From hunterbadbear at earthlink.net Thu Dec 1 10:14:31 2005 From: hunterbadbear at earthlink.net (Hunter Gray) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] FWD from Mick [PARIAH]: Death Penalty Barbarism Message-ID: <002501c5f69a$b3803ed0$2303e404@intel> The murder of Nguyen Tuong Van by mick lambe [People Against Racism in Aboriginal Homelands] If an Australian is taken hostage or faces other physical danger overseas, there is no hesitancy by our government in acting to assist them, nor should there be. Anything else would be murder through inaction. In the case of Nguyen Tuong Van facing execution in Singapore for drug smuggling, the action that could have been taken (or even threatened) to save him, was trade sanctions. I see no other realistic alternative. Australian Prime Minister John Howard rejected this course of action, stating, "...he would not (even) raise Nguyen's case at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malta (that) week." (1) Naturally the Australian government and its apologists have argued that Nguyen is a criminal, caught with drugs in a country infamous for its mandatory death penalty for drug dealers. They have even argued Singapore's sovereign right to murder an Australian citizen, attacking critics as "colonialist". Apart from the death penalty in Singapore being a hangover from their colonialist past, this respect for sovereignty is demonstrably selective. Australia's recent militarist adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and (closer to home) the appalling social outcomes of Australia's Aboriginal people makes that obvious. Sovereignty of the individual I respect the right of different peoples to act in different ways. I do not respect the right of any State to have the ultimate power of death over its citizenry. I am not alone in this belief. In Australia it is a core belief enshrined in our legal and political structures that enjoys bilateral support (albeit, obviously token) from our major political parties. Most countries considered to have a 'liberal democracy' and an attendant respect for the 'sovereignty of the individual' (with the notable exception of the USA) have evolved away from the death penalty. Even the USA does not execute its citizens for drug smuggling. There is no doubt that 25 year old Nguyen Tuong Van committed a stupid criminal act. In Australia however, stupidity does not attract the death penalty and youth is a mitigating factor. A right to force "our" values on Singapore? So has Australia a right to pressure Singapore to accept "our" values? It is a deliberately loaded question that needs some qualification. Certainly Australia has a moral obligation to assist an Australian facing death overseas. A moral obligation paramount to the immorality inherent in the barbarism of Singapore's mandatory death penalty for drug smuggling. As to these being "our" values? The United Nations and the European Union have criticised Singapore's use of capital punishment which bucks a world-wide trend towards its eventual abolition.(2) State control of the media and the undemocratic suppression of oppositional voices to State policy in Singapore, makes the presumption that the death penalty is a popular Singaporean value, a matter of conjecture anyway. (3) Think on this For those people repulsed by the drug-related nature of Nguyen's fatal predicament (and I am surprised by how many Australians have rightly seen this as an irrelevancy) let me create a hypothetical scenario. You are in Singapore, after enjoying a pleasant flight, where you perused the latest in-flight news on Nguyen, who you felt, deserved everything coming to him. Unknown to you, a panicked drug courier (who read the same article about Nguyen on your flight) has slipped a plastic bag of heroin into your overnight bag. How do feel about Singapore's mandatory death penalty for drug smuggling now, as the noose is placed around your neck? ______________ - footnotes (1) http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/11/22/singapore.death.reut/ (2) Amnesty International - 'SINGAPORE - The death penalty: A hidden toll of executions' Over half the countries in the world have now abolished it (death penalty) in law or practice. In the past decade more than three countries a year on average have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. They include: Angola, C?te d'Ivoire, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa, Canada, Paraguay, Hong Kong, Nepal, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Poland, Serbia and Montenegro, Turkmenistan and Ukraine. At present there are 112 countries which are abolitionist in law or practice. 83 countries retain and use the death penalty but the number of countries which carry out executions each year is far lower - http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA360012004?open&of=ENG-SGP (3) 'Tough on drugs, soft on drug lords' - Sydney Morning Herald The forum and vigil held for Nguyen in Singapore on Monday night was only the second such event ever held in Singapore. It attracted 100 mainly young people who came to listen and did not want to be quoted for fear of repercussions. They suggested reading blog sites where they posted their views in relative anonymity. Dr Chee warned the gathering that police were probably videotaping the event and said their attendance showed "Singaporeans are not heartless, they may be voiceless but they do care about the situation over the death penalty". http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/tough-on-drugs-soft-on-drug-lords/2005/11/0 8/1131407638823.html - see also details on Optus ('Australia') boycott http://dimc.axxs.org/index.php?action=default&featureview=80 - and an article on the Bali 9 - http://dimc.axxs.org/index.php?action=default&featureview=75 _____________________________________________________ mick lambe - coordinator: PARIAH - BETTER A PARIAH - THAN A LIAR People Against Racism In Aboriginal Homelands - Northern Territory Australia Archived by the National Library of Australia for preservation as a site of national significance and lasting cultural value http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pariahnt - (spam free zone) PARIAH Mobile: 0404772989 HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk www.hunterbear.org Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' As a boy, I shot my huge Coming of Age Bear -- deep in the vast Sycamore Canyon wilderness area in Northern Arizona. At that point, I then became a man. The fiery spirit of the Bear and its abundantly fine qualities -- intelligence, courage, stamina, instinct -- are with me always and have served me very well and faithfully on my swift and rocky River of No Return. I plan to do much more in my life -- much more indeed -- before the eventual trip into the Fog and Deep Canyon, up over the High Mountains, and Far Beyond to the Shining Sun in the Turquoise Sky that glows forever down on the Headwaters of Life. And when that Journey finally comes the great Bear will accompany me. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Dec 1 17:30:30 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Venezuela's leader to send heating oil to South Bronx Message-ID: <200512020030.jB20UUD5022425@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/26/nyregion/26oil.html New York Times November 26, 2005 Venezuela's leader to send heating oil to South Bronx By Jonathan P. Hicks A group of South Bronx residents will soon receive a large - and inexpensive - shipment of heating oil, courtesy of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, a frequent thorn in the side of the Bush administration. Under an agreement between President Chávez and United States Representative José E. Serrano, Citgo, the Houston-based American subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, will provide eight million gallons of discounted heating oil this winter to thousands of low-income residents of the South Bronx. The populist government of the Venezuelan president is one of Latin America's most vocal critics of American-style capitalism. Mr. Chávez has led anti-Bush rallies in his country and has accused the United States of trying to kill him and invade his country. The oil should start arriving late next week or early in the week of Dec. 5, Mr. Serrano, a Bronx Democrat, said in an interview yesterday. He said that the oil would be provided at 40 percent below the market rate. "This is something that came as a result of conversations between me and President Chávez," Mr. Serrano said. "As part of our talk, he suggested that he wanted to ask Citgo to make home heating oil available to the poor of the South Bronx at a lower rate." Mr. Serrano said that the agreement provided "an incredible message to other oil companies." "It tells them," he said, "that that if these people in Venezuela can share their profits with poorer communities, then they should, too." Earlier this year, two nonprofit Massachusetts groups signed an agreement with Citgo to provide discounted heating oil this winter to thousands of low-income residents. Mr. Serrano said that there were some challenges in fine-tuning the program in the Bronx that were not encountered in Massachusetts. In New York, he said, most of the low-income residents rent their apartments as opposed to being homeowners, as in Massachusetts. The congressman added that the priority was to administer the program in such a way that the savings were passed to residents. "In New York, most of the landlords are private landlords, and we don't really know how to get them to pass along those savings to the renters," Mr. Serrano said. "We suggested to the president that we start off with three nonprofit affordable housing community corporations in the South Bronx." Initially, Mr. Serrano said, the program will involve residents in about 200 apartments. He added that the agreements with the nonprofit groups call for residents to receive vouchers for rent reductions and for "infrastructure and quality-of-life improvements" in the buildings. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Dec 1 17:29:59 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] The Miracle or a Mockery of Afghanistan? Message-ID: <200512020030.jB20TxrC021123@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=49&ItemID=9142 ZNet | Afghanistan The “Miracle” or a Mockery of Afghanistan? by Mehmooda Shekiba; November 18, 2005 Ms. Diane Tebelius, Republican congressional candidate and observer in the Afghan elections sponsored by the International Republican Institute, is perhaps the first election observer in Afghanistan who wasted no time to communicate her impression in The Seattle Times of October 4, 2005. A few days ago Ms. Tebelius returned to the United States from Kabul, I am writing these notes as a response to her dreadful article from inside my trampled country. As a member of RAWA, I had to be in several provinces to meet as many people as possible regarding the elections. Tebelius can enjoy the luxury of sitting in her house and so easily call the disgusting mockery of an election “the miracle of Afghanistan”, while I am crying from among the people in the hell of the Taliban and Northern Alliance (NA) terrorists and their “westernized” accomplices. Tebelius and other election observers with their bullet-proofs and body guards were in the hands of the American soldiers and Afghan agents. She might have been told about “swift spreading democracy”, “prosperity”, “complete security” and other “miracles” in our land of warlords and payees of foreign powers. On the other hand since she was selected by the U.S. government that brought Karzai and the Northern Alliance to the scene, it comes as no surprise she is not calling a spade a spade. One of her miraculous statements is: “The Afghan people see Americans as liberators.” A distorted proclamation! As we have repeatedly asserted and shown, all of the fundamentalist bands including Taliban were created, funded, and trained by the CIA turning a blind eye to the higher interest of the Afghan people and to the consequence of such sinister support to the fate of freedom and democracy in our country. Thus, the US war on the Taliban is nothing but a family fracas between the father and his rogue children. The US started the fracas by not replacing religious tyranny with democracy, by not relying on the people, but rather by siding with the NA, the very worst enemies of our people. It goes without saying that Afghans will not see as their “liberators” those who drove the Taliban wolves through one door and unchained the rabid dogs of the NA through another. How a nation “sees as liberators” those who have blown to shred not the terrorists but thousands of innocents? How can simple Afghans “see Americans as liberators” while the “liberators” are going to woo their men in the government and in the parliament to approve the establishment of the US bases on our soil for decades, which obviously goes contrary to the independence of the country? Our people say that if Americans were their liberators, they should have not allowed about 200 criminals and arch enemies of democracy to pave their way to the parliament and provincial council. After four years the people see that the “liberators'” promises for them were all lies. And bear it in mind, Ms. Tebelius, that our ruined people have no doubt that those with the disgraceful stories of Abu Ghraib cannot be their “liberators”. Do we need to recite abuses of the “liberators” in Afghanistan? Even high-salaried government spokespersons do not have the courage to utter such nonsense openly before the people of Afghanistan. But Ms. Tebelius as a U.S. agent and good friend of one of the two most corrupt governments in Asia can and has to throw dust in the eyes of Americans. Now let’s see more of her “miraculous” words: “I am convinced, now more than ever, that spreading of democracy is the only long-term strategy to defeat global terrorism.” Nice maxim! But were Americans or Karzai & Co. “spreading democracy” since 2001? After 9/11 when the U.S. resorted to bomb our wounded country and take the lives of several thousands innocent civilians it helped the bloodthirsty NA seize power. The NA is comprised of those millionaire rapists busy in the opium trade under the very nose of the US troops. They are the people behind the insecurity, kidnappings, embezzlement of billions of dollars of foreign aids, injustices, anti-women constraints, covering up of the day light murders, and so on and so forth. They include the likes of Dr Abdullah, Younis Qanooni, Zia Massud, Karim Khalili, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Mohaqiq, Sarwar Danish, Ms. Mosouda Jalal, Nematullah Shahrani, Ismail Khan, Ms. Sediqa Balkhi, Rasul Sayyaf, Ikram Masoomi, Rashid Dostum, Mullah Fazil Hadi Shinwari, Ms. Amena Afzali and others are stained with the blood of tens of thousands of Kabul residents. All of these ladies and gentlemen have the disgraceful scar of inhuman brutalities against our people in the blackest years of 1992-1996. They are “our” ministers, vice presidents and advisors to the president. Most of the Afghan ambassadors, governors, secretaries and other high ranking officials are also affiliated with NA mafia. Don’t you know them, Ms. Tebelius? Just months ago The New York Times and The Los Angles Times named some of them including one of Karzai's brothers. Of course Human Right Watch (HRW) and other organizations have disclosed many more names. However, you Ms. Tebelius are making painstaking efforts to portray these criminals and spies as honorable persons under whose rule “democracy” will “spread” and an electoral “miracle” has already been performed! In any case, as one living in Afghanistan I shall mention the following parts of the “miracle” which obviously show only the tip of the iceberg: - For the presidential election about 70 percent of eligible voters went to the polls. The real figure of the turnout at the “miraculous” elections however is less the 40 percent and in some areas even lower than 30 percent. - A report by the HRW stated: “In addition to fear of Taliban and other insurgent forces, found primarily in the south and southeast, many voters and candidates voiced concerns to Human Right Watch about their sense of vulnerability at the hands of warlords forces, de facto or official militia forces ostensibly allied with the government: “Across the country, candidates and political organizers complained to Human Right Watch of cases in which local commanders or strongmen, or local government officials linked with them have held meeting in which they have told voters and community leaders for whom to vote. In some cases, candidates and their supporters allege that direct threats have been communicated.” [1] - Filthy figures of the Taliban including their foreign minister and the head of their dreaded religious secret police, notorious for executing and abusing thousands of men and women, criminals figures of the infamous terrorist band of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, high level members of the Soviet backed puppet regime were allowed to stand as candidates, a major factor of disappointment of people to go to the polls. A conservative EU observer mission said shortcomings during the campaign included intimidation, intervention by officials, inadequate voter lists and “deplorable” killing of candidates and election workers. - The so-called Electoral Complaints Commission received hundreds of notes about crimes of the fundamentalist leaders, but except some scapegoats, none of them were disqualified. And you know Ms. Tebelius who is the head of the Commission? Bismullah Bismil, an infamous fundamentalist and close relative of Ismail Khan! - Different kinds of rigging were so blatant that even pro-government and pro-fundamentalist papers couldn't help but to hint at them. - In many districts no women could participate in the elections due to security problems. Nevertheless thousands of votes of the women were somehow managed to be cast into the ballot boxes. - Anti-fundamentalist and anti-government candidates of the parliament and provincial councils of Kapisa Province issued a joint statement condemning irregularities in the elections, desisted from campaign. - In all areas under the warlords, tens of thousands of ballots have been marked in favor of certain candidates and youth under the age of 18 were brought to vote. - Ballot boxes were kept for 48 hours or more before being transferred to the polling stations. - Ms. Shokria Barekzai a participant from Kabul alleged that just in front of her own eyes, ten votes for her were cast for another candidate. - In Kunduz province, 260,000 votes were cast, but 6,000 of them were excluded in favor of a pro-fundamentalist candidate. - In some ballots, voters had written words like “he is a murderer”, “he is a bandit”, “he is a foreign agent”, “He is a Talib”, etc. against some candidates, but they were all counted as valid votes. - Thousands of votes for independent candidates were burnt and thousands of fake votes were cast for the pro-fundamentalists/ pro-Karzai candidates. - Supervisors and vote counters were forbidden to carry pens. But during a check in a polling center in Nangarhar province, more than 200 pens were found from the mentioned workers. When I asked a middle-aged teacher which candidates is her favorite, she replied: “How can I vote for Engineer Ghaffar, or Hazarat Ali and the like who have blood on their hands?” - In a constituency in Paktia province, the number of voters was ten thousand, but at least twenty thousands ballots were cast there. A 30-year-old man from Paktia who was not willing to vote told me: “When I see a traitor like General Shahnawaz Tanai that is so openly is active in election campaign, I can understand how anti-democratic and ridiculous the present election is.” - In Farah province, Naim Khan Farahi, the biggest landlord of the province, directly backed by the government, by the United Nations’ UNAMA and his gunmen became the “first winner” by committing every kind of irregularity. A nephew of this person is the head of UNAMA in Farah. In Farahrod district another nephew of his (Zabet Jalil) was forcing people by use of his armed henchmen to vote for his uncle. - Most of the people in Farah are of the opinion that if there were not so much fraud in the elections; Malaali Joya would have garnered at least fifty percent of all votes. - As in Herat and Nimroz provinces, the regime of Iran had also a hand in Farah. Its intelligence agencies gave 100 millions Toman (about $117,000) to Haji Taimor Shah. His huge color posters were unmatched by others. - The stink of the elections spread so wide that even the terrorist Al-Zawahiri talked about them in his statement of 20 September: “The election have been conducted under the terror of [Afghan] warlords. The elections were a masquerade more than anything else, as various regions of the country are under the control of highway men and warlords, and international observers …even the ballot boxes remained in the hands of warlords, bandits and the US agents before they were deposited at the polling centers.” To get another idea about the scale of corruption and the Karzai regime, we draw your attention to a confidential document recently disclosed by Dr. Ramazan Bashardost. As soon as Dr Bashardost was assigned as the minister of planning he tried to stop activities of 2,000 suspicious and money-maker NGOs, but was soon forced to resign. According to the document, presidents’ spokesperson, ministers and high ranking officials, in addition of other allowances get up to $36,000 annually from a British company. Whereas the disabled get $6 and ordinary government employees get $60 per month only. The overwhelming corruption has risen to the highest organs. “The President had asked me to assume the responsibility of the Administration of Fight against Corruption,” says Bashardost, “I however told him that I would undertake it provided to start from the Presidential Palace.” In an interview with Reuters on Aug.30, 2005, he says: "Government members, the NGOs, the big embassy staff, the United Nations staff ... they made a mafia system and you can see the result." [2] "We received about $12 billion since three years, where is the money?" he said, referring to international aid since the overthrow of the Taliban in late 2001.” "The Afghan people are against warlords, why does the international community, why does the Afghan government supports warlords?" "In the provinces, all governors are former warlords, all chiefs of police, and the Afghan people don't accept this situation." - And so on. It is not difficult to predict what will be the result of the “miracle” election about which you take comfort. A parliament filled with the most cruel, misogynist, anti-democracy, and reactionary fundamentalists headed by such disgusting drug traders as Sayyaf, Qanoni, Rabbani, Mohaqqiq, Pairam Qul, Hazrat Ali, and their likes. These U.S. backed religious fascists will never “spread democracy”, but rather try to “legitimate” and perpetuate their bloody domination on our people by sitting in the legislature as “lawmakers”. Ms. Tebelius, anybody who wants to be regarded as a friend of the people of Afghanistan and not of the present regime, she/he has to expose the fundamentalists and their dangerous agenda and avoid to dance to the tune of the US government or its blue-eyed boys in Afghanistan. As Aldous Huxley wrote, “The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human”. Please don't play the role of a propagandist. Moreover by naming the most scandalous elections in the world “the miracle of Afghanistan”, you have insulted millions of Afghans who didn't vote for the murderers of their beloved ones. Can't you feel how painful and disgusting it is to propagate such nonsense? We hope to recognize you in the future as a sincere friend of our people. Mehmooda Shekiba, RAWA Kabul October 25, 2005 Mehmooda Sheikiba is an activist of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) who has worked in the publications committee of RAWA during the past five years. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Dec 1 17:30:11 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] U.S. military covertly pays to run stories in Iraqi press Message-ID: <200512020030.jB20UBoe021806@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-infowar30nov30,0,5638790 .story Los Angeles Times November 30, 2005 U.S. military covertly pays to run stories in Iraqi press Troops write articles presented as news reports. Some officers object to the practice. By Mark Mazzetti and Borzou Daragahi Washington — As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq. The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times. Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country. Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year. The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets. The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption. It comes as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in basic journalism skills and Western media ethics, including one workshop titled "The Role of Press in a Democratic Society." Standards vary widely at Iraqi newspapers, many of which are shoestring operations. Underscoring the importance U.S. officials place on development of a Western-style media, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday cited the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's great successes since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein. The hundreds of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning democracy, Rumsfeld said. The military's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's credibility in other nations and with the American public. "Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it," said a senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the Iraqi media. The arrangement with Lincoln Group is evidence of how far the Pentagon has moved to blur the traditional boundaries between military public affairs — the dissemination of factual information to the media — and psychological and information operations, which use propaganda and sometimes misleading information to advance the objectives of a military campaign. The Bush administration has come under criticism for distributing video and news stories in the United States without identifying the federal government as their source and for paying American journalists to promote administration policies, practices the Government Accountability Office has labeled "covert propaganda." Military officials familiar with the effort in Iraq said much of it was being directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad, part of the multinational corps headquarters commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were critical of the effort and were not authorized to speak publicly about it. A spokesman for Vines declined to comment for this article. A Lincoln Group spokesman also declined to comment. One of the military officials said that, as part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece. The official would not disclose which newspaper and radio station are under U.S. control, saying that naming them would put their employees at risk of insurgent attacks. U.S. law forbids the military from carrying out psychological operations or planting propaganda through American media outlets. Yet several officials said that given the globalization of media driven by the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, the Pentagon's efforts were carried out with the knowledge that coverage in the foreign press inevitably "bleeds" into the Western media and influences coverage in U.S. news outlets. "There is no longer any way to separate foreign media from domestic media. Those neat lines don't exist anymore," said one private contractor who does information operations work for the Pentagon. Daniel Kuehl, an information operations expert at National Defense University at Ft. McNair in Washington, said that he did not believe that planting stories in Iraqi media was wrong. But he questioned whether the practice would help turn the Iraqi public against the insurgency. "I don't think that there's anything evil or morally wrong with it," he said. "I just question whether it's effective." One senior military official who spent this year in Iraq said it was the strong pro-U.S. message in some news stories in Baghdad that first made him suspect that the American military was planting articles. "Stuff would show up in the Iraqi press, and I would ask, 'Where the hell did that come from?' It was clearly not something that indigenous Iraqi press would have conceived of on their own," the official said. Iraqi newspaper editors reacted with a mixture of shock and shrugs when told they were targets of a U.S. military psychological operation. Some of the newspapers, such as Al Mutamar, a Baghdad-based daily run by associates of Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, ran the articles as news stories, indistinguishable from other news reports. Before the war, Chalabi was the Iraqi exile favored by senior Pentagon officials to lead post-Hussein Iraq. Others labeled the stories as "advertising," shaded them in gray boxes or used a special typeface to distinguish them from standard editorial content. But none mentioned any connection to the U.S. military. One Aug. 6 piece, published prominently on Al Mutamar's second page, ran as a news story with the headline "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism." Documents obtained by The Times indicated that Al Mutamar was paid about $50 to run the story, though the editor of the paper said he ran such articles for free. Nearly $1,500 was paid to the independent Addustour newspaper to run an Aug. 2 article titled "More Money Goes to Iraq's Development," the records indicated. The newspaper's editor, Bassem Sheikh, said he had "no idea" where the piece came from but added the note "media services" on top of the article to distinguish it from other editorial content. The U.S. military-written articles come in to Al Mutamar, the newspaper run by Chalabi's associates, via the Internet and are often unsigned, said Luay Baldawi, the paper's editor in chief. "We publish anything," he said. "The paper's policy is to publish everything, especially if it praises causes we believe in. We are pro-American. Everything that supports America we will publish." Yet other Al Mutamar employees were much less supportive of their paper's connection with the U.S. military. "This is not right," said Faleh Hassan, an editor. "It reflects the tragic condition of journalists in Iraq. Journalism in Iraq is in very bad shape." Ultimately, Baldawi acknowledged that he, too, was concerned about the origin of the articles and pledged to be "more careful about stuff we get by e-mail." After he learned of the source of three paid stories that ran in Al Mada in July, that newspaper's managing editor, Abdul Zahra Zaki, was outraged, immediately summoning a manager of the advertising department to his office. "I'm very sad," he said. "We have to investigate." The Iraqis who delivered the articles also reaped modest profits from the arrangements, according to sources and records. Employees at Al Mada said that a low-key man arrived at the newspaper's offices in downtown Baghdad on July 30 with a large wad of U.S. dollars. He told the editors that he wanted to publish an article titled "Terrorists Attack Sunni Volunteers" in the newspaper. He paid cash and left no calling card, employees said. He did not want a receipt. The name he gave employees was the same as that of a Lincoln Group worker in the records obtained by The Times. Although editors at Al Mada said he paid $900 to place the article, records show that the man told Lincoln Group that he gave more than $1,200 to the paper. Al Mada is widely considered the most cerebral and professional of Iraqi newspapers, publishing investigative reports as well as poetry. Zaki said that if his cash-strapped paper had known that these stories were from the U.S. government, he would have "charged much, much more" to publish them. According to several sources, the process for placing the stories begins when soldiers write "storyboards" of events in Iraq, such as a joint U.S.-Iraqi raid on a suspected insurgent hide-out, or a suicide bomb that killed Iraqi civilians. The storyboards, several of which were obtained by The Times, read more like press releases than news stories. They often contain anonymous quotes from U.S. military officials; it is unclear whether the quotes are authentic. "Absolute truth was not an essential element of these stories," said the senior military official who spent this year in Iraq. One of the storyboards, dated Nov. 12, describes a U.S.-Iraqi offensive in the western Iraqi towns of Karabilah and Husaybah. "Both cities are stopping points for foreign fighters entering Iraq to wage their unjust war," the storyboard reads. It continues with a quote from an anonymous U.S. military official: " 'Iraqi army soldiers and U.S. forces have begun clear-and-hold operations in the city of Karabilah near Husaybah town, close to the Syrian border,' said a military official once operations began." Another storyboard, written on the same date, describes the capture of an insurgent bomb-maker in Baghdad. "As the people and the [Iraqi security forces] work together, Iraq will finally drive terrorism out of Iraq for good," it concludes. It was unclear whether those two storyboards have made their way into Iraqi newspapers. A debate over the Pentagon's handling of information has raged since shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. In 2002, the Pentagon was forced to shut down its Office of Strategic Influence, which had been created the previous year, after reports surfaced that it intended to plant false news stories in the international media. For much of 2005, a Defense Department working group has been trying to forge a policy about the proper role of information operations in wartime. Pentagon officials say the group has yet to resolve the often-contentious debate in the department about the boundaries between military public affairs and information operations. Lincoln Group, formerly known as Iraqex, is one of several companies hired by the U.S. military to carry out "strategic communications" in countries where large numbers of U.S. troops are based. Some of Lincoln Group's work in Iraq is very public, such as an animated public service campaign on Iraqi television that spotlights the Iraqi civilians killed by roadside bombs planted by insurgents. Besides its contract with the military in Iraq, Lincoln Group this year won a major contract with U.S. Special Operations Command, based in Tampa, to develop a strategic communications campaign in concert with special operations troops stationed around the globe. The contract is worth up to $100 million over five years, although U.S. military officials said they doubted the Pentagon would spend the full amount of the contract. Mazzetti reported from Washington and Daragahi reported from Baghdad. