to 20 years can now be used to prosecute the new crime of "cyberterrorism," which covers hacking attempts causing $5,000 in aggregate value in one year, damage to medical equipment or injury to any person.

Even Internet Service Providers, universities and network administrators are authorized under the new law to conduct surveillance of "computer trespassers" without a court order. The new law compels any Internet provider or telephone company to turn over customer information, including phone numbers called, without a court order, if the FBI claims that the records are relevant to a terrorism investigation. The company is forbidden to disclose that the FBI is conducting an investigation, has immunity to provide any sensitive data and is not bound by statutory rights to suppress the information. "There is no incentive for anyone to know about it, or challenge it or rein it in," says Dempsey.

Prior to the passage of the USA Patriot Act, Laura Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington National Office, wrote letters to the House and Senate warning that the bill would give enormous power to the executive branch unchecked by meaningful judicial review. "Included in the bill are provisions that would allow for the mistreatment of immigrants, the suppression of dissent and the investigation and surveillance of wholly innocent Americans," said Murphy.

Civil liberties groups point out that the government has a history of launching investigations against political dissidents. These include the FBI investigations of Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders in the 1960s, illegal spying on anti-war protesters in the 1960s and 1970s and surveillance on the sanctuary movement that provided asylum for those fleeing Central American death squads during the 1980s.

Attorney General John Ashcroft has brushed off these concerns and issued a directive to law enforcement investigators, urging them to aggressively use the new powers, which he says will be used to launch a "law enforcement campaign."

Steve Shapiro, national legal director for the ACLU, says Congress should use its unique subpeona power to get information about investigations and exercise its oversight authority on investigators. "Congress has given them these powers," said Shapiro. "And it has a big responsibility to make sure these powers are not abused."

Tien said the EFF would also be actively opposing calls for national ID cards, for biometric systems and for mandatory record keeping by ISPs, which has already been discussed seriously in Europe.

Dempsey says the CDT is concerned about the possibility that because the FBI has not been able to get to the core of the suspected terrorist cells, they will cast an even wider net. Cut loose from past standards and judicial controls, investigators, he fears, will collect more information on innocent people and be distracted from the task of actually identifying those who may be planning future attacks.

"That is where the law allows them to take it," says Dempsey. "And that is bad for civil liberties and bad for anti-terrorism investigations."

Ann Harrison is a San Francisco journalist who writes regularly for SecurityFocus.com and BusinessWeek.com http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11854 AlterNet
Subject: Essay on Terrorism: A Historical and Global Survey


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:31:53 12/03/01 Mon

Essay via --- Michael Posluns The Still Waters Group, First Nations Relations & Public Policy

Friends,

The word "terrorism" has bothered me since it came to occupy the centre of our attention on September 11. Some time ago, I worked my way through the OED definition. For whatever reason this did not entirely satisfy me and I also did not circulate this OED definition as I have often circulated others in the past.

What follows below is the "terrorism" entry in the Ox. Companion to Politics ed. By Joe Krieger. Sometime soon I hope to write a commentary based on selected excerpts from this essay. In the meantime, I thought it important to share an essay that had been written in the tranquility of the time before a "War on Terrorism" and which includes a broad historical and global survey.

Although this article appears to be basically sound, I would be remiss if I failed to point out some features of its Eurocentric bias. The reference to "medieval Islam" is an imposition of a European based time frame - medieval - on a society centred outside of Europe and a society which was, in many respect, far more advanced than medieval Europe.

Likewise, the reference to the Zealots in "Palestine" constitutes a tacit recognition of the Roman conquest which the Jewish partisans were engaged in resisting.

I do not mean to suggest that the author of the article is heavily committed to the Roman cause so much as he has unwittingly adopted conventional rhetoric for the purpose of a doubly unconventional story. At all events, the lack of wit on the part of a scholar is far more egregious than the presence of bias.

Terms that are starred, "*", are ones which have their own articles in the Ox. Companion to Politics, a most valuable encyclopedic work.

I would welcome any response to this account of terrorism that anyone receiving this piece cares to offer. I am not in a position to give permission to circulate an article from the Ox. Comp. To Politics. I hope and trust that the circulation of this particular piece, with proper credit given, will be seen as an event that promotes the book as a whole.

Enjoy,

Michael Posluns The Still Waters Group, First Nations Relations & Public Policy Daytime: 416 995-8613 Evening: 416 656-8613 Fax: 416 656-2715 36 Lauder Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6H 3E3

<< Editorial Note: In his note (above), Michael Posluns mentions a commentary that he *will* write, based on selected excerpts from the essay below. That commentary was actually posted as: [NativeNews] "Intelligence" as an Alternative to Repression --- on Friday, November 02, 2001 3:48 PM. The following essay had been previously circulated among other lists. >>

---------------------------------------------------------------- TERRORISM. The concept of terrorism has been a category of political discourse since the late eighteenth century. Its central meaning is the use of terror for the furthering of political ends, and it was originally meant to denote the use of terror by the French revolutionary government against its oppo-nents. This is also the sense in which it was used, and on occasion justified, by the Bolsheviks after 1917. This usage of the term, to cover terror by governments, has now become less common though by no means irrelevant, and in most contemporary usage the term covers acts of terror by those opposed to governments. The range of activities which the term covers has been wide, but four main forms of action tend to be included. *assassination, bombings, seizures of individuals as hostages, and, more recently, the hijacking of planes, In the 1970s the term international terrorism_ began to be used to cover acts of violence committed by political group! outside the country in which they were primarily active. The other term that emerged at the same time, state terrorism~ referred to encouragement. or alleged encouragement~ by *states of such acts of violence.

Taking terrorism in its second, anti-state, sense, there can be said to be three main phases of ha history. There is first a prehistory of terrorism, in the sense of acts which would today be called ter-rorist. The main form this trick were acts of acts of assassination for political and politico-religious ends: the tyrannicides of Greece and Rome, the Zealots of Palestine, the Hashssihin of medieval Islam. It is significant that many of these casts were often re-garded as morally legitimate. The second phase of terrorism was the use of violence by political groups in the nineteenth century, especially by anarchists and some nationalists. The assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881 and of Archduke Franz Fer-dinand in 1914 were perhaps the most famous cases, bat there was widespread endorsement of bombing by anarchists in Europe and the United States, as "propaganda of the deed," and a number of nationalist groups, notably the Irish and the Armenians, practiced assassination, bombing, and various forms of violent seizure and destruction of property.

A third and more complex phase of terrorism dates from the end of World War II. in a range of nationalist conflictsin the *Third World- Israel, Kenya, Cyprus, South Yemen, Algeria -- officials and citizens of the colonial state were attacked as part of what in the end were successful campaigns for national independence, in other cases nationalist movements that did not succeed also used it - for example, in Palestine, the Basque region of Spain, and South Molucca. At the same time, political groups seeking various forms of revolutionary po-litical and social change within their own countries also resorted to acts of terror: this was widespread with the urban guerrillas of Latin America-in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay -- and on a more spasmodic basis in some of the developed democracies -the Red Army Faction in the Federal Republic of Ger-many, the Red Brigades in Italy, the Weathermen in the United States. Must of these revolutionary groups claimed affiliation with the political *Left: but in the 1970s and 1980s there were also major campaigns of terror by right-wing groups, notably in France and Italy.

Terrorism in this specific sense generated widespread concern in the societies affected, and, as a result of the spread of so-called international terror-ism , in the world as a whole. The publicity given to certain dramatic events, such as hijackings, and the administrative and financial costs of searching and monitoring international travel from the late 1960s onward underlined this. During the lace 1970s the U.S. Congress and government made concern with terrorism a major part of its foreign policy and compiled a list of those countries that were deemed to he supporting is. Special units were set up to cover antiterrorism, that is, measures to prevent terrorist acts, and counterrerrorism, that is measures to respond to, and where deemed appropriate retaliate against, terrorism.

Distinct as these phenomena appeared to be, there were, however, a number of ways in which the public and international concern of the 1970s and 1980s obscured the issues involved. First, the scale of the phenomenon was distorted by the focus on international terrorism. Acts of this kind certainly occurred and were likely to continue. But the num-bers of people affected were small -- most plane hi-jackings ended without bloodshed. The far more important and costly phenomenon was nor international terrorism but terrorism within communal situations, largely in Third World countries. This involved situations where people of different ethnic or religious character, who had often lived side by side for centuries, came to he locked in situations of violence and retribution, often involving massacres, mass kidnappings, forcible displacements, and so forth. Cases of this were in the conflicts between Christian and Muslim in Lebanon, between Tamil and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, between Hindu and Sikh in Punjab. Despite its Third World focus, however, there were a number of cases in Europe as well - in Cyprus, Northern Ireland, and, since the breakdown of Communist authority during the late l9SOs, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as well. The most pervasive and, in the long term, dangerous aspect of terrorism was this spread of communal terrorism as a product of nodal and economic ten-sions in ethnically mixed societies,

A second area of confusion concerned what were and were not acts of terrorism. Here those who opposed states and were victims of state violence were quick to revive the original 1790s definition of the term and to argue that most of the acts of terror for political ends committed in the contem-porary world were carried out by states: the victims of Nazism and *Stalinism, and of many repressive regimes in the post-1945 period, were testimony enough of that. Those who analyzed forms of oppression and coercion outside the framework of state power also argued that terror played a part in establishing and maintaining these forms of domination: the use, actual acid threatened, of violence by men against women was an evident case.

There was also considerable room for debate on the way in which the term terrorist was used to define, as distinct from merely qualify, specific po-litical groups. Many of those involved in nationalist campaigns questioned the use of the term terrorist to disqualify not just specific acts but the overall *legitimacy and goals of their movements. Some revolutionary groups in developed countries appeared to have no other strategy than that of plant-ing bombs and killing individuals, but this was not the case in the nationalist contexts where the goal, national independence, as distinct from the tactics used, of which terror was one but by no means the only one. That the Zionists, Algerians, and Palethn-ians used, among other tactics, terror as an instru-ment in independence struggles did not necessarily mean that their broader goals were illegitimate.

Two further issues raised in discussions of terrorism ere those of cause and efficacy. The search for a cause of terrorism ranged from social and economic conditions to theories based on psychology, "the terrorist personality," and religion. Given the variety of forms taken by terrorist phenomena and the diversity of conditions in which it originated, this was a fruitless exercise. The one characteristic common to terrorist acts against states was a belief, usually mistaken, that individual acts of violence could in some way accelerate change arid achieve goals that other, more conventional forms of polit-ical action could not. The association with individ-ual religions, most recently Islam, does not survive historical comparison. Assessments of the efficacy of terrorism have tended to show that, beyond pub-licity, it usually achieved very little, unless the goals were very specific -- the release of particular pris-oners, the appropriation of some money. Indeed the main result of terrorist acts was not to inflect governments in the directs the terrorists wanted but rather to harden them in the opposite direc-tion - as Russia after 1881 and Argentina after1975, to name but two case~ demonstrated.

(Sec also ANARCHY; DECOLONIZATION; INTERNATIONAL LAW; NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS; POLITICAL VIOLENCE; REVOLUTION; RIGHT)

Walter Laquer and Yonah Alexander, The Terrorism Reader: A Historical Anthology (New York: 1987) Richard Rubenstein, Alchemists of Revolution: Terrorism in the Modern World (London and New York, 1987). Walter Laquer, Terrorism 2d ed. (New York and London, 1988).
Subject: CNN tells reporters: No propaganda, except American


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:21:56 12/03/01 Mon

{Caveat: Following federal action at WKII and the Jumping Bull residence in
the 1970s, several news articles were planted by authorities in order to stir
up national emotion against the AIM, highlight the "we're on it" image of the
FBI and Nixon administration..
... Native News Online has no way of verifying the accuracy of news reports
from even major news papers. It is well to keep in mind that media control
was one of the Naval War College's plans in the event of national panic in
wake of Y2K, ergo this is not a policy restricted to the 70s. Most of us
have read news articles later contradicted by other articles..foreign news
sources which print information that differs from US.
See: http://209.114.70.195/hosted/ishgooda/peltier/cointelpro/

Truth is out there..somewhere..maybe..Ish}

"in wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
Donald Rumsfeld quoting Winston Churchill, Sept 2001
{kind of like surrounding a precious stone with thieves?}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


CNN tells reporters: No propaganda, except American
By Patrick Martin
6 November 2001
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/cnn-n06.shtml

In an extraordinary directive to its staff, Cable News Network has instructed reporters and anchormen to tailor their coverage of the US war against Afghanistan to downplay the toll of death and destruction caused by American bombing, for fear that such coverage will undermine popular support for the US military effort.

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

"I want to make sure we're not used as a propaganda platform," Isaacson declared in an interview with the Washington Post, adding that it "seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan."

"We're entering a period in which there's a lot more reporting and video from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan," he said. "You want to make sure people understand that when they see civilian suffering there, it's in the context of a terrorist attack that caused enormous suffering in the United States."

In a second memo leaked to the Post, CNN's head of standards and practices, Rick Davis, expressed concern about reports on the bombing of Afghanistan filed by on-the-spot reporters. Davis noted that it "may be hard for the correspondent in these dangerous areas to make the points clearly" about the reasons for the US bombing. In other words, the CNN official feared that overseas correspondents might be intimidated by local opposition to the US military intervention and allow such sentiments to influence their reports.

To ensure that every CNN report always includes a justification of the war, Davis prescribed specific language for anchors to read after each account of civilian casualties and other bomb damage. He suggested three alternative formulations:

* "We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this from Taliban-controlled areas, that these US military actions are in response to a terrorist attack that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the US."

* "We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this, that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan continues to harbor terrorists who have praised the September 11 attacks that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the US."

* "The Pentagon has repeatedly stressed that it is trying to minimize civilian casualties in Afghanistan, even as the Taliban regime continues to harbor terrorists who are connected to the September 11 attacks that claimed thousands of innocent lives in the US."

Davis concluded with an ultimatum to journalists concerned that they may sound like parrots for the White House: "Even though it may start sounding rote, it is important that we make this point each time."

The Tailwind capitulation

A turning point in the transformation of CNN into a thinly disguised outlet for Pentagon propaganda was the 1998 controversy over the network's broadcast of an investigative report entitled "Valley of Death." The program dealt with allegations that the US military used chemical weapons in Laos in 1970 during the Vietnam War. Produced by April Oliver and Jack Smith, and narrated by Peter Arnett, it provided considerable evidence that Operation Tailwind, as the military called it, involved the use of sarin, a deadly nerve gas.

But coming amidst a series of US provocations against Iraq over allegations that Saddam Hussein's regime was developing weapons of mass destruction, the CNN program threatened to cut across a major objective of American foreign policy. A storm of protest was whipped up by far-right elements, including former military officers, and both former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell denounced the television report.

CNN's response was complete capitulation. Network founder Ted Turner, still the largest stockholder in the parent Time-Warner conglomerate, made abject apologies to the Pentagon. CNN repudiated the exposé, fired its two producers, and reprimanded Arnett who, to his shame, distanced himself from the program and claimed he was not responsible for its allegations.

Less than a year later Arnett himself was fired. The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist had been widely acclaimed for his on-the-spot reporting from Baghdad during the Gulf War. His dismissal, in the midst of the war on Yugoslavia, was followed by another demonstration of the ties between the network and the national security apparatus. CNN's chief correspondent in the former Yugoslavia, Christiane Amanpour, married State Department spokesman James Rubin, the Clinton administration's principal liaison with the Kosovo Liberation Army guerrillas. Both continued in their jobs as full-time apologists for the war on Yugoslavia, one at the State Department podium, the other in front of a CNN camera in the Balkans.

"Human shields" and other lies

While CNN's policy may be the most crudely expressed—or the only one recorded in a corporate memorandum that has become public knowledge—its stance is characteristic of the entire American media, which serves in the Afghanistan war as 24x7 propagandists for American imperialism.

Isaacson's reference to "civilian shields" is typical of the cynical lies spread by the American government, with the obedient support of the media. This claim was first broached during the Persian Gulf War, when US officials routinely dismissed reports of horrific civilian casualties caused by the US bombing of Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein had ordered tanks, warplanes and entire chemical and biological weapons facilities to be moved into residential neighborhoods.

The most notorious US atrocity of that war was the destruction of a bomb shelter in the Al-Amariya neighborhood of Baghdad, in which hundreds of civilians were killed, the majority of them women and children. The Pentagon claimed that Al-Amariya was a top secret command-and-control center for the Iraqi military, and that the women and children had been deliberately planted there as "human shields." Subsequent investigation revealed that these claims were spurious.

This did not stop the media from uncritically accepting similar statements about the US bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, when civilian casualties were invariably blamed on the government of Slobodan Milosevic. The same kind of lies are now circulated about Afghanistan, with reports that the Taliban regime is moving heavy weapons and military detachments into mosques and relief centers—in order to justify in advance the next American atrocity.

The myth of "human shields" is only one example of the torrent of lies that flows out of the White House, Pentagon and CIA, swallowed and regurgitated by the US media without a qualm.

White House political adviser Karl Rove and press spokesman Ari Fleischer were caught lying about why Bush took so long to return to the White House September 11 after the suicide hijackings hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. These officials peddled the story that the White House had received a credible threat to Air Force One. It later emerged that there was no such threat, and the story had been concocted to provide a plausible explanation for Bush's embarrassing conduct. Now the same administration issues alerts about terrorist threats for the entire United States without a single major media voice asking why, given the previous lies, these alerts should be believed.