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Dec 1 17:29:48 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Al-Qaida Message-ID: <200512020029.jB20Tmip020432@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> “Al-Qaida, literally ‘the database’, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in The Guardian, Friday July 8, 2005: http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Dec 1 17:30:18 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Americas new enemy - John Pilger Message-ID: <200512020030.jB20UIZ7022162@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.newstatesman.com/Economy/200511140005 New Statesman Saturday, 12 November 2005 America’s new enemy By John Pilger I was dropped at Paradiso, the last middle-class area before La Vega barrio, which spills into a ravine as if by the force of gravity. Storms were forecast and people were anxious, remembering the mudslides of 1999 that took 20,000 lives. "Why are you here?" asked the man sitting opposite me in the packed jeep-bus that chugged up the hill. Like so many in Latin America, he appeared old, but wasn't. Without waiting for my answer, he listed why he supported President Hugo Chavez: schools, clinics, affordable food, "our constitution, our democracy" and "for the first time, the oil money is going to us". I asked him if he belonged to the MVR (Movement for the Fifth Republic), Chavez's party, "No, I've never been in a political party; I can only tell you how my life has been changed, as I never dreamt." It is raw witness like this, which I have heard over and over again in Venezuela, that smashes the one-way mirror between the west and a continent that is rising. By rising, I mean the phenomenon of millions of people stirring once again, "like lions after slumber/In unvanquishable number", wrote Shelley in The Mask of Anarchy. This is not romantic; an epic is unfolding in Latin America that demands our attention beyond the stereotypes and cliches that diminish whole societies to their degree of exploitation and expendability. To the man in the bus, and to Beatrice whose children are being immunised and taught history, art and music for the first time, and Celedonia, in her seventies, reading and writing for the first time, and Jose whose life was saved by a doctor in the middle of the night, the first doctor he had ever seen, Chavez is neither a "firebrand" nor an "autocrat" but a humanitarian and a democrat who commands almost two-thirds of the popular vote, accredited by victories in no fewer than nine elections. Compare that with the fifth of the British electorate that reinstalled an authentic autocrat in Downing Street. Chavez and the rise of popular social movements, from Colombia down to Argentina, represent bloodless, radical change across the continent, inspired by the great independence struggles that began with Simon BolIvar, born in 1783 in Venezuela, who brought the ideas of the French Revolution to societies cowed by Spanish absolutism. Bolivar, like Che Guevara in the 1960s and Chavez today, understood the new colonial master to the north. "The USA," he said in 1819, "appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." At the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in 2001, George Bush announced the latest misery in the name of liberty in the form of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) treaty. This would finally allow the United States to impose its ideological "market", neoliberalism, on all of Latin America. It was the natural successor to Bill Clinton's North American Free Trade Agreement, which has turned Mexico into a US sweatshop. Bush boasted it would be law by 2005. On 5 November, Bush arrived at the 2005 summit in Mar del Plata, Argentina, to be told his FTAA was not even on the agenda. Among the 34 heads of state were new, uncompliant faces and behind all of them were populations no longer willing to accept US-backed business tyrannies. Never before have Latin American governments had to consult their people on pseudo agreements of this kind; but now they must. In Bolivia, in the past five years, social movements have got rid of governments and foreign corporations alike, such as the tentacular Bechtel, which sought to impose what people call total locura capitalista - total capitalist folly - the privatising of almost everything, especially natural gas and water. Following Pinochet's Chile, Bolivia was to be a neoliberal laboratory. The poorest of the poor were charged up to two-thirds of their pittance-income even for rainwater. Standing in the bleak, freezing, cobble-stoned streets of El Alto, 14,000 feet up in the Andes, or sitting in the breeze-block homes of former miners and campesinos driven off their land, I have had political discussions of a kind seldom ignited in Britain and the US. They are direct and eloquent. "Why are we so poor," they say, "when our country is so rich? Why do governments lie to us and represent outside powers?" They refer to 500 years of conquest as if it is a living presence, which it is, tracing a journey from the Spanish plunder of Cerro Rico, a hill of silver mined by indigenous slave labour and which underwrote the Spanish empire for three centuries. When the silver was gone, there was tin, and when the mines were privatised in the 1970s at the behest of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), tin collapsed, along with 30,000 jobs. When the coca leaf replaced it - chewing it curbs hunger - the Bolivian army, coerced by the US, began destroying the coca crops and filling the prisons. In 2000, open rebellion burst upon the white business oligarchs and the US embassy whose fortress stands like an Andean Vatican in the centre of La Paz. There was never anything like it, because it came from the majority Indian population "to protect our indigenous soul". Naked racism against indigenous peoples all over Latin America is the Spanish legacy. They were despised or invisible, or curios for tourists: the women in their bowler hats and colourful skirts. No more. Led by visionaries such as Oscar Olivera, the women in bowler hats and colourful skirts encircled and shut down the country's second city, Cochabamba, until their water was returned to public ownership. Every year since, people have fought a water or gas war: essentially a war against privatisation and poverty. Having driven out President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in 2003, Bolivians voted in a referendum for real democracy. Through the social movements, they demanded a constituent assembly similar to that which founded Chavez's BolIvarian revolution in Venezuela, together with the rejection of the FTAA and all the other "free trade" agreements, the expulsion of the transnational water companies and a 50 per cent tax on the exploitation of all energy resources. When the replacement president, Carlos Mesa, refused to implement the programme he was forced to resign. Presidential elections are scheduled for 4 December and the opposition MAS (Movement to Socialism) may well turn out the old order. The leader is an indigenous former coca farmer, Evo Morales, whom the US ambassador has likened to Osama Bin Laden. In fact, he is a social democrat who, for many of those who sealed off Cochabamba and marched down the mountain from El Alto, moderates too much. "This is not going to be easy," Abel Mamani, the indigenous president of the El Alto Federation of Neighbourhood Associations, told me. "The elections won't be a solution even if we win. What we need to guarantee is the constituent assembly, from which we build a democracy based not on what the US wants, but on social justice." The writer Pablo Solon, son of the great political muralist Walter Solon, said: "The story of Bolivia is the story of the government behind the government. The US can create a financial crisis; but really for them it is ideological; they say they will not accept another Chavez." The people, however, will not accept another Washington quisling. The lesson is Ecuador, where a helicopter saved Lucio Gutierrez as he fled the presidential palace in April. Having won power in alliance with the indigenous Pachakutik movement, he was the "Ecuadorian Chavez", until he drowned in a corruption scandal. For ordinary Latin Americans, corruption on high is no longer forgivable. That is one of two reasons the Workers' Party government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is barely marking time in Brazil; the other is the priority he has given to an IMF economic agenda, rather than to his own people. In Argentina, social movements saw off five pro-Washington presidents in 2001 and 2002. Across the water in Uruguay, the Frente Amplio, socialist heirs to the Tupamaros, the guerrillas of the 1970s who fought one of the CIA's most vicious terror campaigns, formed a popular government last year. The social movements are now a decisive force in every Latin American country - even in the state of fear that is the Colombia of Alvaro Uribe Velez, Bush's most loyal vassal. Last month, an indigenous movement marched through every one of Colombia's 32 provinces demanding an end to "an evil as great as the gun": neoliberalism. All over Latin America, Hugo Chavez is the modern Bolivar. People admire his political imagination and his courage. Only he has had the guts to describe the United States as a source of terrorism and Bush as Senor Peligro (Mr Danger). He is very different from Fidel Castro, whom he respects. Venezuela is an extraordinarily open society with an unfettered opposition that is rich and still powerful. On the left, there are those who oppose the state in principle, believe its reforms have reached their limit, and want power to flow directly from the community. They say so vigorously, yet they support Chavez. A fluent young anarchist, Marcel, showed me the clinic where Cuban doctors gave his girlfriend critical emergency treatment. (In a barter arrangement, Venezuela gives Cuba oil in exchange for doctors.) At the entrance to every barrio there is a state supermarket, where everything from staple food to washing-up liquid costs 40 per cent less than in commercial stores. Despite specious accusations that the government has instituted censorship, most of the media remains violently anti-Chavez: a large part of it in the hands of Gustavo Cisneros, Latin America's Rupert Murdoch, who backed the failed attempt to depose Chavez in April 2002. What is different is the proliferation of lively community radio stations which played a crucial part in Chavez's rescue then by calling on people to march on Caracas. While the world looks to Iran and Syria for the next Bush attack, Venezuelans know they may well be next. On 17 March, the Washington Post reported that Feliz RodrIguez, "a former CIA operative well connected to the Bush family", had taken part in the planning of the assassination of the president of Venezuela. On 16 September, Chavez said, "I have evidence that there are plans to invade Venezuela. Furthermore, we have documentation: how many bombers will over-fly Venezuela on the day of the invasion . . . the US is carrying out manoeuvres on Curacao Island. It is called Operation Balboa." Since then, leaked internal Pentagon documents have identified Venezuela as a "post-Iraq threat" requiring "full spectrum" planning. The old-young man in the jeep, Beatrice and her healthy children, and Celedonia with her "new esteem", are indeed a threat - the threat of an alternative, decent world that some lament is no longer possible. Well, it is, and it deserves our support. From info at cinox.demon.co.uk Thu Dec 1 18:03:34 2005 From: info at cinox.demon.co.uk (Tim Murphy) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] The God Gaps Message-ID: December 1, 2005 Counter Punch www.counterpunch.org American Museum of Natural History Deserts Darwin The God Gaps By JOHN WALSH, M.D. The exhibit on Charles Darwin at the American Museum of Natural History in NYC is not to be missed. I am a biologist by trade; you could say biology is my business. Yet I learned a great deal from this "popular" exhibition, and three hours passed before I could tear myself away. There is something in it for everyone, from high school kids to working scientists. Toward the end, I came upon a video presentation, which took on the controversy of intelligent design, aka creationism, versus evolution. And there I found that both the Museum and a number of my fellow scientists had taken a pass on the controversy. One prominent biologist featured in the video reassured us that he is a man of faith and a man of science. He warned the creationists of the danger - to themselves - of filling in gaps in our understanding of the natural world with God. This, he lamented, posed a threat to the believer. For, if science later filled in those gaps with provable, natural explanations, one's faith could be put in jeopardy. I found this a peculiar argument. After all, should we not amend our views based on new facts? Or was this scientist saying: don't let the facts get in your way when it comes to God? In fact the intellectual history of the last five hundred years has been a chronicle of plucking God out of such gaps and inserting scientific explanations. Darwin's idea of natural selection itself was presaged by the rapidly developing science of geology, which had found that the earth was far older than the 6000 years calculated from the Bible. The earth's great age provided Darwin with the vast stretches of time required for natural selection to do its work. And long before that, as we all know, Copernicus and Galileo nudged aside the Christian belief that the earth stands motionless at the center of the universe. Soon Newton was able to explain all motion, from the heavenly bodies to lowly objects on the earth, in terms of mathematical formulations totally foreign to the Bible and its tenets. From that time on Newton's Principia displaced the Bible and all sacred texts as the most influential book in the history of mankind. Because the gaps that were filled by God have been replaced by beautiful, simple, natural explanations, faith is indeed threatened. In fact to anyone willing to draw on an ounce of common sense, God becomes increasingly untenable. This is the history of modern experimental and theoretical science and modern thought itself. The creationists are correct to see Darwin and indeed all of science as a threat to their beliefs and in the case of the televangelists a threat to their substantial earthly fortunes wrung from the poor. Darwin himself became an atheist based in part on what he learned about the origins of species. And this conclusion was reinforced by the heart-wrenching death of his beloved ten year-old daughter, probably of tuberculosis, whom he could not save. Why then do none of the scientists in the concluding display at the Museum of Natural History echo Darwin's atheism when a large fraction of scientists are not theists? Not one! This suggests that the Museum, and perhaps even the scientists featured in the exhibit, are pandering to the religious fundamentalists in our society and, in the process, betraying the advocacy of the truth to which they are committed above all else. Great scientists like Charles Darwin or Francis Crick or other atheistic luminaries who have lighted our paths would have had none of this. Passing on this controversy is not without consequences, often life and death ones. Our nation is presently in the grip of a "neoconservative," more properly "radical reactionary," cabal, which has led us into the debacle in Iraq. The founding philosopher of neo-conservatism, Leo Strauss, felt that science posed a danger when it spread beyond the confines of a privileged few. Strauss, himself an atheist, believed society was to be ruled by an atheistic elite, above the law; the orderly function of society would be guaranteed by a number of myths, most importantly and centrally religion, holding the great unwashed (i.e., you and me) in thrall and under control. Part of this control is to inspire large numbers of us to march off to war and death when the elite deem it necessary. As "Rev." Pat Robertson said in supporting the war and the President, "I just think God's blessing is on him." Or as W has said, God instructed him to attack Iraq. In the same vein Strauss felt that science, religion's opposite, should not be communicated to the masses, since it would be a threat to social control. Fortunately for us, this Straussian goal is an impossible one since science is by its very nature a massive social enterprise. I found the concluding section of the Darwin exhibit to be a betrayal of the spirit of Darwin and little more than a parroting of the politically correct view that there is no contradiction between religion and science. The creationists, however, know better and as a consequence fear science mightily. We now stand on the threshold of the 21st century where enormous challenges face us: staggering poverty, continuing racism, raging wars, pandemics, and the possibility of nuclear annihilation or of the irreversible despoliation of the planet. We cannot afford to approach these problems based on myths, religious or otherwise, however comforting. Religion cannot be our guide. And the alternative is not so metaphysically bleak as some would have us believe. Darwin himself said that there was a "grandeur" in his view of the unity of life. And there is hope in it too, since the scientific view of the world can lead us to a life that might be the envy of the gods, were there any. Everyone is free of course to express his or her religious views. We should not challenge that. But the time is long overdue for more of us, scientists and non-scientists alike, to acknowledge ourselves as atheists and to advocate our views vigorously. And one cannot escape the consequences of being "neutral" or "polite" in the struggle between science and religion. If the voices for a non-religious worldview remain silent, then the Christian fundamentalists win by default. Perhaps if people's faith in eternal life is shaken a bit, they will be less likely to goose step off into oblivion. Would-be soldiers and victims are owed this even if it means some of us have to abandon comforting illusions or comfortable social approval to convey this message. Some of the materials of the Darwin exhibit, but not the offending video, can be found at: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/ John V. Walsh is a professor of physiology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. He can be reached at: jvwalshmd@gmail.com. ----------- http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh12012005.html ----------- From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 20:46:39 2005 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] [Greensweek] Green Wave: Write letter or op-ed column on Iraq withdrawal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051202034639.99373.qmail@web50807.mail.yahoo.com> [Greensweek] Green Wave: Write a Green letter or op-ed column on Iraq withdrawal Green Wave November 2005 Attn Greens & friends As several published articles have noted recently, a large percentage of the public has grown disgusted with the Bush Administration and the Republicans, but they aren't very impressed by Democrats either. Greens are in a unique position to advance the party's position on the Iraq War, assert some political leadership as the party of opposition to bipartisan war policies, and stress the failure of Dems to provide antiwar leadership. We need to do so publicly and as soon as possible. One of the best ways to do this is to flood newspapers and other media with letters to the editor and op-ed column submissions. Below are a list of bullet points for this purpose, and two sample letters to the editor. If you use the bullet points or samples, rewrite and reword them according to your own style and preference. If you can, make your letter or column personal, if, for instance, the war has touched you because of the loss of someone you know or if you've undertaken a specific action in opposition to the war. These bullet points focus on the invasion itself, but there are other points that can also be discussed, such as Green support for Cindy Sheehan, the US's dependency on oil and dedication to oil company profits as a motivating factor, the revelations of the Valerie Plame affair, and the role of Israel. Keep your letter as concise as possible and avoid passionate denunciations. Eight paragraph letters and tirades that begin with "The New York Times has deceived and betrayed the American people..." don't get published. Guest op-ed columns can be longer and can employ more of the bullet points. Check the targeted newspaper's web site for specifications. If you need some help with editing and submitting your column, send a note to the Media Committee . BULLET POINTS ? (Important!) The only rational action is an end to the occupation and immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The demand by some Democrats for a withdrawal plan by the end of 2006 will only result in more US troop and Iraqi civilian deaths. ? (Important!) President Bush and the Republicans have shamed the US, breached international and US constitutional law, and weakened our security. They did so with permission from the Democratic leadership and the major media. We need to hold them all accountable, and we need new political leadership. ? Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.) and other Congress members who have condemned the Iraq War deserve our thanks, but why did it take them so long to speak out? In early 2003, at the beginning of the invasion, it was already evident that the Bush Administration's motivations were based on deception. ? While Democrats and the media fell for the White House's fraudulent claims, millions of Americans were skeptical. Many of us, including the Green Party, spoke out publicly against the invasion. ? When Republicans and many Democrats voted to transfer Congress's constitutionally mandated war power to the White House in October 2002, they undermined the balance of power and created the scenario for the deceit and massive abuse of power by the Bush Administration's radical ideologues. ? There was plenty of intelligence by early 2003 to show that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs, although CIA analysts were pressured to show otherwise. The inspectors' search for WMDs in Iraq had turned up nothing when President Bush interrupted them by launching the invasion. The accusation that Saddam Hussein had conspired with al-Qaeda was never plausible, and Bush officials already knew that the nuclear weapons charge was based on a forgery. President Bush, in his 2003 State of Union address, and Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his February 2003 speech before the UN, misled the US and the world -- and we should have known it. [Excellent source for more information: "Libby Indictment May Open Door to Broader Iraq War Deceptions" by Stephen Zunes, in Foreign Policy In Focus, November 14, 2005 ] ? President Bush still insists that the invasion of Iraq was a necessary part of his 'War on Terror', even though no one believes Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks. Instead, the invasion has created more animosity against the US and its allies and further inflamed violent extremists. ? Ever since the Project for a New American Century (whose leaders now hold positions in the Bush Administration) tried to persuade President Clinton to invade Iraq in 1989, it has been clear that an extreme Republican faction wanted to remove Saddam Hussein and gain control over Iraq's oil resources. This faction has reintroduced the concept of invasion for 'preemptive' purposes, which had been outlawed after World War II by international laws, including the UN Charter, to which the US was signatory. ? Ahmed Chalabi recently visited Washington and met with Vice President Cheney and other leaders. This is the same Ahmed Chalabi who fed the US misinformation about Iraqi WMDs, who allegedly passed US secrets to Iran, who was convicted of embezzlement in Jordan -- and was named Interim Oil Minister in Iraq, with the Bush Administration's blessing. ? The news about the war gets worse and worse: 2,000-plus dead American servicemembers; tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians; mounting evidence of torture in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and other sites; alleged wartime profiteering by firms like Halliburton that hold multi-billion-dollar contracts; the use of depleted uranium and outlawed chemical weapons (white phosphorus). Meanwhile, White White House officials try to smear war critics as unpatriotic, and Vice President Cheney lobbies for legalization of torture. Worst of all, we have to endure three more years of Mr. Bush's lawless, rock-bottom presidency. ? The position of Democratic warhawks like Sen. Hillary Clinton that we need to send more troops is equally appalling. * * * * * SAMPLE LETTER #1 To the Editor, Rep. John Murtha and other Congress members who have condemned the Iraq War deserve our thanks, but why did it take them so long to speak out? In early 2003, at the beginning of the invasion, it was already evident that the Bush Administration's motivations were based on deception. While Democrats and the media fell for the White House's fraudulent claims, many of us, including the Green Party, protested the invasion. The news about the war gets worse and worse: 2,000-plus dead American servicemembers; tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians; mounting evidence of torture in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and other sites; alleged wartime profiteering by firms like Halliburton that hold multi-billion-dollar contracts; the use of depleted uranium and outlawed chemical weapons (white phosphorus). Meanwhile, White House officials try to smear war critics as unpatriotic, and Vice President Cheney lobbies for legalization of torture. Worst of all, we have to endure three more years of Mr. Bush's lawless, rock-bottom presidency. The position of Democratic warhawks like Sen. Hillary Clinton that we need to send more troops is equally appalling. The only rational action is immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The demand by some Democrats for a withdrawal plan by the end of 2006 will only result in more US troop and Iraqi civilian deaths. President Bush, indulged by the Democratic leadership and major media, has shamed the US, breached international and US constitutional law, and weakened our security. We need to hold them all accountable, and we need new political leadership. Sincerely, YOUR NAME * * * * * SAMPLE LETTER #2 To the Editor, Rep. John Murtha and other Congress members who have condemned the Iraq War deserve our thanks, but why did it take them so long to speak out? In 2003, it was already evident that the White House's reasons for going to war were fraudulent, and many of us, including the Green Party, protested the invasion. When Republicans and many Democrats voted to transfer Congress's constitutionally mandated war power to the White House in October 2002, they undermined the balance of power and created the scenario for the massive abuse of power by the Bush Administration's radical ideologues. There was plenty of intelligence by early 2003 to show that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs, although CIA analysts were pressured to show otherwise. The inspectors' search for WMDs in Iraq had turned up nothing when President Bush interrupted them by launching the invasion. The accusation that Saddam had conspired with al-Qaeda was never plausible, and Bush officials already knew that the nuclear weapons charge was based on a forgery. The only rational action now is immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The demand by some Democrats for a withdrawal plan by the end of 2006 will only result in more US troop and Iraqi civilian deaths. President Bush, indulged by the Democratic leadership and major media, has shamed the US, breached international and US constitutional law, and weakened our security. We need to hold them all accountable, and we need new political leadership. Sincerely, YOUR NAME * * * * * The Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org National office: 1700 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404 Washington, DC 20009. 202-319-7191 or 202-319-7192 866-41GREEN Fax 202-319-7193 Join the GreensWeek e-mail subscription list for the latest on national Green Party news and events: http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/greensweek http://www.gp.org/greensweek/index.html __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 21:00:15 2005 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Amnesty Alerts: World AIDS Day -- Stop AIDS. Keep the Promise, etc.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051202040015.69730.qmail@web50805.mail.yahoo.com> World AIDS Day -- Stop AIDS. Keep the Promise. ONLINE EVENTS, Amnesty International USA, November 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - Dear James, December 1 has been designated World AIDS Day, a time to remember those who have been lost to AIDS and to take stock of progress in responding to the pandemic. Starting this year and running through 2010, the theme of World AIDS Day will remain "Stop AIDS. Keep the Promise," emphasizing the importance of holding governments and the international community accountable for their commitments to stop AIDS. Below are two things you can do tomorrow, on the occasion of World AIDS Day, to educate yourself, connect with others involved in the fight against AIDS, and advocate that governments adopt human-rights centered strategies. - - - - ONLINE DISCUSSION: VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, HIV/AIDS AND U.S. POLICY Join us tomorrow, December 1st, from 12:00-1:00 PM Eastern for an online discussion on the connection between violence against women and HIV/AIDS, as well as the impact of U.S. global AIDS policy, particularly on the right to health. SUBMIT A QUESTION http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/ctt.asp?u=253792&l=15300 - - - - TAKE ACTION: CALL ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS-CENTERED AIDS PREVENTION STRATEGIES IN UGANDA AI is concerned about the Ugandan government's role in the condom shortage reported in Uganda. AI is also concerned that aspects of the U.S. government's global AIDS policy may be undermining HIV/AIDS prevention in Uganda and other countries which depend on U.S. aid. Call on the U.S. government to support human rights-centered, evidence-based approaches to fighting AIDS in Uganda. ACT NOW http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/ctt.asp?u=253792&l=15301 - - - - Thank you for all that you do. Warmest regards, The Web Team Amnesty International USA Protest The 1,000th Execution Events in protest to the 1,000th execution in the United States since 1977 will be held across the country during the week of November 28. Candlelight vigils, rallies, and public forums have been planned in at least 17 states and in multiple cities. Please try to attend one of the events or plan your own vigil. ? Find an event http://www.1000executions.org/ Ask Amnesty: Violence against Women, HIV/AIDS and U.S. Policy The AIDS pandemic has brought to light the inextricable connection between the right to health and other fundamental human rights, such as those to be free from discrimination, to receive and impartial information, and to be free from violence and abuse. Panelists Abigail Erikson and Lisa Schechtman will discuss how discrimination against women translates into lack of power both in personal relationships and in the broader society, which in turn undermines the level of control women have over their bodies and in decision-making, placing them at greater risk of violence. All of these factors increase women?s susceptibility to sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS. Given the devastating force of HIV and AIDS, gender inequalities have become fatal. Panelists Salih Booker and Jodi Jacobson will discuss the impact of U.S. AIDS policy globally, particularly in Africa where HIV prevalence is highest. Please join us for our online discussion from 12:00-1:00 PM Eastern on December 1st, 2005 -- World AIDS Day -- to learn more about the relationship between violence against women and HIV/AIDS, and the impact of US global AIDS policy. Moving Ideas is co-hosting this online discussion. Featured Panelists: Salih Booker, Executive Director, Africa Action Abigail Erikson, Specialist on reproductive health, HIV/AIDS and gender issues Jodi Jacobson (invited), Executive Director, Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE) Lisa Schechtman, Policy and Grassroots Associate, Global AIDS Alliance ? Submit a question in advance Ask Amnesty: Ending Violence against Women in Guatemala Between 2001 and 2004, more than 1,188 Guatemalan women and girls have been brutally murdered. Just 9% of these murders have been investigated by the police. In post-civil conflict Guatemala, violent crime and homicide are on the increase generally, but the rise in killings of women is far out of proportion. Thus far, most killings of women occur in urban areas, targeting women between 13 and 40 years of age. Most victims come from poor sectors of society ? domestic employees, shop or factory workers, or migrants from neighboring Central American countries. Please join us for our online discussion from 1:00-2:00 PM Eastern on December 7th, 2005 to talk with experts about this brutal violence against women in Guatemala and learn what you can do to stop it. Moving Ideas is co-hosting this online discussion. Featured Panelists: Laura E. Asturias, Editor, La Cuerda Adriana Beltr?n, Associate for Guatemala, Washington Office on Latin America Barbara Bocek, Country Specialist on Guatemala, Amnesty International USA Pat Davis, Interim Executive Director, Guatemala Human Rights Commissions ? Submit a question in advance Ask Amnesty: Environmental Activist and Prisoner of Conscience Felipe Arreaga Monica Campbell, a freelance journalist based in Mexico City, recently interviewed Mexican environmental activist and former Amnesty International prisoner of conscience Felipe Arreaga after his release from 10 months of unjust detention for murder. Please join us for our online discussion from 3:00-4:00 PM Eastern on Tuesday, December 13th to talk with Ms. Campbell about her interview with Mr. Arreaga. ? Submit a question in advanc Amnesty International USA Annual General Meeting Amnesty International USA's Annual General (AGM) is Amnesty International USA's largest annual national conference for all members and activists to join, meet, learn, discuss, celebrate and let their voices be heard. Register today for and receive the early bird discount. The AGM will take place from April 28- 30, 2006 in Portland, Oregon. ? Learn more Sincerely, The Web Team Amnesty International US Do not reply to this message. Messages sent to this email address are not read. If you have a question or comment, please use our interactive online help system. 