The administration initially pledged to release conclusive evidence of Osama bin Laden's role in the terrorist attacks—Colin Powell made the promise on national television—but reversed itself abruptly. The supposed evidence has never been produced. The American media raised no hue and cry, and continues to repeat the official claims that the guilt of bin Laden is incontrovertible.

White House, Pentagon shape coverage

With the onset of the bombing campaign, the effort by the White House and Pentagon to dictate terms of press coverage of the war was stepped up. Bush' s national security adviser Condoleeza Rice called the five television networks asking them to limit coverage of statements by Osama bin Laden. Other officials suggested these statements might contain coded instructions to terrorists. The networks immediately issued a pledge of cooperation.

White House officials have responded to press criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the anthrax attacks by seeking to rebuke reporters whose questions express skepticism about the government response. Campbell Brown, an NBC White House correspondent, said a top White House official telephoned her to complain of a hostile question to newly appointed Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge. "To get an unsolicited phone call from a senior official at this White House is very unusual," she told the Washington Post.

The top executive at ABC News, David Westin, was raked over the coals for remarks at a forum at the Columbia University journalism school where he was asked whether the Pentagon was a "legitimate military target." Westin replied by distinguishing between his personal revulsion at the loss of life on September 11 and his responsibility as a journalist to describe the event accurately, including the motivation of those responsible for the attack, who may have regarded the Pentagon in that light.

The forum was broadcast by C-SPAN, and Westin's comments were lambasted by Internet gossip Matt Drudge, the New York Post, and other voices of the right wing. Westin issued a public statement October 31, declaring, "I apologize for any harm that my misstatement may have caused."

In the war zone itself, the Pentagon systematically violates its own ground rules for press coverage, which prescribe that the media should have access to all major units and locations. Only a handful of reporters are on the ground in Afghanistan, and these operate under the type of self-censorship revealed in the CNN memo. Reporters are barred from many US naval warships in the Indian Ocean as well as air bases in the Middle East and Central Asia.

While the usual justification for such practices is the safety of the troops, the Pentagon has never documented a single incident where press coverage compromised "operational security." Seventeen news organizations were aware that the US was about to launch bombing raids on Afghanistan at least 24 hours before the attacks began October 7, but not a single one broke the story in advance.

Richard Reeves, a veteran liberal journalist, described the informal wartime muzzling of the press in a recent column titled, "Truth in the Packaging of War News." He cited a 1982 Naval War College advisory on press treatment, which prescribed the following rules: "Sanitize the visual images of war, control media access to theaters, censor information that could upset readers and viewers, exclude journalists who would not write favorable stories."

This was predictable for the military, Reeves wrote, but his main criticism was of the submissive response of the media. "My gripe is with my own business," he explained. "The press, in general, prefers appearing authoritative in war coverage to admitting that we are being manipulated and lied to—and that we do not actually know what is going on, particularly in the early combat of any war."
Subject: A Talk about War, Racism, United Fronts, and the Left


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:20:18 12/03/01 Mon

Posted by AntiRacismNet November 5, 2001

A Talk about War, Racism, United Fronts, and the Left

By Bob Wing 2bobwing@home.com
October 5, 2001
http://www.igc.org/igc/gateway/arnindex.html

1. Of War and Racism

In our other paper ["War and Peace as the New Axis of Politics" by Max Elbaum] we argued that the struggle for peace--to stop Bush's war on terrorism--will be the overarching political issue of this new period. That struggle will reshape and be connected to all other ongoing fights for economic and social progress. However, it is crucial to recognize that the war program cannot be effectively combated without identifying the intimate connection between war and racism. Bush's program is a racist war against terrorism.

It is racist in at least the following ways.

The brunt of attack is aimed at and will be borne by innocent people of color, especially in the Arab world and South Asia. They are being demonized as "terrorists" and "fundamentalist Muslims" whose lives are dispensable. Bush's New World Order is clearly based on supremacy of the white west, led by the U.S., against colored enemies, even though the alliance includes some third world governments as junior partners. Had the U.S. been attacked by the Irish Republican Army or the Italian Red Brigades, it would never have declared war against Ireland or Italy. The war on terrorism is "justified" by the government and in public opinion because its targets are countries and peoples of color.

Bush is also waging his war inside the U.S. It is already marked by curbs on civil liberties, democratic rights, and social programs in order to build and finance the national security state. However, it is politically critical to see that the sharpest attacks are purposefully targeted at people of color--that it, too, is thoroughly racist. Already, racial profiling is being openly justified. Immigration policy is being rolled back. Police, military, security, and intelligence agencies are being expanded and given new authority, resources, and freedom of action to detain, spy upon, and act against "enemies." And many people of color, especially those who appear to be Arab, Muslim or South Asian, are being attacked verbally and physically by citizens.

Bush's redesigned military industrial complex is giving fresh impulse to the already out-of-control prison industrial complex. Just as the War on Drugs was finally being slowed, the war on terrorism is taking its place. Bush's anti-people program is being justified and disguised by targeting people of color first and foremost, gating the affluent white communities, and appealing to racist patriotism.

Finally, Bush's program rests on the politics of racism. To keep political and ideological momentum for his program, Bush must effect a decisive shift rightwards in the electorate and public opinion, a task that his father failed to accomplish. He must strengthen the Republican right, win a significant section of the "middle ground" of white suburban voters, and split off at least 5-10% of people of color, labor, and women--his strongest opponents. His main card to do is racist patriotism. Bush lost the popular vote and his approval rating was languishing prior to September 11. Now the Administration is riding high by whipping up a paroxysm of fear and patriotism, centered among but not limited to white people, to support its program. Those who oppose the Bush program will be labeled un-American and anti-patriotic, if not outright enemies. That ideological campaign, combined with coercion and bribes, will be used to try to split communities of color and will present a formidable challenge to progressives of color and all anti-war forces.

At times of political lull, politics tend to flatten out and all issues start to look equal. But almost invariably the sharpening of political struggle in the U.S. focuses on war and racism. This is because war and racism are the sharpest expressions of the historical contradictions of U.S. capitalism: it was founded on war against Native peoples, expanded by war against Mexico, and built on racist slavery and coerced labor. Moreover, a cross-class white consensus, legalized until the 1960s but still powerful thereafter, has been the political basis of capitalist rule in this country from its origins. War and racism are twin pillars of U.S. capitalism, historically and today.



This article was orginally the second of two interconnected presentations that are the basis for a series of discussion groups. Max Elbaum presented "War and Peace as the New Axis of Politics". Bob is a longtime activist and the former editor of ColorLines magazine.
Subject: U.S. Tries to Rally Public Support Overseas


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:19:13 12/03/01 Mon

NYTimes
November 6, 2001

PUBLIC OPINION

U.S. Tries to Rally Public Support Overseas
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/06/international/06MESS.html?todaysheadlines
By MICHAEL R. GORDON

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - The Bush administration, worried that public opinion abroad has turned against the American military campaign in Afghanistan, is making a major effort to take its case to the foreign - and especially the Islamic - news media.

On Tuesday, President Bush will give a speech about fighting terrorism, which will be beamed by satellite to a conference in Poland of Central European leaders. Top policy makers have also been making themselves available to the Islamic news media.

The administration's efforts to win international support for its campaign against Osama bin Laden's Qaeda network and the Taliban government in Afghanistan is inherently difficult because the message administration officials are providing at home is at odds with expectations of foreign governments.

While administration officials have sought to prepare Americans for a long and difficult conflict, Pakistan and other nations in the region are hoping for a short war and the quick exit of United States troops.

As part of the American information campaign, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently gave an interview to Al Jazeera, the all-news Arab satellite television channel that broadcast Mr. bin Laden's tirades against the United States. Today, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell gave an interview to Egyptian television.

The State Department is also planning a television and advertising campaign to try to influence Islamic opinion; one segment could feature American celebrities, including sports stars, and a more emotional message. It is being planned by Charlotte Beers, the new undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, who came to the administration after a long career on Madison Avenue.

In all conflicts, winning the information war has been an essential element of military strategy. But with lingering resentment in the Arab world about America's superpower status, support for Israel and cultural dominance, countering the Taliban's information offensive has not been easy.

The United States says its intense air attacks are necessary to destroy the terrorist network and topple the Taliban government, and it has stressed that it is trying to avoid civilian casualties and is not at war with the Afghan people. But the specter of bombs falling on an impoverished country that has been ravaged by war for more than two decades has been used by the Taliban to foment opposition to Americans.

Public sentiment in Islamic countries could have profound implications for American national security. An upheaval in Pakistan, for example, could raise concerns about the security of its nuclear stockpile. It could also deprive the United States of a base of operations for its military campaign. The American military is also using bases in the Persian Gulf.

"We have been hearing from Arab leaders and others who support us who say you guys need to do more, " a senior administration official said, referring to the information campaign. "They say, `Al Jazeera is killing us.' "

One nation where the message conveyed in the American media has provoked anger is Saudi Arabia, where Crown Prince Abdullah criticized reports questioning the kingdom's commitment to the anti-terrorism effort. In a speech broadcast Sunday he said President Bush, in a recent telephone call, had expressed regrets for stories that drove a wedge between the countries.

The White House today did not characterize the comments as an apology, saying the president believed that any depiction of the United States at odds with Saudi Arabia was wrong.

The Islamic world, however, is not the only concern for Washington. Reports that civilians have been bombed have led to a measurable drop in European support for the campaign. "The conduct of the war alarms Europe," the French newspaper Le Monde said recently.

To soothe Islamic opinion, the Pentagon has modulated the message it has delivered in the region. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the war might be over in a matter of months.

"Do I think Afghanistan will take years?" he said at a news conference in India. "No, I don't."

In a Pentagon briefing last week, however, Mr. Rumsfeld sent a different message to the American people. "We're still in the very, very early stages of this conflict," he said. "The U.S. bombed Japan for three and a half years, until August 1945, before they accomplished their objectives."

To influence international public opinion, the United States and Britain are also establishing information centers in Washington, London and Pakistan to field questions about the war.

Even senior administration officials concede that the White House was slow to realize the power of Al Jazeera as a channel to the Arab world, and that it lost valuable time in the early days of the war by not pushing its message to the satellite channel.

That has changed. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, Mr. Rumsfeld, General Myers and Secretary Powell have all given interviews to Al Jazeera. Secretary Powell also recently gave an interview to Al Hayat, an Arabic-language newspaper in London. Senior State Department officials also speak regularly by video conference call with Arab journalists based in London.

But those interviews are set-piece exercises. An important tactical shift occurred on Saturday after the administration learned that Mr. bin Laden had made another tape available to Al Jazeera.

Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said today that the administration quickly arranged for Christopher Ross, a former American ambassador to Syria who is fluent in Arabic, to go on Al Jazeera and read a statement in response.

Even so, the administration has struggled with finding Arab and non- Arab Islamic allies to speak to the region on America's behalf.

"This is a war against terror, and not against Islam," a senior military officer said. "We need to have Islamic voices saying that."

To that end, Mr. Fleischer today trumpeted comments from Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, who said Mr. bin Laden did not act of behalf of Muslims.

For all of its public relations efforts, however, the administration is involved in an uphill battle with much of Islamic public opinion, including opinion inside Afghanistan.

Today the Voice of America began broadcasts into Afghanistan citing seventh-century battles by the Prophet Muhammad to argue that Islamic armies have conducted attacks during Ramadan.

"As President George W. Bush put it," the broadcast said, "the enemy won't rest during Ramadan, and neither will we."
Subject: Which America Will We Be Now? by Bill Moyers PART 2


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:17:56 12/03/01 Mon

Which America Will We Be Now?

by Bill Moyers

PART 2
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011119&c=2&s=moyers

ome things just don't change. When I read that Dick Armey, the Republican majority leader in the House, said "it wouldn't be commensurate with the American spirit" to provide unemployment and other benefits to laid-off airline workers, I thought that once again the Republican Party has lived down to Harry Truman's description of the GOP as Guardians of Privilege. And as for Truman's Democratic Party--the party of the New Deal and the Fair Deal--well, it breaks my heart to report that the Democratic National Committee has used the terrorist attacks to call for widening the soft-money loophole in our election laws. How about that for a patriotic response to terrorism? Mencken got it right when he said, "Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it."

Let's face it: These realities present citizens with no options but to climb back in the ring. We are in what educators call "a teachable moment." And we'll lose it if we roll over and shut up. What's at stake is democracy. Democracy wasn't canceled on September 11, but democracy won't survive if citizens turn into lemmings. Yes, the President is our Commander in Chief, but we are not the President's minions. While firemen and police were racing into the fires of hell in downtown New York, and now, while our soldiers and airmen and Marines are putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan, the Administration and its Congressional allies are allowing multinational companies to make their most concerted effort in twenty years to roll back clean-air measures, exploit public lands and stuff the pockets of their executives and shareholders with undeserved cash. Against such crass exploitation, unequaled since the Teapot Dome scandal, it is every patriot's duty to join the loyal opposition. Even in war, politics is about who gets what and who doesn't. If the mercenaries and the politicians-for-rent in Washington try to exploit the emergency and America's good faith to grab what they wouldn't get through open debate in peacetime, the disloyalty will not be in our dissent but in our subservience. The greatest sedition would be our silence. Yes, there's a fight going on--against terrorists around the globe, but just as certainly there's a fight going on here at home, to decide the kind of country this will be during and after the war on terrorism.

What should our strategy be? Here are a couple of suggestions, beginning with how we elect our officials. As Congress debates new security measures, military spending, energy policies, economic stimulus packages and various bailout requests, wouldn't it be better if we knew that elected officials had to answer to the people who vote instead of the wealthy individual and corporate donors whose profit or failure may depend on how those new initiatives are carried out?

That's not a utopian notion. Thanks to the efforts of many hardworking pro-democracy activists who have been organizing at the grassroots for the past ten years, we already have four states--Maine, Arizona, Vermont and Massachusetts--where state representatives from governor on down have the option of rejecting all private campaign contributions and qualifying for full public financing of their campaigns. About a third of Maine's legislature and a quarter of Arizona's got elected last year running clean--that is, under their states' pioneering Clean Elections systems, they collected a set number of $5 contributions and then pledged to raise no other money and to abide by strict spending limits.

These unsung heroes of democracy, the first class of elected officials to owe their elections solely to their voters and not to any deep-pocketed backers, report a greater sense of independence from special interests and more freedom to speak their minds. "The business lobbyists left me alone," says State Representative Glenn Cummings, a freshman from Maine who was the first candidate in the country to qualify for Clean Elections funding. "I think they assumed I was unapproachable. It sure made it easier to get through the hallways on the way to a vote!" His colleague in the Statehouse, Senator Ed Youngblood, recalls that running clean changed the whole process of campaigning. "When people would say that it didn't matter how they voted, because legislators would just vote the way the money wants," he tells us, "it was great to be able to say, 'I don't have to vote the way some lobbyist wants just to insure that I'll get funded by him in two years for re-election.'"

It's too soon to say that money no longer talks in either state capital, but it clearly doesn't swagger as much. In Maine, the legislature passed a bill creating a Health Security Board tasked with devising a detailed plan to implement a single-payer healthcare system for the state. The bill wasn't everything its sponsor, Representative Paul Volenik, wanted, but he saw real progress toward a universal healthcare system in its passage. Two years ago, he noted, only fifty-five members of the House of Representatives (out of 151) voted for the bill. This time eighty-seven did, including almost all the Democrats and a few Republicans. The bill moved dramatically further, and a portion of that is because of the Clean Elections system they have there, Volenik said.

But the problem is larger than that of money in politics. Democracy needs a broader housecleaning. Consider, for example, what a different country we would be if we had a Citizens Channel with a mandate to cover real social problems, not shark attacks or Gary Condit's love life, while covering up Rupert Murdoch's manipulations of the FCC and CBS's ploy to filch tax breaks for its post-terrorist losses. Such a channel could have spurred serious attention to the weakness of airport security, for starters, pointing out long ago how the industry, through its contributions, had wrung from government the right to contract that security to the lowest bidder. It might have pushed the issue of offshore-banking havens to page one, or turned up the astonishing deceit of the NAFTA provision that enables secret tribunals to protect the interests of investors while subverting the well-being of workers and the health of communities. Such a channel--committed to news for the sake of democracy--might also have told how corporations and their alumni in the Bush Administration have thwarted the development of clean, home-grown energy that would slow global warming and the degradation of our soil, air and water, while reducing our dependence on oligarchs, dictators and theocrats abroad.

Even now the media elite, with occasional exceptions, remain indifferent to the hypocrisy of Washington's mercenary class as it goes about the dirty work of its paymasters. What a contrast to those citizens who during these weeks of loss and mourning have reminded us that the kingdom of the human heart is large, containing not only hatred but courage. Much has been made of the comparison to December 7, 1941. I find it apt. In response to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Americans waged and won a great war, then came home to make this country more prosperous and just. It is not beyond this generation to live up to that example. To do so, we must define ourselves not by the lives we led until September 11 but by the lives we will lead from now on. If we seize the opportunity to build a stronger country, we too will ultimately prevail in the challenges ahead, at home and abroad. But we cannot win this new struggle by military might alone. We will prevail only if we lead by example, as a democracy committed to the rule of law and the spirit of fairness, whose corporate and political elites recognize that it isn't only firefighters, police and families grieving their missing kin who are called upon to sacrifice.
Subject: Which America Will We Be Now? by Bill Moyers


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:16:29 12/03/01 Mon

Which America Will We Be Now?