2006 Annual General Meeting Dear James, Early-Bird Discount Available TODAY! (and take an additional $5 off by registering on-line) You are cordially invited to participate in the 2006 Annual General Meeting (AGM) April 28- 30, 2006 in Portland, Oregon. The AGM is Amnesty International USA's largest annual national conference for all members and activists to join, meet, learn, discuss, celebrate and let their voices be heard! REGISTER TODAY http://www.kintera.org/site/c.drKOI1PFIqE/b.1121485/k.BE9A/Home.htm AGM activities include keynote addresses from distinguished speakers, panel discussions, the ?Make Some Noise? celebration, testimonies from international guests in the human rights community and much more. Contribute to networking sessions, join working parties, vote on Amnesty USA resolutions, and celebrate our successes together. For up to date program developments, please visit our web site. EARLY BIRD SPECIAL GENERAL RATE Before January 31, 2006 Before April 15, 2006 2006 AGM Attendee $55 (- $5 online) = $50 $75 (- $5 online) = $70 Student/Limited Income $45 (- $5 online) = $40 $65 (- $5 online) = $60 The 2006 AGM host hotel is The Hilton Portland & Executive Tower - located right in the heart of down town Portland, OR, conveniently positioned two blocks from city center and the famous public transportation light-rail system. The hotel has generously offered 35-45% off their regular room rates for 2006 AGM attendees! Known for a long-standing tradition of human rights activism, Portland, Oregon, has also been proclaimed North America's "Best Big City" for its unmatched natural beauty and bustling local scene. For more information, please visit our web site . __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 21:07:26 2005 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] United Farm Workers: Bush demands immigrants report for deportation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051202040726.77807.qmail@web50806.mail.yahoo.com> Bush demands immigrants report for deportation http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/bushimmigration/ewb7b5447w6nbi? President Bush announced his unrealistic immigration plan this week as he toured the border states of Arizona and Texas. The White House is proposing a "Report to Deport" program. On Monday, President Bush advocated stronger border security and a guest worker program with no path to earned legal status and no protections for workers. According to the President, "Workers would be able to register for legal status for a fixed period of time, and then be required to go home." Most immigrant workers who have been here for years will not take part in a program that means they will be deported after three or six years. President Bush's plan is not practical. It will damage the American economy and is not in keeping with basic American values. Any immigration proposal needs to have what the AgJobs bill has: a path to earned legalization, strong protections for imported guest workers, criminal background checks and the ability of workers to cross back and forth across the border without risking their lives. AgJobs (S. 359/H.R. 884) has all of these components. It would allow undocumented farm workers to earn the right to permanently stay in this country by continuing to work in agriculture. If the UFW and the growers can set aside decades of often bitter differences to agree on compromise bipartisan legislation such as AgJobs, the White House and Congress can do the same. Contact President Bush and your congressional representatives today. Let them know they should enact AgJobs and other bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bills that include these principles. Please take action today! Go to: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/bushimmigration/ewb7b5447w6nbi? Tell-a-friend about this campaign. Go to: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/bushimmigration/forward/ewb7b5447w6nbi? Make a donation and help us continue this fight. Go to: https://secure.ga6.org/08/donations/n6daO5tK15qOO? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keep Up With UFW News. Visit our web site at: http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/i1aO5tK1Hu5b/ufw Moved? New E-mail address? Update your profile at your Subscription Management Page at http://www.unionvoice.org/ufw/smp.tcl?show_subs=profile&nkey=ewb7b5447w6nbi& If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for the United Farm Workers at: http://www.unionvoice.org/ufw/join.html?r=6daO5tK15qOOE& United Farm Workers, 29700 Woodford-Tehachapi Rd., P.O. Box 62, Keene, CA, 93531 www.ufw.org Privacy Policy at: http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/k1aO5tK1Hu5I/privacy __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From info at cinox.demon.co.uk Fri Dec 2 06:39:42 2005 From: info at cinox.demon.co.uk (Tim Murphy) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Blair faces allegations of complicity in torture Message-ID: 2nd December 2005 The Independent (UK) www.independent.co.uk Blair faces allegations of complicity in torture By Colin Brown and Andrew Buncombe in Washington Pressure is mounting on the White House to answer claims that the CIA is using UK airports to fly terrorist suspects for torture in secret prisons in Europe. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the former Foreign Office lawyer who resigned over the Iraq war, warned Tony Blair last night that he cannot duck the questions crowding in about the flights which could mean Britain has been complicit in torture. In The Independent, Ms Wilmshurst, now a fellow of Chatham House, said the Prime Minister could not justify breaking the international convention against torture by saying the "rules of the game have changed" because of the war on terrorism. Britain's European partners stepped up the pressure for details to be disclosed about hundreds of secret flights by CIA-operated jets. Sarah Ludford, a British member of the European Parliament's civil liberties committee, said: "I am not at all reassured that there is sufficient determination by [member states] to establish the truth," she said. "The allegations are now beyond speculation. We now have sufficient evidence involving CIA flights. We need to know who was on those flights, where they went." EU leaders are ready to follow up their request to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, to challenge the White House. On Tuesday he wrote to Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, calling for details of the secret flights to be revealed. Mr Straw said yesterday he had raised the issue with Ms Rice. She is likely to face direct challenges about flights when she visits Brussels next week. This month, prisoners were reported held in two eastern European countries, believed to be Romania and Poland, brought there on flights the CIA calls "extraordinary rendition". Michael Ratner, director of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, said: "It's a secret. No one knows what happens in the rendition process or in the gulag of secret CIA hellholes." But journalists and campaigners have tracked some of what is happening by monitoring the flight records of planes known to be used by the CIA. Plane-spotters have helped compile information on the aircraft - including one Gulfstream originally identified as N379P but now renumbered N44982 - and their movements. Twenty-six planes apparently used by the CIA have made 307 flights in Europe since 9/11. Of these, 94 had stops in Germany and 76 in Britain, at Luton, Glasgow, Prestwick and Northolt. The UK government has denied prisoners are being held on a US-operated base on British-owned Diego Garcia. John Sifton, a researcher for Human Rights Watch, which has released a list of 26 "ghost detainees" held by the US without access to lawyers, said probably only a few of the 307 flights involved moving prisoners. Most, he said, were likely transferring CIA personnel. "It's impossible to know for sure how many are innocent," he said. There is a debate in the US about whether torture should be permitted for extracting information. A Bill tabled by Senator John McCain to outlaw torture passed the Senate but is being opposed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who wants special exemption for CIA agents. Increasingly, politicians in Britain and Europe are showing a determination to find out whether the US has "black sites" in eastern Europe where harsh treatment of suspected terrorists would raise fewer questions. Alexander Alvaro, a German Liberal MEP and member of the European civil liberties committee, said Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, would raise the issue in talks with George Bush. "I think our Chancellor will point out that Germany would not tolerate secret camps in Europe." There are growing calls at Westminster for Mr Blair to block the CIA flights. The Labour MP Harry Cohen said: "It is not for the UK Government to connive in and facilitate people disappearance. The Government's blind-eye approach to enforcing the law is not acceptable." An all-party group to challenge the UK and US Governments over the transport of suspected terrorists, was launched yesterday at Westminster. It will be chaired by Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie, former Labour foreign affairs minister, Chris Mullin, and Sir Menzies Campbell, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats. ---------- http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article330660.ece ---------- From aaron at istop.com Fri Dec 2 11:59:10 2005 From: aaron at istop.com (aaron@istop.com) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Need verification Message-ID: <20051202195910.73D2517C0A7@www.istop.com> Hello all. I got this email a week or so ago from a friend in Cape Breton, I thought it was cut and sent it out. I got a inquiry from a left-wing paper that wants to run it, but they need to authenticat it. Does anyone know weather this actually happend and it is true or is it just an email that is suppose to be funny. if anyone can verify this form me, please get back to me ASAP Aaron Subject: Paul martin > > > Prime Minister Paul Martin was invited to address a major gathering of the > Canadian Indian Nation two weeks ago in Northern Canada. > > He spoke for almost an hour on his future plans for increasing every > Native's present standard of living, should he be re-elected. > > He also referred to his career as Finance Minister. Although the Prime > Minister was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most enthusiastic > about his future ideas for helping his "red sisters and brothers". > > At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented him with a plaque > inscribed with his new Indian name - Walking Eagle. > > > The proud Prime Minister then departed in his motorcade, waving to the > crowds. > > A news reporter later inquired of the group of chiefs as to how they came to > select the new name given to the Prime Minister. > > They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of > shit it can no longer fly. From mstainsby at resist.ca Fri Dec 2 14:06:27 2005 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Need verification In-Reply-To: <20051202195910.73D2517C0A7@www.istop.com> References: <20051202195910.73D2517C0A7@www.istop.com> Message-ID: <3591.64.180.250.22.1133557587.squirrel@mail.resist.ca> aaron, though i also truly like the article, anyone who thinks it is "real"-- as in it happened-- also is a walking eagle. -- Macdonald Stainsby http://independentmedia.ca/survivingcanada/ http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green In the contradiction lies the hope. --Brecht. From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Dec 2 14:20:55 2005 From: fentona at shaw.ca (A FENTON) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] UN Repression in Haiti's Cite Soleil Message-ID: <212e4b20e91a.20e91a212e4b@shaw.ca> ZNet =7C Haiti MINUSTAH in Cite Soleil by Isabel MacDonald=3B December 01=2C 2005 = http=3A//www=2Ezmag=2Eorg/content/showarticle=2Ecfm=3FSectionID=3D55=26It= emID=3D9245 PORT AU PRINCE - Luckson Docius=2C a 48-year old metalworker who supporte= d his family of seven by making saucepans was at work on November 24 when= a bullet fired by a UN =E2=80=9Cpeacekeeper=E2=80=9D working with the UN= Mission for Stabilization in Haiti (MINUSTAH) ripped through the metal w= all of his studio and killed him=2E The bullet=2C which a MINUSTAH soldie= r in a tank-like armoured personnel carrier (APC) fired from an automatic= gun=2C blasted through his right arm=2C tore into the right side of his = abdomen and came out the other side=2C to lodge itself in his left arm=3B= moments later=2C Docius was lying dead in a pool of blood before his co-= workers=E2=80=99 eyes=2E = A few days later=2C Harold=2C a youth from the Port-au-Prince slum of Cit= =C3=A9 Soleil (or Site Soley=2C as it is known in Kr=C3=A8yol)=2C was str= olling up the main road into his neighbourhood on a Sunday afternoon whe n a MINUSTAH =E2=80=9Cpeacekeeper=E2=80=9D shot him in the stomach=2E = Speaking from a hospital bed two days later=2C where he was strapped up t= o an IV machine=2C the bullet hole in his stomach visible through a trans= parent plastic cover taped over it=2C Harold said that he had been walkin= g along the main street into the Site when MINUSTAH shot him=2E He had be= en passing by MINUSTAH=E2=80=99s largest base in the Site=2C which is loc= ated at the entrance to the shantytown=2C when he heard gunfire off in th= e distance=2E The Jordanian soldiers manning the MINUSTAH=E2=80=99s tank-= like APCs outside the base responded by opening fire with automatic weapo= ns in the general direction of the distant shooting=2E One of MINUSTAH=E2= =80=99s bullets tore through Harold=E2=80=99s abdomen and lodged near his= back=2E = I visited Harold with a Haitian law school student and journalist who is = a friend of his=2E Harold had been on his way to a meeting organized by t= his law school student-- a youth meeting focused on strategies for promot= ing progressive community de velopment and education through neighbourhood associations=E2=80=94when h= e was shot=2E The Associated Press (AP) has reported that 15 residents of Site Soley ha= ve been killed=2C and Doctors Without Borders has confirmed that 28 more = have been shot=2C amidst heavy firing by MINUSTAH in the last week=2E Sit= e Soley is a Port au Prince slum with a strong base of support for Fanmi = Lavalas (FL)=2C the popular Haitian political party=3B the Lavalas leader= s are either in exile or imprisoned by the defacto Haitian government wit= hout charges in the wake of the US=2C France and Canada-backed February 2= 9=2C 2004 coup d=E2=80=99=C3=A9tat that overthrew the FL government of Je= an Bertrand Aristide=2E = Since MINUSTAH was established by the UN Security Council four months aft= er the coup to support the de facto Haitian government=2C its troops and = police have had a strong presence in the shantytown=2C and in another poo= r Lavalas-supporting neighbourhood=2C Belair=2C where they have joined fo= rces with the Haitian National Police=2C allegedl y in the name of stamping out =E2=80=9Cgang violence=E2=80=9D=2E MINUSTAH= controls the movements of residents through checkpoints established at e= ach main entry point to Site Soley=2C and the UN forces have established = military bases in many of the rare multi-storey buildings in the neighbou= rhood of tiny low-lying corrugated tin and stone dwellings=2E = At a press conference on November 28=2C Juan Gabriel Valdes=2C the head o= f the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti=2C denounced the journalists and = critics who have represented=C2=A0 MINUSTAH as a repressive force that is= killing civilians=2E However=2C regardless of MINUSTAH=E2=80=99s stated = official intentions=2C the killing of civilians seems an almost inevitabl= e by-product of the military strategy MINUSTAH is using=E2=80=94namely go= ing with tank-like machines and automatic weapons into a densely populate= d civilian neighbourhood and opening fire=2E I witnessed the MINUSTAH open fire among civilians in two other parts of = the Site on the Sunday that Harold was shot=2E In the Site Sole y neighbourhood of Pele=2C Brazilian =E2=80=9Cpeacekeeping=E2=80=9D troop= s opened fire shortly after 2 pm on the corner of a main throroughfare an= d the main Pele road=2C which is lined with street vendors=2C and filled = with women and children=2E Standing only four feet away from the street c= orner where about five of the soldiers were stationed=E2=80=94close enoug= h to hear the orders blasting over their radios=2C I neither saw nor hear= d any bullets coming at them=2E Yet they opened fire=2C blasting consecut= ive rounds of automatic gunfire across the road=2C as people carrying hea= vy loads of produce tried to walk by=2E After a few minutes=2C about twen= ty more Brazilian MINUSTAH soldiers arrived on the scene=2C with one of M= INUSTAH=E2=80=99s tank-like APCs=2C and the UN gunfire intensified=2E Aft= er a full twenty minutes of firing=2C the troops did a 180=2C swiveling a= round to open fire in the opposite direction=E2=80=94in the direction whe= re a dozen street vendors=2C and bystanders civilians had taken cover=2C = pressed up against a wall behind MINUSTAH=E2=80=99 s original line of fire=2E Again=2C I had heard no gunfire coming from th= is direction before MINUSTAH opened fire=2E When MINUSTAH finally stopped= shooting and moved away=2C a heap of women and children streamed out fro= m behind a barber=E2=80=99s shop=2E They looked at me=2C a blanc with a p= ress pass across the street=2C and started to yell =E2=80=9CGen problem!=E2= =80=9D There is a problem=2E Less than an hour later=2C we were passing through Bwa N=C3=A8f in the he= art of Site Soley=2C near Route 9=2C where MINUSTAH had killed the metal = worker just a few days earlier=3B journalist Jean Ristil and I walked thr= ough the sea of tiny homes made of corrugated tin and stone=2C along the = long=2C straight alleyways which separate the huts=2C which provide route= s for foot-travel within the neighbourhood as well as spaces where people= congregate to talk=2C wash clothes=2C and children play=2E Suddenly=2C w= e saw four UN APCs=E2=80=94also manned by Brazilians--drive slowly up alo= ng the largest road in the vicinity=2E MINUSTAH bullets were suddenly whi= zzing by our = heads=2E In the street alley we were in=2C people frantically flew in all= directions=2C ducking into doorways=2C hiding behind ledges of the long = concrete walls lining the alleyway=2E I took cover with a half dozen resi= dents hiding behind a ledge of the wall that jutted out about six inches=2E= The MINUSTAH APCs continued to fire rounds in our direction for about te= n minutes=2E The emergency ward at St=2E Catherines hospital=2C the main hospital in t= he Site=2C reported that there had been seven people=2C in addition to Ha= rold=2C who were hospitalized for gunfire injuries on Sunday=2E According= to the local Red Cross office in Site Soley=2C this is not unusual=E2=80= =94if anything=2C the number of gun injuries in the Site is now lower tha= n it had been=2E On July 6=2C 2004=2C dozens of Site Soley residents=E2=80= =94including women and children--were killed in an early-morning raid by = Jordanian MINUSTAH forces=2C who claimed that they were searching for =E2= =80=9Cgang leaders=E2=80=9D=2C and there have also been many attacks by t= he Haitian National Pol ice=2E Valdes claimed at the November 28 press conference to be promoting dialog= ue with the community of Site Soley=2E=C2=A0 The MINUSTAH Director of Pol= itical Affairs=2C John Bevan=2C told me that MINUSTAH has held a series o= f meetings with non-violent leaders in Site Soley=2E However=2C many ordi= nary Site Soley residents do not appear to even be aware of the =E2=80=9C= dialogue=E2=80=9D that MINUSTAH claims to be engaged in with them=2E =E2=80= =9CWhat has MINUSTAH ever done for us=3F=E2=80=9D demanded Luckson Docius= =E2=80=99 brother=2E He told me that he thinks Site Soley does need secur= ity (which is what MINUSTAH is after all supposed to provide)=2E However=2C= the forces have only increased the insecurity of his family=2E Luckson h= as left behind five children=2C including a six year old=2E Luckson=E2=80= =99s brother approached MINUSTAH to demand that something be done for the= family but has had no response=2E I recall one elderly woman leaning out of her doorway as I passed down an= alley in Bwa N=C3=A8f =3B =E2=80=9CAre you not scared of MINUSTAH=3F=E2=80= =9D=2C she asked me=2E I saw p eople of all ages cheering for a young guy running by with a large gun=2E= Harassment at checkpoints and unexplained firing on neighbourhoods by tr= oops=2C most of whom=E2=80=94at least in the case of the =E2=80=9Cpeaceke= epers=E2=80=9D and police that I have encountered in the Site--do not spe= ak Kreyol is=2C to say the least=2C unconducive to dialogue=2E Moreover=2C= a popular Haitian radio station=2C Radio Ginen=2C recently reported that= women in a part of Site Soley close to the Jordanian MINUSTAH base were = complaining about rapes and harassment by the MINUSTAH troops=2E = At the press conference on the 28th=2C Valdes referred to the Site as =E2= =80=9Ca scar on the body of Haiti=E2=80=9D=2C and stated that the MINUSTA= H presence is going to be increased in the Site=3B MINUSTAH forces will t= ake control and establish order=2C block by block=2E According to Valdes=2C= these renewed MINUSTAH forces will be used to stamp out the =E2=80=9Cgan= gs=E2=80=9D who they anticipate will seek to disrupt the elections=2C the= first round of which is scheduled for January 8=2C 2006=2E How ever=2C when I asked people in Site Soley about whether there were any po= litical groups in the neighbourhood who were advocating disrupting the el= ection=E2=80=94the rationale that MINUSTAH is giving for its renewed atte= ntion to Site Soley in the lead up to the election--people looked at me b= lankly=2E =E2=80=9COf course not=2E =5BFormer Lavalas President and Lespw= a candidate Rene=5D Preval is going to win=E2=80=9D=2C I heard=2E Since P= reval=E2=80=99s candidacy in the election was accepted=2C Lavalas support= ers have renounced their earlier call for a boycott=2E I sought in vain f= or graffiti denouncing the election and calling for a boycott amongst the= plethora of political messages scrawled on the walls of Site Soley=2E In= stead=2C I found a myriad of calls to =E2=80=9CVote Preval=E2=80=9D=2E Pe= rhaps this should not be surprising=3B Site Soley was a strong base of op= position to the coup d=E2=80=99etat that had eliminated the government th= at the majority of Haitian people had elected=3B the residents of Site So= ley appear to care very much about their right to vo te=2E The apparently erroneous premise of the UN=E2=80=99s actions in Sit= e Soley in the lead-up to the election raises the troubling question--put= best by the elder brother of the late Luckson Docius--=E2=80=9CWhat is M= INUSTAH doing in Site Soley=3F=E2=80=9D As a citizen of Canada=2C a count= ry that has played a leading role in the replacement of Haitian democracy= with a sham illegitimate and brutal government backed by the =E2=80=9Cin= ternational community=E2=80=9D=2C I ought to have an answer=2C he suggest= ed=2E From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Dec 2 16:38:04 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] PLEASE SIGN AND CIRCULATE Message-ID: <200512022338.jB2Nc4IN007533@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> PLEASE SIGN AND CIRCULATE -----Original Message----- From: ep@MennoLink.org On Behalf Of CPTnet editor, Webster, NY Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 4:01 PM To: menno.org.cpt.news@MennoLink.org Subject: CHICAGO/TORONTO: Petition calling for the release of four CPTers held in Iraq now available on-line CPTnet 2 December 2005 CHICAGO/TORONTO: Petition calling for the release of four CPTers held in Iraq now available on-line Today activists who run Electroniciraq.net have made available a petition in Arabic and English calling for the release of James Loney, Tom Fox, Harmeet Singh Sooden and Norman Kember (See www.cpt.org.) Signatories include a wide and illustrious array of scholars, activists and religious leaders. Christian Peacemaker Teams encourages everyone reading this release to sign the petition. Below is the appeal as it appeared on the newslist of Ali Abunimah, founder of the Electronic Intifada: Arabic version at http://electroniciraq.net/news/2210.shtml Sign the English petition at http://freethecpt.org Four members of Christian Peacemaker Teams were taken this past Saturday, November 26, in Baghdad, Iraq. They are not spies, nor do they work in the service of any government. They are people who have dedicated their lives to fighting against war and have clearly and publicly opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They are people of faith, but they are not missionaries. They have deep respect for the Islamic faith and for the right of Iraqis to self-determination. C.P.T. first came to Iraq in October 2002 to oppose the US invasion, and it has remained in the country throughout the occupation in solidarity with the Iraqi people. The group has been invaluable in alerting the world to many of the horrors facing Iraqis detained in US-run prisons and detention centers. C.P.T. was among the first to document the torture occurring at the Abu Ghraib prison, long before the story broke in the mainstream press. Its members have spent countless hours interviewing Iraqis about abuse and torture suffered at the hands of US forces and have disseminated this information internationally. Each of the four C.P.T. members being held in Iraq has dedicated his life to resisting the darkness and misery of war and occupation. Convinced that it is not enough to oppose the war from the safety of their homes, they made the difficult decision to go to Iraq, knowing that the climate of mistrust created by foreign occupation meant that they could be mistaken for spies or missionaries. They went there with a simple purpose: to bear witness to injustice and to embody a different kind of relationship between cultures and faiths. Members of C.P.T. willingly undertook the risks of living among Iraqis, in a common neighborhood outside of the infamous Green Zone. They sought no protection from weapons or armed guards, trusting in, and benefiting from, the goodwill of the Iraqi people. Acts of kindness and hospitality from Iraqis were innumerable and ensured the C.P.T. members' safety and wellbeing. We believe that spirit will prevail in the current situation. We appeal to those holding these activists to release them unharmed so that they may continue their vital work as witnesses and peacemakers. Signed,** * Arundhati Roy, author, The God of Small Things * Tariq Ali, author, Bush in Babylon * Denis Halliday, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General and Head of the U.N. Humanitarian Program in Iraq (1997-1998) * Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey Sheehan * Noam Chomsky, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology * Haifa Zangana, Iraqi novelist * Kamil Mahdi, Iraqi economist and anti-occupation activist. Lecturer, University of Exeter * Mahmood Mamdani, "Herbert Lehman Professor of Government," Columbia University * Rashid Khalidi, "Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies," Middle East Institute, Columbia University * Cindy and Craig Corrie, parents of Rachel Corrie, killed by Israeli military * Hasan Abu Nimah, Permanent Representative of Jordan at the United Nations (1995-2000) * Ralph Nader, former independent presidential candidate * James Abourezk, former US Senator * Howard Zinn, historian * Naseer Aruri, Professor (Emeritus) University of Massachusetts Dartmouth * Kathy Kelly, Voices for Creative Nonviolence/Nobel Peace Prize Nominee * Naomi Klein, author/journalist * Michael Ratner, President, Center for Constitutional Rights * Rev. Daniel Berrigan, poet * Jeremy Scahill, independent journalist * Mazin Qumsiyeh, author, Sharing the Land Of Canaan, board member US Campaign to End the Occupation * Milan Rai, author, War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Against War on Iraq * Sam Husseini, writer * Dahr Jamail, independent journalist * Ali Abunimah, Co-founder, Electronic Iraq/The Electronic Intifada * Nigel Parry, Co-founder, Electronic Iraq/The Electronic Intifada * Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator, United for Peace and Justice * Eve Ensler, author * Jennifer Harbury, Director, Stop Torture Permanently Campaign * Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese of Detroit * Anthony Arnove, author, Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal * Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange * G. Simon Harak, SJ, War Resisters League * David Hartsough, Co-Founder and Capacity Building Director of Nonviolent Peaceforce and Executive Director of Peaceworkers. Nonviolent Peace Force * Blase Bonpane, Office of the Americas * Carol Bragg, Coordinator, Rhode Island Peace Mission * Rev. Richard Deats, former Executive Secretary and Fellowship Editor, Fellowship of Reconciliation * Omar Diop, Président de la Coalition Sénégalaise des Défenseurs des Droits humains * Jim Forest, Secretary, The Orthodox Peace Fellowship * Thomas C. Cornell, The Catholic Worker * David Grant, Nonviolent Peaceforce * Ted Lewis, Global Exchange * Charles Jenks, Chair of Advisory Board, Traprock Peace Center * Jeff Leys, Voices for Creative Nonviolence * Andréa Schmidt, independent journalist * Michael Albert, ZNet * Richard McDowell, Senior Fellow for Iraq Policy, Friends Committee on National Legislation * Dave McReynolds, former Chair, War Resisters International * Peter Lems, Program Associate for Iraq, American Friends Service Committee * Kevin Zeese, Director, Democracy Rising * Sunny Miller, Director, Traprock Peace Center * Dave Robinson, Director, Pax Christi USA * Rev. Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou, National Coordinator, Clergy and Laity Concerned about Iraq * David Swanson, Co-Founder, After Downing Street, Board Member Progressive Democrats of America, Washington Director Democrats.com * Mary Trotochaud, Senior Fellow for Iraq Policy, Friends Committee on National Legislation * Michael Birmingham, activist * Barbara Wien, Co-Director, Peace Brigades International/USA * Bishop Gabino Zavala, President, Pax Christi USA **Organizations and institutions are listed for identification purposes only. Contact: freethecpt(at)gmail.com _______________ To stop receiving messages from CPTNET on MennoLink, send a message with only the word, "suspend," in the body to server@MennoLink.org. Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) seeks to enlist the whole church in organized, nonviolent alternatives to war and places teams of trained, peacemakers in regions of lethal conflict. Originally a violence-reduction initiative of the historic peace churches (Mennonite, Church of the Brethren and Quaker), CPT now enjoys support and membership from a wide range of Christian denominations. To receive news or discussion of CPT issues by e-mail, fill out the form found on our WEB page at http://www.cpt.org/subscribe.php Donate to CPT on-line with your credit card! Go to http://cpt.org/donate.php and click the DONATE button to make a contribution through Network for Good, a secure way to help support CPT. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Dec 2 17:10:22 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Razor wire and Security forces: A deadly fix for EU immigration policy Message-ID: <200512030010.jB30AMIw017427@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/features/88_feat1.html Seven Oaks November 29, 2005 Razor wire and Security forces: A deadly ‘fix’ for EU immigration policy by Dawn Paley Berlin -- “When you’re born, you’re retired,” quipped Abdoulaye Thieye, “because you know you’ll never work in your life.” Thieye, a man of Senegalese origin, chose this anecdote to explain the situation facing the majority of Senegalese people today. “It’s not a problem of discourse, but a problem of survival,” he continued. “Young people will keep leaving until there is an end to the catastrophic situation facing the country.” On November 8th, I met Thieye in front of the Spanish Embassy in Berlin, where a group of about fifty people were standing on a cool November afternoon, holding large banners protesting the fences between the Spanish exclaves of Melilla and Ceuta in Morocco. Later, we would march to the Brandenburg Gate, where flowers – in memory of the people known to have died trying to get over these fences since September of 2005 – would be lain. The reason for the gathering was clear: to demand an end to the increasingly violent and militarized tactics of Spanish and Moroccan “security forces” towards Africans attempting to enter Europe. Dubbed “the fences of death,” the barbed wire topped fences enclosing the Spanish exclaves of Melilla and Ceuta – as well as the guards patrolling them, the helicopters flying over them, and the surveillance systems all along their length – are together but one example of the at once racist and violent immigration policies of fortress Europe. The fences around these exclaves are not new – the fence around Melilla was completed in 1998; that around Ceuta shortly after – but the fourteen deaths over a two-month period this fall represents a spike in violence along these borders. Between September and October of 2005, at least 1000 migrants attempted to scale the fences around Ceuta and Melilla to enter Europe. In the space of one week alone, 11 migrants were killed. During the night of September 29th, five migrants were shot dead, two in Ceuta and three in Morocco. Less than a week later, on the night of October 5th, six people were murdered – some shot in the back – by Moroccan “security forces” as they tried to enter Melilla. During this bloody week, Moroccan and Spanish authorities detained an additional three hundred people, while an unknown number successfully entered Spain. After the second night of killing, Moroccan authorities admitted for the first time that their “security forces” used firearms against migrants. They proceeded to claim, however, that their forces acted “in self defense.” Days later, Spanish president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero announced that the Spanish government would raise the height of the fences around the perimeter of Ceuta and Melilla to six meters, add another barrier, and heighten security in attempts to keep African migrants out of Spain. Over the same two month period, over a thousand migrants were transported from the areas around Ceuta and Melilla to southern Morocco. Some were abandoned in the desert of Ain Chouater, and others left in the isolated region of Bou-Izakarn by Moroccan authorities. According to an October press release by Doctors Without Borders, “people who are sick and injured, pregnant women and children in need of immediate medical care” were left to fend for themselves, sometimes without food or water. In October 2005, Spanish newspaper El Pais ran several front page photos of African men, snapped at night, the flash lighting their blood stained clothing as they ran from a border fence into Spanish territory. I asked Theiye about this depiction of Africans as the demonstration in solidarity with migrants made its way down the streets of Berlin. He responded that “these fences, these deaths, this is all a cinema to distract Europeans from their own problems. Europeans need to take responsibility for their own problems.” African migrants in Europe have become scapegoats for the economic problems that EU countries are facing today. Helmut Dietrich, from the Berlin based Refugee and Migration Research Group, noted in a recent talk that it is not only the Spanish government and the EU that have taken strong positions against so called “illegal immigrants”, but also Germany, specifically through their previous Federal Minister of Interior Otto Schily, as well as Italy’s government led by Silvio Berlusconi. Dietrich also noted that like the United States, “Spain is highly dependent on migrant labour to work in its tomato plantations and vegetable farms.” Migrant labour is important in the European economy, and it is absolutely necessary from an economic point of view. Like Latino migrants in the US, the migrant labour force in Europe is constantly policed, threatened, and criminalized by people in positions of power. And as is being proven in France in the wake of the country wide civil unrest that reached its peak in mid-November, there is no peace of mind for migrants who have become long-term residents of European countries. French Minister of the Interior Nicholas Sarkozy announced last week that people legally living in France who were convicted in relation to the civil unrest would be deported back to their countries of origin. The recent deaths along the fences of Ceuta and Melilla are but the tip of the iceberg. In October of this year, 11 so called “irregular” immigrants were killed in Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport as building housing the cells where they were being confined burned to the ground. These numbers, and all the countable “deaths by (immigration) policy” in the EU, add up to at least 6300 since 1993, according to figures collected by the Dutch NGO UNITED for Intercultural Action. The number of deaths that go unknown or unreported could easily be triple the amount of recorded deaths. The EU and national governments are offering few long term, sustainable proposals to ease global inequality, which is the major factor pushing an estimated 800,000 migrants towards Europe each year. Instead of showing a commitment to human rights by opening up a wider dialogue about immigration in Europe, and instead of addressing the root causes of mass migration, the EU will instead concentrate on raising the walls around the fortress. Amnesty International announced their concern this October that “… the European Union's response to this latest crisis… will again be almost exclusively centred on controlling illegal immigration.” Standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate, where the Berlin wall once stood, Freweyni Haptemarian from the African Network Organization of Berlin (Afrika Rat) addressed passers by about the reasons for speaking out against the fences in Spain. “How can we celebrate 15 years since the fall of the Berlin wall, and support the building and fortification of a new wall at the same time?” she asked, her voice echoing through a megaphone. Haptemarian’s question continues to echo, and on the streets in cities and town across Europe, mobilizations against racist, xenophobic immigration policies gather momentum. While their governments play the impossible game of sealing the borders, ordinary people will continue organizing and standing in solidarity with migrants killed, injured, or further displaced as they make their way towards the fortress Europe. -30- For more information on migration policies in Europe, please visit UNITED for intercultural action’s website at http://www.united.non-profit.nl/ **Dawn Paley is a Berlin based journalist, and a correspondent for Seven Oaks. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Dec 2 17:10:06 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Why did you want to bomb me, Mr Bush and Mr Blair? Message-ID: <200512030010.jB30A6mm016867@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1654762,00.html The Guardian Thursday December 1, 2005 Why did you want to bomb me, Mr Bush and Mr Blair? Al-Jazeera's quest for answers has been met with silence from both the White House and Downing Street By Wadah Khanfar I have lost count of the number of accusations levelled against al-Jazeera and the incidents of harassment to which it has been subjected since it was founded in 1996. It was rumoured to have been set up by Israel's Mossad intelligence agency with the purpose of improving Israel's standing in the Arab world. It has also been accused of being a CIA mouthpiece designed to disseminate western culture among the Arabs. Some have suggested that it is part of an international conspiracy to break up the Arab world by means of stirring up discord and creating problems for the Arab regimes. Others decided it was a front for Osama bin Laden and the Taliban; or funded by Saddam Hussein. And, at the same time, it has been condemned by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and bitterly criticised by Donald Rumsfeld. We know that the intelligence services of some Arab regimes have resorted to spreading rumours about al-Jazeera in an effort to deter Arab viewers from watching it. These are the same regimes that recalled ambassadors from Qatar in protest at its hosting al-Jazeera, and the same regimes that closed the station's offices in their countries and detained its correspondents. Until 2001, al-Jazeera was perceived in a positive way in the west as a whole and the US in particular. It was seen as the single most important force for reform and democracy across the Arab region. Harassment by Arab regimes was considered proof of its professionalism and testimony to its objectivity. Indeed, al-Jazeera had from its foundation the slogan of "the opinion and the other opinion" and refused to favour one side over another at the expense of truth. As a result, in record time al-Jazeera became the Arabs' number one channel, and last year it was voted the fifth most influential brand name in the world, after Starbucks, Ikea, Apple and Google. In the aftermath of the September 11 events, al-Jazeera found itself on the frontline of media coverage in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The greater its reputation became globally, the more frustrated some western governments became. The "other opinion" this time did not seem to suit international decision-makers. Criticisms started pouring in and created an opportunity for some Arab regimes to incite the US administration against al-Jazeera; some have even gone as far as demanding the closure of al-Jazeera as a precondition for full cooperation with the US. Iraq has been a crucial turning point not only in al-Jazeera's work but for media coverage as a whole; 74 journalists, crew and their translators have lost their lives since the start of the war - two of them belonging to al-Jazeera. As far as harassment goes, al-Jazeera has incurred the biggest share. It has been accused by the US of inciting violence through the broadcast of al-Qaida tapes and of playing footage of beheadings. Our viewers know that no beheadings whatsoever were shown on our screens. And we follow strict professional rules in handling the tapes of Bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders; we only play short, carefully selected and clearly newsworthy clips, and they are followed by analytical discussion, frequently including American commentators. Al-Jazeera's offices in Kabul and Baghdad were bombed; we were told at the time that both bombings were mistakes. We pushed for an official investigation, but thus far have received neither the findings of any investigation nor any official apology. The al-Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Hajj was arrested in Afghanistan and has for the past four years been detained in Guantánamo. We have repeatedly asked for an explanation, but none has been given to us. We believe that all this harassment has been a worthwhile price for our professional commitment to reporting the truth. However, the story in the Daily Mirror, which published a leaked document it claimed was a transcript of a meeting in April 2004 between George Bush and Tony Blair, points to a level of threat to our very existence that had never occurred to us or to our viewers before. If it is true that Bush had indeed thought of bombing the al-Jazeera headquarters in Doha, this will undoubtedly constitute a watershed in the relationship between government authorities and the free media. I decided, in view of the great shock and bewilderment felt by many people around the world, to travel to London to look for the truth behind a press report whose reverberations across the Middle East - where reform and democracy have been promised - are far from over. My colleagues have submitted a memorandum to 10 Downing Street, urging the British government to reveal the truth about the alleged document, and stressing that publishing the part within it relating to al-Jazeera is essential to put an end to speculation. After all, the matter concerns an institution that has never perceived itself to be an enemy of anyone. Our journalists are civilians who have gained the confidence of most Arabic-speaking viewers around the world. The failure to disclose the contents of the memo will cause a great deal of harm and will seriously undermine relations between media and government, and between the western and Arab worlds. I brought many questions with me to London; it would seem that I shall return to Doha - where al-Jazeera is based - with even more misgivings. Officials in Britain have come up with nothing, and their silence is likely to reinforce suspicion and mistrust. This will not be the end of the road; we are taking legal advice and won't rest until we know the full truth. However, I shall be returning to Doha with a lot of hope. The support and sympathy that I have sensed from colleagues in the British media represent the best consolation for me and my colleagues at al-Jazeera, whose viewers have seen for themselves the view of British and other western journalists that the truth should be disclosed in full. The issue does not only concern al-Jazeera; it concerns the truth for which we have withstood nine years of pressure and harassment, and for which many journalists around the world have endured all forms of intimidation; it is the truth for which Tayseer Allouni is serving a prison sentence in Spain, for which Sami Al-Hajj continues to be detained in Guantánamo and for which Tariq Ayoub died in Iraq. • Wadah Khanfar is the director general of al-Jazeera manager@aljazeera.net From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Dec 2 17:10:14 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] US Jews support Israel, don't speak up Message-ID: <200512030010.jB30AEwZ017156@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475665720&pagename=JPost%2FJP Article%2FShowFull The Jerusalem Post December 1, 2005 US Jews support Israel, don't speak up By Nathan Guttman US Jews are strong supporters of Israel but usually tend to refrain from defending Israel publicly. This is one of the main conclusions of a new poll that surveyed the views of American Jews. The poll was commissioned by The Israel Project, a pro-Israel public advocacy group and was conducted by pollster Frank Luntz. Among the 800 American Jews that took part in the survey, 82% said they support Israel, most of them characterizing themselves as strong supporters. Analyzing the supporters, Luntz found that backing Israel is stronger among older Jews, among those who belong to the Conservative movement and among Jews who attended Jewish day schools and visited Israel. While the support for Israel seemed solid, pollster Luntz warned from "disturbing signs that support could shift in the wrong direction". He noted that one in five American Jews does not support Israel in questions concerning its conflict with the Palestinians. "Every day people are dying and in this conflict I would like to see 90% backing Israel", he added. But even with significant support rates for Israel in the American Jewish community, the poll finds a problem in translating this support to an active pro-Israeli discourse in the American society. When asked if they engage in conversation about Israel or defend Israel while talking to non-Jews, most of the participants replied negatively. Only 29% talk about Israel frequently, while 61% almost never do so. This finding is significant because it demonstrates the difficulty of promoting a pro-Israel agenda in the US, where, according to another poll performed by The Israel Project, graduate students in the US "are misinformed about the Arab-Israeli conflict and hold negative attitudes towards Jews". The poll, published in Washington Thursday, found that most of the younger Jews get their information about Israel mostly from the media and the internet, as opposed to the older generation who learned about Israel from parents, schools and temples. Jennifer Laszlo-Mizrahi, president and founder of The Israel Project pointed out that these findings underline the need for Jewish parents taking a stronger role in educating their children about Israel and for the whole community to make sure that the media portrays Israel in an accurate fashion. Frank Luntz found in the survey he conducted that if young Jews are exposed to information on Israel before they turn 10 years old, they tend to hold positive views on Israel, while those who learn on Israel in high school or college, usually develop negative views. The reason is that while young children learn about the history, people and religion in Israel, the older learn about Israel with a focus on politics and on the Arab-Israeli conflict. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Dec 2 17:09:57 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] The War on Al Jazeera Message-ID: <200512030009.jB309vfN016203@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051219/scahill The Nation Thursday, December 1, 2005 The War on Al Jazeera by Jeremy Scahill Nothing puts the lie to the Bush Administration's absurd claim that it invaded Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East more decisively than its ceaseless attacks on Al Jazeera, the institution that has done more than any other to break the stranglehold over information previously held by authoritarian forces, whether monarchs, military strongmen, occupiers or ayatollahs. The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001, shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests in April 2003, killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad and imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantánamo), some of whom say they were tortured. In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government banned the network from reporting in Iraq. Then in late November came a startling development: Britain's Daily Mirror reported that during an April 2004 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, George W. Bush floated the idea of bombing Al Jazeera's international headquarters in Qatar. This allegation was based on leaked "Top Secret" minutes of the Bush-Blair summit. British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has activated the Official Secrets Act, threatening any publication that publishes any portion of the memo (he has already brought charges against a former Cabinet staffer and a former parliamentary aide). So while we don't yet know the contents of the memo, we do know that at the time of Bush's meeting with Blair, the Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The meeting took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was one of the few news outlets broadcasting from inside the city. Its exclusive footage was being broadcast by every network from CNN to the BBC. The Falluja offensive, one of the bloodiest assaults of the US occupation, was a turning point. In two weeks that April, thirty marines were killed as local guerrillas resisted US attempts to capture the city. Some 600 Iraqis died, many of them women and children. Al Jazeera broadcast from inside the besieged city, beaming images to the world. On live TV the network gave graphic documentary evidence disproving US denials that it was killing civilians. It was a public relations disaster, and the United States responded by attacking the messenger. Just a few days before Bush allegedly proposed bombing the network, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Falluja, Ahmed Mansour, reported live on the air, "Last night we were targeted by some tanks, twice...but we escaped. The US wants us out of Falluja, but we will stay." On April 9 Washington demanded that Al Jazeera leave the city as a condition for a cease-fire. The network refused. Mansour wrote that the next day "American fighter jets fired around our new location, and they bombed the house where we had spent the night before, causing the death of the house owner Mr. Hussein Samir. Due to the serious threats we had to stop broadcasting for few days because every time we tried to broadcast the fighter jets spotted us we became under their fire." On April 11 senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies." On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera's reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.... It's disgraceful what that station is doing." It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere," a source told the Mirror. "There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do--and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." Al Jazeera's real transgression during the "war on terror" is a simple one: being there. While critical of the Bush Administration and US policy, it is not anti-American--it is independent. In fact, it has angered almost every Arab government at one point or another and has been kicked out of or sanctioned by many Arab countries. It holds the rare distinction of being shut down by both Saddam and the new US-backed government. It was the first Arab station to broadcast interviews with Israeli officials. It is hardly the Al Qaeda mouthpiece the Administration has wanted us to believe it is. The real threat Al Jazeera poses is in its unembedded journalism--precisely what is needed now to uncover the truth about the Bush-Blair meeting. Conservative British MP Boris Johnson, who is by trade a journalist and is editor of The Spectator magazine, has offered to publish the memo if it is leaked to him. It should be published, and if any journal is prosecuted for doing so, it should be backed up by media organizations everywhere. The war against Al Jazeera and other unembedded journalists has been conducted with far too little outcry from the powerful media organizations of the world. It shouldn't take another bombing for this to be a story. ------- Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. He can be reached at jeremy@democracynow.org From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Dec 2 17:10:28 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Ocean-flow findings mean colder Europe, study says Message-ID: <200512030010.jB30ASBT017567@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051201/WARM ING01/Science/Idx Globe and Mail Thursday, December 1, 2005 Page A18 Ocean-flow findings mean colder Europe, study says By Martin Mittelstaedt Environment reporter The ocean currents that weave around the Atlantic like huge rivers, moving vast volumes of warm water from the tropics to moderate the climate of Europe, have suddenly begun to weaken, according to a team of researchers from Britain's National Oceanography Centre. After studying long-term data on ocean currents, the researchers estimate that these flows have fallen by about 30 per cent since 1957. It is the first time scientists have compiled evidence showing a slowdown in the vast system of ocean currents that influences much of the climate in the Northern Hemisphere. The finding, reported in the latest issue of the journal Nature, is being viewed as having great significance because it confirms one of the most dramatic projections from computer models on global warming. These models have indicated that in a warmer world, there will also be big changes in the flow of ocean currents, the best known of which is the Gulf Stream. Without the huge amount of heat it receives from tropical waters, much of Northwestern Europe -- including heavily populated regions of England, Scandinavia, and Germany -- would become substantially colder. A separate analysis in Nature on the ocean-current finding warned that if this system of moving heat around the planet breaks down, it "would have devastating effects on socio-economic conditions in the countries bordering the eastern North Atlantic." The research suggests that there may already be some impact on ocean flows caused by climate change. "In the context of greenhouse warming, this is really important," said Ruth Curry, a researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. "These are the steps we would expect to see if the actual ocean circulation was moving toward a sustained shutdown or slowdown." The parts of Europe that bask in the warmth of the Gulf Stream are at relatively high latitudes and have far more benign climates than they would otherwise have, thanks to heat released into the atmosphere from currents originating in tropical seas. The Cornwall area of southwestern England, for instance, is temperate enough for palm trees, while a comparable latitude in North America is just south of James Bay, where boreal forests prevail. The climate models don't predict Europe will cool enough to have conditions like Northern Canada, but temperatures could fall by as much as four degrees if there is a complete shutdown in the Gulf Stream, according to Nature. This means that global warming could have the paradoxical effect of dramatically cooling parts of Europe, while the rest of the planet undergoes substantial heating. Some researchers say the estimated amount of cooling could be conservative because long-term climate records indicate wider temperature swings have occurred when currents have changed. "Palaeoclimate records show that northern air temperatures can drop by up to 10 C within decades, and that these abrupt changes are intimately linked to switches in the ocean circulation," according to the separate analysis in Nature, which was written by Detlef Quadfasel, a climate researcher at the Universität Hamburg in Germany. The new research was based on current flow measurements taken in 2004 by deep-sea instruments placed in a line across the Atlantic stretching from the Bahamas to the coast of Africa. The results obtained were then compared to readings taken in the same places during the 1950s, 1980s, and 1990s. Currents are powered by changes in the density of water, which is influenced by water temperatures and salinity. Warmer, less saline water flows more slowly. Since the 1950s, there has been a shift in currents, with more warm water recirculating south around the tropics instead of flowing north to the Arctic past the coasts of Ireland and Norway. This has been accompanied by a significant increase in water temperatures near the Bahamas of between one and two degrees stretching east over several hundred kilometres. The researchers didn't measure directly the amount of water moving in the branch of the Gulf Stream that flows to Northern Europe because it originates at a higher latitude than where they placed their instruments. But they were able to measure the return flows of colder water out of the Arctic that balance inflows from the Gulf Stream. This colder water moves south in a deep current flowing three to five kilometres under the ocean's surface along the eastern coast of North America. There was a 50-per-cent drop in the volume of this flow between 1957 and 2004. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Dec 2 17:21:50 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Wal-Mart bad for America, says poll Message-ID: <200512030021.jB30Loa3010413@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://northdenvernews.com/content/view/140/2/ North Denver News Thursday, 01 December 2005 Wal-Mart bad for America, says poll By Guerin Green A poll conducted by Zogby for the advocacy group Wake-Up Walmart has some astonishing findings. "In terms of favorability, Americans hold very different opinions of Wal-Mart and Target. Interestingly, 73 percent of respondents hold a favorable opinion of Target versus 13 percent who hold an unfavorable opinion, while 58 percent of respondents hold a favorable opinion of Wal-Mart versus 38 percent who hold an unfavorable opinion," according to Zogby International. "In terms of Wal-Mart's favorability, the poll suggests that recent news events have contributed to a clear majority of Americans holding a less favorable opinion of Wal-Mart. By more than a 2 to 1 margin, 55 percent of adults hold a less favorable opinion of Wal-Mart based on what they have seen, read or heard in the last few months versus 22 percent who hold a more favorable opinion of Wal-Mart based on the same events." "The debate about whether or not Wal-Mart is good or bad for America is occurring. In a comparison of two statements, just over 39 percent of Americans agreed that Wal-Mart is "good for America" (statement A) while 56 percent agreed that "Wal-Mart is bad for America" (statement B)." "Further results indicate that 6 in 10 American adults believe that Wal-Mart is seen as a retail monopoly that threatens the American economy. Interestingly, 63 percent of Americans agree that the impact of the Wal-Mart business model should be investigated by our nation's elected political leaders." From david.mcr at earthlink.net Fri Dec 2 22:33:04 2005 From: david.mcr at earthlink.net (David Mcreynolds) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Another general speaks out Message-ID: <410-2200512635334937@earthlink.net> Thanks, this is important, Martin, so despite my effort not to relay things, this, brief as it is (I assume there is a much fuller report on the truthout website), is extremely important. David ----- Original Message ----- From: To: david.mcr@earthlink.net;ecorky@sbceo.org Sent: 12/3/2005 12:13:00 AM Subject: Another general speaks out >From UPI, as relayed on Downhold: General Odom Calls for Immediate Exit from Iraq United Press International Friday 02 December 2005 Washington - The US general who used to head the National Security Agency says the only way to stabilize the Middle East is to leave Iraq. Retired three star Lt. Gen. William Odom, writing for NiemanWatchdog.org, wrote that while President George W. Bush wants to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East, the only way to achieve that goal is for the US armed forces to get out of Iraq now. Odom, one of the most respected US military analysts and a prominent figure at the conservative Hudson Institute in Washington, wrote, "We have seen most of our allies stand aside and engage in Schadenfreude over our painful bog-down in Iraq. Winston Churchill's glib observation, 'the only thing worse that having allies is having none,' was once again vindicated. "There is no chance that our allies will join us in Iraq," he wrote. "... Iraq is the worst place to fight a battle for regional stability. Whose interests were best served by the US invasion of Iraq in the first place? It turns out that Iran and al-Qaida benefited the most, and that continues to be true every day US forces remain there." (from http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120205A.shtml truthout.com) From furuhashi.1 at osu.edu Sat Dec 3 10:28:44 2005 From: furuhashi.1 at osu.edu (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: Sign a petition for the four Christian Peacemaker Team members abducted in Iraq References: <1C56F175-1345-4920-9533-00433AC9B70E@osu.edu> Message-ID: <5E27D26C-FBEE-49AA-9412-196E006019F3@osu.edu> Please sign a petition for release of the four Christian Peacemaker Team members abducted in Iraq; Yoshie Furuhashi From aaron at istop.com Sun Dec 4 12:08:41 2005 From: aaron at istop.com (aaron@istop.com) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: [PeaceNoWar] Fw: (50 Years) WB and IMF Sabotaged Development Message-ID: <20051204200841.37ED817C03D@www.istop.com> Forwarded From: Tom Baker - Nicaragua Solidarity > Tom Baker here. Please Forward Widely. Who is > talking about IMF World Bank, who has neoliberalism > as an issue. > A view from Malawi about IMF World Bank > neoliberalism. > Brief read, good piece > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "50 Years Is Enough Network" > Subject: (50 Years) WB and IMF Sabotaged > Development > > > > See the article below for an analysis (complete with some startling > > examples based on personal experience in Malawi) of IMF budget ceilings, > > which limit public sector expenditures. Unfortunately, the author buys > > into the notion that if the WTO's Doha "Development" round were to be > > successful at the upcoming Hong Kong minesterial, that would be good news > > for the Global South. Our colleagues over at the Center for Economic > > Policy Research have actually done the math, and calculated that were the > > Doha round implemented, 80% of the gains would go to Northern countries. > > See http://cepr.net/pressreleases/world_bank_wto_2005_12.htm > > http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php? display=story&full_path=/2005/november/30/worldbank/ > > > > Embassy, November 30th, 2005 > > By Stephen Lewis > > Smug World Bank and IMF Sabotaged Poor Countries' Development > > > > UN special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, Stephen Lewis, says trade > > inequities can only be resolved at the WTO in two weeks. But there seems > > little likelihood that the distorting trade subsidies will be abandoned. > > I remember being in Malawi in 2002 at a roundtable discussion with the > > vice-president and a number of civil servants from the Ministry of > > Finance. They were complaining bitterly about the limits imposed by the > > International Monetary Fund on Malawi's public sector pay levels and > > hiring intentions. It was surreal: here you had a country with huge human > > capacity problems that wanted desperately to retain its professionals in > > health and education, and increase their numbers, but the IMF wouldn't > > allow them to do so. We're talking about a sovereign government, fighting > > the worst plague in history, with but a handful of professionals: > > according to the minister of health, Malawi has one-third of the nurses it > > needs (4,000 instead of the 12,000) and perhaps 10 per cent of the doctors > > (300 rather than 3,000) for a population of 12 million. And they weren't > > being allowed --I repeat, this sovereign government wasn't being > > allowed -- to hire more staff and pay better salaries, because it would > > breach the macroeconomic straitjacket. > > > > As I was leaving Malawi, I held a press conference and explicitly > > criticized the IMF for what I felt were wrongheaded policies. Sure enough, > > within a few days I received a formal letter (copy to my boss Kofi Annan) > > from the African director of the IMF pointing out, amongst other things, > > that the IMF was a member of the UN family, and the Secretary-General > > himself and decreed that one member of the family should not attack > > another in public. Talk about raising "chutzpah" to new levels. > > > > Lest it cause concern amongst you of compassionate heart, I replied pretty > > strongly, making the point, which I truly believe, that the IMF has no > > adequate sense of the struggle for survival in so many countries over > > which it holds sway. I didn't hear back. And there was no admonition from > > the Secretary-General. > > > > It's interesting to see just a couple of years later how far the world has > > come. As recently as March 2005, the UK secretary of state for > > international development, Hilary Benn, has published a new monograph > > titled Partnerships for Poverty Reduction: Rethinking Conditionality -- I > > shall elaborate on this document in a future lecture. It amounts to a > > rejection of the categorical assumptions which have driven the > > International Financial Institutions over the course of the years. Almost > > simultaneously, British Prime Minister Tony Blair released his massive > > Commission for Africa report and criticized the World Bank and > > International Monetary Fund policies in words and argument rarely seen > > before in an establishment government document. And as if that weren't > > enough, Jeffrey Sachs published in April 2005 his remarkable new book, The > > End of Poverty, in which, taking no intellectual prisoners, he excoriates > > the destructive policies of the Bank and the Fund. The message is clear: > > terrible mistakes were made in dealing with Africa. > > > > What makes me nearly apoplectic -- and I very much want to say this -- is > > that the Bank and the Fund were fully told about their mistakes even as > > the mistakes were being made. They were so smug, so all knowing, so > > incredibly arrogant, so wrong. They simply didn't respond to arguments > > which begged them to review the human consequences of their policies. The > > fact that poverty became increasingly entrenched, or that economies were > > not responding to the dogma as the dogma predicted, made no difference. It > > was a form of capitalist Stalinism. The credo was everything; the people > > were a laboratory. > > > > What makes all of this so important is the need for radically new policies > > if Africans are to be given the opportunity to rescue their continent. The > > achievement of the MDGs has become a pipe dream in the minds of many > > because, in the five years since they were promulgated, we have learned > > that HIV/AIDS has sabotaged all the socio-economic indices, and the > > continued damaging western policies in trade and aid and debt, serve to > > drive the nails into the coffins. In the bizarre circumstances of the > > pandemic, nails and coffins aren't just metaphors. > > > > Take trade. There is absolutely no guarantee that the Doha round, > > presently in intense (if so far futile) negotiation, will be successful. > > Doha is the capital of the Gulf State Qatar, where the most recent rounds > > of international trade talks was launched by the World Trade Organization > > (WTO) in November 2001. It's nearly four years later and we've made > > glacial progress. The outstanding items are legion, ranging from > > intellectual property rights as they are tied to pharmaceuticals, right > > through to western agricultural subsidies, which most analysts seem to > > agree are destroying economic growth in Africa. As things now stand, > > there's simply no way for Africa profitably to export its own agricultural > > commodities. > > > > The resolution of trade inequities cannot be met by the G8, as the summit > > in Gleneagles definitively confirmed. It can only be met by the December > > meeting of the WTO. But there seems little likelihood that the distorting > > trade subsidies will be abandoned. At present the European Union and the > > United States together subsidize their farmers to the tune of $350 billion > > (US) a year; it equals five times the amount that is ploughed into foreign > > aid. If I may offer an evocative juxtaposition: Every cow is subsidized to > > the tune of $2 a day, while between 400 ­500 million Africans live on less > > than a dollar a day. > > > > This article is excerpted from Stephen Lewis' Massey Lectures, published > > with permission by House of Anansi Press. > > ############################################################# > > 50 Years Is Enough http://50years.org > > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list > > . > > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > > Send administrative queries to > > > > -- -------------- next part -------------- ================================================================= Peace, No War War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate Not in our Name! And another world is possible! URL: http://www.PeaceNoWar.net Tel: (213)403-0131 e-mail: Info@PeaceNoWar.net Please Join PeaceNoWar Listserv, send e-mail to: peacenowar-subscribe@lists.riseup.net Please Donate to Peace No War Network! Send check pay to: ActionLA/SEE 1013 Mission St. #6 South Pasadena CA 91030 (All donations are tax deductible) From menecraj at shaw.ca Sun Dec 4 09:27:49 2005 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:16 2006 Subject: [R-G] Activists Gather for Climate Change Marches Message-ID: <006301c5f8ef$ac72bd00$0200a8c0@wp.shawcable.net> http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.29942.html Activists Gather for Climate Change Marches Last Updated: 12-03-05 at 10:49AM The Arctic Inuit who are losing their ice caps and activists demanding urgent action on global warming were among thousands taking to the streets in cities around the world Saturday to raise awareness of climate change. The demonstrations coincided with the 10-day U.N. Climate Change Conference under way in Montreal to review and update the Kyoto Protocol, the global accord that binds the top 35 industrialized nations to lower greenhouse gas emissions. A march in downtown Montreal was to be the largest of the demonstrations expected in 32 countries, including Japan, Germany, France, Bangladesh, Brazil, Australia and South Africa. In London, protesters passed Downing Street, home of Prime Minister Tony Blair, where they handed in a letter demanding that the government reaffirm its commitment to Kyoto with legally binding targets on emissions reductions. In Washington, drivers of hybrid cars planned to rally around the White House. In New Orleans, residents intend to hold a "Save New Orleans, Stop Global Warming" party in the French Quarter. Other U.S. events were being held from Boston to Los Angeles. In Montreal, activists promised a family friendly atmosphere with hot air balloons, theatrical and music acts as they hit the streets in numbers they hope will top 15,000. "We're worried about climate change, about ways of life in the Canadian Arctic disappearing," said Sarah Binder of Montreal's Urban Ecology Center. Five environmental groups, including Greenpeace and the Climate Crisis Coalition, delivered a petition signed by 600,000 Americans to the U.S. Consulate in Montreal urging the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress to help slow global warming. About 100 protesters gathered outside in freezing temperatures to listen to speeches. "We are here representing the people of the United States who want action to be taken," said Ted Glick of the Climate Crises Coalition, who accused the U.S. delegation of trying to obstruct progress at the conference. U.S. President George W. Bush has been widely criticized for pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty, instead calling for an 18 percent reduction in the U.S. growth rate of greenhouse gases by 2012 and committing US$5 billion (euro4.27 billion) a year to global warming science and technology. The United States _ which spews out nearly 25 percent of the world's carbon emissions _ was the target of demonstrations. "If he (Bush) thinks (Hurricane) Katrina was bad, there are a lot worse hurricanes on their way if he doesn't change his policy," Britain's former Environment Minister Michael Meacher told demonstrators outside the U.S. embassy in London. Organizers said 10,000 people participated in the march from Lincoln's Inn in central London to the U.S. Embassy. Police said about 4,300 took part. Chanting and blowing whistles, the marchers denounced Blair and Bush for their perceived environmental failings. Some held banners depicting Bush as "Wanted _ for crimes against the planet" and advising "Ditch Blair, not Kyoto." Health experts at the U.N. conference said Friday that global warming is responsible for as many as 150,000 deaths annually around the world. Canadian Inuit of the isolated Arctic north have traveled to Montreal to join the protest. Indian leader Jose Kusugak told The Associated Press that he brought along hunters, trappers and elders to reassure them that people from the south were not indifferent to their plight. "It was important to show there are a lot of people in the world who care," he said. From mstainsby at resist.ca Sun Dec 4 16:46:47 2005 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Fierce Questions being asked about Kahnawake Mohawk Land Claim Message-ID: <3715.64.180.250.22.1133740007.squirrel@mail.resist.ca> [forwarded message] The following letter is kind of long. I sent it to the local band council to expose yet another fraudulent land claim that is underway right on my doorstep. Phone, fax, email what you think of this deal they're working on. (cc me a copy, thanks). Kahentinetha Horn P.O. Box 991 Kahnawake of Mohawk Territory orakwa@paulcomm.ca -- She:kon SEIGNEURY OF SAULT ST. LOUIS 'CLAIM' We were alarmed to learn at the November 29, 2005, Band Meeting that you are going to finalize the negotiations to settle the colonial government's claims to part of our sovereign Kanion'ke:haka territory referred to as the "Seigneury of Sault St. Louis". As a Woman Titleholder of Kanion'ke:haka/Mohawk land and a concerned member of the community of Kahnawake, I am exercising my duty to ask the following questions. I would appreciate your addressing my. The false basis for the "settlement" you've agreed to is destructive and unbelievable! Reason for urgency. Why are you and your puppet masters, the Canadian and Quebec governments, suddenly so anxious for the Mohawks of Kahnawake to settle this at this time? It's not a local community issue. It's a nation issue. You appear to be pushing for a settlement within one year after 10 years of 'quiet' negotiations. This sounds similar to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and Mohawk Council of Akwesasne's strategy of carrying on secret negotiations with New York State for 22 years. Then suddenly they pressured the people to finalize a claim for millions of acres within a month. Why is a one-year decision deadline being stuck around our necks? There is no decision needed. The land is ours. Give it back. Fallacy of basic premise. According to a Mohawk Council of Kahnawake brochure, the Seigneury claim is based on a 1680 land grant to the Jesuits by the French Crown. To begin it's impossible for anyone to get Mohawk land. Where's the evidence of French ownership of land our ancestors inhabited since time immemorial? What is there to settle with Canada or anybody? The settlers are illegally on our land. What we the land owners have to settle are the terms for them to stay or leave. Cities on our lands and other false presumptions. The Mohawk Council of Kahnawake is presuming another fallacy. That it was okay for the Jesuits to invite us onto our own lands to work for them and become good Christians! How outrageous! According to the map in the brochure there are six cities on the Seigneury territory - Chateauguay, St. Constant, Ste. Catherine, Delson, Candiac and LaPrairie. We should remove these colonial names on our territories and revert back to the original Mohawk names of these towns. The claim does not mention our other vast territories, including Tiotiake - aka the island of Montreal, St. Isidore, St. Remi, and other parts extending south to the Mohawk River Valley, the Finger Lakes, west to the Ohio, northerly to Lake Superior and back to Lake St. Louis. (Nanfan Treaty). These illegal inhabitants on our lands have no say on the land issue and certainly cannot deal with you. Lies and speculations. Everybody knows this land belongs to us. The idea that this land was given to us by King Louis XIV is ridiculous. How did he ever come to own it? Just because a lie is on a piece of paper doesn't make it true. Nor can it be the basis of a legitimate settlement. We need to know what you're really up to. We hear that certain individuals in Kahnawake are buying up land within and around the 'claim' in question. There is speculation that a new wider deeper St. Lawrence Seaway channel will be built around the south of Kahnawake, turning our community into an island. A steel plant is also planned. We can look forward to pollution that Akwesasne has suffered from, or even worse, chronic flooding and other conditions that will make our community uninhabitable. We hear you're making plans to set aside lands for us to settle in the northern Laurentians and near Sherbrooke, easterly towards Quebec City, in Algonquin territory. We have no right to move onto the lands of other Indigenous nations. Sounds like the old "Indian removal policy" is not dead. This move is meant to cut our roots from our land so we can't fight for it. Two Row Wampum Agreement is our basic relationship with the settlers. It all started with alliances for "peace and trade" with the Dutch, English and French. They agreed to stay in their ship with their laws, customs, languages and ways and whatever land they brought with them, which is nothing. We agreed to stay in our canoe with our law, ways, culture and title to all our land. We can only deal nation-to-nation on the basis of our constitution and this agreement. It was understood by all that we would never give up any of our land or become part of the colonial state. Women titleholders. Our constitution, the Kaianereh'ko:wa/Great Law, provides that the women are the "progenitors of the soil", the holders of the land for the coming generations. Yet men are illegally negotiating the swindling of our lands that belong to the women. Only we women can decide this issue. International law is clear. Giving up land and sovereignty can only happen through the informed consent of a clear majority of the constitutional people, not the followers of the illegally imposed Indian Act. They have become Canadians of Mohawk ancestry and have relinquished their claims to Mohawk nation lands. Louis XIV could not give us what was already ours. Mohawk title reconfirmed. The Mohawks could never be serfs. When the Jesuits started kicking us off our lands, some became Christians to survive. Even in 1701, the Great Peace of Montreal was a "peace" treaty, not a land surrender! Throughout we asserted our rights to our land. The Jesuits had no right to give our 'seigneury' land to French settlers. In 1762 British General Gage reconfirmed Mohawk title. In 1763 the Royal Proclamation took the same line. The Crown forbade colonial governors from making grants or purchases of Indian lands all over North America. There was a lot of chicanery but this did not change the law or the basic principle. Nation-to-nation. The BNA Act was passed on July 1, 1867. Sections 109 and 132 respected our constitution-to-constitution relationship and the process for making treaties to surrender our land (if we so chose. We could not because of our own laws). The mistakes made by the colonizers are somewhat understandable. They did not have the same connection and respect for their lands. On the other hand, we simply cannot give away or sell our land. Section 91(24) proclaimed that the new Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians". The way this has been interpreted contradicted their constitution. Parliament only had jurisdiction to make treaties with us, that's all. We never surrendered anything to anybody. We were and continue to be governed by our own constitution, the Kaianereh'ko:wa/Great Law. Indian Act is genocide. The Indian Act of 1876 declared we were not "persons". Canada has yet to admit that it was founded on systematic genocide. Indigenous customs and cultural practices were criminalized. Our children were taken away and killed in residential schools. Traditional governments were outlawed. Violating our sovereignty Canada illegally forced the Indian Act band council system on us in 1889 against the will and wishes of all but 7 people. The goal of the Indian Act is to carry out the "final solution", to exterminate us in order to steal our lands and resources. They violated the rule of law and breached Section 109 of their constitution. At that time the colonizers may have been so barbarous that they did not understand the rule of law. However, since that time international discussions have made it very clear that the appropriation of the assets of other nations is simply illegal. Why should Canada be exempt from international standards - especially when Canada has promised to meet them? It hasn't. Federal/provincial/local entities have no constitutional jurisdiction over Indians. The Mohawk Council of Kahnawake does not own the Seigneury land as it claims in its brochure and its 1988 declaration. Neither Canadian nor Quebec law applies. We have always been governed by our own laws that are based on decisions by consensus. If these foreign governments want to correct these injustices, they must deal directly with the true Mohawk Nation government. They cannot deal with their unconstitutional band council. Negotiations should be put on hold. "Existing aboriginal rights" under the Kaianereh'ko:wa and the Canadian constitution provide that Indigenous jurisdiction and sovereignty supersede that of Canada and its provinces. The only duty that Canada and Quebec have is to return the lands they are squatting on. They never negotiated a valid treaty authorizing their appropriation to our land. It appears the band council politicians are holding back critical information from the People. The band council presumes another fallacy that the land was taken away physically but not legally! This is double talk! Once again Mohawk Nation people are being tricked into thinking there's nothing they can do about it. Is Canada afraid of France? If so, that's not our problem. France was initially involved with the people of Kahnawake. Then the French were defeated by the English. Now Canada doesn't want to go that far back because it would confirm the Mohawks never gave up anything. Remember, when the British conquered the French, they couldn't take anything from them because they had nothing. They can't take anything from us because we can't give it up and we had everything. Mohawks never subject to anybody. Another fallacy is the idea that the Mohawk of Kahnawake ever became British subjects or Canadian citizens. This is a figment of Canada's imagination. Sir William Johnson, the first Superintendent of Indian Affairs and the Crown's representative in North America, knew how things stood. In 1767, five years after the conquest of the French, he wrote to Earl Shelburne, "One who would call the Six Nations our subject needs a good army at his back". Nothing changed with the American Revolution. In 1767 Governor Simcoe wrote that the Indians consider their nations as "entirely independent". In 1796 the Attorney General of Canada noted that "The Six Nations do not acknowledge the sovereignty of the King. They call themselves allies". Even today Canada would rather pay a little money because they don't want to run into political flack with France. France has no documents that support Canada's position. This proposed settlement is a fraud. They start out, "Well, the land is gone", and "Here's a few cents". They don't want to admit proprietary rights. Are they really relying on Ontario matrimonial common law? What do we have in common with Ontario refugees? Is there any limit to Canada's willingness to violate constitutional law? The Seigneury Sault Louis claim is fraudulent, treasonable and unconstitutional because the land was never surrendered by the sovereign Kanion'ke:haka/Mohawk. How about a little factual history. Historically, we Mohawks were always on our land under our own constitution. That's why they're afraid to look into their archives. Their own authorities said Indians in general were independent. Our ancestors always challenged everyone who tried to mess with us. We constantly stuck to our position that we have "prior interests" to our land and resources that Canada and its provinces must respect. See Section 109 of Canada's constitution. In the 1920's the Six Nations tried to challenge the Indian Act. The Canadian courts tightened their ranks. They refuse to answer any questions about its illegality. Section 132 of their constitution provides that Indigenous people may surrender their land and extinguish their sovereignty through a treaty. No valid treaties were ever concluded where Indigenous people knowingly gave up their land or surrendered their sovereignty. These negotiations are a legal impossibility. It is constitutionally impossible for the federal and provincial government to legally negotiate such a deal with its own band councils. Their own constitution set out a nation-to-nation relationship. Parliament in passing the Indian Act treasonably superseded their constitution and placed themself above the law. Any business conducted under the Indian Act is null and void. The Kanion'ke:haka filed motions in the Supreme Court of Canada and U.S. Supreme Court and in the federal, state and provincial courts addressing this issue. As well, we have filed petitions to the U.S. President and the Governor General of Canada. We simply ask whether Article II of the U.S. Constitution and Section 109 of the Canadian constitution still stand. The answer can only be "yes". They know they have no jurisdiction over us and that none of our lands were ever validly surrendered. What are the lawyers getting? The Seigneury fraud is being worked out mostly between the lawyers of both Canada and the band council. They all cooperate with the judiciary. Our experience with the courts indicates that the judiciary implements the Indigenous genocide. We have not been told how much the lawyers are getting. If it's anything like the proposed Akwesasne settlement with New York State, the lawyers stand to take at least 15% of the money. The Indians, except for a few 'sell-outs', will get very little benefits. The band council's job is to carry out municipal jobs like collecting garbage, looking after sewer and water, catching dogs and making sure that people take their leftovers to the recycling depot. They have no say about the constitutional, national and international positions of the Indigenous sovereign people. An expose on fraudulent land claims. Ganiengeh, another Mohawk community, provided the following comments: Expropriation vs. Extinguishment. "Extinguishment of Indian titles is usually the taking of territory by non-native occupiers. If the colonists create an inconsistency in the Indian land they are taking, then the colonists deem that such a grant extinguishes Indian title". Our ownership of our land is acknowledged by all parties. The other party is trying to put limitations on our ownership. The Seignuery land claim cannot be settled by monetary remedy. The band council says that other lands will be given to us so that our land can be turned over to the non-native settlers. Since they have nothing to give, are they going to give us a chunk of England? The band council says that this settlement will have no effect on our ownership of the remainder of our territory. They are ignorant. This fraudulent settlement will be used to extinguish our Nation's title to all our land, like they were going to do in Akwesasne. It's all smoke and mirrors. THE LAWS THAT BIND. The laws being used are those of an ecclesiastical corporation, whose mission is to further religion or administration of property held for religious uses to justify their doctrine of occupation. Blacks law dictionary/Pg 343. The Jesuit ecclesiastical corporation was formed under the Papal Doctrine, also referred to as the Doctrine of Discovery. They made up a meaning of "Indian title" as being "[tribes] occupying land hav[ing] no sovereign title but a mere right to use it". It's a complete scam. Canada is part of the international community that upholds human rights. Yet it blatantly practices this illegal concept of occupancy and uses the Doctrine of Discovery as the basis of their theft of our land and resources as well as their campaign of Indigenous genocide. It's in complete violation of our constitution and their own. Section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act 1982 states that 'existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed'. They purport that this takes aboriginal rights from common to constitutional law. Ill-informed band councilors and their supporters wrongly believe that this protects native rights and titles. It violates Sections 109 and 132 of the BNA Act 1867. Actually this makes the extinguishment of native rights possible. Instead of respecting the relationship of equality between Indigenous nations and Canada that was worked out in the BNA Act, the federal government sets up Band council mouthpieces to speak for us and sign away our rights and lands. This is all to violate the rights of the constitutionally recognized Indigenous people. In 1995 the United States Supreme Court gave the federal government the right to expropriate Indian land without giving any compensation (Mancari). The federal government assumed 'plenary' or complete power, which completely disregards the U.S. Constitution. Extinguishment requires legal procedures to be followed [land claims] where one party to the dispute sits in judgment. Both 'legal' theories place Indigenous people at an illegal disadvantage. A neutral third party sitting in judgment is a basic principle of the rule of law. Both Canada and the U.S. have developed doctrines and policies to get around this and justify the theft of lands from Indian people. "The continued implementing of extinguishment policies constitutes a very serious threat to indigenous societies. It is another relic of colonialism. Extinguishment is used to ensure state domination of indigenous peoples and to sever their ancestral ties to their own territories". Sambo 1993:31 The entire Mohawk Nation should be up in arms over this land swindle. Canada portrays this as a private land transaction, in violation of international law and basic human rights. Today indigenous peoples worldwide are either repossessing or having lands restored to them. Yet in Canada and the United States native people are being forced to relinquish title to their lands and resources in return for the privilege of staying alive. The only sovereign rights that native people have is to sell their land. Band council representatives either know this is happening and are being enticed by personal profit, or they haven't the slightest clue about what's going on. More inconsistencies. The council says they are not going to take money but receive 'other' (nation's) lands. This is inconsistent with our own laws and relationships with other Indigenous nations. Canada cannot give us another nation's land. It will be used against us as making false representations and committing theft. The band council is acting in a way that is illegitimate and inconsistent with the laws of the Mohawk Nation, who are the true sovereign nationalist government under the Great Law. Such inconsistencies with any of our laws, history and legal positions from time immemorial will threaten our title to all our lands, possessions and existence. Something's gotta be done. We need answers to our questions and concerns about what Canada and its band councilors are up to. We have to assert our Indigenous sovereignty which is protected under constitutional law, subject to international law and the rule of law. Our land is already ours. Only we have a right to negotiate our relationship with the settlers living thereon. Please provide us with a swift answer. Nia:wen Kahentinetha Horn This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.printcharger.com/emailStripper.htm -- Macdonald Stainsby http://independentmedia.ca/survivingcanada/ http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green In the contradiction lies the hope. --Brecht. From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 08:16:08 2005 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] National Call-in Day to Bring the Troops Home from Iraq on Tuesday, December 6th In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051205151608.45823.qmail@web50803.mail.yahoo.com> National Call-in Day to Bring the Troops Home from Iraq on Tuesday, December 6th Dear james, President Bush's speech of warmed over talking points at the US Naval Academy yesterday only solidified what we have known all along. The President has neither a concrete plan to bring our troops home, nor new ideas on how to rebuild Iraq. Instead, he will continue to let Americans and Iraqis die in a war that could drag on for years. Progress is not being made in Iraq, nor can progress be made until we bring our troops home. (For more about the speech, click here). http://www.peace-action.org/ It has become more apparent each day that it is up to Congress to provide leadership and represent the majority of Americans who support troop withdrawal. As a proud founding member of United for Peace and Justice and Win Without War - the nation's two largest peace coalitions - Peace Action is co-sponsoring a national call-in day to the House of Representatives. The momentum is on our side, and now we must ask Congress to take action and bring our troops home now! The national call-in day will be next Tuesday, December 6th, and the phone number to reach the Congressional switchboard is (800) 614-2803. The message will be: "I'm calling to ask Congressperson ____ to bring our troops home as soon as possible." Please mark this date in your calendar! We will send a reminder next week. We need to flood every single Congressional office with phone calls, faxes and email messages urging an immediate end to the war! Therefore we need as many people to participate in this call-in day as possible, to show Congress that we mean business. Please forward this message to all of your friends and colleagues, or use this handy tool to send a personalized message. Peace, Kevin M. Martin Executive Director Peace Action P.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, this past Monday came out in support of Congressman John Murtha and bringing the troops home. Months of lobbying and action by Peace Action members helped make this possible. Be sure to mark your calendar for the call-in day next Tuesday, December 6th, and keep the pressure on Congress to take leadership! __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 08:26:23 2005 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] RAWA: Opium farmers sell daughters to cover debts to traffickers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051205152623.31418.qmail@web50805.mail.yahoo.com> Critics say the country is turning into a narco-state under the noses of Nato peacekeeping forces The Independent -- London , October 3, 2005 By Justin Huggler in Laghman, Afghanistan Afghan farmers prevented from growing poppies under a British-led eradication programme have been forced to hand over their daughters to drug traffickers to settle their debts, according to reports from Afghanistan. The claim is the latest in a series to dog the British effort to curb Afghanistan's opium industry. Opium dominates Afghanistan's economy, accounting for 60 per cent of its income. Critics say the country is turning into a narco-state under the noses of Nato peacekeeping forces, and of the Western governments involved in reconstruction. The latest claims come from Nangahar province, which has been held up by the British, put in charge of the fight against opium in Afghanistan, as their biggest success. Opium cultivation fell by 96 per cent there this year, part of a 21 per cent fall nationwide. But farmers are now coming forward to say that the forced loss of their poppy crop has left them unable to repay debts to drug traffickers who lent them money to buy the seeds. In desperation, they have had to turn to a traditional Afghan practice in which a family can pay off its debt by handing over a daughter to a relative of the creditor. Usually, there is a marriage ceremony for the sake of propriety - but the woman is treated as property. The problem is familiar to Mohamed Hanif Isamuddin from Laghman province, next to Nangahar. He has given up his poppy crop under pressure from the authorities. For one acre of poppies he can make 150,000 Afghanis (?2,000). If he sows the same acre with wheat, he makes only 6,000 Afghanis. Mr Isamuddin, 68, says that when the local authorities first started pressuring the farmers to stop growing poppies, the Westerners promised to help them grow alternative crops by providing them with free seed, but they got nothing. Mr Isamuddin gave up growing poppies of his own volition when he heard that the government was going to clamp down. But further up the valley, he says, helicopters sprayed the poppy fields with insecticide. The British, put in charge of the effort to curb the opium trade, say there has been no spraying. Although the Americans proposed spraying poppy fields, it was rejected because of opposition from the Afghan government. "The government is doing the right thing," said Mr Isamuddin. "According to our religion, opium is prohibited. But if you have to feed your family, you do what you have to do. "If people here cannot earn enough to feed their families, they will start growing opium again." Although he has not had to take measures as drastic as some farmers in neighbouring Nangahar, his son has had to leave home and go to Iran to find work. At least Mr Isamuddin's son left voluntarily. Richard Danziger, of the International Organisation for Migrants, says that when poppy farmers in northern Afghanistan have a good crop it means they do not have to sell their children. In Afghanistan's barren landscape, no other crop brings a return close to that of opium. A French think-tank called last week for the legal cultivation of opium in Afghanistan. The Senlis Council pointed out the irony that, while Afghanistan today provides 87 per cent of the world's illegal opium, legal opium-based medicines are in short supply in Afghanistan and all over the developing world. A handful of countries, including Australia, India and Turkey, grow opium legally for use in medicine under licences granted by the United Nations. But drug companies have resisted the production of cheap versions of their opium-based medicine, according to Jorrit Kamminga of the Senlis Council. The group's proposal was that legally grown opium in Afghanistan could satisfy its domestic medical need, and might even allow it to export opium for medicinal use. But the proposal was rejected by the Afghan government after being rubbished by the US and by the UN Office for Drug Control. The Afghan government said it could not put in place safeguards to ensure legally grown opium was not channelled into the black market. ===================================================== Some of the opinions expressed within articles sent to our list, may not necessarily be that of RAWA. ===================================================== Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) Mailing Address: RAWA, P.O.Box 374, Quetta, Pakistan Mobile: 0092-300-5541258 Fax: 001-760-2819855 E-mail: rawa@rawa.org Home Page: http://www.rawa.org Mirror site: http://www.rawa.us __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From david.mcr at earthlink.net Mon Dec 5 15:38:49 2005 From: david.mcr at earthlink.net (David Mcreynolds) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Baghdad Girl Message-ID: <410-220051215223849625@earthlink.net> Date: 12/5/2005 2:32:09 PM Subject: Baghdad Girl Mother of All Trials... ///////////// by Baghdad Girl Blogger http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ December 05, 2005 I didn't get to see the beginning of the trial today. We were gathered in the kitchen after a brief rodent scare, trying to determine where the mouse had come from when I was attracted by the sound of yelling coming from the living room. The cousin was standing in front of the television adjusting the volume and there was a lot of bellowing coming from the court. That was nearly the beginning- the defense lawyers were pulling out of the trial because apparently, Ramsey Clark wasn't allowed to speak in English- something to do with the sovereignty of the court or trial and the impropriety of speaking in a foreign language (slightly ironic considering the whole country is under foreign occupation). The lawyers were back later- although I didn't see that either. I really began watching when they brought on the first witness, who was also the first plaintiff. He talked about the whole Dujail situation and his account was emotional and detailed. The details were intriguing considering he was only 15 years old at the time. The problem with his whole account is that so much of it is hearsay. He heard from someone that something happened to someone else, etc. Now, I'm not a lawyer but I'm a fan of The Practice and if watching Dylan McDermott has taught me anything, it's that hearsay is not acceptable evidence. The second witness was more to the point but he was 10 when everything happened and that didn't help his case. In the end, when the judge asked him who he was making a complaint against, he said he wasn't making a complaint against anyone. Then he changed his mind and said he was complaining against one of the accused… Then he added his complaint was against anyone convicted of the crime... And finally it was a complaint against "All Ba'athists at the time". Couldn't they find more credible witnesses? They were fifteen and ten at the time... it just doesn't make sense. At one point, the defense lawyers wanted to leave the trial yet again because apparently some security guard or police officer was threatening them from afar- making threatening