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

or the past several years I've been taking every possible opportunity to talk about the soul of democracy. "Something is deeply wrong with politics today," I told anyone who would listen. And I wasn't referring to the partisan mudslinging, the negative TV ads, the excessive polling or the empty campaigns. I was talking about something fundamental, something troubling at the core of politics. The soul of democracy--the essence of the word itself--is government of, by and for the people. And the soul of democracy has been dying, drowning in a rising tide of big money contributed by a narrow, unrepresentative elite that has betrayed the faith of citizens in self-government.

But what's happened since the September 11 attacks would seem to put the lie to my fears. Americans have rallied together in a way that I cannot remember since World War II. This catastrophe has reminded us of a basic truth at the heart of our democracy: No matter our wealth or status or faith, we are all equal before the law, in the voting booth and when death rains down from the sky.

We have also been reminded that despite years of scandals and political corruption, despite the stream of stories of personal greed and pirates in Gucci scamming the Treasury, despite the retreat from the public sphere and the turn toward private privilege, despite squalor for the poor and gated communities for the rich, the great mass of Americans have not yet given up on the idea of "We, the People." And they have refused to accept the notion, promoted so diligently by our friends at the Heritage Foundation, that government should be shrunk to a size where, as Grover Norquist has put it, they can drown it in a bathtub.

These ideologues at Heritage and elsewhere, by the way, earlier this year teamed up with deep-pocket bankers--many from Texas, with ties to the Bush White House--to stop America from cracking down on terrorist money havens. How about that for patriotism? Better that terrorists get their dirty money than tax cheaters be prevented from hiding theirs. And these people wrap themselves in the flag and sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" with gusto.

Contrary to right-wing denigration of government, however, today's heroes are public servants. The 20-year-old dot-com instant millionaires and the preening, pugnacious pundits of tabloid television and the crafty celebrity stock-pickers on the cable channels have all been exposed for what they are--barnacles on the hull of the great ship of state. In their stead we have those brave firefighters and policemen and Port Authority workers and emergency rescue personnel--public employees all, most of them drawing a modest middle-class income for extremely dangerous work. They have caught our imaginations not only for their heroic deeds but because we know so many people like them, people we took for granted. For once, our TV screens have been filled with the modest declarations of average Americans coming to each other's aid. I find this good and thrilling and sobering. It could offer a new beginning, a renewal of civic values that could leave our society stronger and more together than ever, working on common goals for the public good.

Already, in the wake of September 11, there's been a heartening change in how Americans view their government. For the first time in more than thirty years a majority of people say they trust the federal government to do the right thing at least "most of the time." It's as if the clock has been rolled back to the early 1960s, before Vietnam and Watergate took such a toll on the gross national psychology. This newfound respect for public service--this faith in public collaboration--is based in part on how people view what the government has done in response to the attacks. To most Americans, government right now doesn't mean a faceless bureaucrat or a politician auctioning access to the highest bidder. It means a courageous rescuer or brave soldier. Instead of our representatives spending their evenings clinking glasses with fat cats, they are out walking among the wounded.

There are, alas, less heartening signs to report. It didn't take long for the wartime opportunists--the mercenaries of Washington, the lobbyists, lawyers and political fundraisers--to crawl out of their offices on K Street determined to grab what they can for their clients. While in New York we are still attending memorial services for firemen and police, while everywhere Americans' cheeks are still stained with tears, while the President calls for patriotism, prayers and piety, the predators of Washington are up to their old tricks in the pursuit of private plunder at public expense. In the wake of this awful tragedy wrought by terrorism, they are cashing in. Would you like to know the memorial they would offer the thousands of people who died in the attacks? Or the legacy they would leave the children who lost a parent in the horror? How do they propose to fight the long and costly war on terrorism America must now undertake? Why, restore the three-martini lunch--that will surely strike fear in the heart of Osama bin Laden. You think I'm kidding, but bringing back the deductible lunch is one of the proposals on the table in Washington right now. And cut capital gains for the wealthy, naturally--that's America's patriotic duty, too. And while we're at it, don't forget to eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax, enacted fifteen years ago to prevent corporations from taking so many credits and deductions that they owed little if any taxes. But don't just repeal their minimum tax; refund to those corporations all the minimum tax they have ever been assessed.

What else can America do to strike at the terrorists? Why, slip in a special tax break for poor General Electric, and slip inside the EPA while everyone's distracted and torpedo the recent order to clean the Hudson River of PCBs. Don't worry about NBC, CNBC or MSNBC reporting it; they're all in the GE family. It's time for Churchillian courage, we're told. So how would this crowd assure that future generations will look back and say "This was their finest hour"? That's easy. Give those coal producers freedom to pollute. And shovel generous tax breaks to those giant energy companies. And open the Alaska wilderness to drilling--that's something to remember the 11th of September for. And while the red, white and blue waves at half-mast over the land of the free and the home of the brave--why, give the President the power to discard democratic debate and the rule of law concerning controversial trade agreements, and set up secret tribunals to run roughshod over local communities trying to protect their environment and their health. If I sound a little bitter about this, I am; the President rightly appeals every day for sacrifice. But to these mercenaries sacrifice is for suckers. So I am bitter, yes, and sad. Our business and political class owes us better than this. After all, it was they who declared class war twenty years ago, and it was they who won. They're on top. If ever they were going to put patriotism over profits, if ever they were going to practice the magnanimity of winners, this was the moment. To hide now behind the flag while ripping off a country in crisis fatally separates them from the common course of American life.
Subject: An X-Rayed X-mas: Should the USPS Irradiate Your Mail?


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:15:12 12/03/01 Mon

An X-Rayed X-mas: Should the USPS Irradiate Your Mail?
J.A. Savage, AlterNet
November 5, 2001
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11852

Imagine if the fruitcake Aunt Emma sends you every year is, in 2001, subjected not just to auntie's stove, but to an oven the size of a house that zaps the poor loaf at 25 kiloGrays, delivering the radioactive equivalent of 825 million chest X-rays to the X-mas cake. And you thought it tasted funky last year.

In response to the current anthrax-in-the-mail scare, the federal government has bought eight such irradiation devices, with an option for 12 more, for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). At $5 million per device, they are possibly the USPS's most expensive attempt to quiet public fears about bioterrorism. But will the devices actually make the public safer? Or will irradiating our letters, bills, catalogs, mail-order do-dads and holiday presents have unintended health and environmental consequences, either in the long or short term?

Unfortunately, the government isn't answering those question, or hardly any questions at all, about mail irradiation. Unable to get such information, consumer advocates and activists who cut their teeth struggling against irradiated foods have filed a number of public information requests. On Nov. 1, Public Citizen filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking for copies of scientific studies used by the USPS to prove that irradiation technology kills anthrax spores. The Nuclear Information and Research Service (NIRS), also sent a formal letter to the USPS on Nov. 2, asking for full disclosure on mail irradiation.

Among their concerns, according to NIRS Project Coordinator Cindy Folkers, are what might happen if the irradiation process isn't fully effective. "If spores are not destroyed with irradiation, mutation is risked," their Nov. 2 letter pointed out. As Folkers asks, "Might you end up with something worse if you irradiate anthrax?"

In a testimony to Congress at the end of October, USPS Vice President Tom Day referred to an armed forces microbiology study to support his claim that this irradiation technology kills anthrax spores, according to Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's energy project, who was at the hearing. But Hauter said the study was neither peer-reviewed in the scientific community nor published. "I just want to know how much radiation" will be used, she added.

In Hauter's experience with food irradiation, a process similar to mail irradiation, objects are bombarded with about 7 kiloGrays -- the equivalent of 233 million chest X-rays. She believes the USPS machines, which use a slightly different "e-beam" technology, would deliver 25 kiloGrays. Even at that high level of irradiation, Hauter and Folkers question the devices' efficacy for killing anthrax spores.

"There is not very much research out there," said Hauter, and what there is, she says, does not address the e-beam technology. What research Folkers found indicated there is scientific evidence that water must be present to have irradiation kill spores. But, she said, spores contain only 15 percent to 20 percent water, while normal cells contain about 70 percent water. "Radiation kills by breaking down water," she said. Hauter also claims that e-beams only penetrate 1.5 inches through a package, so thick materials with spores on the bottom would not be sterilized, even if the technology does work.

Titan Scan, the military contractor that is selling the e-beam units to the USPS, did not return numerous calls for comment. Its major competitor, Belgium-based IBA, would not remark on whether it was negotiating with the U.S. government over selling its irradiation units. IBA did announce, however, on Oct. 23, that its e-beam technology "can kill anthrax spores."

The American Postal Workers Union severely limited media interviews last week, so there's no official word on workers' choice between the dangers of anthrax inhalation or potential dangers from ionizing radiation. In the current climate of anthrax fears, it's likely that postal workers would choose the latter risk. However, if anyone may suffer from irradiation devices, it would be USPS employees.

Most of the bad history with irradiation devices, including fatalities, have involved a technology that uses gamma rays as the source of irradiation, not the e-beam technology pursued by the USPS. But there are two instances of workers in e-beam food irradiation facilities losing extremities in the 1990s, according to Public Citizen, and one instance in which two cancer patients were killed when an e-beam irradiator used in cancer therapy malfunctioned.

What might prove more hazardous to workers is the ozone given off by the electron beam. "The long-term effect on lungs can be deadly," noted Hauter, who added that the devices must have plenty of fresh air to minimize exposure.

Like the fruitcake initially in question, ionizing radiation may alter more than its intended target -- if it's going to try to kill a tough little anthrax spore, it's going to have some effects on everything else it passes through. NIRS, in its request for information from USPS, asked for details on damage to film, computer equipment, magnetic media, scientific research materials and blood. Public Citizen, in its Freedom of Information Act request, added questions of e-beam's effect on pharmaceuticals, eyeglasses and credit cards.

For certain, irradiation would make it impossible to ship certain products through the USPS. Food items would have to forfeit any "organic" labels after being zapped, which could be a major blow to the organic foods market. It is unlikely that seeds would be able to germinate after being passed through an e-beam. And in its literature, Titan admits to color changes in plastics as well as embrittlement. IBA admits there are side effects to mail, but deems them "limited" and gives no details.

No one wants to be the target -- intended or unintended -- of biological warfare. But in its hurry to protect the postal system, the government may not be adequately addressing public concerns in the matter. Folkers, for one, would rather have her questions answered than finding out 20 years from now about deadly long-term consequences of irradiated mail -- and she works in Washington, D.C.

"I'd rather take my chance [with anthrax]," she admits, "than the government take these measures without full disclosure."

J.A. Savage is a senior correspondent for California Energy Markets newsletter.
Subject: Mark Green Delivers Democratic Response To The President's Weekly Radio Address


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:13:19 12/03/01 Mon

t r u t h o u t | 11.06

Mark Green Delivers Democratic Response To The President's Weekly Radio Address
http://www.truthout.com/11.06A.Response.htm

Massive, Secretive Detention Effort Aimed Mainly at Preventing More Terror
http://www.truthout.com/11.06B.Terror.htm

ANDY ROONEY | Follow What Leader?
http://www.truthout.com/11.06C.Rooney.htm

Taleban Demand UN Aid
http://www.truthout.com/11.06D.Taliban.htm

t r u t h o u t, is a non-profit independent news source.

Subscribe to, t r u t h o u t - (Free) :

---

Reader Comments :
Subject: A.N.S.W.E.R. FACT SHEET ­ The Media and the Government


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:11:58 12/03/01 Mon

A.N.S.W.E.R. FACT SHEET ­ The Media and the Government

The State Of The "Free Press" After October 7 —
ALL PROPAGANDA, ALL THE TIME!

In the past weeks, images have been seen around the world of bombings of villages, hospitals, mosques, Red Cross facilities and more. What has been the response of those dropping the bombs? The U.S. and England are opening what they call “Coalition Information Centers” — a plan for 24-hour-a-day domination of the news to manipulate and refute these images.

In the last weeks, the Bush administration, the Pentagon and the CIA have been battening down all of the hatches to deprive the people of the United States of any independent source of information. Why is the government so afraid that people in the United States will have the opportunity to receive uncensored news and information? It is because the Bush administration, having learned a crucial lesson in Vietnam, knows that if the people actually learn the truth about the war, they may become its most vocal and effective opponents.

In some countries, governments have waged violent and repressive wars against journalists. Reporters have been arrested and even killed, fear has been installed in those who seek to go against the government. But that is not the case in the U.S. Reporters here don’t have to be arrested or shot or even threatened. These big capitalist media realize that their real function is to be the public relations arm of the Pentagon. They are engaging in self-censorship.

U.S. textbooks teach of a U.S. media that is distinguished from the media in vast parts of the globe because it is a “free press” — not a state-run media, but an independent media, free from government supervision and dictates.

But since September 11, 2001, and especially since the bombing of Afghanistan began on October 7, it would be very hard to assert that there is a free or independent press in the United States. (Those who have studied the corporate-dominated media know that there wasn’t much of a “free” press in the U.S. prior to September 11 either, though there is a growing progressive media independent from corporate domination.)

Did you know that ...

On October 7 — the day the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan — the National Imagery and Mapping Agency signed a contract for exclusive rights to all commercial satellite imagery of Afghanistan and other countries in the region. The U.S. government’s National Imagery and Mapping Agency is a “top-secret Defense Department intelligence agency,” and it is currently in negotiations to renew its contract, which expires November 5. It paid $1.91 million for the first 30 days of the contract. (Reuters, 10/30/01, “US in talks to keep rights to satellite images)

On October 10, White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice met with major U.S. television networks and asked them not to show videotaped messages issued by Osama bin Laden live and unedited. They agreed to this request. MSNBC and Fox News did not air at all the next statement issued by bin Laden, and CNN showed only brief excerpts.

On October 11, the Bush administration asked newspapers not to print statements issued by Osama bin Laden. They agreed.

On October 17, a closed-door meeting was held between network heads and studio chiefs in Hollywood and members of the Bush administration. Deputy Assistant to the President Chris Henick and Associate Director of the Office of Public Liaison Adam Goldman represented the Bush administration in the meeting, where Hollywood heads “committed themselves to new initiatives in support of the war on terrorism. These initiatives would stress efforts to enhance the perception of America around the world, to ‘get out the message’ on the fight against terrorism and to mobilize existing resources, such as satellites and cable, to foster better global understanding.” (Variety, 10/18/01, White House enlists Hollywood for war effort, By Peter Bart)

On October 30, the chairman of CNN and its head of standards and practices sent memos to the CNN staff relating to their coverage of the war. In the first memo, Walter Isaacson, the chairman of CNN, said it “seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan.” The memo sent by Rick Davis, the head of standards and practices, continued, it “may be hard for the correspondent in these dangerous areas to make the points clearly.” Davis actually suggested language for anchors to use while footage of civilian casualties was being shown: (1) “We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this from Taliban-controlled areas, that these U.S. military actions are in response to a terrorist attack that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the U.S.” or (2) “We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this, that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan continues to harbor terrorists who have praised the September 11 attacks that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the U.S.” or (3) “The Pentagon has repeatedly stressed that it is trying to minimize civilian casualties in Afghanistan, even as the Taliban regime continues to harbor terrorists who are connected to the September 11 attacks that claimed thousands of innocent lives in the U.S.” He concludes, “Even though it may start sounding rote, it is important that we make this point each time.” (“CNN Chief Orders ‘Balance’ in War News” by Howard Kurtz, Washington Post 10/31/01)

On October 30, British Defense Minister Geoff Hoon met with U.S. Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld, to stress England’s concern about the fact that public opinion in Britain and the rest of Western Europe has been turning against the war, largely because of the increasing reports of civilian casualties from the bombing. A “Western diplomat” quoted in the New York Times said, “the collateral damage doesn’t make nice pictures in the newspapers.” The Times also reported that “The European public appears more concerned about civilian casualties than ending the war swiftly.” Senior Blair adviser Alstair Campbell met with U.S. Presidential Counselor Karen Hughes about concerns about public opinion in Europe and the Middle East. (“U.S. Campaign on 2nd Front: Public Opinion” by Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, 10/31/01)

On October 31, Taliban representatives held a press conference in Pakistan to announce that over 1,500 people had been killed in the first 24 days of bombing, mainly civilians.

On October 31, at a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Syrian President Bashar Assad said “We cannot accept what we see on the [television] screen every day — hundreds of civilians dying.”

On November 1, the U.S. and Britain jointly opened “Coalition Information Centers” in Washington DC, London and Islamabad, Pakistan. These centers will allow for 24-hour-a-day efforts to dominate news coverage of the U.S.. and British bombing of Afghanistan. Their focus will be on rebutting reports of civilian casualties. It will include press conferences, speeches and Internet reports staggered to target morning and evening coverage in the U.S., Europe and the Middle East and South/Central Asia. The State Department is planning its own effort to circulate information on the Internet and providing downloadable information sheets to be used by U.S. embassies worldwide. (“U.S., Britain Step Up War for Public Opinion,” by Karen DeYoung, 11/1/01 Washington Post)

On November 2, New York Times Op-Ed writer Thomas Friedman wrote, “A month into the war in Afghanistan, the hand-wringing has already begun over how long this might last. Let's all take a deep breath and repeat after me: Give war a chance. This is Afghanistan we're talking about. Check the map. It's far away.” (“One War, Two Fronts,” by Thomas L. Friedman, NY Times, 11/2/01)

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

This is the IAC activist announcement
list. Anyone can subscribe by sending
any message to


{Caveat: Following federal action at WKII and the Jumping Bull residence in
the 1970s, several news articles were planted by authorities in order to stir
up national emotion against the AIM, highlight the "we're on it" image of the
FBI and Nixon administration..
... Native News Online has no way of verifying the accuracy of news reports
from even major news papers. It is well to keep in mind that media control
was one of the Naval War College's plans in the event of national panic in
wake of Y2K, ergo this is not a policy restricted to the 70s. Most of us
have read news articles later contradicted by other articles..foreign news
sources which print information that differs from US.
See: http://209.114.70.195/hosted/ishgooda/peltier/cointelpro/

Truth is out there..somewhere..maybe..Ish}

"in wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
Donald Rumsfeld quoting Winston Churchill, Sept 2001
{kind of like surrounding a precious stone with thieves?}
Subject: Activist Kit


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:09:14 12/03/01 Mon

Dear fellow Activists,

My name is Bill Douglas, and I am a professional writer and an OpEd columnist. ACTION IS NEEDED NOW.

A dark cloud has descended over journalism, and the chances of Americans to get the truth on a very disturbing issue around the 9-11 horror.

I was until recently a member of the Society of Professional
Journalists discussion group, but after complaints from reactionary raging reporters that I should NOT be airing the below facts, I was "cut off." Since then when the journalists on the list who supported my right to speak have discussed these facts in my place they have gotten warnings as well. While the reactionary reporters called me "UN-American" and an "Arab terrorist mouthpiece" for simply
asking why the following were not looked into. THESE ARE
PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS TALKING LIKE THIS!! Is this the role of a "journalist," to be the mouth piece of the CIA?" I don't think so.

[for the record. I was born in Kansas. My family has had 3
veterans, one officer, and one non-com. My father fought several years in direct combat and received the Purple Heart. I guarantee you if he were alive today he would be very disturbed about this news. How can I and my father be UN-American? I don't' understand this bizarre concept.]

The media is being dominated by very reactionary forces right now and free thinkers cannot look at these facts, for fear of losing their jobs, no matter how disturbing these fact are. So, in frustration, I have created the below activist kits, to FORCE a real look at this.

I pray you will find some way to share this information with your networks. If the information below leads to the conclusion, it means that people like myself and the hundreds of others disseminating the below facts could be "very vulnerable." Our safety could hinge on whether people like you help to get these facts out to the public.

I URGE EVERYONE TO MAKE THE USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THIS INFORMATION your main priority for the coming weeks. Read the facts below, and the URL sources offered. Then email me and put "SEND KIT" in the subject line and I will send you this info with emailing and FAX number lists for the US House, and US Senate Democrats, hundreds of newspaper contacts in several countries, the United Nations Missions,
the European Commission offices, and all British Consulates. It has become necessary to share this story beyond our borders because US media and US government is apparently ignoring it.

AGAIN, please read the following and then email me at
wtcqd2000@hotmail.com and write SEND KIT in subject line, and then spread this Activist Kit as wide, as far and as fast as you can. Time is of the essence.

Each fact is footnoted with a URL link to a credible respected news site.

· The insider trading profits made off the tragedy now may lead to an investment house chaired by the #3 man at the CIA. Is this why it was DROPPED by the media when they realized it wasn't Arab Terrorists who played the stock.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html . Info confirmed by Independent Newspaper in UK: http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?
story=99402

· ABC News.com's May, 2001 story exposes recently released documents that showed the US Joint Chiefs of Staff actually planned to foment domestic terrorism to whip Americans into a pro-war frenzy. This was in the 60's but it shows that the highest echelons of our govt. have actually considered terrorizing their own people for political gain.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

· The French Newspaper, Le Figaro reports the CIA met with Bin Laden in Dubai, in July 2001, only 2 months before the 9-11 horror (and at a time when he was on the US "wanted" list for other attacks, and the operative who met with him was IMMEDIATELY recalled to Washington after the meeting for a meeting in Washington). An English translation of this report can be found at: (English
Translation) http://sg.news.yahoo.com/011031/1/1ml07.html
· (German Trans.) http://www.orf.at/orfon/011031-
44569/index.html

Consider why Anthrax was sent to the top Democrat's office? Wouldn't foreign terrorists want to "divide" our nation, rather than "uniting" the opposition behind the war effort? (food for thought, considering that reports reveal the Anthrax strain sent to Daschle's office more resembles Anthrax created by the US military than that of Iraq or
Russia). [New Scientist | 19:00 24 October 01 Anthrax Bacteria Likely to Be US military Strain Debora MacKenzie ]

Respond with SEND KIT to get Activist Kit with Fax and emails for media and government worldwide.

God bless,

Bill Douglas, wtcqd2000@hotmail.com (be sure and write SEND KIT in the subject line when emailing me for the kits)
Subject: A Sacramento journalist is taken into custody by police and forced to destroy photos by an over-zealous National Guardsman.


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:02:46 12/03/01 Mon

from Peter W..thanks!

Homeland Insecurity
A Sacramento journalist is taken into custody by police and forced to destroy photos by an over-zealous National Guardsman. Apparently, the terrorists are indeed causing instability.

By R.V. Scheide
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2001-10-25/cover.asp#

The Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 sighed as its wheels kissed the Los Angeles International Airport tarmac. Flight 1206 out of Sacramento taxied to the gate, and my fellow passengers and I released our white-knuckle grips on the foam-covered armrests of our seats. No one’s throat had been slit. We hadn’t flown into a skyscraper. We’d made it, safely, much to our collective relief.

It was 5:05 p.m. on Friday, October 12, and we had call to be apprehensive. The previous day, the FBI had placed the entire nation on high alert, based on “credible” information that Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization headed by Osama bin Laden, was planning reprisal attacks on U.S. soil for the coming weekend. The bureau urged Americans to report any suspicious activity. Friday morning, armed troops from the California National Guard were deployed at Sacramento International Airport.

America, as we’ve been told over and over since September 11, is forever changed. Nowhere is this change more evident than in our approach to national security. Practically overnight, major metropolitan airports across the country have been turned into militarized zones crawling with armed soldiers and police. Their presence is designed to deter terrorists and provide us with a sense of security, but as I was about to discover, that security has come at a high price.

I’d purchased a roundtrip ticket from Sacramento International to LAX to observe firsthand the unprecedented measures being taken to combat terrorism. There’d been more than a little fear and paranoia in Sacramento and I expected to find more of the same in Los Angeles.

I didn’t expect to be ordered to destroy photographs by an irate National Guardsman. I didn’t expect the Los Angeles Police Department to confiscate and read the notes I’d taken on my trip. I didn’t expect to be questioned by the FBI and detained for nearly three hours for no probable cause.

I didn’t expect any of these things, but that’s what happened. As I followed my fellow passengers up the jetway and into the LAX terminal, I had no idea I was stepping onto the War on Terrorism’s first domestic battlefield, where, as in all wars, truth was about to become the first casualty.

Terminal 1 at LAX is usually jam-packed with people, but there were no friends or relatives waiting to greet loved ones at the gate. As part of the heightened security precautions, only ticketed passengers are permitted to pass through the metal detectors and into the boarding areas. That’s why the area between the security checkpoint and the aircraft is called the “sterile zone.” Everyone who has been allowed to enter the sterile zone has been checked out. Everyone is “clean.”

I checked the time of my return flight on the monitor at the gate and discovered that because of a ticketing error, I only had a 15-minute layover--barely enough time to walk down to the security checkpoint and back--to catch my return flight. In Sacramento, I’d taken photographs of Guard members, armed with M-16s and pistols, taking positions behind the personnel operating the metal detectors at the security checkpoints. I’d seen other passengers take photos. I figured I’d snap a few pictures of the LAX security checkpoint and board my return flight. I figured wrong.

As I reached the checkpoint, I saw that the four guardsmen were deployed in exactly the same fashion as in Sacramento, behind the metal detectors. I removed the small digital camera from the right breast pocket of my leather jacket and took several photographs of the armed citizen-soldiers. I had just turned to head back to the gate when a loud voice boomed at me from the direction of the checkpoint.

“Hey you! What are you doing?”

A California National Guardsman, a big guy with a buzz-cut dressed head-to-toe in camouflage army fatigues, was moving rapidly toward me. I froze as he approached. He came so close it seemed impossible he wasn’t touching me..

“Did you take my picture?” he asked angrily. “Did you take my picture?”

“I’m a journalist, working on a story about airport security,” I told him.

“You can’t take pictures here,” he said.

“Says who?” I asked.

“Says me!” he barked.

He moved next to me, shoulder-to-shoulder, so he could view the camera’s display screen. “You are going to show me the pictures you took, you are going to delete the pictures you took, and you are going to show me that they are deleted!” he breathed down my neck.

“This is a public space, I have every right to be here,” I said. “There are no signs that say you can’t take pictures here.”

“Either you delete the photos, or I’m taking you to a room, and you can talk to my superiors. You can talk to the FBI.”

Normally, I would have stood my ground. I would have talked to his superiors, the FBI. I was 99 percent certain that I had every right to take photographs of the California National Guard at the LAX checkpoint. Nothing I had read about the new security precautions, no one I had talked to, including other Guard members, had advised me otherwise.

But these are anything but normal times, and the slight shadow of doubt that had entered my mind, weighted by the intimidating behavior of the guardsman, caused me to make a questionable decision, at least from a journalistic viewpoint. I showed him the photos I had taken of the checkpoint, he objected to every one of them, and he ordered me to delete them. So I deleted them. I looked at the guardsman’s I.D. badge and wrote his name down.

“What are you doing!?” he screamed. By now, his face had visibly reddened. “Don’t you write my name down!!”

What strange universe had I entered? What was I supposed to do, cross his name out? Force myself to forget it? The guardsman’s anger seemed totally out of proportion to the situation. To put it bluntly, he scared the living hell out of me. Only the timely intervention of a female Los Angeles Police Officer smoothed the scene over. She asked to see my I.D., ascertained that my California Driver’s License was valid, and allowed me to proceed back into the terminal to catch my flight.

“Hey!” the guardsman yelled as I was departing. “Where’s your ticket?”

I pulled it out of my left breast pocket, where it had been in plain view during the entire encounter, and showed it to him from 10 feet away.

“Right here,” I said.

He didn’t ask to look at it more closely, to see if it was actually a valid ticket, so I left, beaten (I’d been forced to delete my photographs) but not broken--I was still going to catch my flight home.

Or so I thought. I reached the gate at the absolute last second and was permitted to board the plane. The flight was nearly full, and I took one of only two empty seats in the back. Several passengers chuckled at my hurried, flustered appearance. I began to furiously scribble in my reporter’s notebook, trying to capture all the details of what had just transpired before they faded from memory. The plane was on the verge of pulling out of the gate when an LAX Southwest Airlines employee--not a member of the plane’s crew--materialized in front of me.

“Sir, I’m going to have to ask you to exit the aircraft,” he said.

I’d been on board no longer than three minutes. As I limply followed the Southwest employee out of the plane and up the jetway, I knew who would be waiting on the other side of the door.

Two LAPD police officers greeted me at the gate. The California National Guardsman was standing behind them. Officer Brennan, the same policewoman who had just checked my I.D., now informed me that passengers from both of my flights, the one into LAX and the one I had just been removed from, had complained about my “suspicious behavior.”

“Who complained?” I asked her.

“I can’t tell you that, sir,” she said.

“What suspicious behavior?” I asked.

“They said you were going through overhead compartments and writing things down.”

“I have one carry-on bag,” I said, indicating my backpack. “I placed it under the seat in front of me on both flights. I didn’t even touch an overhead compartment. And since when is writing in a notebook considered suspicious activity?”

“We’re going to have to detain you, sir.”

The guardsman smirked behind her.

“You both know I’m a journalist,” I said.

“Yeah, you said you were working on a story about airport security,” the guardsman said. “What do you want to do, give away our security positions to the enemy?” I stared at him incredulously as the second LAPD officer, Ramirez, confiscated my notebook.

“Do you have press credentials?” he asked.

Uh-oh. I’m a freelance writer. I don’t even carry a business card, just my California Driver’s License, my Social Security card, and a bunch of credit cards. For all they knew, I was Joe Q. Ticketed Passenger walking around the terminal taking notes and photographs, which, I was still 99 percent certain, was completely within my rights. “I don’t need press credentials to be in an airport,” I declared. “Give me back my notebook.”

Instead, Ramirez passed the notebook to Brennan, who leafed through it with the guardsman while Ramirez sternly advised me to “shut up” and “stop asking questions.” My handwriting is worse than a doctor’s, and Brennan thought I’d misspelled her name. She guffawed and elbowed the guardsman. He got an even bigger kick out of my initial description of him as “unarmed.” I hadn’t noted his gun until later.

“You got that wrong,” he said, smugly patting the pistol strapped to his side.

“Turn the page,” I said curtly.

My acquiescence was giving way to anger. I had followed the guardsman’s direct order to delete the photographs, against my better judgment. That should have placated him, in my opinion. I couldn’t help feeling that the guardsman and the LAPD were now harassing me for daring to put up any verbal resistance at all. Brennan’s explanation that I had been detained because unnamed persons had observed me acting suspiciously on both flights didn’t wash. “Who are these witnesses?” I kept asking. “What did I do?” She didn’t have to answer my questions, she said, because of “operational security,” and “new FAA regulations.” Then she took my ballpoint pen, “because it could be used as a weapon.”

She wasn’t being ironic. In fact, the idea that a pen could literally be used as a weapon had occurred to me before boarding Flight 1206. A month ago, such thoughts would have been considered unusual. Now, they constitute the mindset of the average American air traveler. I’d discovered as much earlier that day at Sacramento International.

I arrived at the airport at 11 a.m., just as several local TV crews were setting up their remote units in front of Terminal A. The California National Guard had deployed earlier in the morning, and it was big news. Reporters, photographers and TV camera operators were gathered on the terminal’s second level, observing ticketed passengers as they moved through the metal detectors. Occasionally, a guardsman shouldering an M-16 could be glimpsed behind the checkpoint, but otherwise, it was a dull photo opportunity. The only way to pass through the checkpoint and into the sterile zone, where the Guard was actually posted, was to buy a ticket.

It took 25 minutes to pass through the line at the Southwest Airlines counter. The customers waiting in line were clearly more jittery than usual; eye contact and conversations between strangers were rare; furtive, nervous glances were the norm. A healthcare executive from Kansas City who said he’d flown seven times since September 11 told me about two women he’d seen detained for periods of time in two separate airports. They’d been very upset, he said, but “we’re just going to have to get used to it.”

After purchasing the ticket, I waited in line at the security checkpoint, removing the laptop computer out of my backpack as instructed by a makeshift sign in the staging area. I also removed my camera and my tape recorder, just in case. The line ahead of me stalled for several minutes; passengers grumbled. When it was my turn, I placed my devices, along with the backpack, on the conveyor belt and passed through the checkpoint without setting off any alarms. I was in the sterile zone.

I proceeded to photograph the half-dozen or so guardsmen at the Sacramento checkpoint from approximately 30 feet away. I took several shots, then interviewed California Air National Guard Captain Jeff Wurm, the officer in charge of the detail. In civilian life, Wurm is a computer programmer and analyst. Now he’s commanding a squad on the frontlines of the War on Terror. Like all National Guardsmen currently patrolling the nation’s airports, he and the members of his unit had received two days FAA airport security training before being deployed.

“What we’re here for is security and deterrence,” Wurm said. Translation: The Guard were there to be seen, and the citizen-soldiers at Sacramento didn’t flinch when an occasional passerby snapped a photograph of the newly militarized checkpoint. Although a few people gaped at the camouflaged men carrying automatic weaponry in the airport, most thanked the Guard for being there.

During the half-hour I observed the checkpoint, I saw no obvious profiling of passengers going through. The California National Guard is supervising the process; all the screening at the checkpoints is still conducted by security personnel subcontracted by the airlines. A few passengers complained about being subjected to extra searching, usually because metal objects they didn’t know they had been carrying had set off the metal detector. “It’s like down at the jail,” said one man whose steel-shanked boots had set off the buzzer. He was allowed to continue after removing his boots and being thoroughly “wanded” with a hand-held metal detector. I was interviewing a man who had forgotten he was carrying a Buck knife when two Sacramento sheriff’s deputies, J. Coe and Doug Diamond, approached me. A passenger had reported a suspicious-looking man in a leather jacket hanging around the checkpoint. I explained that I was on assignment for the Sacramento News & Review.

“Oh, I like that paper,” said Deputy Coe.

I had showed them my driver’s license, and they had allowed me to continue doing what I was doing.

Fast-forward to LAX three hours later. As up to 10 LAPD officers guarded me near the Southwest Airlines Gate 12, I wondered what had gone wrong. No one could tell me what I’d done, and no one seemed to know what to do with me. They were waiting for some other authority, the FAA or the FBI, they weren’t sure, to show up. I’d been standing since the ordeal had begun; I took off my backpack and sat down on the floor behind the check-in counter in a yoga position as the police continued to stand around. I closed my eyes and began taking deep breaths. When I opened my eyes, a male passenger in the boarding area was staring at me like I was the dog-faced boy at the circus.