gestures, etc. The judge requested that he be pulled out of the court (the security person), but not before hell broke loose in the court. Saddam began yelling something, the defense lawyers were making accusations and Barazan got up and began shouting at the person we couldn't see. The court was a mess. There was a lot of yelling, screaming, sermonising, ranting, accusing, etc. I felt bad for the judge. He really seemed to be trying hard to control the situation, but everyone kept interrupting him, and giving him orders. He's polite and patient, he'd make a good divorce judge- but I don't think he's strong enough for the court. He just doesn't have the power to keep the court in its place. It wasn't really like a trial. It reminded me of what we call a 'fassil' which is what tribal sheikhs arrange when two tribes are out of sorts with one another. The heads of the tribes are brought together along with the principal family members involved in the rift and after some yelling, accusations, and angry words they try to sort things out. That's what it felt like today. They kept interrupting each other and there was even some spitting at one point… It was both frustrating and embarrassing- and very unprofessional. One thing that struck me about what the witnesses were saying- after the assassination attempt in Dujail, so much of what later unfolded is exactly what is happening now in parts of Iraq. They talked about how a complete orchard was demolished because the Mukhabarat thought people were hiding there and because they thought someone had tried to shoot Saddam from that area. That was like last year when the Americans razed orchards in Diyala because they believed insurgents were hiding there. Then they talked about the mass detentions- men, women and children- and its almost as if they are describing present-day Ramadi or Falloojah. The descriptions of cramped detention spaces, and torture are almost exactly the testimonies of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, etc. It makes one wonder when Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest will have their day, as the accused, in court. *** From info at cinox.demon.co.uk Mon Dec 5 17:16:02 2005 From: info at cinox.demon.co.uk (Tim Murphy) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Monbiot: Biodiesel is worse than the fossil-fuels. Message-ID: Tuesday December 6, 2005 The Guardian (UK) www.guardian.co.uk The most destructive crop on earth is no solution to the energy crisis By promoting biodiesel as a substitute, we have missed the fact that it is worse than the fossil-fuel burning it replaces by George Monbiot Over the past two years I have made an uncomfortable discovery. Like most environmentalists, I have been as blind to the constraints affecting our energy supply as my opponents have been to climate change. I now realise that I have entertained a belief in magic. In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44 x 1018 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota". In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals. The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy - and the extraordinary power densities it gives us - with ambient energy is the stuff of science fiction. There is simply no substitute for cutting back. But substitutes are being sought everywhere. They are being promoted today at the climate talks in Montreal, by states - such as ours - that seek to avoid the hard decisions climate change demands. And at least one substitute is worse than the fossil-fuel burning it replaces. The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as I have ever been sent for my stance on the Iraq war. The biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in their denial as the executives of Exxon. I am now prepared to admit that my previous column was wrong. But they're not going to like it. I was wrong because I underestimated the fuel's destructive impact. Before I go any further, I should make it clear that turning used chip fat into motor fuel is a good thing. The people slithering around all day in vats of filth are performing a service to society. But there is enough waste cooking oil in the UK to meet a 380th of our demand for road transport fuel. Beyond that, the trouble begins. When I wrote about it last year, I thought that the biggest problem caused by biodiesel was that it set up a competition for land use. Arable land that would otherwise have been used to grow food would instead be used to grow fuel. But now I find that something even worse is happening. The biodiesel industry has accidentally invented the world's most carbon-intensive fuel. In promoting biodiesel - as the EU, the British and US governments and thousands of environmental campaigners do - you might imagine that you are creating a market for old chip fat, or rapeseed oil, or oil from algae grown in desert ponds. In reality you are creating a market for the most destructive crop on earth. Last week, the chairman of Malaysia's federal land development authority announced that he was about to build a new biodiesel plant. His was the ninth such decision in four months. Four new refineries are being built in Peninsula Malaysia, one in Sarawak and two in Rotterdam. Two foreign consortiums - one German, one American - are setting up rival plants in Singapore. All of them will be making biodiesel from the same source: oil from palm trees. "The demand for biodiesel," the Malaysian Star reports, "will come from the European Community ... This fresh demand ... would, at the very least, take up most of Malaysia's crude palm oil inventories." Why? Because it is cheaper than biodiesel made from any other crop. In September, Friends of the Earth published a report about the impact of palm oil production. "Between 1985 and 2000," it found, "the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia". In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest have been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares are scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5 million in Indonesia. Almost all the remaining forest is at risk. Even the famous Tanjung Puting national park in Kalimantan is being ripped apart by oil planters. The orangutan is likely to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos, tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and thousands of other species could go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have been evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist. The forest fires which every so often smother the region in smog are mostly started by the palm growers. The entire region is being turned into a gigantic vegetable oil field. Before oil palms, which are small and scrubby, are planted, vast forest trees, containing a much greater store of carbon, must be felled and burnt. Having used up the drier lands, the plantations are moving into the swamp forests, which grow on peat. When they've cut the trees, the planters drain the ground. As the peat dries it oxidises, releasing even more carbon dioxide than the trees. In terms of its impact on both the local and global environments, palm biodiesel is more destructive than crude oil from Nigeria. The British government understands this. In a report published last month, when it announced that it would obey the EU and ensure that 5.75% of our transport fuel came from plants by 2010, it admitted "the main environmental risks are likely to be those concerning any large expansion in biofuel feedstock production, and particularly in Brazil (for sugar cane) and south-east Asia (for palm oil plantations)." It suggested that the best means of dealing with the problem was to prevent environmentally destructive fuels from being imported. The government asked its consultants whether a ban would infringe world trade rules. The answer was yes: "Mandatory environmental criteria ... would greatly increase the risk of international legal challenge to the policy as a whole." So it dropped the idea of banning imports, and called for "some form of voluntary scheme" instead. Knowing that the creation of this market will lead to a massive surge in imports of palm oil, knowing that there is nothing meaningful it can do to prevent them, and knowing that they will accelerate rather than ameliorate climate change, the government has decided to go ahead anyway. At other times it happily defies the EU. But what the EU wants and what the government wants are the same. "It is essential that we balance the increasing demand for travel," the government's report says, "with our goals for protecting the environment." Until recently, we had a policy of reducing the demand for travel. Now, though no announcement has been made, that policy has gone. Like the Tories in the early 1990s, the Labour administration seeks to accommodate demand, however high it rises. Figures obtained last week by the campaigning group Road Block show that for the widening of the M1 alone the government will pay ?3.6bn - more than it is spending on its entire climate change programme. Instead of attempting to reduce demand, it is trying to alter supply. It is prepared to sacrifice the south-east Asian rainforests in order to be seen to be doing something, and to allow motorists to feel better about themselves. All this illustrates the futility of the technofixes now being pursued in Montreal. Trying to meet a rising demand for fuel is madness, wherever the fuel might come from. The hard decisions have been avoided, and another portion of the biosphere is going up in smoke. www.monbiot.com ---------- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1659036,00.html ---------- From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Dec 5 17:58:49 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Onward, Christian shoppers Message-ID: <200512060058.jB60wnYK007582@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5259490 The Economist December 1st 2005 Onward, Christian shoppers Corporate America has spotted the elephant in the room — religion Washington, DC – The Walt Disney Company has long been a bogeyman of the religious right, thanks to its penchant for organising “gay days” at Disney World and offering benefits for same-sex couples. Yet on December 9th legions of Evangelical Christians will queue up to watch Disney's “holiday” blockbuster, its $150m production of C.S. Lewis's “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”. The bogeyman has turned into a bearer of Good News. The reconciliation between Evangelical America and Disney is the latest example of a bigger trend — the reconciliation between religious America and corporate America. Many of America's biggest media companies are pushing into the religion market. At the same time, many of America's “faith-based” companies are pushing back, into the mainstream. The first big company to spot the potential of the religion market was Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins, which brought Zondervan, a religious publisher, back in 1988. Now almost all the big publishing houses have religious lines, most of them acquired in the past few years: Random House has WaterBrook and Time Warner has Warner Faith. EMI and Sony have both acquired Christian music labels. Hallmark Cards bought the Arkansas-based DaySpring, America's largest producer of Christian greetings cards, in 1999. NBC has hired Amy Grant, a heroine of the Christian music world, to present one of its prime-time programmes on Friday evenings, “Three Wishes”. Not so long ago, people who wanted to buy Christian diet books or Christian detective stories had to go to specialist Christian stores. Now you can find them at your local Wal-Mart — along with a whole library of other Christian books. The reason for corporate America's new-found interest in religion is simple: the market is booming. Packaged Facts, a market-research company, estimates that the “religious products” market was worth $8.6 billion in 2003 and will grow to $8.6 billion in 2008. Christian radio has seen its market share expand from 2.2% in 1999 to 5.5% today. The Association of American Publishers reports that the market for religious books grew by 37% in 2003. The definition of religious books is vague — but religious publishing is undoubtedly growing much faster than the industry as a whole. Even if the religious bit of the media industry is still relatively small, it accounts for a disproportionate share of the “mega-hits”. The “Left Behind” series of novels on the end of days has brought in $650m. Bantam Dell, a mainstream publisher owned by Germany's Bertelsmann, has reportedly paid Tim La Haye an advance of $45m for the next series. “The Purpose Driven Life ” by Rick Warren, an evangelical preacher, is the best-selling hardcover book in American history, with more than 25m copies sold. Christian blockbusters are dragging a huge flotilla of other Christian products in their wake — from “praise the Lord backpacks”, in camouflage colours, to Christian dieting books such as Don Colbert's “What Would Jesus Eat”. Hollywood has been slower to react, thanks to a combination of institutional lethargy and cultural blinkers. But Disney's support for C.S. Lewis's children's classic reflects a realisation that the industry needs to learn how to tap into what insiders call “Passion” dollars. Mel Gibson's “The Passion of the Christ” has grossed $370m so far despite being in Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin and despite the lack of a major Hollywood distributor. Its success sent shock waves through Hollywood. The reason the religious market is booming is simple: religious America is booming. John Green, of the University of Akron in Ohio, calculates that there are 50m Evangelicals in America. He argues that Evangelicals are growing as a share of the population. They are also getting richer, in part because the Evangelical heartland of the South is booming and in part because richer people are joining the cause. Jane Friedman, the head of HarperCollins, adds that the surge in religious books is matched by a surge in spiritual books, as an ageing baby-boom generation looks for “meaning”. This can be seen in everything from the success of religiously-flavoured books like Dan Brown's “The Da Vinci Code” to the popularity of New Age gurus like Deepak Chopra. The religious market comes with a ready-made distribution channel in the form of churches (America has more than 330,000 of the Protestant variety alone). Larry Ross, the head of A. Larry Ross Communications in Dallas, Texas, which specialises in the religious market, points out that films based on the “Left Behind” series became hits without ever being screened in cinemas; churches showed them. Religious Americans also do much of the marketing themselves, spreading the message by word of mouth. Mr Gibson promoted “The Passion” by talking to prominent religious figures, who then encouraged their flocks to purchase large blocks of tickets. “The Purpose Driven Life” became a best-seller because it became a staple of church sermons and church study-groups. Greg Stielstra, formerly Zondervan's chief marketing man (who has to his name 88 best-sellers, 20 number-one best-sellers and eight books that have sold more than 1m copies), calls this “pyromarketing”. Rather than promoting people and goods through mass-market media such as television, pyromarketing relies on “consumer evangelists” who spread the word among like-minded people. Pyromarketing to Christians has worked best in the media, but it can apply to a huge range of businesses. Marian Salzman, a New York-based advertising guru, points out that there are Christian real-estate networks, banks, financial advisers and dieting circles. As customers, she says, Christians are particularly interesting because they are “incredibly loyal” and will go out of their way to patronise a Christian business. Across the South it is common for Evangelicals to mark professional advertisements with a cross in order to attract the custom of fellow Evangelicals. One company warmly approved of by Evangelicals is Chick-fil-A, a chain of chicken restaurants whose management is so devout that it closes all its restaurants on Sundays. This is not a strategy that would be recommended at the average business school. But it has proved no bar to the success of Chick-fil-A, which racked up sales of $1.74 billion last year across the United States. The company is now one of the fastest-growing restaurant chains in America, but proclaims that its “first priority...has never been just to serve chicken. It is to serve a higher calling.” Its story is explained by the company founder S.Truett Cathy, in his book, “Eat Mor Chikin: Inspire More People.” Christianity has always been central to the purpose of Chick-fil-A. But the fact that most other big corporations have only recently discovered God, makes some Evangelicals worry that they might be getting into bed with Mammon. Zondervan is part of the same publishing house as Regan books, which publishes “How to Make Love Like a Porn Star”, by Jenna Jameson, and Avon, which publishes “The Satanic Bible”. Back in 1992 some of the staff of Zondervan tried to buy out their company to retain its purity. Render unto Caesar In fact, the arrival of the media giants has led to many fewer disasters than predicted. News Corporation, Bertelsmann et al have been sensible enough to give their religious subsidiaries plenty of latitude. Zondervan has lost none of its old character: it is based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and its corporate lobby is highlighted by a life-sized bronze sculpture, “the divine servant”, showing Jesus washing Peter's feet. Random House set up its WaterBrook subsidiary in Colorado Springs — the command-centre of Evangelical America. Meanwhile, the traditional faith-based media companies have fought back. They are getting more business-like in the way they run their affairs. The Christian Booksellers Association helps its members plan marketing and publicity. Independent Christian booksellers are clubbing together to form purchasing groups in order to compete with the big retailers. Just like their secular counterparts, the religious media companies are exploiting new technology. Zondervan distributes a collection of short bible-study videos that combine state-of-the-art graphics with interactive techniques; it is also preparing a digital Bible that can be loaded on to iPods, a technique popularly known as “Godcasting”. Services at megachurches don't just rival rock concerts in terms of their audiences (30,000 every Sunday at Lakewood Church in Houston); they also rival them in terms of their “production values”. While some Christians remain uneasy about the effect of big business on their faith and message, the benefits are clear. Corporations have brought more advertising and sponsorship dollars to Christian America. Bishop T.D. Jakes, the pastor of a megachurch in Dallas, persuaded a group of well-known companies, including Ford, Coca-Cola and Bank of America, to sponsor his Megafest conference this summer. Corporations have also provided Christian artists with bigger audiences for their ideas, not to mention bigger rewards for their efforts. When Joyce Meyer, a Christian war horse, joined Warner Faith, for example, she more than doubled her sales. Two decades ago Christian recording artists could not get their work into mainstream outlets such as Wal-Mart and Tower Records. Now you can pick them up along with the latest records by Satan-worshipping heavy metal bands. That, surely, is progress. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Dec 5 17:58:43 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Canada's Prince of Darkness, Michael Ignatieff Message-ID: <200512060058.jB60whPn007403@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=16316 Asian Tribune 2005-12-03 Canada's Prince of Darkness, Michael Ignatieff Or Thomas Friedman in Striped Trousers, Silk Stockings and Garters By John Chuckman If Michael Ignatieff is anything, it's connected, and I do not mean just to the relatively small establishment of Canada, I mean connected to the shadowy godfathers of World Empire. Ignatieff has a rich career in America where truly loyal service, whether by natural or adopted sons, is always handsomely rewarded. Another Canadian, David Frum, made it all the way to the White House with his custom-tailored scribbling. So too such a genuinely dangerous American as Pat Buchanan. How does a man like Thomas Friedman pick up prizes writing advertising copy for the Pentagon? As I said, loyalty is handsomely rewarded. David Frum and Pat Buchanan both fell from grace, but there is little danger of Ignatieff's doing so. He almost perceptibly pants and gasps when he applies words to the imperial splendor of which he stands in awe. Ignatieff, while running what is essentially a marketing program for America at the forty-billion dollar endowment called Harvard, has kept in touch with Canada. Every once in a while he is interviewed by someone at the CBC or the Toronto Star. The interviewer's tone typically is toe-scrunchingly along the lines of, "Here is one of the age's great intellectuals, and he's from Canada!" Certain Canadians do have an embarrassing tendency that way. So I am familiar with Ignatieff's quietly arrogant tone. Oddly, it is almost the tone of a minister of the Gospel, educated and polished to be sure, one of those New England clerics safely ensconced in a sinecure at some dignified pile of stones where he only has to address a small, blue-haired congregation once a week to earn his keep, but a preacher none the less. Ignatieff doesn't give speeches or write essays, he gives sermons, rather dull sermons with just a hint of suppressed rage under the surface. The rage, perhaps regarded as appealing or even sexy by some, if you listen carefully, is directed at people who do not embrace his views. Yet I have only now discovered the immensity of Ignatieff's arrogance. You see, he's been dropped into a federal riding (for American readers, the equivalent of a congressional district) to run for Canada's Parliament. He is being dropped by national leaders of the Liberal Party in search of "star" candidates for an approaching election which is expected to be close, but he has been dropped into a riding where a substantial number of Liberal faithful disagree with his alien views. Moreover, he has written in one of his books, as we shall see, words insulting to many residents of the riding. Here is one Toronto columnist's description of Ignatieff's proud path to achieving the great honor of his life: "And snookering one potential opponent, name of Shwec, on the grounds that he wasn't a party member, although he'd paid his dues, and another, name of Chyczij, who also happens to be the association president, on the grounds that he hadn't resigned the presidency when he filed. Not to mention locking the office door ahead of the deadline so they couldn't file in time." It sounds a great deal like politics in Richard J. Daley's Chicago or President Mubarak's Egypt. Ignoring requests for his withdrawal, Ignatieff spoke at the riding association meeting to tell them what a great honor - the greatest of his life, as he put it - it was to be acclaimed candidate. In this case, however, the words were almost lost in catcalls and heckling from members of his own party. At one point about a third of the audience got up and walked out of the meeting. At the end of a truly shabby performance, Ignatieff's handlers helped him through a side door to a waiting car. You cannot completely judge Ignatieff's tone from printed words. You had to have heard CBC Radio's report with his voice to catch the full nuanced snottiness. One of Ignatieff's lines was "You must understand" that being dropped into a riding the way he was being dropped was an old party practice. "You must understand" to people whose democratic rights he was opposing! At the same time he pontificated, "I have stood all my life against intolerance. Do you seriously think I would insult any community in our country?" Here the self-appointed candidate leaned on his role as self-appointed secular saint. The tone was exactly that of some earlier words of his, with reference to Canada's honorable stand against joining Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. He said then, "If you oppose America, you pay," with a slight but discernable emphasis on "pay," almost relishing the word. Ignatieff's "Do you seriously think" concerned Ukraininan-Canadian objections to demeaning descriptions in his writing. Judge for yourself, here is one of the most offensive passages from his 1993 book, Blood and Belonging: ''I have reasons to take the Ukraine seriously indeed. But, to be honest, I'm having trouble. Ukrainian independence conjures up images of peasant embroidered shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phony Cossacks in cloaks and boots . . . ." The attitude on display is perhaps best explained in an article by Sarah Schweitzer in Toronto's Globe and Mail where she gave the following précis of Ignatieff's family history: "His paternal grandfather, Count Paul Ignatieff, was minister of education for Czar Nicholas II of Russia. Following the Russian Revolution, the family moved to Canada, where Ignatieff's father, George, became a leading diplomat during Cold War era. Ignatieff's maternal great-grandfather, George Munro Grant, was a well-known Canadian advocate of British imperialism in the late 19th century, and an uncle, George Parkin Grant, was a conservative political philosopher." Almost certainly there's an arrogance gene, the Russian aristocracy having been notorious for arrogant behavior. The people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore Riding in Toronto were not just expressing their anger at past words. This great worker for human rights has been a consistent advocate for Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq - that is, for the mass murder of one hundred thousand innocent civilians and the utter destruction of their country as a decent place to live. Ignatieff is also on record as a supporter of "mild" torture. Here is an apologist for international lawlessness and selected barbarism, so long as they serve those who provided his sinecure. These are not views the majority of Canadians support. Since there are many rumors that this unpleasant man is to be groomed as a potential future prime minister, there is great cause for concern. Paul Martin, Canada's current prime minister, is essentially a decent man, and I don't wish his government harm, but it is important to end the horribly archaic and anti-democratic practice of dropping candidates into ridings where they don't live and with which they have no attachment. Martin could only enhance his credibility by quickly finding a way to dump Ignatieff. It's more important still to stop this barely-disguised American Neo-con from securing a future in Canadian politics where he can serve little other purpose than a kind of fifth-columnist for destructive interests. I will watch the election in this riding with more interest than the national contest, hoping people in Etobicoke-Lakeshore demonstrate genuine courage and independence. And you needn't worry about Ignatieff's future. He has all bets covered. In preparation for his glorious entrance into Canadian politics, he recently became a visiting professor at the University of Toronto, having sought a two-year leave from Harvard. His New England sinecure and its wealthy blue-hair congregation quietly await his return. - Asian Tribune – John Chuckman is a retired Chief Economist for Texaco Canada. He is a prolific writer and his articles can be found on websites such as, YellowTimes, CounterPunch, SmirkingChimp, Asian Tribune, and Democrats with Spine. He submitted this article for "Asian Tribune" From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Dec 5 17:59:03 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] The Revolt of the Generals Message-ID: <200512060059.jB60x3ad008001@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12032005.html Counter Punch December 3/4, 2005 The Revolt of the Generals By Alexander Cockburn The immense significance of Rep John Murtha's November 17 speech calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq is that it signals mutiny in the US senior officer corps, seeing the institution they lead as “broken, worn out” and “living hand to mouth”, to use the biting words of their spokesman, John Murtha, as he reiterated on December his denunciation of Bush's destruction of the Army. A CounterPuncher with nearly 40 years experience working in and around the Pentagon told me this week that “The Four Star Generals picked Murtha to make this speech because he has maximum credibility.” It's true. Even in the US Senate there's no one with quite Murtha's standing to deliver the message, except maybe for Byrd, but the venerable senator from West Virginia was a vehement opponent of the war from the outset , whereas Murtha voted for it and only recently has turned around. So the Four-Star Generals briefed Murtha and gave him the state-of-the-art data which made his speech so deadly, stinging the White House into panic-stricken and foolish denunciations of Murtha as a clone of Michael Moore. It cannot have taken vice president Cheney, a former US Defense Secretary, more than a moment to scan Murtha's speech and realize the import of Murtha's speech as an announcement that the generals have had enough. Listen once more to what the generals want the country to know: “The future of our military is at risk. Our military and our families are stretched thin. Many say the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on a third deployment. Recruitment is down even as the military has lowered its standards. They expect to take 20 percent category 4, which is the lowest category, which they said they'd never take. They have been forced to do that to try to meet a reduced quota. “Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. “The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls in our bases at home. I've been to three bases in the United States, and each one of them were short of things they need to train the people going to Iraq. “Much of our ground equipment is worn out. “Most importantly -- this is the most important point -- incidents have increased from 150 a week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over a time when we had additional more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revolution at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled.” What happened on the heels of this speech is very instructive. The Democrats fell over themselves distancing themselves from Murtha, emboldening the White House to go one the attack. >From Bush's presidential plane, touring Asia, came the derisive comment that Murtha was of “endorsing the policies of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.” It took the traveling White House about 48 hours to realize that this was a dumb thing to have said. Murtha's not the kind of guy you can slime, the way Bush and Co did the glass-jawed Kerry in 2004. The much decorated vet Murtha snapped back publicly that he hadn't much time for smears from people like Cheney who'd got five deferments from military service in Vietnam. By the weekend Bush was speaking of Murtha respectfully. On Monday, gritting his teeth, Cheney told a Washington audience that though he disagreed with Murtha “he's a good man, a Marine, a patriot, and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion.” One day later Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Fox News, “I do not think that American forces need to be there in the numbers that they are now because -- for very much longer -- because Iraqis are stepping up.” A week later Bush was preparing a speech laying heavy emphasis on US withdrawals as the Iraqi armed forces take up the burden. Are there US-trained Iraqi detachments ready in the wings? Not if you believe reports from Iraq, but they could be nonagenarians armed with bows and arrows and the Bush high command would still be invoking their superb training and readiness for the great mission. Ten days after Murtha's speech commentators on the tv Sunday talk shows were clambering aboard the Bring ‘em home bandwagon. Voices calling for America to “stay the course” in Iraq were few and far between. On December 1 Murtha returned to the attack in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, telling a civic group there that he was wrong to have voted for the war and that most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is “broken, worn out” and “living hand to mouth”. The stench of panic in Washington that hangs like a winter fog over Capitol Hill intensified. The panic stems from the core concern of every politician in the nation's capital: survival. The people sweating are Republicans and the source of their terror is the deadly message spelled out in every current poll: Bush's war on Iraq spells disaster for the Republican Party in next year's midterm elections. Take a mid-November poll by SurveyUSA: in only seven states did Bush's current approval rating exceed 50 per cent. These consisted of the thinly populated states of Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama and Mississippi. In twelve states, including California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan, his rating was under 35. You have to go back to the early 1970s, when a scandal-stained Nixon was on the verge of resignation, to find numbers lower than Bush's. Like Bush, Nixon had swept to triumphant reelection in 1972. Less than two years later he turned the White House over to vice president Ford and flew off into exile. No one expects Bush to resign, or even to be impeached (though vice president Cheney's future is less assured) and his second term has more than three years to run. But right now, to use a famous phrase from the Nixon era, a cancer is gnawing at his presidency and that cancer is the war in Iraq. The American people are now 60 per cent against it and 40 per cent think Bush lied to get them to back it. Hence the panic. Even though the seats in the House of Representatives are now so gerrymandered that less than 50 out of 435 districts are reckoned as ever being likely to change hands, Republicans worry that few seats, however gerrymandered, can withstand a Force 5 political hurricane. What they get from current polls is a simple message. If the US has not withdrawn substantial numbers of its troops from Iraq by the fall of next year, a Force 5 storm surge might very well wash them away. Amid this potential debacle, the Republicans' only source of comfort is the truly incredible conduct of the Democrats. First came the Democrats' terrified reaction to Murtha, symbolized by Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi's cancellation of a press conference supporting Murtha. This prompted the Republicans to realize that the Democrats were ready to have their bluff called by the Republican-sponsored resolution calling for immediate withdrawal, for which only three Democrats voted, while so-called progressives like Kucinich and Sanders and Conyers ran for cover. Listen to any prominent Democrat senator, like Kerry or Clinton or Feingold or Obama and you get the same adamant refusal to go beyond the savage characterization by Glenn Ford and Peter Gamble of the Black Commentator, of Obama's address to the Council on Foreign Relations: “U.S. Senator Barack Obama has planted his feet deeply inside the Iraq war-prolongation camp of the Democratic Party, the great swamp that, if not drained, will swallow up any hope of victory over the GOP in next year's congressional elections. In a masterpiece of double-speak before the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, November 22, the Black Illinois lawmaker managed to out-mush-mouth Sen. John Kerry - a prodigious feat, indeed. “In essence, all Obama wants from the Bush regime is that it fess up to having launched the war based on false information, and to henceforth come clean with the Senate on how it plans to proceed in the future. Those Democrats who want to dwell on the past - the actual genesis and rationale for the war, and the real reasons for its continuation - should be quiet. “ ‘Withdrawal’ and ‘timetables’ are bad words, and Obama will have nothing to do with them. “Of course, the ‘insurgents’ are not a ‘faction,’ and must therefore be defeated. On this point, Obama and the Bush men agree: ‘In sum, we have to focus, methodically and without partisanship, on those steps that will: one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinguish the insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home.’ “Nobody in the White House would argue with any of these points. Point number two in Obama's ‘pragmatic’ baseline is, the containment and elimination of the ‘insurgency.’ Of course, one can only do that by continuing the war. Indeed, it appears that Obama and many of his colleagues are more intent on consulting the Bush men on the best ways to ‘win’ the war than in effecting an American withdrawal at any foreseeable time. “They want ‘victory’ just as much as the White House; they just don't want the word shouted at every press conference.” The Black Commentator concludes its excoriation of Obama and his fellow Democrats with these words: “By late summer of 2006, when voters are deciding what they want their Senate and House to look like, if the Democrats have not caught up to public opinion to offer a tangible and quick exit from Iraq, the Republicans will retain control of both chambers of congress. “All that will be left in November is mush from Kerry, Hillary, Biden, Edwards - and Obama's - mouths.” Here at CounterPunch we heartily endorse this sentiment. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Dec 5 17:58:34 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Chomsky to testify at Noble arbitration Message-ID: <200512060058.jB60wYqM007105@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> Noam Chomsky will be testifying at David Noble's arbitration hearing in Toronto on Dec 20. Last year Noble filed a $10,000,000 grievance against York University on the grounds of defamation and violation of his academic freedom. After Noble had exposed the Israel lobby's connection to York, York issued a press release denouncing Noble, who is Jewish, as an anti-semite. The arbitration hearing continues on Dec 14 and Dec 20 at the JPR Arbitration Centre, 390 Bay St., Suite 400, starting at 10:00AM. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Dec 5 17:58:57 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Vietnam War intelligence 'deliberately skewed, ' secret study says Message-ID: <200512060058.jB60wvNA007844@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/politics/02tonkin.html New York Times December 2, 2005 Vietnam War intelligence 'deliberately skewed,' secret study says By Scott Shane Washington, Dec. 1 - The National Security Agency has released hundreds of pages of long-secret documents on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, which played a critical role in significantly expanding the American commitment to the Vietnam War. The material, posted on the Internet overnight [http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/index.cfm] Wednesday, included one of the largest collections of secret intercepted communications ever made available. The most provocative document is a 2001 article in which an agency historian argued that the agency's intelligence officers "deliberately skewed" the evidence passed on to policy makers and the public to falsely suggest that North Vietnamese ships had attacked American destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964. Based on the assertion that such an attack had occurred, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered airstrikes on North Vietnam and Congress passed a broad resolution authorizing military action. The historian, Robert J. Hanyok, wrote the article in an internal publication and it was classified top secret despite the fact that it dealt with events in 1964. Word of Mr. Hanyok's findings leaked to historians outside the agency, who requested the article under the Freedom of Information Act in 2003. Some intelligence officials said they believed the article's release was delayed because the agency was wary of comparisons between the roles of flawed intelligence in the Vietnam War and in the war in Iraq. Mr. Hanyok declined to comment on Wednesday. But Don Weber, an agency spokesman, denied that any political consideration was involved. "There was never a decision not to release the history" written by Mr. Hanyok, Mr. Weber said. On the contrary, he said, the release was delayed because the agency wanted to make public the raw material Mr. Hanyok used for his research. "The goal here is to allow people to wade through all that information and draw their own conclusions," he said. Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, called the release of the document "terrific," noting that the eavesdropping material known as signals intelligence, or sigint, is the most secret information the government has. "N.S.A. may be the most close-mouthed of all U.S. government agencies," said Mr. Blanton, whose organization has published on the Web many collections of previously secret documents. "The release of such a large amount of sigint is unprecedented." In his 2001 article, an elaborate piece of detective work, Mr. Hanyok wrote that 90 percent of the intercepts of North Vietnamese communications relevant to the supposed Aug. 4, 1964, attack were omitted from the major agency documents going to policy makers. "The overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no attack had happened," he wrote. "So a conscious effort ensued to demonstrate that an attack occurred." Edwin E. Moïse, a historian at Clemson University who wrote a book on the Gulf of Tonkin incident, said the agency did the right thing in making public Mr. Hanyok's damning case. "A lot of people at the agency haven't been happy that communications intelligence was used to support a wrong conclusion," he said. Agency employees worked late Wednesday to meet a self-imposed end-of-November deadline, posting the intercepts, oral history interviews with retired agency officials and internal reports on the agency's Web site at www.nsa.gov/vietnam/index.cfm. The agency, based at Fort Meade, Md., intercepts foreign communications, like phone calls, e-mail messages and faxes, and is charged with protecting the security of American government communications. With more than 30,000 employees, including codebreakers, computer experts and linguists, it is the largest American intelligence agency. Its Center for Cryptologic History, where Mr. Hanyok works, has published studies of the role of signals intelligence in many major episodes in American history, including Pearl Harbor, the Korean War and the Cuban missile crisis. Among its most extensive projects was publishing and annotating Soviet diplomatic messages from the 1940's decoded by agency codebreakers in a program called Venona. From aaron at istop.com Mon Dec 5 21:20:34 2005 From: aaron at istop.com (aaron@istop.com) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Haiti needs to be on the agenda for this upcoming election Message-ID: <20051206052034.7D3C717C0D9@www.istop.com> Here is a message I sent to the NDP candidate in my riding.She also happens to be foriegn affairs critic for the ndp. I encourage you all to write to the NDP and to protest Canad's role in Haiti and the criminalization of dissent. Aaron You may have already heard but last week a well known activist who has been campaigning against canada's involvment in supporting a right-wing ilagitamate government in haiti has been aressed for heckling the PM. he was arrested for saying "Martin lies and haitians die" This is not only an attempt to frighten activist from speaking out against haiti in this upcoming election but this is an example of not only criminalization of dissent but this is an example of abuse of power by the state. activist will not tolerate this!! We will dog politicians, specifically liberal politician throughout this campaign until they start talking about haiti. This arrest of engler comes with a $5000 dollar bail and harsh bail conditions such as not contacting polititions throughout the campaign. this is unexceptable!!! This arrest amounts to a heavy handed stalinesque tactic which if allowed to be swept under the table, has the potential to set a presedent with respect to cracking down on civil liberties and creating the embryonic contitions for facsism to flourish in Canada!!!Myself, a communist, just spent an hour this evening debating with an anarchist roomate of mine about the strategic importance of voting for the NDP. I was also supported in my debate by another roomate of mine who also happens to be an anarchist. I think we may have been sucessful in having our roomate reconsider voting, not on the basis of legitimising the electoral process but as a strategic vote in order to create the conditions for ant-imerialist and anticapitalist policies to be put in place. Basically what Rosa Luxemberg said that reforms are the breeding ground for revolution. inaction by a workers borgouis party like the NDP on an issue such as this is unacceptable. I know that the NDP has never been an anti- imperialist party nor have they ever recognized the colonial aspect of the Candian state specifically with it's respect to the states oppresion of first nations people, the people of quebec, the me'tis and accadians; but recent events in haiti and this recent event(the arrest of yves Engler) as long as they go unchallenged by the NDP will only perpetuate the idea of the NDP being a passive participant in the Canadian state's neo-liberal/imperialistic agenda. I have already told you the I will vote for you, but if the NDP continues to condone these quasi-fascist tactic of the state, I will have to re-evaluate weather I place my x beside the NDP candidate or the Marxist- lenninist candidate. You may think that this is a non-issue for you, seeing that you will most likely be re-elected, even if a few dozen activists do not vote for you, but I am sure you are aware of the amount of anger on the left across the country with respect to Haiti and this recent example of criminalization of dissent. I know that the NDP could pick up a dozen or so more seats in this next election and I believe the ability of the NDP to so hinges on weather or not it will speak out on the issue of Haiti and the issue of criminalizing dissent. I am asking you as a socialist and a humanist to speak out on the disintigration of formal democracy within Canada Respectfully sumbmitted, Aaron Doncaster From aaron at istop.com Tue Dec 6 11:26:59 2005 From: aaron at istop.com (aaron@istop.com) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] saftey tips for wimin Message-ID: <20051206192659.48A7C17C305@www.istop.com> 1. Tip from Tae Kwon Do: The elbow is the strongest point on your >> > > body. If you are close enough to use it, do! >> > > >> > > 2. Learned this from a tourist guide in New Orleans. If a robber >> > > asks for your wallet and/or purse, DO NOT HAND IT TO HIM. Toss >>it >> > > away from you....chances are that he is more interested in your >> > > wallet and/or purse than you, and he will go for the >>wallet/purse. >> > > RUN LIKE MAD IN THE OTHER DIRECTION! >> > > >> > > 3. If you are ever thrown into the trunk of a car, kick out the >>back >> > > tail lights and stick your arm out the hole and start waving >>like >> > > crazy. The driver won't see you, but everybody else will. This >>has >> > > saved lives. >> > > >> > > 4. Women have a tendency to get into their cars after shopping, >> > > eating, working, etc., and just sit (doing their checkbook, or >> > > making a list, etc. DON'T DO THIS!) The predator will be >>watching >> > > you, and this is the perfect opportunity for him to get in on >>the >> > > passenger side, put a gun to your head, and tell you where to >>go. AS >> > > SOON AS YOU GET INTO YOUR CAR, LOCK THE DOORS AND LEAVE. >> > > >> > > a. If someone is in the car with a gun to your head DO NOT DRIVE >> > > OFF, repeat: DO NOT DRIVE OFF! Instead gun the engine and speed >>into >> > > anything, wrecking the car. Your Air Bag will save you. If the >> > > person is in the back seat they will get the worst of it. As >>soon as >> > > the car crashes bail out and run. It is better than having them >>find >> > > your body in a remote location. >> > > >> > > 5. A few notes about getting into your car in a parking lot, or >> > > parking garage: >> > > A.) Be aware: look around you, look into your car, at the >>passenger >> > > side floor, and in the back seat. >> > > B.) If you are parked next to a big van, enter your car from the >> > > passenger door. Most serial killers attack their victims by >>pulling >> > > them into their vans while the women are attempting to get into >> > > their cars. >> > > >> > > C.) Look at the car parked on the driver's side of your vehicle, >>and >> > > the passenger side. If a male is sitting alone in the seat >>nearest >> > > your car, you may want to walk back into the mall, or work, and >>get >> > > a guard/policeman to walk you back out. >> > > >> > > IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY. (And better paranoid >>than >> > > dead.) >> > > 6. ALWAYS take the elevator instead of the stairs. (Stairwells >>are >> > > horrible places to be alone and the perfect crime spot. This is >> > > especially true at NIGHT!) >> > > >> > > 7. If the predator has a gun and you are not under his control, >> > > ALWAYS RUN! The predator will only hit you (a running target) 4 >>in >> > > 100 times; And even then, it most likely WILL NOT be a vital >>organ. >> > > RUN, Preferably ! in a zig -zag pattern! >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 8. As women, we are always trying to be sympathetic: STOP. It >>may >> > > get you raped, or killed. Ted Bundy, the serial killer, was a >> > > good-looking, well educated man, who ALWAYS played on the >>sympathies >> > > of unsuspecting women. He walked with a cane, or a limp, and >>often >> > > asked "for help" into his vehicle or with his vehicle, which is >>when >> > > he abducted his next victim. >> > > >> > > ************* Here it is ******* >> > > 9. Another Safety Point: Someone just told me that her friend >>heard >> > > a crying baby on her porch the night before last, and she called >>the >> > > police because it was late and she thought it was weird. The >>police >> > > told her "Whatever you do, DO NOT open the door." >> > > >> > > The lady then said that it sounded like the baby had crawled >>near a >> > > window, and she was worried that it would crawl to the street >>and >> > > get run over. The policeman said, "We already have a unit on the >> > > way, whatever you do, DO NOT open the door." He told her that >>they >> > > think a serial killer has a baby's cry recorded and uses it to >>coax >> > > women out of their homes thinking that someone dropped off a >>baby. >> > > He said they have not verified it, but have had several calls by >> > > women saying that they hear baby's cries outside their doors >>when >> > > they're home alone at night. >> > > >> > > Please pass this on and DO NOT open the door for a crying baby >> > > ----This e-mail should probably be taken seriously because the >> > > Crying Baby theory was mentioned on America's Most Wanted this >>past >> > > Saturday when they profiled the serial killer in Louisiana. >> > > >> > > I'd like you to forward this to all the women you know. It may >>save >> > > a life. A candle is not dimmed by lighting another candle. I was >> > > going to send this to the ladies only, but guys, if you love >>your >> > > mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, etc., you may want to pass >>it >> > > onto them, as well. >> > > >> > > Send this to any woman you know that may need to be reminded >>that >> > > the world we live in has a lot of crazies in it and it's better >>to >> > > be safe than sorry. >> Care2 make the world greener! Over 10 million children die from preventable or treatable diseases every year. Urge Congress to act today: http://go.care2.com/childact http://www.Care2.com Free e-mail. 100MB storage. Helps charities. From aaron at istop.com Tue Dec 6 11:58:02 2005 From: aaron at istop.com (aaron@istop.com) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: [haitiactionhalifax] Message-ID: <20051206195802.D772D17C305@www.istop.com> I encourage all of you to send a question about hati to the adress below. if ebough people ask about Haiti then maybe a question will be asked to the leaders of the parties involved in the debates. aaron Forwarded From: Stuart Neatby > To question@electiondebate.ca - > > Greetings, > Foreign Policy is certainly a big issue for Canadians. The fact that > Canada did not take an active role in the invasion and subsequent > occupation of Iraq played a large role within the last Federal > elections. Interestingly, the Liberal government's International > Policy statement focuses quite a bit of attention on Canada's role > within Haiti, which is framed around the notion of the Responsibility > to Protect so-called "failed states." This is troubling to many > Canadians due to the many documented reports of human rights abuses > that have committed by the Haitian government against the people of > Haiti, with not so much as a comment by Canadian officials. > > My questions for the Party leaders: > Do you support the calls for the release of political prisoners in > Haiti, such as "prisoner of conscience" (according to Amnesty > International) Father Gerard Jean-Juste? > If Canada's role within this Caribbean country is as positive as is > claimed, why is that Canadian RCMP are training the Haitian Police > despite their record of human rights abuses? > Do you support the call by the Caribbean Community for an > international investigation into the removal of elected President > Jean-Bertrand Aristide? > > > -- From mstainsby at resist.ca Tue Dec 6 16:41:33 2005 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Human Rights petition on Climate Change Message-ID: <439621AD.6060208@resist.ca> Human Rights petition on Climate Change Petition aims to push U.S. to moral high ground on climate Last updated Dec 5 2005 08:40 AM CST (CBC North) Inuit from Canada, Greenland, Alaska and Russia are launching a human rights petition this week against the United States over its rejection of international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. The petition, which will be filed with the investigative arm of the Organization of American States, says U.S. intransigence over adopting climate change legislation is threatening Inuit culture. Over the last decades, scientists have detected overall warmer temperatures across the north, shrinking ice fields, permafrost melt and rising sea levels. Elders from the north told conference delegates that's meant less ice to protect the shoreline, devastating trails, buildings, and gravesites. "The climate change is a danger to our culture and to our traditions," she Lene Kielson Holm of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in Greenland. Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chair of the ICC, says the U.S. generates more than a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, yet refuses to take concrete action on climate change. "when you look at the work that has been done with over 300 scientists from 15 countries including indigenous knowledge woven into the whole process, the predictions are pretty stark for us." Watt-Cloutier admits the complaint, two years in the making, is mainly symbolic. But she says they hope it will be moral pressure on the U.S. to do the right thing, and take action to reduce emissions and slow climate change. "We cannot allow one country who is the biggest emitter to continue to do this in a conscious way," she says. She says ICC hopes the petition will also help people in other vulnerable areas of the world who are affected by climate change. From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Dec 6 17:24:21 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Disneyland, Doha and the WTO in Hong Kong Message-ID: <200512070024.jB70OLRN024860@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=13&ItemID=9164 ZNet November 21, 2005 Disneyland, Doha and the WTO in Hong Kong: The spectacle of corporate fear, absurdity and the new universalism By Hidayat Greenfield* It's fitting that the Sixth WTO Ministerial should arrive in Hong Kong only a couple of months after the opening of Disneyland. In both cases reality is abandoned at the door, while fiction and fantasy take over. The magical Doha 'Development' Round promises an end to global poverty and a new prosperity for all - based on an agenda that boosts transnational corporate power and demolishes the remnants of political and social barriers to corporate profit. Like a rollercoaster ride through a fictional world, we set off to alleviate global poverty and arrive at greater impoverishment as the destination. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors and dazzling special effects, but we end up where we began. We end up with US$545 billion in global agricultural exports co-existing with eight million people dying of hunger and hunger-related diseases every year, while tens of millions of small farmers and agricultural workers who produce the food that feeds the world are themselves living in hunger. In the fantasy world of the Doha Round 'market access' is the magical solution: small farmers and workers must compete harder, producing more for less, while pinning their hopes on access to overseas markets so they can sell more of the stuff that's impoverishing them. This will aggravate what a UN agency recently described as 'immiserizing trade' (trade that creates more misery), as agricultural commodity prices continue their free market freefall, driving down small farmers' incomes and workers' wages. (1) As the poverty gap widens, so too do the profit margins of the agri-food corporations and mega- supermarkets that control everything from the 'farm gate to the dinner plate'. (2) Upon entering the fantasy world of the WTO and its magical Doha Round we're expected to embrace the irrational and absurd, accepting miraculous transformations that would otherwise violate our sense of what is real and rational. Access to water - universally recognized as a human right yet denied to hundreds of millions of people throughout the world - is transformed into a logical need to commercialize water supplies and open up water markets. (3) Water markets? In the real world we'd wonder, 'What the hell is a water market?' But here in the world of the WTO we're assured that everything is or should be a market in which private corporations are free to invest, buy, sell, and profit. Anything preventing corporations from doing so is a barrier, an 'unfair trade practice'. So let's be fair to corporations, they tell us. This absurd logic is supposed to generate acceptance of the absurd, no questions asked. So when the transnational 'services' conglomerate, Suez, proudly declares its motif 'Delivering the Essentials of Life' (including access to water: human right turned profitable commodity) we're left to wonder how the company took control of the essentials of life in the first place.... FEAR AND ABSURDITY Added to the absurdity of this spectacle is a sense of fear - fear that the Doha Round will fail and the WTO talks will collapse, heralding the demise of multilateralism and the emergence of a global economy 'without rules'. Fear and absurdity - two essential ingredients in the last quarter of a century of neo- liberalism - play a crucial ideological role in justifying injustice and obscuring the harsh inequalities and social violence of global capitalism. So it's not surprising that the fear-absurdity matrix is deployed in the run-up to the WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong. Fear of failure in Hong Kong is used not only to secure concessions from developing country negotiators forced or enticed into bilateral trade-offs and backroom deals, but also those 'civil society' organizations who believe that a reformed WTO is essential to the future of multilateralism. To preserve this fiction of 'multilateralism at risk', we're expected to ignore the fact that the WTO consolidated (and never challenged) the unilateral power of the US state; facilitated unilateral coercion in bilateral trade deals; justified the coercive power of unilateral trade sanctions; and further entrenched global inequality between and within nations. Also ignored is the conflict between the new rules imposed under the WTO regime and an array of international instruments on human rights, cultural, social and economic rights, the environment, and conventions on worker and trade union rights - all of which form part of the abused and manipulated multilateralism of the UN system. It's here that we arrive at a new level of fear and absurdity. On 25 October 2005, US- based corporations and business associations formed the American Business Coalition for Doha ("ABCDoha") with the aim of saving the Doha Development Round from failure in Hong Kong. Its website "fact of the week" entitled "The Promise of the Doha Round" declares that the elimination of global trade barriers will "lift more than 300 million people out of poverty over 15 years" and "empower the world's poorest citizens." (4) Smoke and mirrors, special effects please. Stepping off that fantasy ride we can read more sober statements from ABCDoha's members which describe the benefits of a successful Doha Round to US-based corporations. No mention of poverty alleviation or the empowered poor. The corporate co-chairs of ABCDoha include: Cargill (the agribusiness conglomerate that dominates the global trade in grains and agricultural commodities such as cocoa); Caterpillar; Eastman Kodak; Goldman & Sachs; Intel Corporation; the pharmaceutical giants Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer; Time-Warner; and Wal-Mart. At the press conference launch of ABCDoha, the CEO of Cargill called for "tough decisions on market access", while the CEO of Wal-Mart reminded the US government that his corporation has a "vital interest in the expansion of the international flow of goods, agricultural products, retail services and financial capital." (5) And that's essentially the unilateral corporate agenda the US government is deputized to pursue. Similar statements in defense of multilateralism and the need for a unilateral US corporate offensive were made by the member- organizations of ABCDoha's steering committee, which includes the National Foreign Trade Council, the US Chamber of Commerce, the US Council for International Business and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). Described by the President of NAM as "a powerful new force in support of a successful Doha Round for agricultural, manufacturing and services interests" (6), ABCDoha will apparently act as a powerful force in saving the global economy's fragile multilateralism, while channeling the benefits of expanded global trade to US business interests. That gives us a fairly good insight into the kind of multilateralism at stake in the Doha Round. What is even more revealing about the Doha Round's multilateralism is the outright opposition to any binding rules that might infringe on corporate rights - including the right to violate international human rights. For decades US-based corporations, backed by the National Foreign Trade Council, the US Chamber of Commerce, the US Council for International Business and NAM, have consistently and aggressively opposed the application of any multilateral or national instruments that could hold them accountable for violations of international law, particularly with regard to human rights violations. So while the corporate interests driving ABCDoha actively promote new universal values and norms for a globalized economy, they vigorously oppose the universal application of long-standing international human rights conventions. This is epitomized by the corporate offensive against the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) or Alien Tort Statute (ATS), an obscure US law passed in 1789 that has recently been used by victims of international human rights abuses to sue US-based corporations in US courts. Farmers, workers, fisher-folk and local communities in more than a dozen countries have filed cases against corporations such as Texaco, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Gap Inc., Unocal, Royal Dutch/Shell, Rio Tinto, Coca-Cola, Del Monte, Union Carbide, and Freeport McMoran. The cases range from the Union Carbide tragedy in Bhopal, India, in 1984 in which 20,000 people died and 140,000 were injured, to the use of forced labour in Burma in the construction of an oil pipeline used by Unocal, and the torture and toxic pollution by Freeport mining company in Indonesia. (7) Among these cases was a class action lawsuit filed by the Vietnam Association for Agent Orange Victims against a dozen US chemical manufacturers, including Dow Chemical and Monsanto, which was thrown out by a federal court in New York on 10 March 2005. Like many other cases filed under the ATS, involving atrocities against humanity, war crimes, torture, slavery and genocide, the Victims of Agent Orange sought - more than anything - to expose the truth about the involvement of these corporations in perpetrating these crimes. (8) Yet what is remarkable about the corporate response is the attempt to prevent these cases going to trial, challenging not the claims made by victims of these atrocities, but their right to use US courts to make their claims. There was rarely any attempt to deny that the atrocities occurred. Instead, money, lawyers and lobbyists were mobilized to prevent these cases from going to trial. In other words, corporations were not able to claim that these things didn't happen or that they didn't profit from what happened. They simply declared that they shouldn't be held accountable and that any laws - international or national - that may be used to enforce accountability for these crimes should be ignored, amended or revoked. It was for this reason that energy was concentrated in securing a Supreme Court ruling limiting the interpretation and use of the ATS, so that it could no longer be used to victimize US corporations. Indeed, 'support groups' were soon created to help corporate victims such as Unocal and Dow Chemical, apparently traumatized by the reminder of their crimes. Fear and absurdity returns with a vengeance.... The fear-absurdity matrix then produced a new claim: by holding US-based corporations accountable for violations of international laws, rights and principles that the US government hasn't consented to, the use of the ATS constitutes nothing less than "judicial imperialism". (9) Desperate to save the corporate victims of judicial imperialism, the Bush regime challenged the interpretation of the ATS in the Supreme Court and sought its repeal or reinterpretation. The case of the corporate victims was also made directly to the Supreme Court in a brief submitted by the National Foreign Trade Council, the US Chamber of Commerce, the International Chamber of Commerce, the US Council for International Business, the Organization for International Investment, the American Petroleum Institute, and the US-ASEAN Business Council on January 23, 2004. The text of the brief includes a remarkable sub-heading that perfectly illustrates their key argument: "ATS Lawsuits Harm The Economy By Putting Companies With A US Presence At A Unique And Unfair Competitive Disadvantage". This is explained as follows: "This means that US companies (or companies with a US presence) are at a significant competitive disadvantage against their foreign competitors-facing unique risks and uncertainty in the planning, financing, and insuring of activities abroad. They either have to absorb these added costs, or cede profitable ventures to other nations' companies." (10) So here we see members of ABCDoha, defenders of the WTO's multilateralism and a rules-based global economy, essentially arguing that legal liability for violations of international human rights is a competitive disadvantage in the global economy. THE THREAT OF UNIVERSALISM But the fear of judicial imperialism doesn't stop there. In a separate brief submitted to the Supreme Court by NAM (another member of the newly-founded ABCDoha), the problem lies in the threat posed by the very notion of universalism. NAM argues that a norm cannot be universal "unless the United States has assented to it", and therefore any international treaty, law or convention not ratified by the US government simply can't be considered universal. In a footnote to the brief a specific danger in this creeping universalism is recognized - the dangerous application of universally recognized worker and trade union rights: "The dangers that lurk if courts do not focus on assent by the United States are especially dramatic in the area of labor standards, where the International Labour Organization has adopted 185 conventions over the years, many of which could be invoked by plaintiffs as norms of customary international law against corporate defendants. Yet the United States has ratified only 14 of those conventions." (11) This fear of internationally recognized worker and trade union rights being applied to the US, after decades of effectively resisting ratification of ILO conventions, gives us a glimpse of the promising world of the Doha Development Round. While the ABCDoha website assures us that the poor of the world will be empowered, the very same corporate interests are doing everything in their power to deny workers their collective rights. Added to that is the precondition that all universal values be based on US government consent, which in turn casts doubt on the very meaning of universalism in a globalized world. Finally, corporate fears of victimization reach even greater heights in the "nightmare scenario" depicted in Awakening Monster, a policy paper on the Alien Tort Statute published by the Institute for International Economics. In this roller-coaster ride through the house of horrors we see 100,000 class action lawsuits filed by plaintiffs in China against major US-based corporations for "abetting China's denial of political rights, for observing China's restrictions on trade unions, and for impairing the Chinese environment." There's no question about the complicity of these corporations in committing such violations, or how much they profited from it. That's not the point. The point is that if these cases were to succeed, they could amount to damage claims of up to US$20 billion. Added to this horrific corporate nightmare is the risk that the Alien Tort Statue could fall into the hands of "anti- globalization forces", which would ultimately be "more destructive to the liberalization agenda than protests mounted in Seattle, Prague or Washington, D.C." (12) And Hong Kong? Anti-globalization activists may be tempted to make this corporate nightmare a reality. But the point of course is not to defend the Alien Tort Statute as a means to hold US- based corporations accountable. It's to realize that victims of corporate crimes are compelled to use this ineffective, biased US law because nothing else exists. With all the talk of multilateralism at risk and fears of a global economy without rules, the fact is no such rules exist. In the real world farmers, workers, fisher-folk and local communities have no internationally binding legal instruments to hold transnational corporations accountable for rights violations, atrocities, complicity in torture and war crimes, or genocide. There are, of course, International Criminal Courts and guidelines on transnational corporations like the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises. But none of these have the enforceability - based on a genuinely democratic mode of social and political power - needed to effectively regulate transnational capital. This kind of social regulation would run counter the very logic of the WTO regime. That's precisely why it's absurd to attempt to add social clauses to WTO rules, attaching international human rights as a footnote to the corporate agenda. Proposals like the social clause are premised on the assumption that rights have been inadvertently neglected, somehow left off the agenda. Yet in the real world we see an orchestrated effort by transnational corporations to prevent the imposition of any kind of mandatory, enforceable, and effective multilateral instrument on human rights. That's one reason why voluntary instruments like the UN Global Compact are welcomed by business interests: they allow corporations to receive public approval for voluntarily acknowledging human rights already enshrined in UN conventions and treaties. Gone is the obligation to recognize human rights as fundamental and universal. Instead it's voluntary and selective (corporations are free to choose which rights to recognize) and is used benevolently to declare: "We've decided to recognize human rights". This is tantamount to recognizing people as human. So where does that leave us? Twenty years after the nightmare of the Bhopal tragedy and 40 years after the tragedy of Agent Orange in Vietnam, we're witnessing new tragedies in the making, each and every day. Meanwhile, farmers, workers, fisher-folk and their communities are compelled to live under the shadow of fear and absurdity, constantly promised that they'll be lifted out of poverty through more global trade, while systematically denied the rights - individual and collective - that we've struggled together for generations to establish as fundamental and universal human rights. Yet in the fantasy world of the WTO and the magical Doha Round all of that is swept away. At least in Disneyland the fiction and fantasy ends when you leave. * Hidayat Greenfield is a labour research activist and union organizer working in East and Southeast Asia. hidayat_greenfield@yahoo.com 1. On 'immiserizing trade' see, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), The Least Developed Countries Report 2004: Linking International Trade with Poverty Reduction, New York and Geneva, United Nations, 2004, p.152. 