“I’m a journalist!” I yelled. His brow furrowed in concern, then he moved away. Other people in the boarding area were regarding me nervously. An LAPD sergeant, a burly Hispanic man, arrived. I stood up.

“You understand sir, this is a national security measure, and we’re going to have to check with the FAA to clear it,” he said. “You know they might not let you back on the airplane. You make people nervous.”

“How do I make people nervous?” I asked.

“By doing whatever you’re doing.”

“What am I doing?”

“I don’t know, but whatever it is, you’re going to stop doing it!”

“OK,” I said. “But what am I doing?” I wasn’t getting it. He began poking his index finger at me to emphasize the point.

“I don’t know what you’re doing, but you’re going to stop doing it!”

I re-assumed my yoga position. Higher-ranking LAPD officers began arriving. Eventually, someone figured out that holding me prisoner right next to the entrance of the jetway was really making some of the passengers nervous. I was moved to an empty row of seats facing the window. My return flight was long-gone; the boarding area was beginning to fill up for the next flight. A couple of Arab-looking men in their 20s attempted to sit in the seats next to me.

“Can we sit here?” one of them asked a police officer. The cop looked at me. He looked at them. He looked back at me. A dim light flickered in his eyes, then went out. “No, you can’t,” he said, and they moved off.

I had been detained for more than an hour by the time Lieutenant Joseph Peyton, the LAPD duty incident commander, arrived. I complained that my notebook had been taken, and Peyton and another officer immediately returned it to me.

“Can I take notes now?” I asked Ramirez.

He didn’t say yes, but the rueful look on his face didn’t say no. I grabbed another pen out of my backpack. I was a journalist again.

Peyton explained that the officers at the scene were part of an additional detail that had been assigned to boost security at the LAPD’s airport substation after September 11. He apologized for my detainment, and said I would be free to go--as soon as I was cleared by the FBI. He admitted that the War on Terror was making everybody a little nervous. A few days previously, he’d watched two F-16 fighters escort a Canadian jumbo jet all the way into LAX. A passenger had set off a smoke detector in the jet’s restroom and become irate after a stewardess had reported him. Peyton, who normally works LAPD’s West Traffic division, was soft-spoken and reassuring, and the tension in the air dissipated somewhat. Then Angela Karp arrived on the scene.

Karp, the Southwest Airlines station manager for LAX, held what appeared to be a plane ticket. Instead, it was a credit receipt refunding my return fare to Sacramento. She said several passengers had complained that my behavior had made them nervous and because of that, Southwest Airlines was barring me from all flights out of LAX for the remainder of the evening.

“Can you tell me who said I made them nervous?” I asked.

“No sir, I cannot do that.”

“Can you tell me what my alleged behavior was?”

“No sir, I cannot do that.”

It was an issue of national security and the safety of the airline’s passengers. As a private business, Southwest had the right to refuse service to anyone, she said, and they were giving me the boot. She turned on her heel and was gone.

“What is it?” I asked Peyton. “My black leather jacket?”

“I hope not,” he said. “I have a black leather jacket.”

By the time the two plainclothes FBI agents arrived, I had been detained by the LAPD for nearly two hours. One agent was a husky guy in a khaki green Hawaiian shirt. The other agent, Anthony Gordon, had the grizzled, wizened demeanor of character actor Harry Dean Stanton. It didn’t take him long to evaluate the situation. Neither the guardsman nor the LAPD had the name of the passenger(s) who had complained about me, so no one could say if I had actually done anything suspicious. After questioning the guardsman and the LAPD, Gordon sat down beside me and quietly explained that the entire nation was on high alert. Everyone’s nerves were frayed. Taking the photographs of the checkpoint was completely legal. But the guardsman had served on the California National Guard’s Counter-Drug Task Force, and was worried that somehow drug dealers might recognize his photograph if it appeared in the paper.

“He does counter-drug work, that’s why he freaked on you,” Gordon said.

If the explanation was supposed to soothe, it didn’t. I’d been ordered to delete photographs, had my notebook confiscated and read by the police, and detained for three hours with no probable cause--all because the California National Guard had assigned a camera-shy counter-drug person to security duty at the airport? What the hell was he doing there? Gordon just shrugged. Case closed. I was free to go home.

But how? I had been banned from Southwest and the other airline in the terminal didn’t have any Sacramento flights. I wondered if I had been blackballed off all of the airlines as I trudged the quarter-mile to Terminal 7, where United Airlines, the only other carrier with a flight to Sacramento that night, was located. I booked a flight on the 10:05 shuttle, waited an hour in line at the security checkpoint and returned to Sacramento without further incident.

The following days were filled with conflicting thoughts and emotions. I’d gone to the domestic frontlines of the War on Terrorism to observe the new security apparatus in action, and the new security apparatus had terminated my observation without cause. In my opinion, “truth” is a word that journalists bandy about too loosely, but there was no denying that my ability to get at the truth in this case had been severely injured. It seemed surreal, unbelievable, and possibly illegal. I also felt violated.

At the same time, when a half-dozen different cops tell you you’ve done something wrong for two hours straight, there’s a tendency to start believing them, even if you haven’t done anything. That shadow of a doubt regarding my rights as a citizen and a journalist in the so-called sterile zone kept telling me that considering the “war” was on, I should have known better, that I deserved to have my photographs erased, my notebook confiscated. The enormous pressure to “stand united” with the country in the War on Terrorism added to my feelings of guilt. But how could I stand united when the very freedoms we were supposedly defending from the terrorists were being stripped away before my eyes--not by terrorists, but by fellow Americans?

The answer was, I couldn’t. So I tried to find out what had really gone wrong at LAX. Lieutenant Colonel Terry Knight, public information officer for the California National Guard, was stunned when I informed him a guardsman had ordered me to erase photographs. “That doesn’t make sense,” Knight said via telephone from Washington, D.C. “That’s wrong.” But when told that the guardsman worked in counter-drug operations, Knight had an epiphany. “It’s understandable why he didn’t want his picture taken.”

“Should someone who doesn’t want their picture taken be working guard duty in such a public area?” I asked.

“They’re fine for that duty ...” he began. Then he stopped and referred me to Sergeant Joe Barker, acting public information officer for the Counter-Drug Task Force, for further comment.

“I know this is real X-Files-sounding stuff, but you can’t print that gentleman’s name,” Barker said when reached at his Sacramento office. When asked what law prevented the SN&R from doing so, he backed off. “There’s nothing I can do to stop you from publishing his name and what he does, but it would definitely endanger his life.”

The Guard provides ancillary support to federal, state and local drug enforcement agencies working in California, particularly near the Mexican border area and in marijuana eradication programs. Because of “operational security,” Barker wouldn’t explain what the guardsman’s counter-drug duties were or how publishing his name or photograph might endanger his life, but the guardsman probably wasn’t making undercover buys. Barker was a little more specific when asked where the guardsman had gotten the idea he could force me to erase my film.

“He was following his FAA training,” Barker said, adding that details of the two-day FAA training course were classified because of “operational security.”

The training may be classified, but according to the FAA, the classes don’t instruct guardsmen to confiscate the film or notebooks of anyone, including journalists.

“No, he’s totally wrong,” said FAA spokesman Mike Ferguson. “You didn’t do anything illegal there.” The only photography restrictions in the sterile zone concern the privacy of passengers, not security personnel. Close-up photos of the X-ray monitors and of people having their luggage searched by hand are not permitted. Otherwise, Ferguson said, “You can shoot whatever you damn want.” By “you,” he meant anyone--journalist or private citizen.

Several days later, Barker reversed course. “It’s perfectly crystal clear that you can’t force someone to erase pictures that have already been taken,” he said, adding that he’d passed this information on to guardsmen at a recent FAA training session in San Francisco. “I can personally say that the people I gave the briefing to have been instructed to not erase photographs,” he said.

There’s a reason members of the Guard’s Counter-Drug Task Force were assigned to LAX, according to Nancy Castle, the airport’s director of public relations. The task force has some of the Guard’s “more seasoned members, the ones used to dealing with the public.” When told that the guardsman was afraid his cover might be blown, she pointed out that more than 100 local media outlets had recently been invited to interview, photograph and film the Guard during a visit by Governor Gray Davis, who was touting LAX’s new security precautions. No guardsman that she was aware of had asked that his picture not be taken.

Castle said there are no signs prohibiting photography posted in the sterile areas of LAX and that she has never heard of anyone having their film confiscated at the airport.

According to Terry Francke, legal counsel for the California First Amendment Coalition, no government agency has such authority. “There’s no law that permits anyone to summarily confiscate a camera or film or order the destruction of that film,” Francke said.

While Barker acknowledged that the guardsman was wrong to force the deletion of the photographs, he knew of no pending disciplinary action in the case.. “If there was, I’m not sure we would release it,” he said.

Francke also said that the Guard and the LAPD may have violated a California statute designed to protect the “unpublished information” of journalists. The law, California Penal Code § 1524, prohibits judges from issuing search warrants for “notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes and other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication.”

“Clearly, they had no right to do what they did,” Francke said. “Under California Law, journalists are free from search and seizure directed at unpublished information.” He added that the guardsman and the LAPD officers also failed to comply with federal law, which states that the U.S. Attorney must exhaust all other means (such as issuing a subpoena) to obtain unpublished material before allowing a law enforcement agency to seize it without a warrant.

While now might not seem like the ideal time to pursue such a case, Francke said that in the long haul, it might be in the public’s best interest. “People caught up in war fervor and the opportunity to express solidarity with national security are probably going to see this story as a sign of reassurance--until they get caught with a camera in their bag or staring at a plainclothes policeman too long,” Francke said.

“If, as we all hope, this particular hijacking threat recedes and nerves return closer to normal, I do think people will maybe turn their minds back on and acquire some common sense.”
Subject: Putin widely believed to want Chechen issue included in international coalition's definition of terrorist activities in return for Russia's support


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:00:34 12/03/01 Mon

Putin is widely believed to want the Chechen issue included in the international coalition's definition of terrorist activities in return for Russia's support
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/WTC_world_in_play_subindex.html


RUSSIA: A day after U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice announced the United States and Russia were moving closer to agreement on reducing their storehouses of nuclear weapons, but indicated that the agreement was unlikely to take the form of a formal treaty, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov seconded Rice's comments at a news conference in Moscow. "The question of the signing of a broad agreement on strategic stability isn't on the agenda," said Ivanov, referring to the scheduled talks between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin later this month at Bush's Texas ranch. Although Russia has staunchly opposed the U.S. missile defense plan and Washington has maintained that the controversial tests forbidden by the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty would go ahead, the events of Sept. 11 have prompted a warming of ties between the former Cold War foes. Moscow has been a staunch supporter of Washington's campaign against terrorism, and Putin is widely believed to want the Chechen issue included in the international coalition's definition of terrorist activities in return for Russia's support.
Subject: Iraq has moved secret agents into Germany


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:58:32 12/03/01 Mon


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/WTC_world_in_play_subindex.html

IRAQ: German authorities have confirmed that Iraq has moved secret agents into Germany, as part of illegal people-smuggling operations. The agents had been smuggled from Eastern European countries in an operation coordinated by Iraqi diplomats in Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic. A German intelligence spokesman said, "There is evidence that Iraqis with secret service backgrounds have infiltrated Germany, helped by professional smuggling gangs." The confirmation, and the connection to Prague, may reinforce allegations of Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The Czech interior minister confirmed last week that Mohamed Atta, believed to have been the lead hijacker in the attacks, met an Iraqi diplomat in Prague earlier this year.
Subject: Leaders approve National Guard patrols at Capitol


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:56:22 12/03/01 Mon

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/03/rec.capitol.nationalguard/index.html
Leaders approve National Guard patrols at Capitol
November 3, 2001 Posted: 9:44 AM EST (1444 GMT)


November 3, 2001 Posted: 9:44 AM EST (1444 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Concerned that the U.S. Capitol Police force is stretched thin by weeks of heightened security, congressional leaders and the U.S. Capitol Police Board decided Friday that National Guard military police will begin patrolling the Capitol beginning next week, House Administration Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Ney, R-Pa., told CNN.

About 100 to 110 uniformed and armed guardsmen, wearing "MP" arm bands, will patrol the perimeter of the Capitol, working three daily shifts of 33 to 35 guardsmen per shift.

"They will not be in the member areas," Ney said explaining that Capitol Police, trained to recognize members of Congress and enforce the unique rules of the Capitol, will remain in charge of security in the areas where members work.

"There won't be Humvees on the plaza" in front of the Capitol, Ney said. But there might be "a couple" of troops seen on the Capitol grounds at any given time, he said.

The assignment is temporary, and leadership will reassess every two weeks if the military patrols are still required, basing their decisions on the changing security climate, Ney said.

Ney said the decision was not based on any new threat to the Capitol.

"We have an obligation to prevent terrorists' attacks on this building, on these buildings, on the members, and the tourists," House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt explained earlier in the day.

The proposal was discussed for weeks but finalized Friday after House Speaker Dennis Hastert met with Republican leaders and security officials. For some, there is an "image problem" with uniformed troops surrounding the Capitol.

"We don't want armed guards in Humvees around the Capitol, but we want to give the police a break," a congressional aide said earlier Friday, describing the delicate nature of the issue the leaders were deciding.

Gephardt said he disagreed that troops create an image problem.

"Look, we all know we're in a new world," he said. "The terrorists would love nothing better than a dramatic show of terrorism here on the symbol of democracy. We have to do everything we need to do to prevent them."

"We're not interested in making this look like an armed compound, but we are interested in making sure that we have the necessary security and that our police have the training and relief they need to do the job," Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott said Thursday.

Right now, there are 1,250 Capitol Police officers. Almost all of them have been working at least 12 hours a day since the September 11 attacks.

Many have worked 16 hours a day and some have pulled double shifts. One officer recently told CNN he had worked 16 hours one day and then returned the next morning for a 10 hour shift.

"We're losing a number of Capitol Police who are going to other law enforcement jurisdictions and operations, in part because of the time commitment here and, in part, because there are a lot of new opportunities, unfortunately, in the security field," Gephardt said.
Subject: Green Party activist denied Chicago flight


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:55:06 12/03/01 Mon

Green Party activist denied Chicago flight

By Jeff Tuttle, Of the NEWS Staff e-mail Jeff
Last updated: Saturday, November 3, 2001

http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/article.html?ID=44958



BANGOR - Green Party activist Nancy Oden was grounded at Bangor International Airport on Thursday after reportedly becoming uncooperative when she was targeted for additional screening.

Oden, who said she believed she was singled out for extra scrutiny because of her activist past and public opposition to the current war effort, was on her way to Chicago to attend a Green Party USA meeting when airline personnel told her that she had been selected to undergo added security screening before boarding.

"I was treated if I were guilty just because I'm a dissident and I speak out," Oden, a middle-aged woman who sits on the party's national coordinating committee, said from her Jonesboro home after she had abandoned her travel plans. "They're looking at me like I'm a terrorist and I'm just a peaceful person trying to go to a meeting in Chicago."

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, security has been tightened at all the nation's airports - including BIA, where armed National Guardsmen monitor the screening area and passenger lists are checked against the FBI's terrorist watch list.

Officials at BIA and American Eagle Airlines have a much different account of Oden's afternoon run-in with the added security.

"She was uncooperative during the screening process," said American Eagle spokesman Kurt Iverson, who added that Oden reportedly would not stand still when security staff tried to wave a metal-detecting wand over her. "Obviously if they can't submit to screening, [Federal Aviation Administration] regulations require that they not be allowed to board the plane."

Oden said that while she asked security staff not to touch her with the wand, she did allow them to complete their search of both her person and her baggage. Oden said that she did pull away from a National Guardsman when he grabbed her left arm and asked her if she "knew what happened on September 11," she said.

While acknowledging that Oden was singled out for added extensive screening, authorities said it was more likely due to the manner in which she purchased her ticket than for her activist past.

Under newly adopted FAA regulations, more passengers - either randomly or based on a computerized profile - are being targeted for more intense screening during the boarding process.

While industry officials were unwilling to release the criteria under which they would profile a passenger, they said the criteria did not include federally protected characteristics such as race, religion, age or sex.

Without providing details, interim airport director Rebecca Hupp said that the FAA guidelines "have more to do with the ticket than the person." For instance, one airline official said, a passenger who pays cash for a ticket the day of the flight would likely undergo added scrutiny.

Oden bought her nonrefundable ticket online, she said.

While an FBI spokeswoman would neither confirm nor deny the presence of any name on the terrorist watch list - another trigger for added security response - one law enforcement source said it was "extremely unlikely" Oden was on the list of potential terrorists because her name is unknown to the FBI.

After the incident, Oden was told she could not take her scheduled flight to Chicago, and that she could not travel on any other airline at the airport that day.

"If I had done something wrong, they should have arrested me instead of denying me my right to travel," an upset Oden said Friday. "We're losing more of our rights and people don't realize it."
Subject: Dozens injured when passenger tries to take wheel of Greyhound bus


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:53:59 12/03/01 Mon

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/04/arizona.buscrash/index.html
Dozens injured when passenger tries to take wheel of Greyhound bus
November 4, 2001 Posted: 12:59 PM EST (1759 GMT)


PHOENIX, Arizona (CNN) -- A passenger tried to grab the wheel of a Greyhound bus Sunday, causing the vehicle to turn onto its side and injuring about 30 people, the Arizona Department of Public Safety reported.

The bus was southbound on I-10 at Casa Grande about 1:06 a.m. (3:06 a.m. EST) when the man approached the driver, said Officer Hyrum D'Addabbo.

The passenger was arrested. No weapon was involved, D'Addabbo said.

During the scuffle, the bus drove off the pavement, then back onto the roadway before tipping onto its side, blocking traffic, D'Addabbo said.

Lynn Brown, Greyhound vice president of corporate communications, said the bus, carrying 38 passengers and the driver, was en route from Phoenix to El Paso.

Thirty people were taken to area hospitals, where two were listed in critical condition, Brown said. The bus driver was not admitted, and many of the passengers were treated and released.

It was an "isolated incident involving an unruly passenger," Brown said.

Casa Grande is about 40 miles south of Phoenix.

In October, a man on a Greyhound bus in Utah tried to take control from the driver and, when he failed, escaped in a separate vehicle. The incident occurred east of Salt Lake City.

Also in October, six people died and 32 were injured when a man slit the throat of a Greyhound bus driver in Tennessee and the bus flipped on its side.
Subject: Anthrax traces found at Washington VA hospital


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:52:18 12/03/01 Mon


http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/03/inv.anthrax.va/index.html
Anthrax traces found at Washington VA hospital
November 3, 2001 Posted: 8:10 PM EST (0110 GMT)


November 3, 2001 Posted: 8:10 PM EST (0110 GMT)






WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A mailroom in the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center has tested positive for anthrax, the federal agency reported Saturday.

The mailroom is located in a hospital that houses 250 patients but is not near patient areas, said Phil Budahn, the VA's media relations director. But, he added, hospital officials are keeping "a close eye on patients."

Swabs were taken in the mailroom October 30 because the hospital receives its mail from the main Brentwood branch post office in Washington, the facility that processed an anthrax-laden letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Two Brentwood postal employees have died of inhalation anthrax, and two others are hospitalized with the same disease.

Of the 22 swabs, one was positive, Budahn said. Administrators closed the mailroom, he said.

Five mailroom employees have been on antibiotics since October 25, and investigators have not found evidence that anthrax has spread at the hospital, he said. "There is absolutely no indication this is a problem beyond the mailroom," Budahn said.

Hospital administrators at present are not considering moving patients, Budahn said.
Subject: NBC tape sent to NYC City Hall contained anthrax


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:49:35 12/03/01 Mon

http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/11/04/anthrax/index.html
NBC tape sent to NYC City Hall contained anthrax
November 4, 2001 Posted: 1:22 p.m. EST (1822 GMT)

November 4, 2001 Posted: 1:22 p.m. EST (1822 GMT)NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani confirmed Sunday that a tape sent by NBC News anchorman Tom Brokaw's office to City Hall contained anthrax.

Giuliani said the tape was sent in the first week of October before Brokaw's assistant tested positive for the cutaneous form of the disease.

Giuliani said the tape sent by NBC was dropped off at the City Hall police desk, then was picked up by two people, including his chief of staff, Tony Carbonetti. "Tony handled it, watched it," Giuliani said.

The mayor did not elaborate on what was on the tape, nor did he say why NBC News sent the tape to his office. (Full story)

Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has vaccinated about 140 members of epidemiologic teams that can be summoned at a moment's notice to examine a suspected case anywhere in the country, The New York Times reported Sunday.

While officials say there is no evidence that anyone is readying a terror attack using smallpox, they say these steps are necessary to prepare for any attack. Smallpox is greatly feared as a weapon because it is contagious and has a high death rate.

Latest developments
• A mailroom in the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington has tested positive for anthrax, officials said Saturday. The mailroom is located in a hospital that houses 250 patients but is not near patient areas, said Phil Budahn, the VA's media relations director. Swabs were taken in the mailroom October 30 because the hospital receives its mail from the main Brentwood branch post office in Washington, the facility that processed an anthrax-laden letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. (Full story)

• Elsewhere in Washington, Treasury Department officials said they were still waiting for results of environmental testing for anthrax at an off-site mail facility. Officials closed the facility Friday night following the discovery by a mailroom worker of a suspicious letter with a Trenton, New Jersey, postmark. All three known letters laced with anthrax in the United States so far have been postmarked from Trenton. Results from those environmental tests should be available sometime this weekend, said a Treasury Department spokeswoman.

• President Bush on Saturday defended the government's response to the anthrax threat and stressed that the bacteria is not contagious. "As we deal with this new threat, we are learning new information every day," Bush said in his weekly radio address. (Full story)

• A mail processing facility in Camden County, New Jersey, tested positive for the presence of anthrax in tests conducted by the FBI, state health officials said. One sample taken from the Bellmawr Mail Distribution Center tested positive for anthrax. All the other samples were negative. Environmental samples were taken Wednesday after an employee was diagnosed with a suspected case of cutaneous, or skin anthrax. (Full story)

• In Newark, New Jersey, a letter turned up that contained small amounts of cyanide, but not enough to be fatal, officials said. A postal employee at a Newark facility noticed a letter that appeared to be leaking, and an analysis showed that it contained laundry detergent, a bleach powder and trace amounts of copper cyanide. Copper cyanide is used for copper electroplating, and can be fatal if large amounts are inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the skin. (Full story)

• To date, 17 people have been infected with anthrax in the United States. Four have died of inhalation anthrax and six more are battling that form of the disease. Seven other people have been diagnosed with cutaneous anthrax.
Subject: A Sandinista Lesson for Afghanistan


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:48:05 12/03/01 Mon

from Peter L..thanks!

Published on Sunday, November 4, 2001
in the Los Angeles Times
A Sandinista Lesson for Afghanistan
by Marc Cooper

For more than a decade, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega was in the nightmares of U.S. policymakers. As leader of the Sandinista revolution of 1979, and then as president of Nicaragua, he was a lightning rod for Washington's fears of hemispheric subversion and anti-American rebellion. The Reagan and Bush administrations spent hundreds of millions of dollars--to finance a "Contra" war and various campaigns of political destabilization--to rid Nicaragua of Ortega and his Marxist Sandinistas. In 1990, the U.S. won when Ortega was voted out of office and replaced by pro-American rivals. But in presidential elections taking place today in Nicaragua, the same Ortega, now 55, has an even chance of being voted back into power.

Ortega's return to prominence--and possibly to the presidency--is more than an irony of history. It is also a cautionary tale about the type of nation-building the U.S. may intend for Afghanistan.

Like some dreary rerun from the Cold War in the 1980s, the Bush administration has loaded up its foreign-policy apparatus with the "Contra Alumni Assn.," a group of leftovers from Oliver North's old Contra network, with newly confirmed U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Negroponte, as the most prominent among them. And once again, the U.S. is meddling in Nicaraguan affairs to scuttle Ortega's chances. This time around its pretext to interfere is the war against terrorism.

After Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met with the Nicaraguan foreign minister last month, the State Department issued a statement saying it had "grave reservations" about Ortega's party, claiming it had "ties to supporters of terrorism." The next day, the acting deputy for Western Hemisphere affairs, John Keane, fired a second salvo. "I would be dishonest if I did not acknowledge that the possibility of a Sandinista victory is disconcerting to the U.S.," he said in a speech. "We cannot forget that [during the Sandinista period of government], Nicaragua became a haven for violent political extremists from the Middle East, Europe and Latin America."

Ortega's pro-U.S. opponents took the cue and started running TV ads saying that if Osama bin Laden could vote in Nicaragua, he'd vote for Ortega.

The U.S. blasts at Ortega have left many Nicaraguans scratching their heads. "If the CIA had any brains," one Nicaraguan political analyst told me, "they'd have figured out by now that the Sandinistas not only do not represent a Marxist threat, but that the party was [long ago] taken over by opportunistic yuppies."

Indeed, the Sandinistas have embraced the free market and global capitalism and have proposed no economic reforms that would embarrass the U.S. Democratic Party. Whatever allure the Sandinistas exuded as young revolutionaries was erased by the party's naked grab for money and property after its defeat in the 1990 elections. As for Ortega, he talks more about Jesus than Marx. His personal image has been tarnished not only by the general corruption of the Sandinistas, but also by credible charges that, while sitting as president, he sexually molested his teenage step-daughter.

If Ortega is elected today, it will only be because frustrated and desperate Nicaraguans can no longer bear the status quo--not because they dream of socialist revolution. It's in that light that the U.S. should examine its own conscience.

As some 50,000 people, a staggering 1% of the population, were dying in the U.S.-funded Contra war, Washington repeatedly promised that a post-Sandinista Nicaragua would flourish because of generous U.S. aid. But once the Sandinistas were voted out of power, the U.S. abandoned Nicaragua, turning its back on the underlying social inequalities that had produced the Sandinista revolution.

The outcome has been devastating. Nicaragua today is poorer than ever. Some 80% of its population live in poverty; unemployment runs as high as 70% in some areas; malnutrition stalks more than a half million; and streets teem with scruffy children begging, stealing or simply sniffing glue.

Little surprise, then, that incumbent President Arnoldo Aleman is perhaps the most unpopular in Nicaragua's history. Ostentatiously enriching himself while in power, celebrating his rule with a lavishly built pastel-hued presidential palace, Aleman is thought to have skimmed as much as $250 million, according to a dissident congressman from his own party.

With prices for Nicaragua's chief export, coffee, at new lows, the economic situation only worsens. Fears of a social explosion escalate, and social disorder grows. The despair has been mounting for a decade, but the State Department could never find its voice to express any "concern" for the country's deteriorating living conditions. Instead, Washington offered unconditional support for the governing business elite, which systematically looted its own population. The only advice Washington offers today is for Nicaraguans to vote for Aleman's hand-picked successor, 73-year-old Enrique Bolanos, one of the richest landowners in the country and a former key supporter of the Contras.

It matters very little whether Bolanos or Ortega wins the presidency. In either case, Nicaragua will remain an economic basket case. Ask just about any Nicaraguan what "democracy" and "freedom" mean, and the words "food" and "jobs" are likely to be heard in the answer.

As U.S. policymakers watch tonight's returns from Managua, they might ponder the lessons of Nicaragua as they apply to our current strategy in Afghanistan. We are sparing no expense to bomb our declared enemies. Our political leaders and media speak glibly of who "we" will install in Kabul in the post-Taliban future. But what will our commitment be to the people of Afghanistan? Unless we answer that question properly, a decade from now we may be watching a return of the Taliban to power--maybe even by election.

Marc Cooper, a contributing editor to The Nation and a columnist for L.A. Weekly, recently returned from Nicaragua.

Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times On the Net = //news@commondreams.org/views01/1104-01.htm">http://news@commondreams.org/views01/1104-01.htm
Subject: U.N. warns of famine threat in northern Afghanistan


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:46:24 12/03/01 Mon

U.N. warns of famine threat in northern Afghanistan
http://webcenter.newssearch.netscape.com/aolns_display.adp?key=200111020050000190090_aolns.src

NEW YORK, Nov. 2 (Kyodo) - U.N. food aid to northern Afghanistan has run out and the situation in the area may become critical in a few weeks, Kenzo Oshima, U.N. undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, said Thursday.

Oshima said at a news conference that he was concerned that Afghan refugees may not be able to survive the winter. He has just returned to New York after visiting three countries neighboring Afghanistan.

The Japanese U.N. official cited Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan as one area where food aid has run out.

The U.N. is also unable to send assistance to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan, the stronghold of the ruling Taliban, following the chaos caused by U.S. bombing there, he said.

Currently, the U.N. is bringing 1,540 tons of food a day into Afghanistan, but is able to help only one-third of the needy people because of the continuing air strikes by the U.S. forces and worsening public safety in the country, Oshima said.

Neighboring countries have closed their borders with Afghanistan and will not allow Afghan refugees in. They have only agreed to let the U.N. use port facilities to provide humanitarian assistance to Afghan refugees, he said.

The number of displaced people in Afghanistan is snowballing from the 1 million confirmed -- mostly in the northern and western parts of the country -- before the Sept. 11 terror attacks on New York and the Pentagon. In addition, there are millions of Afghan refugees in Pakistan, Iran and other countries.
Subject: Taking On Another War, Against Mixed Messages


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:43:51 12/03/01 Mon

NEWS ANALYSIS

Taking On Another War, Against Mixed Messages

By DAVID E. SANGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/politics/04ASSE.html?todaysheadlines

WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 — At the end of his roughest week so far in the war at home and abroad, President Bush had some sharp words for those who complain that the Pentagon's best-case scenarios for Afghanistan have evaporated, and that the war at home has descended into muddled, often contradictory messages about anthrax and other new terrors.

"This is not an instant gratification war," Mr. Bush sternly reminded a reporter in a Rose Garden appearance on Friday. And this morning, in his radio address from Camp David, he stopped just short of acknowledging that the White House had underestimated the threat to ordinary Americans two weeks ago, when it listened to experts who believed that anthrax could not escape from sealed envelopes. "We now know differently," he said.

Those twin messages — one testy, one rueful — seemed to underscore the administration's troubles hitting the right tone and developing a clear message that instills confidence both here and abroad nearly eight weeks after America's terrorist horrors began.

"I think the past week we hit a trough," one senior administration official said this week. "The post- Sept. 11 momentum ran out of gas. The military operation clearly wasn't going well."

Another official added, "And every time you turned on your television, there was another anthrax briefer, often sowing more anxiety than clarity."

Mr. Bush and his advisers clearly sense that something has gone awry in their communications strategy, and in the next few days, in a flurry of presidential appearances and speeches, they hope to turn it around.

On Tuesday, Mr. Bush plans to address the progress in Afghanistan in a speech, delivered by satellite, to European leaders gathered in Warsaw. The next day he will make the case that many more nations are joining the effort to cut off the cash that Al Qaeda, the terrorist network, needs to wreak havoc around the world — even though some, like Indonesia, the world's most populous Islamic nation, are clearly backing away from early promises of support.

On Thursday, Mr. Bush plans to travel to a yet-undisclosed city to deliver a speech on homeland defense, advertised by the White House as a primer in "how we live as a nation at war." That will be followed by an address to the United Nations on Saturday.

But Mr. Bush's biggest task may be to reconcile the often contradictory messages that have emanated from his top advisers — not only about the airborne habits of anthrax spores, but about the gestalt of the nation.

Mr. Bush and his aides make the point — quite accurately — that until two months ago there had never been a major foreign terrorist attack on the United States and that medical professionals knew very little about anthrax.. They were the kind of events no one could plan for, much less design a communications strategy that had any hope of holding up.

Mr. Bush has been relentlessly upbeat, repeating almost daily, as he did again on Friday, that "we're making very good progress" on both fronts, at home and abroad. He has left to others the more complicated messages — that the Taliban show no sign of cracking, that no one knows how a Bronx woman who died this week contracted anthrax, that investigators are no closer to solving the mystery of whether the deadly powder is being sent by Osama bin Laden's followers, Iraq or domestic terrorists with a flair for biochemistry.

He has left the darkest warnings to Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted a bit more than a week ago that "for the first time in our history, we will probably suffer more casualties here at home in America than will our troops overseas."

Getting the message right — and setting the optimal tone — has been a problem for the Bush White House since Sept. 11.

There was the early explanation that Mr. Bush stayed out of the capital because of a specific threat to blow up the president's plane, made more chilling by the caller's use of the code word for Air Force One. It turned out later that the call had been a crank, and the caller had never used the code word.

Then came the White House insistence that it was impossible to release a scrubbed, declassified description of the evidence against Mr. bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks, an argument that fell apart when Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain issued one in a few days.

Then came the secretary of health and human services, Tommy G. Thompson, and the postmaster general, John E. Potter, telling the public that there was nothing particularly dangerous about the anthrax- laced letter sent to Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader. The post office that processed the letter was kept open, after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said there was no danger to anyone who had not actually opened the envelope. Health officials discovered that their early confidence was wrong, and by the time the White House's warning caught up with the medical realities, two postal workers were dead.

"It's true we've had a crisper message on the war in Afghanistan than the war here," said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's communications director, who has been deeply involved in the strategy. "But the military action is offensive in nature, it's all under one roof at the Pentagon, and we control it. The bioterrorism is a defensive war, it crosses many jurisdictional lines, including state and local governments, and we don't control when new facts come to light."

Mr. Bartlett argues that the Washington press corps has been far less sympathetic to the trials of managing a bioterror attack than the public has been — and many agree.

"Everybody's a rookie at this, that's the key story," said Steve Smith, the former editor of U. S. News and World Report who now works at a strategic communications firm here that advises companies on how to handle crises. "People understand pretty well that this war on terrorism is one improvisation after another. And they are cutting the government some slack — more slack than I would have cut the government if I was still sitting in my journalism seat."

What the journalists here see, of course, are the interdepartmental rivalries that are the staple of Washington life and an impediment to crisis response. The question of whether this is domestic or foreign terrorism has forced together the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, two teams that never stopped fighting their own cold war long after the one between the United States and the Communist bloc was over.

Similarly, the disease control centers were testing the first anthrax samples from Florida, while, at Congress's request, the Army laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md., tested the letter sent to Senator Daschle. Both were supposed to work with the F.B.I. and Mr. Thompson's office; bureaucratic fumbling delayed the news that the anthrax sent to Capitol Hill was potent in the extreme, and fine enough to permeate envelopes and contaminate other mail and machinery.

And then, in the last few days, there was a tussle at the White House over whether to issue a second warning that a terrorist attack might happen someplace, sometime, with a weapon yet to be determined.

Then it became the White House officials' turn to be stunned. The new director of the Office of Homeland Defense, Tom Ridge, watched in amazement on Thursday when Gov. Gray Davis of California, who has already clashed with Mr.. Bush on energy policy, declared that he had been told of "credible, specific" threats to several suspension bridges in California and called out the National Guard. Mr. Ridge says the information was "uncorroborated," and made it clear he did not support the public release of the information, which his office had kept secret.

This will hardly be the end of such debates. New threats will be detected each week. Mr. Ridge — who coordinates everything but controls nothing, a dangerous place to be in Washington — will have to decide when to warn the public and when warnings threaten to become so routine that they loose their punch. "Clearly he hasn't gotten the hang of this yet," one White House official sympathetic to Mr. Ridge said on Friday. "He's got to get out of the weeds. He can't be answering questions on every new anthrax incident."

And Mr. Bush, meanwhile, will have to regain the lofty tone he used so well in his speech to Congress nine days after the initial attacks.

That was easier to do at a time of tragedy, when the country was still in shock. It is much harder when all of Washington, the nation and the world are measuring the progress of the war, at home and abroad.
Subject: A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation's Bioterror Plan


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:41:53 12/03/01 Mon

DRUG INDUSTRY

A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation's Bioterror Plan

By LESLIE WAYNE and MELODY PETERSEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/business/04PHAR.html?todaysheadlines

With anthrax spores turning up all over Washington, plenty of people are heading out of town.

Not those in the drug industry.

Executives of the major pharmaceutical companies have been hopping trains and planes to the nation's capital, where they are staging an enormous lobbying campaign, at the highest levels of government, to help shape the nation's bioterrorist plan — and beyond.

So far, they have had some remarkable victories. While the government has struggled to make sure the nation will have enough drugs to treat biological weapons that were largely hypothetical a few months ago, drug companies have managed to stave off many actions that would harm them, like violating patents or forcing them to supply free drugs.

As that success shows, the pharmaceutical lobby, which represents the nation's biggest drug makers, from Eli Lilly to Pfizer (news/quote) to Merck (news/quote), is both large and politically adroit and, if anything, more sophisticated than when it gained fame in the early 1990's for helping to defeat the Clinton administration health plan.

It has more lobbyists than there are members of Congress — 625 who are registered. It had a combined lobbying and campaign contribution budget in 1999 and 2000 of $197 million, larger than any other industry. Now it is harnessing those resources to influence major policy decisions being made by the Bush administration that may well influence public health issues and industry profitability for years to come — much to the dismay of many consumer groups and others.

"When you've got this access to high places, it will encourage these guys to coordinate instead of compete," said Jack Calfee, a health care expert at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative research group. "It's more likely to forestall getting good products than to encourage it."

Because of the anthrax scare, and all the attention given to Cipro, the anti-anthrax drug of choice, that access has been enormous. In recent weeks, the chief executives and other top executives of Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb (news/quote), Bayer, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson (news/quote), along with trade association officials, have been meeting regularly with Bush cabinet members. On one occasion, with executives from other industries, pharmaceutical executives met with President Bush in New York to discuss the administration's response to terrorism. Drug company executives have offered to send scores of industry scientists, now on their payrolls, to work in government agencies in what the industry calls a gift to the nation, but critics say it is both a conflict of interest and a way for the industry to get a toehold in government.

In return, at these top-level meetings, industry executives and lobbyists are seeking exemption from antitrust regulations, reduction of the timetable for getting new drugs to market for treating the ills of biological warfare, and immunity from lawsuits for any vaccines they develop to combat bioterrorism. The administration, those in the meeting say, has offered other help, asking the pharmaceutical executives to identify the regulatory barriers they would like to see eliminated for this fight.

Last Wednesday, for instance, a dozen industry lobbyists and executives, among them Peter R. Dolan, chief executive of Bristol-Myers, and Raymond V. Gilmartin, chief executive of Merck, met for an hour and a half in the Roosevelt Room of the White House with Tom Ridge, the director of homeland security. According to one person at the meeting, Mr. Ridge was so impressed with what the industry executives said that he responded: "I'm grateful for your offers of assistance. I accept."

That , according to the meeting's participant, reflected "a true partnership between the federal government and America's pharmaceutical companies."

Industry executives say they are just trying to help. "We are part of the nation's defense system," said Mr. Dolan, who has met with President Bush in New York and with Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, and Mr. Ridge in Washington. "As an industry, there is a real opportunity for us to give our resources in a time of great need."

But that partnership is troubling to some industry watchdog groups. They say the cozy relationship threatens to compromise regulatory standards on new applications of medicines at a time when millions of Americans may be seeking new drugs and vaccines. They worry that the industry's efforts to present its proposals as patriotic gestures mask an effort to increase its power in Washington and to improve its image while still protecting its financial interests. Critics also say consumer groups and executives from generic drug companies, which make cheaper copies of well-known drugs, have been conspicuously absent from any administration meetings.

"I am concerned that the industry is trying to subvert the normal regulatory process," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the health research group of Public Citizen, a Washington research organization. "These meetings have no transparency, no openness nor any involvement of the public. It's a dangerous precedent."

The pharmaceutical industry, of course, has not always had its way. Some of its efforts to speed federal drug approval have failed. Federal regulators are actively investigating several companies' attempts to keep generic drugs off the market and are taking a harsh look at some marketing practices.

There is no lobby in Washington as large, as powerful or as well-financed as the pharmaceutical lobby. Battle-honed over a number of health care initiatives that began with the creation of the Medicare program in the 1960's, the industry spent $177 million on lobbying in 1999 and 2000 — a good $50 million more than its nearest rivals, the insurance and telecommunications industries.

Thanks to Washington's well-oiled revolving door between government and business, the industry is able to claim friends in especially high places. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is the former chief executive of the drug maker G. D. Searle, for example, and Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the White House budget director, is a former Eli Lilly executive.

Even more important, more than half the drug industry's 625 registered lobbyists are either former members of Congress or former Congressional staff members and government employees, according to a report from Public Citizen. Former members of Congress who now work for the industry include Beryl F. Anthony Jr., Birch Bayh, Dennis DeConcini, Vic Fazio, Norman F. Lent, Robert L. Livingston, Bill Paxon, Robert S. Walker and Vin Weber. While in Congress, many of them led key legislative committees, and they still have close ties to those now in power.
Subject: Secret C.I.A. Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:39:41 12/03/01 Mon

from Paul P..thanks!


November 4, 2001

THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

Secret C.I.A. Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11

By JAMES RISEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/national/04INTE.html?todaysheadlines

WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting United States intelligence operations while bringing the war on terrorism dangerously close to home for America's spy agency, government officials say.

The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning. All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers, the officials said.

The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building.

Immediately after the attack, the C.I.A. dispatched a special team to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports that had been stored in the New York station, either on paper or in computers, officials said. It could not be learned whether the agency was successful in retrieving its classified records from the wreckage.

A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment.

The agency's New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the C.I.A. after returning from overseas.

The agency's officers in New York often work undercover, posing as diplomats and business executives, among other things, depending on the nature of their intelligence operations.

The recovery of secret documents and other records from the New York station should follow well-rehearsed procedures laid out by the agency after the Iranian takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The revolutionaries took over the embassy so rapidly that the C.I.A. station was not able to effectively destroy all of its documents, and the Iranians were later able to piece together shredded agency reports. Since that disaster, the agency has emphasized rigorous training and drills among its employees on how to quickly and effectively destroy and dispose of important documents in emergencies.

As a result, a C.I.A. station today should be able to protect most of its secrets even in the middle of a catastrophic disaster like the Sept. 11 attacks, said one former agency official. "If it was well run, there shouldn't be too much paper around," the former official said.

The agency's New York officers have been deeply involved in counterterrorism efforts in the New York area, working jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies. Many of the most important counterterrorism cases of the last few years, including the bureau's criminal investigations of the August 1998 bombings of two United States Embassies in East Africa and the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen have been handled out of New York.

The United States has accused Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network of conducting both of those attacks.

But United States intelligence officials emphasize that there is no evidence that the hijackers knew that the undercover station was in the World Trade Center complex.

With their undercover station in ruins, C.I.A. officers in New York have been forced to share space at the United States Mission to the United Nations, as well as borrow other federal government offices in the city, officials said. The C.I.A.'s plans for finding a new permanent station in New York could not be determined.

The agency is prohibited from conducting domestic espionage operations against Americans, but the agency maintains stations in a number of major United States cities, where C.I.A. case officers try to meet and recruit students and other foreigners to return to their countries and spy for the United States. The New York station, which has been led by its first female station chief for the last year, is believed to have been the largest and most important C.I.A. domestic station outside the Washington area.

The station has for years played an important role in espionage operations against Russian intelligence officers, many of whom work undercover as diplomats at the United Nations. Agency officers in New York often work with the F.B.I. to recruit and then help manage foreign agents spying for the United States. The bureau's New York office, at 26 Federal Plaza, was unaffected by the terrorist attack.

The destruction of the C.I.A.'s New York station has added to the intense emotions shared by many of its employees about the agency's role in the battle against terrorism. For some, the station's destruction served to underscore the failure of United States intelligence to predict the attacks.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, morale suffered badly within the C.I.A., some officials said, as the agency began to confront what critics have called an intelligence failure on the scale of Pearl Harbor.

But the terrorist attacks have also brought an urgent new sense of mission to the agency, which has been flooded with job applications as well as inquiries from former officers eager to return to work. Congress is pouring money into the agency's counterterrorism operations, and the C.I.A. seems poised to begin focusing its resources on terrorism in much the same way it once focused on the Soviet Union in the cold war.

The attacks were not the first in which the C.I.A. was directly touched by terrorists. In 1983, seven agency officers died in the suicide car bombing of the United States Embassy in Beirut. Among the others killed was the agency's station chief in Lebanon, William Buckley, who died in captivity after being kidnapped by terrorists in 1984, and Richard Welch, the agency's Athens station chief, who was shot to death by Greek terrorists in 1975.
Subject: U.S. Pondering Saudis' Vulnerability


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:37:06 12/03/01 Mon

U.S. Pondering Saudis' Vulnerability

By ELAINE SCIOLINO
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/international/middleeast/04SAUD.html?todaysheadlines

WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 — The question is asked quietly by policy makers inside Washington's official corridors, and loudly by television and newspaper experts: Is Saudi Arabia heading for an Iranian-style Islamic revolution?

The issue of Saudi stability has been factored into Washington's strategic thinking for several years.

After the terrorist bombing of the Khobar military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, which killed 19 Americans, the Central Intelligence Agency organized a special team of analysts to study Saudi Arabia under the same rigorous process used to assess the most serious threats to American national security, senior intelligence officials said at the time.

One reason for subjecting Saudi Arabia to the C.I.A.'s "hard-target strategy," which it also uses for Russia, China, Iran, Iraq and North Korea, was concern that the United States could lose its closest ally in the Persian Gulf, just as it lost Iran in 1979 when a religious-based revolution overthrew the monarchy there, the officials said.

The task force concluded that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, was politically stable and unlikely to become another Iran. But it warned that Washington's information void about the threats facing a closed society was so vast that such a conclusion was far from certain.

After claims by federal investigators that 15 of the 19 hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia and that some recruiting, financing and planning for the attacks occurred on Saudi soil, there is anxiety once again that the kingdom may be vulnerable to enemies in its midst.

That anxiety is compounded by charges from critics in the kingdom that the Saudi royal family is too close to Washington, and by critics in the United States that the family is not close enough.

"The Saudis are in a tight fix," said Mamoun Fandy, a professor at the National Defense University in Washington and author of "Saudi Arabia and the Politics of Dissent."

"The Islamists think the Saudis have sold out to the Americans, and the Americans think they have sold out to the terrorists," he said. "Eventually this translates into an erosion of legitimacy — that if you are not satisfying the Arabs and Washington, then you're on your own."

But does that translate into popular revolution in the name of Islam?

Certainly there are parallels between the House of Saud and the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran.

Like prerevolutionary Iran, Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian, oil-rich monarchy with a Muslim population. It is notorious for corruption and profligate spending, resistant to democratization, viewed increasingly as subservient to the will of Washington, dependent on American weaponry and criticized by radicals in exile and some conservative clerics for not being Islamic enough.

But the shah was a singular, isolated ruler, while the Saudis have dispersed power throughout the royal family. Many of its 7,000 members hold key political positions (the governors and military commanders in nearly every province are members) and run important businesses.

The shah was determined to transform Iran into a modern, secular society at breakneck speed, regardless of how much it offended the clergy; the House of Saud adheres to a conservative, repressive version of Islam, and despite an uneasy alliance with the clergy, it draws much of its legitimacy from its role as guardian of Mecca and Medina, the two holiest sites in Islam.

Iran has a long tradition of active rebellion and opposition politics in the name of the nation-state. Saudi Arabia does not.

Perhaps most important, Crown Prince Abdullah is regarded as a pious, incorruptible leader more responsive to the people and more willing than his predecessor, King Fahd, to take on Washington, particularly when it comes to policy toward the Palestinians. (King Fahd's illness has left him unable to govern.)

Prince Abdullah's release of three religious sheiks imprisoned after the 1991 Persian Gulf war and his criticism of Washington's unwavering support for Israel has also strengthened his reputation at home.

"Since late 1998, the crown prince began responding to both internal and external demands by reining in the most ostentatious behavior of the princes, limiting their participation in business ventures," said Gwenn Okruhlik, a political scientist at the University of Arkansas who has written extensively about Saudi Arabia. "The strongest nationalist voice in Saudi Arabia today is Abdullah, so he may be able to respond in a way that the shah could not."

Experts like Dr. Okruhlik and Dr. Fandy say that for the moment, the situation in Saudi Arabia is not as unstable as it was in 1990, when the kingdom agreed to permit American bases on its soil after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or between 1995 and 1998, when a succession struggle and a lack of clear leadership made the kingdom seem vulnerable.

The problem today is that the House of Saud is suffering from a steady degradation of support rather than widespread opposition to its rule.

Saudi Arabia has 30 percent unemployment and one of the highest birthrates in the world. Average income has dropped by at least half since the heyday of the oil boom of the early 1980's. Most of the people are under 15, a population bulge that will put even more pressure on an already crumbling infrastructure.

The Saudis are struggling with how far to go in acknowledging the presence of enemies in their midst. Last Sunday, the deputy interior minister, Prince Ahmed bin Abdul Aziz, said — without proof — that Osama bin Laden "is not involved in any explosions in the kingdom."

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, in an interview last month drew a stark comparison between Saudi Arabia today and Iran under the shah.

He offered this anecdote: In the late 1960's, the shah sent King Faisal a series of letters that said: "Please, my brother, modernize. Open up your country. Make the schools mixed women and men. Let women wear miniskirts. Have discos. Be modern. Otherwise I cannot guarantee you will stay in your throne."

King Faisal wrote back: "Your majesty, I appreciate your advice. May I remind you, you are not the shah of France. You are not in the Élysée. You are in Iran. Your population is 90 percent Muslim. Please don't forget that.."

Prince Bandar concluded, "History proved our point."

By contrast, he said, the compact between the ruler and the ruled remained strong in Saudi Arabia.

"Nobody, no force in the world, including the United States of America, can help the king of Saudi Arabia or the royal family or the government to stay in power against the will of the people," he said. If there are internal frictions, he added, it is because Saudi Arabia is "the only country in the world where the government is avant garde and the people are more conservative."

Many experts are not so hopeful.

"The Al Saud have always based their so-called right to rule on conquest, co-optation through the distribution of oil revenues and Wahhabism," the strict version of Islam practiced in the kingdom, Dr. Okruhlik said. "But coercion has fostered popular resentment, oil revenues have shrunk dramatically and Wahhabism never reflected the diverse reality of Saudi Arabia. There has been a convergence of dissent as men and women, merchants and industrialists, Sunnis and Shiites across the board are calling for a redistribution of wealth, the rule of law and social justice."
Subject: ELEGIDO COORDINADOR DETENIDO EN AIRPORT-PREVENTED POR LOS MILITARES ARMADOS DE VOLAR A LA REUNIÓN de los VERDES GNC EN CHICAGO IL LOS E.E.U.U.


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:35:36 12/03/01 Mon

Por qué no son las historias importantes como esto en los media de corriente? El público está contando en usted para proporcionar a noticias durante esta época de la crisis. Recibí esta noticia en un listserv. Debo haber vistolo en los media de corriente. Joyce M. Dallenbach
Partido verde los E.E.U.U. elegido coordinador apuntado como " terrorista " - las derechas negadas por el partido USA-Mitchell Cohen de Greens/Green el 12:49am sentaron el direccionamiento '01 de nov del 3: 226 Wabash del sur, 6to rectángulo 1406-Chicago, teléfono de floor-PO de Illinois 60690: El PARTIDO VERDE LOS E.E.U.U. de 1-866-GREENS-2 gpusa@igc.org ELEGIDO COORDINADOR DETENIDO EN AIRPORT-PREVENTED POR LOS MILITARES ARMADOS DE VOLAR A LA REUNIÓN de los VERDES GNC EN CHICAGO IL LOS E.E.U.U. Nancy Oden, coordinador verde elegido de los E.E.U.U. del partido, se ha negado volando privilegios y las sus derechas constitucionales, debido a la oposición verde de los E.E.U.U. del partido al bombardeo en Afganistán. El nuevo " terrorismo " leyes ha quitado las todas nuestras derechas y acaba de crear a los nuevos " enemigos que lists"-WHO SERÁ SIGUIENTE?? El PARTIDO VERDE LOS E.E.U.U. ELEGIDO COORDINADOR DETENIDO EN EL AEROPUERTO PREVINO POR LOS MILITARES ARMADOS DE VOLAR A LA REUNIÓN de los VERDES GNC EN CHICAGO " que me apuntaron porque el partido verde los E.E.U.U. opone el bombardeo de civiles inocentes en Afganistán. " -- Nancy Oden (la declaración verde de los E.E.U.U. del partido sobre la guerra contra Afganistán está en http://www.greenparty.org/911.html que son el partido verde original en los E.E.U.U. desde 1986) HAGÁSE SEGUIR del ========== POR FAVOR, A TODOS LOS MEDIA Y LISTSERVES. THANX (Mitchel Cohen) los verdes / el partido verde los E.E.U.U. 226 Wabash del sur, 6to rectángulo 1406, teléfono gratis del PO del suelo de Chicago, Illinois 60690: 1-866-greens-2 Para El Desbloquear Inmediato De Noviembre El 2, 2001 Media Alertan: El PARTIDO VERDE LOS E.E.U.U. llevará a cabo rueda de prensa en CHICAGO SÁBADO, de noviembre el 3 10 mañanas. en el J. Ira y el congreso del este Parkway del parador 24 de la familia de Nicki (en Wabash), 2do suelo el COORDINADOR VERDE de los E.E.U.U. del PARTIDO DETENIDO EN EL AEROPUERTO PREVENIDO POR LOS MILITARES ARMADOS DE VOLAR A LOS VERDES QUE SATISFACÍAN EN agentes armados CHICAGO del gobierno asió Nancy Oden, miembro del comité que coordinaba verde de los E.E.U.U. del partido, jueves en el aeropuerto internacional de Bangor en Bangor Maine, pues ella procuró subir a un vuelo americano de las líneas aéreas a Chicago. " un funcionario me dijo que mi nombre hubiera sido señalado por medio de una bandera en el ordenador, " un Oden sacudarido dicho. " me apuntaron porque el partido verde los E.E.U.U. opone el bombardeo de civiles inocentes en Afganistán. " Pidieron Oden, un granjero orgánico de largo plazo y el activista de la paz en Maine norteño, lejos del plano. El personal militar con las armas automáticas rodeó Oden y mandó a todas las líneas aéreas para negar su paso en CUALQUIER vuelo. " me dijeron que el aeropuerto fue cerrado a mí hasta nuevo aviso y que mi boleto no sería consolidado, " Oden dije. Oden programar para hablar en la noche de Chicago viernes en un panel referente a pesticidas como armas de la guerra. Ella había ayudado a coordinar los esfuerzos pacifistas verdes del partido USÁs éstos más allá de pocos meses, y debía señalar sobre éstos al comité del nacional de los verdes. " me pararon no sólo en el aeropuerto sino que un cierto partido misterioso había llamado el hotel y cancelado mi reservación, " Oden dijo. El comité nacional de los verdes -- el cuerpo que gobierna del partido verde los E.E.U.U. -- se está reuniendo en noviembre 2-4 de Chicago para resolver los detalles de campañas nacionales contra la guerra bioquímica, la rociadura de pesticidas tóxicos, la ingeniería genética, y la implicación del partido en el movimiento burgeoning de la paz. " me dan una sacudida eléctrica que los militares de los E.E.U.U. evitaron que uno de nuestros miembros verdes prominentes del partido assistiera a la reunión en Chicago, " dije a Elizabeth Fattah, un representante de GPUSA de Pennsylvania que condujo a Chicago. " me ultrajan en la manera que la cuenta de las derechas se está pisoteando sobre. " El activista verde Lionel Trepanier de Chicago concluido, " el ataque contra la derecha de la asociación de un partido político de la oposición se está enfriando. El hostigamiento de los activistas de la paz es reprehensible. " Para la información adicional, llame por favor 1-866-GREENS-2 (gratis) -30-
Subject: Military learned threat of bioweapons in Cold War with secret tests on civilians


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:30:09 12/03/01 Mon

Military learned threat of bioweapons in Cold War with secret tests on civilians

By Matt Crenson,
Associated Press, 11/3/2001 11:15
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/307/nation/Military_learned_threat_of_bio:.shtml

NEW YORK (AP) During a sultry June week in 1966, mysterious men riding the New York subway walked through the train, pausing between cars to drop small objects on the tracks below.

Anybody who got a good look would have recognized the objects as ordinary light bulbs. What other riders couldn't have known is that the bulbs had been pumped full of harmless bacteria meant to simulate anthrax spores.

The scientists of the Special Operations Division, a secret arm of the U.S. biological weapons program at Fort Detrick, Md., wanted to see how easy it would be to expose large numbers of straphangers to a lethal germ.

The answer: pretty easy.

During the 1950s and '60s, Fort Detrick scientists pulled similar stunts all over the United States. They released clouds of bacteria off San Francisco and watched them float over the city. In remote deserts and far at sea, they exposed thousands of guinea pigs and other test animals to anthrax and a half-dozen other scourges. In one experiment, they even pumped bacteria into the Pentagon's ventilation system.

These experiments described in military documents and a paper by bioweapons pioneer William C. Patrick III were designed to answer one question: What is the most effective way to deploy biological weapons against the Soviet Union or another Cold War foe?

The U.S. biological weapons program is ancient history, dismantled three decades ago in accordance with the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972. But the things the country's biological warriors learned back then could prove extremely valuable today, as the United States faces its first real bioterrorist threat.

''There was a lot learned,'' said Leonard Cole, a political science professor at Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., and author of ''The Eleventh Plague: The Politics of Biological and Chemical Warfare.''

The major problem U.S. weaponeers encountered, and solved, during three decades of research was how to deliver biological weapons on the battlefield.

American scientists would spread a whole menagerie guinea pigs, monkeys, sheep and other animals out in the desert or even on floating platforms far at sea. Some experiments used thousands of animals.

Then the researchers would dose the whole lot with a deadly cloud of anthrax or some other pathogen to see how many animals became infected.

''The Army found that it could kill a lot of these animals fairly easily,'' Cole said.

If they were testing a weapon like Q fever, which was designed to sicken but not kill, the researchers would even include voluntary human subjects. Most were Seventh-day Adventists whose faith did not allow them to serve in combat units.

Those human and animal tests demonstrated that extremely small particles about 1 to 5 microns 1/25,000th to 1/5,000th of an inch in diameter are the optimum size for biological warfare.

Particles that small are extremely difficult to produce. To make an aerosol mist so fine requires high-pressure spray equipment with specially designed nozzles. Producing a 1-micron powder requires the ability to freeze-dry and mill anthrax spores into minuscule particles without damaging them. It also requires treating the powder to prevent it from clumping.

Scientists spent years creating the techniques necessary to process and deliver anthrax and other germ weapons dependably. Then they went out and tested them on the American people.

In August 1949, operatives from Fort Detrick slipped themselves and their equipment into the Pentagon by posing as employees of an air quality testing company. Science writer Ed Regis recounts the episode, citing military documents, in his book ''The Biology of Doom.''

The Pentagon security guards did nothing but help as the infiltrators set up their sprayers, Regis writes. The Army scientists pumped so many harmless bacteria into the building's ventilation system that had the germs really been anthrax spores, a devastating number of America's top military officers would have been dead.

The next year, a series of experiments in San Francisco, explained by germ warrior Patrick, demonstrated that one small slip-up can render a deadly pathogenic cloud perfectly harmless. In the first trial, a ship released a cloud of harmless spores two miles offshore. Gentle winds blew the cloud right through the city. Had the spores been anthrax, the researchers estimated that more than 60 percent of the population would have ended up infected.

But in a second test under different weather conditions, virtually none of the spores reached the city. Yet another experiment also failed, when a cloud of microbes sensitive to ultraviolet light was rendered harmless by the rays of the setting sun.

The 1966 experiment in New York showed that the subway could be an especially lethal place to release anthrax spores or other nasty airborne germs. The rushing trains actually helped the mock attackers by keeping spores aloft and efficiently spreading them through the tunnels.

Concentrations of anthrax spores high enough to endanger anybody in the area could still be measured an hour after the Detrick operatives dropped their bulbs on the tracks, Patrick wrote in his paper published this year by the National Academy of Sciences.

The results of the New York and San Francisco experiments only became public in 1999, when some of the data they produced were declassified by the Defense Department. Even their existence was unknown to the public until the 1970s.

The vast majority of what the biological weapons program learned still remains locked away in secret libraries at Fort Detrick and in the heads of the few veterans of the program.

''Much of that information is lost,'' said Scott Layne, a bioterrorism expert at the University of California Los Angeles. ''There are few living people remaining who have firsthand knowledge of what is known.''

Until recently, it didn't matter much that the offensive biological weapons program was all but forgotten. What did it matter that the United States had forgotten how to deploy weapons it had promised never to use against a country that no longer exists?

Now somebody has mailed high-grade anthrax to the Senate majority leader and an apparently less lethal form of the potentially deadly spores to a number of media outlets. Officials are seriously considering the possibility that the country could be the target of a large-scale biological weapons attack.

According to Layne, it is time to let a few select people into the dusty archives at Fort Detrick. He proposes opening the weapons researchers' inner sanctum to a handful of public health, law enforcement and national security officials.

''There should be maybe five or 10 people around the country who have the relevant need to know who should have access to that information,'' Layne said. ''You have to know what you're dealing with.''

SEARCHABLE HUMAN RADIATION EXPERIMENTS:
http://hrex.dis.anl.gov/

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment ...http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Subject: Heated Arctic dispute/Greenland, Alaska natives balk at new U.S. military plans


Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:28:58 12/03/01 Mon

Heated Arctic dispute/Greenland, Alaska natives balk at new U.S. military plans


Saturday, November 3, 2001 (SF Chronicle)
Heated Arctic dispute/Greenland, Alaska natives balk at new U.S. military plans
K.L. Capozza, Chronicle Foreign Service
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/11/03/MN151862.DTL

Nuuk, Greenland -- As the Bush administration seeks to upgrade military bases in the Arctic as part of its land-based missile defense strategy, a growing voice of opposition is emerging from the Earth's attic.

Although the plan is likely to bring millions of dollars in investment to isolated northern Inuit communities, many fear that the arrival of missile silos and advanced radars may also bring environmental destruction.

During the Cold War, the Arctic became ground zero for U.S. communications and surveillance operations designed to thwart a Soviet attack from the north.

When the Cold War thawed, military sites were abandoned and left to decay on the Arctic tundra. Contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum, radioactive waste and solvents, they still pose a toxic threat to local ecosystems.

Now, communities in Greenland and Alaska are bracing for what promises to be a second military boom in their territory. But if the military still has not cleaned up its former sites here, many northerners are wondering whether they should welcome a new wave of development.

"In order to make room for the Americans' Thule air base in 1953, the (Inuit) inhabitants were forcibly relocated," said Aqaluq Lynge, president of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Greenland's largest Inuit organization. "They lost their hunting grounds and were given only tents to live in."

The 650 displaced Inuit from Thule sued the Danish government, Greenland's former colonial ruler and current foreign policy representative, over this episode of forced exile and won a $71,400 settlement.

Now they are filing for more compensation, and their case will be heard in the Danish Supreme High Court this fall.

"We are fighting for the Americans to clean up Thule and give it back to us, " said Axel Lund Olsen, deputy mayor of Qaanaaq, the community formed by displaced Thule Inuit. "If one day a war begins, people are afraid that if a bomb would hit Thule air base, all of the food we eat from the sea would be destroyed."


ANIMAL FLESH CONTAMINATED

Greenland natives depend on Arctic wildlife for survival, said Olsen. The animals that have sustained them for centuries -- walrus, seal, whale and polar bear -- now carry high burdens of contaminants, which arrive in Greenland through long-range air currents and from local sources like U.S. defense sites.

In central Greenland, three radar sites that were part of the Distance Early Warning radar system (the DEW line) were deserted in 1991, but the pollution there was never dealt with.

Contamination at the DEW line sites is a problem that plagues communities from Alaska to Greenland. Between 1953 and 1958, the United States aggressively built a vast network of radar sites along the 69th parallel designed to thwart a Soviet attack from the north.

Over 30 tons of PCBs were used in the construction and maintenance of the DEW line. Discarded transformers made to withstand extreme temperatures and high electrical currents are the primary source of PCBs, known cancer-causing agents.

The DEW line and other northern radar systems constituted one of the most expensive military projects ever initiated during peacetime. Now those sites, largely based in northern Canada, are an environmental blight that will cost foreign governments hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up. In Canada alone, the price tag of remediation is estimated at $500 million.

Under the current missile defense plan, the U.S. Defense Department will spend $200 million to upgrade existing radar technology at Thule. Eventually, experimental X-band radars may be imported to the site.

According to Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, spokesman for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in Washington, the Defense Department is not required to complete an environmental impact statement for sites that are located outside the United States.

He insists that Greenland communities should not worry about environmental damage because the new radar technology being considered for Thule is mostly computer equipment that will not bring any additional contaminants to the site.


MILITARY VIEWED SKEPTICALLY

But the word of the U.S. military is taken with a large dose of skepticism here.

In 1995, Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen told reporters that no nuclear weapons were deployed in Greenland. Denmark and Greenland have a policy barring nuclear weapons within their borders. Two weeks later, Petersen received a confidential letter from then-U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry stating that, indeed, air defense warheads and surface-to-air missiles had been stored at Thule without Greenland's knowledge. The crisis became known as "Thulegate" in Denmark.

"We want to be at the table in any discussion about MDP (the missile defense plan) and Thule," said Malinannguaq Markussen, chairwoman of the committee on missile defense for the Greenland Home-Rule government.

The missile defense's largest hub will be in Fort Greely, Alaska, where it has run into heated opposition from environmental groups. The base was used for biological and chemical weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s and housed a nuclear reactor that is now entombed in a sarcophagus on-site.

Under the missile defense plan, five missile silos will be built at Fort Greely as early as next spring.

Environmentalists and native groups who live near the site contend that dangerous contamination has not been fully addressed.

"Tribal members hiking through that area have found canisters of mustard gas," said Howard Mermelstein, tribal manager of the Healy Lake Village Council, an Athabaskan tribe that lives next door to Fort Greely.

On his desk, Mermelstein keeps an unexploded 1945 howitzer shell that a tribal member found near his office only three weeks ago. He says he uses it as a paperweight and as a reminder of the dangerous materials that are still lurking on the tribe's lands.


ARMY PLEDGES CLEANUP

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is charged with cleaning up Fort Greely, has assured the public that the site no longer poses any health threat.

The Corps is working to remedy all remaining contamination, said John Killoran, spokesman for the Corps in Alaska.

On Aug. 28, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alaska Community Action on Toxics (AKAT) and six other environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Defense Department to force it to draft new environmental

impact statements on missile defense activities in Alaska. Like activists in Greenland, the plaintiffs hope to bring local concerns to the fore as the missile defense debate heats up in Washington.

"The military has not addressed the existing toxic and radioactive waste that they have left here," said AKAT Director Pam Miller. "Why should they be able to come in and put in yet another technology that might possibly be obsolete in a few years, on top of the mess that they have already created?"


Nuclear bombs aboard when plane crashed in 1968

Distrust of U.S. military operations in Greenland runs high, and it reached a fever pitch last summer when a group of former Thule air base workers and Danish parliamentarians gained access to declassified U.S. military documents and found some support for what Greenlanders had suspected for decades -- that an unexploded American hydrogen bomb disappeared somewhere off the northeastern coast of Greenland.

In 1968, a B-52 bomber laden with four nuclear bombs crashed 12 miles from the Thule base.

Decades later, reports of cancer and other illnesses began to surface among Danish and Greenlander Thule air base workers. In 1995, the Danish government acknowledged their plight and paid a $15.5 million settlement to the 1,700 workers who had been exposed to radiation during the 1968 accident.

"You still have some leftover plutonium in that area that used to be our hunting grounds," contends Aqaluq Lynge of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. "Now that's off-limits to us as well."

According to a 1991 Danish study, sediment on the bottom of Bylot Sound near where the plane crashed has extremely elevated levels of radioactive plutonium contamination -- more than 100,000 becquerels per square meter. The Danish researchers also found levels of plutonium in bivalves, or shellfish, up to 1,000 times higher than precrash levels.

The Pentagon has conceded that not all of the plutonium involved in the crash was recovered -- about one pound of plutonium escaped into the environment -- but has always contended that every one of the bombs on board was accounted for.

K.L. Capozza is an investigative fellow with the Center for Investigative Reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2001 SF Chronicle
Main index ] [ Archives: 12[3]4 ]
[ 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.