2. See Gerard Greenfield, "Free Market Freefall: Declining Agricultural Commodity Prices and the 'Market Access' Myth", Focus on Trade, No 100, June 2004, pp.20-28. http://www.focusweb.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30 6&Itemid=29 3. In legal-institutional terms, the UN Committee on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights recognized in November 2002 that Articles 11 and 12 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights include the right to water. 4. See the ABCDoha website: http://www.abcdoha.org 5. ADCDoha Press Release, 25 October 2005. 6. "NAM helps form ABCDoha Coalition", NAM Press Release, 25 October 2005. 7. For a list of recent ATS cases against US corporations see: http://www.earthrights.org/litigation/recentatcacases.shtml 8. The lawsuit is online here: www.ffrd.org/indochina/aolawsuit.html Also see the online petition, Justice for Victims of Agent Orange: www.petitiononline.com/AOVN/petition.html 9. Robert H. Bork, "Judicial Imperialism", Wall Street Journal, 17 June 2003; Daphne Eviatar, "Judgment day: Will an obscure law bring down the global economy?" The Boston Globe, 28 December 2003. 10. Brief for the National Foreign Trade Council, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner, 23 January 2004, p.12. See the full text of the brief here: http://sdshh.com/Alvarez/briefs.html 11. Brief for National Association of Manufacturers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Reversal, 23 Janauary 2004, p.8, footnote 11. See the full text of the brief here: http://sdshh.com/Alvarez/briefs.html 12. Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, Awakening Monster: The Alien Tort Statute of 1789 (Policy Analyses in International Economics 70), Institute for International Economics (IIE), July 2003, p.1-2. From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Dec 6 17:24:29 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] The Story of how Cuba helped to free Africa Message-ID: <200512070024.jB70OTrF025131@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.mltoday.com/Pages/Cuba/Saney-CubaSavedAfrica.html Morning Star November 4, 2005 The Story of how Cuba helped to free Africa By Isaac Saney Cuba's direct, critical and extensive role in the struggle against the apartheid regime in South Africa is little known in the West. November 5th, 2005 marks the 30th anniversary of Cuba's decision to deploy combat-troops, at the request of the Angolan government, to repulse a major South African invasion of October 1975. In 1987-1988, a decisive battle occurred in the south-eastern Angolan town of Cuito Cuanavale. When it occurred, the battle was the largest military engagement in Africa since the North African battles of the Second World War. Arrayed on one side were the armed forces of Cuba, Angola and the South West African People's Organization (SWAPO); on the other, the South African Defense Forces, military units of the Union for the Total National Independence of Angola (UNITA - the South African-supported organization) and the South African Territorial Forces of Pretoria-controlled Namibia. The Battle of Cuito Cuanavale is marginalized in Western mainstream scholarship, frequently ignored, almost as if it had never occurred. However, the overarching significance of the battle cannot be erased; it was the turning point in the struggle against apartheid. In Black Africa - particularly in southern Africa - the battle has attained legendary status. It is considered THE debacle of apartheid: a rout of the South African armed forces that altered the balance of power in the region and heralded the demise of racist rule in South Africa. Thus, the battle is often referred to as the African Stalingrad of apartheid: the decisive event that defeated Pretoria's objective of establishing regional hegemony - a strategy which was vital to defending and preserving apartheid - and directly led to the independence of Namibia and accelerated the dismantling of apartheid. Cuba's contribution was crucial as it provided the essential reinforcements, material and planning. Cuba's involvement in Angola began in the 1960s when relations were established with the Movement for the Popular Liberation of Angola (MPLA). The MPLA was the principal organization in the struggle to liberate Angola from Portuguese colonialism. In 1975, the Portuguese withdrew from Angola. However, in order to stop the MPLA from coming to power, the U.S. government had already been funding various groups, in particular the Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) led by the notorious Jonas Savimbi. In August 1975, South African Defence Forces (SADF), with the support of Washington, invaded Angola. This was followed by a much larger invasion in October. On November 5th, in response to a request from the Angolan government, the Cuban government initiated the deployment of combat troops in Operation Carlota, named after the leader of a revolt against slavery that took place in Cuba on November 5, 1843. It must be emphasized that all military service in Angola was on a voluntary basis. Cuban military assistance was decisive in not only stopping the South African drive to Luanda, the capital, but pushing [South Africa's troops] out of Angola. The defeat of the South African forces was a major development in the African anti-colonial struggle. The significance was underscored by The World, the foremost Black South African newspaper, which declared: “Black Africa is riding the crest of a wave generated by the Cuban success in Angola. Black Africa is tasting the heady wine of the possibility of realizing the dream of “total liberation.” Cuban involvement in Southern Africa was repeatedly dismissed as surrogate activity for the Soviet Union. In an acclaimed and award-winning book, Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington and Africa, 1959-76, Piero Gliejeses unequivocally demonstrates that: 1) the Cuban government - as it had repeatedly asserted - decided to dispatch combat troops to Angola only after the Angolan government had requested Cuba's military assistance to repel the South Africans, refuting Washington's assertion that South African forces intervened in Angola only after the arrival of the Cuban forces and 2) the Soviet Union had no role in Cuba's decision and were not even informed prior to deployment. In short, Cuba was not the puppet of the USSR. Even The Economist magazine, in a 2002 article, acknowledges that the Cuban government acted on its “own initiative.” In 1987, the FAPLA, the Angolan armed forces, launched an offensive against UNITA. The Cubans had advised against this operation because it would create the opportunity for a significant South African invasion, which is what transpired. The South Africans invaded, stopped and threw back the Angolan forces. The fighting became centred on the town and strategic military base of Cuito Cuanavale, which was important as a forward airbase to patrol and defend southern Angola. Pretoria committed its best troops and most sophisticated military hardware to its capture. As the situation for the besieged Angolan troops became critical, Havana was asked by the Angolan government to intervene. On November 15th, 1987 Cuba decided to reinforce its forces by sending fresh detachments, arms and equipment, including tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft weapons and aircraft. Eventually Cuban troop strength would rise to more than 50,000, with 40,000 deployed in the south where the major engagements were occurring. Cuba was also able to achieve air supremacy, which was a critical factor in repelling the South Africans. It must be emphasized that for a small country such as Cuba the deployment of 50,000 troops would be the equivalent of the U.S. deploying 1.25 million soldiers. The Cuban government viewed preventing the fall of Cuito Cuanavale as imperative. A South African victory would have meant not only the capture of the town and the destruction of the best Angolan military formations, but, quite probably, the end of Angola's existence as an independent country. At Cuito Cuanavale, the SADF were dealt a decisive defeat. As the South Africans withdrew, the Cubans, together with Angolan and SWAPO forces, advanced toward the Namibian border. This advance exposed the insecurity and vulnerability of the South African troops in northern Namibia. This was further compounded by another South African debacle, when on June 27th 1988 at the south western Angolan town of Tchipa a major South African offensive was resoundingly routed when the SADF was encircled. This defeat was described in South Africa as “a crushing humiliation.” This defeat on the ground forced South Africa to the negotiating table, resulting in Namibian independence and dramatically hastening the end of apartheid. In a July 1991 speech delivered in Havana, Nelson Mandela underscored Cuba's vital role: “The Cuban people hold a special place in the hearts of the people of Africa. The Cuban internationalists have made a contribution to African independence, freedom and justice unparalleled for its principled and selfless character. We in Africa are used to being victims of countries wanting to carve up our territory or subvert our sovereignty. It is unparalleled in African history to have another people rise to the defense of one of us. The defeat of the apartheid army was an inspiration to the struggling people in South Africa! Without the defeat of Cuito Cuanavale our organizations would not have been unbanned! The defeat of the racist army at Cuito Cuanavale has made it possible for me to be here today! Cuito Cuanavale was a milestone in the history of the struggle for southern African liberation!” Cuba's role in Angola illustrates the division between those who fight for the cause of freedom, liberation and justice, to repel invaders and colonialists, and those who fight against just causes, those who wage war to occupy, colonize and oppress. From david.mcr at earthlink.net Tue Dec 6 22:29:33 2005 From: david.mcr at earthlink.net (David Mcreynolds) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] U.S. Christians March on Guantanamo Message-ID: <410-22005123752933453@earthlink.net> Dear friends and contacts, here and overseas, I sent a press release on this out yesterday, which I hope reached all of you. I was a little puzzled at the time, because that press release gave the impression the "March on Guantanamo" was primarily a War Resisters League project, when I knew it had grown out of the Catholic Worker community. I had talked with several of those involved in this project over the past several weeks, including Frida Berrigan, Matt Daloisio, and Carmen Trotta. Today I talked with Mike McGuire, who is one of those working at this end (New York City) on support. He clarified that the earlier press release was an effort by WRL to give its support to the project, which was certainly welcome. But the project is essentially one that flows out of the Christian tradition and is based within the Catholic Worker community. All the team members have reached Cuba. They are in discussion now with the Cuban government and hope that the march can begin sometime later today. The rest of this press release explains itself, including web sites where you can go to get more information, and to find ways of helping. The group had originally hoped to reach Guantanamo on December 10th, but now expect to reach it on the 12th. For information contact: louiex@riseup.net or any of the other addresses given.These are wonderful people, and some of them have taken extraordinary risks in the past. I think particularlyof Sr. Anne Montgomery, who has been with the Christian Peacemakers Teams in Hebron and in Baghdad. With luck, we hope to see them back in the US on December 17th. Peace, Justice, Nonviolence, Solidarity, David McReynolds NYC > From: > To: > Date: 12/6/2005 10:51:08 PM > Subject: U.S. Christians March on Guantanamo > http://www.witnesstorture.org > In this email: > 1. Announcement of ³Witness Against Torture² and call to action > 2. Press Release > 3. Letter to Friends and Activists > 1. Announcement of ³Witness Against Torture² and call to action: > > U.S. Christians March on Guantanamo to visit Prisoners on Hunger Strike > > Take Action to Stop the Torture, Abuse & Illegal Detentions > > Please forward this information to your friends, families, organizations and > other contacts. > > Twenty-five U.S. Christians in the nonviolent tradition of Dorothy Day and > the Catholic Worker are setting out from Santiago, Cuba today (Dec. 6) on a > solemn 50-mile march to Guantanamo Bay. They seek to ³defend human dignity² > by visiting with the hundreds of detainees who have been held for more than > three years under horrific conditions by the U.S. government. The group > plans to arrive outside the gates of the U.S. naval base and prison complex > on Guantanamo Bay on December 10, International Human Rights Day. > > Participants in the group include a Jesuit Priest, Steve Kelly, a Catholic > Nun, Sr. Anne Montgomery, Frida Berrigan, daughter of the late antiwar > activist Phil Berrigan, and representatives of a number of Catholic Worker > Communities. They are requesting entry into the compound to visit and > interview the detainees as a ³work of mercy² in keeping with their faith. > If refused, as United Nations inspectors were just two weeks ago, they will > hold a fast in solidarity and a vigil to pray for the immediate abolition of > torture by all nations. > > > Take Action! > > * Sign-on to a letter to President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense > Donald Rumsfeld, and Guantanamo Naval Base Commanding Officer Mark M. Leary, > requesting that the marchers be allowed to visit those incarcerated in the > Guantanamo Bay prison: http://www.witnesstorture.org/signletter > > * Organize a solidarity vigil to End Torture and Illegal Detentions on > International Human Rights Day, this Saturday, December 10. Register your > vigil online at http://www.witnesstorture.org/events. Call your local media > outlets to let them know. > > * Donate to this effort at http://www.witnesstorture.org/donate > > To stay informed, download factsheets and flyers, and read the marchers¹ > online blogs, visit http://www.witnesstorture.org > 2. Press Release: > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > December 6, 2005 > CONTACT: Witness Against Torture > Mike McGuire 347-683-4928 > press@witnesstorture.org > U.S. Christians March on Guantanamo to visit Prisoners on Hunger Strike > > ³Witness Against Torture² Implores U.S. Military to Allow Access So They Can > Perform Work of Mercy: Bringing Comfort to Prisoners > > Santiago, Cuba ­ Twenty-five Christians in the nonviolent tradition of > Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker arrived in Cuba last evening and plan to > set out from Santiago today on a solemn fifty-mile march to the prison camp > at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They seek to ³defend human dignity² by visiting > with the hundreds of detainees who have been held for more than three years > under horrific conditions by the U.S. government. > > ³As a Christian, I feel compelled to reach out across national boundaries to > perform one of the most basic acts of faith‹ as described in the gospel of > Matthew 25, I was in prison and you visited me,² explained Catholic Worker > Matthew Daloisio. ³We want our fellow Americans to see the shameful acts of > torture and abuse taking place in this and other illegal prisons hidden > across the globe. We pray that others will join us in urging our government > to allow us to perform this act of Christian faith.² > > Participants in the group include a Jesuit Priest, Steve Kelly, a Catholic > Nun, Sr. Anne Montgomery, Frida Berrigan, daughter of the late antiwar > activist Phil Berrigan, and representatives of a number of Catholic Worker > Communities. The marchers plan to arrive outside the gates of the U.S. naval > base and prison complex on Guantanamo Bay on December 10, International > Human Rights Day. > > They are requesting entry into the compound to visit and interview the > detainees as a ³work of mercy² in keeping with their faith. If refused, as > United Nations inspectors were just two weeks ago, they will hold a fast in > solidarity and a vigil to pray for the immediate abolition of torture by all > nations. > > A press conference at the St. Marks Church-on-the-Bowery will be held on > December 7 to call on the U.S. Government to allow Witness Against Torture > to visit the Guantanamo prisoners. Speakers will include Michael Ratner, > head of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and CCR¹s Gitanjali > Gutierrez, the lead attorney for Guantanamo Bay detainees. CCR brought the > landmark detainee right-to-trial case in which the Supreme Court ruled that > the U.S. Government had to allow federal hearings to determine the legal > status of detainees. Ratner will explain how the Bush Administration has > refused to comply with this ruling. Speakers will also include relatives of > a Guantanamo Bay detainee now on hunger strike. Sister Diana Ortiz, a U.S. > nun who was a victim of rape and torture in Guatemala, will be joined by > anti-torture activist Jennifer Harberry, to speak of what it feels like to > be a victim of torture. > > A sign-on letter at http://www.witnesstorture.org will allow Americans to > join their call. > > # # # > 3. Letter to Friends and Activists: > > Dear Friends and Fellow Activists, > > On December 5th, a group of us from the United States embarked on an 11-day > journey to the Guantánamo Bay detention facility. We arrived in Santiago, > Cuba to begin a five-day, 77+ mile walk to the Guantánamo base, where we > hope to enter the detention facility to monitor the conditions and meet with > both guards and prisoners. We plan to stay until at least December 15th to > maintain a vigil outside the gates of the base, having a presence over > International Human Rights Day on December 10. > > It is our hope to be able to interview detainees about torture claims and > hunger strikes at the base. We also seek to initiate a credible, objective > and fair assessment of the situation of the detainees at the detention > facility. We have lawyers and doctors on call to join us, should we be > allowed in.. > > It was revealed in mid-November that the U.S. has detained more than 83,000 > people in its four-year "war on terror" of which 14,500 remain in jail. Some > 108 are known to have died in U.S. custody, prompting 26 homicide > investigations. > > Guantánamo is the closest-to-home location of some of these detentions and > alleged abuses. We believe that an ocean, or border, or travel restriction > should not stop us from standing us for what is right. > > While we are in Cuba, we have a press team working here in the U.S. to > encourage media coverage of our walk and witness in order to keep the plight > of the detainees at the forefront of the public¹s mind. > > To track our journey, see photos, access press releases, statements, and > trip updates, please see http://www.witnesstorture.org This site will be > updated regularly to keep you abreast of our journey. > > There will be a sign-on letter on the website calling on the US government > to stop violating the prisoners rights and to let us into the base. In > June, President Bush countered questions about torture at Guantánamo and the > United States' commitment to human rights by inviting members of the > European Union to inspect the U.S. base at Guantánamo. He said, "you're > welcome to go down there yourselves... and take a look at the conditions." > We are hoping you will join in pressuring the Bush administration to let us > answer its invitation by signing the letter and publicly supporting our > request to be let into the base. > > Feel free to forward this on to others as well. > > In Peace, > > Jackie Allen Matthew W. Daloisio > Sr. Anne Montgomery, RSCJ > Hartford Catholic Worker New York Catholic Worker Kairos > Community, NY > > Gary Ashbeck Amanda W. Daloisio Grace > Ritter > Jonah House, MD New York Catholic Worker Ithaca, NY > > Frida Berrigan Thomas J. Feagley > Patricia Santoro > War Resisters League, NY Malden, MA Jersey > City, NJ > > Anna Brown Clare Grady > William Streit > Kairos Community, NJ Ithaca Catholic Worker Little > Flower Catholic Worker, VA > > Dana M. Brown Teresa Grady > Sheila Stumph > Ithaca, NY Ithaca Catholic Worker > Raleigh Catholic Worker, NC > > Daniel Burns Rev. Steve Kelly, SJ > Carmen Trotta > Ithaca Catholic Worker Oakland, CA New > York Catholic Worker > > Mark Colville Dina Khorasanee > Tanya Theriault > New Haven Catholic Worker Canada New > York Catholic Worker > > Susan Crane Art Laffin > Matthew Vogel > Jonah House, MD Dorothy Day Catholic New York > Catholic Worker > Worker, Washington, DC > Scott Langley > Raleigh Catholic Worker, NC From info at cinox.demon.co.uk Wed Dec 7 06:58:25 2005 From: info at cinox.demon.co.uk (Tim Murphy) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] ElBaradei: No 'smoking gun' in Iran Message-ID: Dec. 6, 2005 Updated Dec. 7, 2005 The Jerusalem Post www.jpost.com ElBaradei: No 'smoking gun' in Iran By DAVID HOROVITZ LONDON The International Atomic Energy Agency has found no "smoking gun" in Iran that would indicate a nuclear weapons program, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the IAEA, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday. At the same time, however, he acknowledged that, until three years ago, Teheran maintained an undeclared nuclear program for 18 years, which the IAEA failed to detect. ElBaradei said there was now "lots of speculation" about an Iranian drive to nuclear weapons capability. But "we try to work on the basis of facts," he said. And the facts, he said in response to a question from the Post, were that "we haven't seen a smoking gun in Iran. We haven't seen an underground production enrichment facility. We haven't seen enough materials in Iran, other than gram quantities, to put into a weapon." Asked about Israel's concerns over a nuclear-armed Iran, and the issue of whether Israel might have to resort to force as a last resort to thwart Iran going nuclear, ElBaradei made no direct comment about the use of force. He stressed, however, that the IAEA sought to continue "to work through our verification [process], through our diplomacy." Elbaradei was answering questions after giving a speech entitled "Reflections on Nuclear Challenges Today" at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. In that address, he said he hoped his agency would be able to reach definitive conclusions about the nature of Iran's nuclear program within a year. ElBaradei, who along with the IAEA received this year's Nobel peace prize, said his agency had spent the past three years filling in the "puzzle" of Iran's long-concealed program. "We have done a lot of the work," and found "most of the pieces" of the puzzle, he said, but there were still "a number of open questions" about that program, which had relied heavily on black market supplies. More transparency and pro-active cooperation was required from Teheran to "clear" its past. For instance, he said, the IAEA needed access to military sites, the right to interview key people, and to see certain vital documents. In a talk in which he set out a phased program which could reduce the global nuclear threat if there were sufficient international support, he nonetheless presented a stark reality of widening proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology, clandestine procurement networks and "sluggishness" in nuclear disarmament. Given the scale of the threats and the deficient international will to counter them effectively, he said, "One may legitimately ask whether we are a world in denial." Having acknowledged the IAEA's failure to detect Iran's nuclear energy program more rapidly, he noted that the agency was immensely hampered by a tiny budget of just $120 million per year. With these "shoestring" resources, it was nevertheless expected to "oversee approximately 900 nuclear facilities in 71 countries. We are only as effective as we are allowed to be," he said. In answering the Post's questions, he said "Iran might have the capacity to enrich uranium if it starts the enrichment facilities there. But that's where the international community asks Iran to reconsider, or at least to continue to suspend enrichment, because that brings Iran close [to a nuclear weapons capability]." There was no urgent reason for Iran to lift that suspension of the enrichment process, he said, and so long as the suspension remained in force there would be an opportunity for a negotiated solution. ----------- http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475695339&pagename=JPost%2FJP Article%2FShowFull ====== From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Dec 7 17:41:12 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Christian Peacemaker Team hostages Message-ID: <200512080041.jB80fChd016297@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> There is a detailed list of links to a number of statements in support of the CPT members in Iraq available at: http://stopwar.ca/homeannex/cpt1.html From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Dec 7 17:40:19 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Canada: Lessons from the TWU-Telus dispute Message-ID: <200512080040.jB80eJWH014980@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> December 2005 Union Network International Canada: Lessons from the TWU-Telus dispute http://www.union-network.org/unitelecom.nsf/0/D266C22F53E44A86C12570CF002B8E C0?OpenDocument or http://tinyurl.com/c46m9 This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately. Ce courriel est confidentiel et protégé. L'expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et obligations qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce message ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le (les) destinataire(s) désigné(s) est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser immédiatement, par retour de courriel ou par un autre moyen. ) From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Dec 7 17:39:22 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Rice rethinks US torture policy Message-ID: <200512080039.jB80dNmn013167@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rice-rethinks-us-torture-policy/2005/12/07/ 1133829664603.html Sydney Morning Herald December 8, 2005 Rice rethinks US torture policy By Alec Russell in Washington and Kate Connolly in Berlin The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has indicated a shift in US policy on harsh interrogation of prisoners, saying a ban on US personnel subjecting prisoners to cruelty extended to Americans working overseas. "As a matter of US policy, the United States's obligations under the CAT [Convention Against Torture], which prohibits cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment - those obligations extend to US personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the United States or outside of the United States," Dr Rice said yesterday. US officials said her comments - made during a trip to Ukraine and following an awkward meeting with the new German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, in Berlin - marked a policy shift towards the international convention on torture. It follows strong pressure from Europe and the US Congress. The Bush Administration had previously said the ban on cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment did not apply to Americans working overseas. In practice, that meant CIA employees could use methods in overseas prisons that would not be allowed in the US. Human rights organisations and critics in Europe have called that a loophole for treatment almost indistinguishable from torture. The move is also an important concession in US domestic politics, where Senator John McCain, a Republican and a former prisoner of war who was mistreated in Vietnam, has pressed the Administration to close the loophole. The Vice-President, Dick Cheney, had resisted legislation proposed by Senator McCain that was widely backed in Congress. Sources in the CIA say the agency emptied two secret jails in Eastern Europe of terrorist suspects last month in a frantic effort to defuse the controversy before Dr Rice's visit to Europe. Eleven leading al-Qaeda suspects were moved to a new CIA prison in North Africa, current and former agency officers told US ABC television. Ten of the prisoners were subjected to the harshest interrogation techniques allowed, the network alleged. Dr Rice's visit to Germany - the first stop of her four-day tour - had been billed as the start of a new era in relations but instead it was dominated by the trans-Atlantic row over the CIA's activities in Europe, and one case in which the CIA mistook a German citizen for a terrorist suspect and abducted him. A large part of Dr Rice's talks with Dr Merkel focused on the case of the German national Khaled el-Masri, who was flown by the CIA from the Balkans to Afghanistan, held for five months and released because he was the wrong man. "I am happy to say that we spoke about the individual case, which the US Administration has accepted as a mistake," Dr Merkel said. However, US officials later bridled at Dr Merkel's comments. They said Dr Rice had informed Germany about Mr Masri's detention and release. "We are not quite sure what was in her head," one senior US official said, referring to the German Chancellor. The official added that Dr Merkel might have drawn her conclusion from media reports rather than from communication with the US Government. In Washington, President George Bush said the US did not secretly move terrorism suspects to countries that used torture to obtain information. "We abide by the law of the United States, that we do not torture. We will try to do everything we can to protect us within the law," he said. The row was a bad conclusion to a meeting that the US and Germany had hoped would usher in a new era of ties following the appalling relationship between Gerhard Schroeder, Dr Merkel's predecessor, and Mr Bush. Dr Merkel, who is trying to restore good US-German relations, stressed that while agreeing on the need to fight terrorism she did not support any illegal methods. Reuters, Associated Press, Telegraph, London From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Dec 7 17:41:55 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] 'Stop the war' song from the UK Message-ID: <200512080041.jB80ftLt017544@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.emjournal.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/stop_the_war.mp3 From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Dec 8 10:13:28 2005 From: fentona at shaw.ca (A FENTON) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Goff Letter to Congress, Congressman replies Message-ID: <83f1d783c91b.83c91b83f1d7@shaw.ca> An Open Letter to Congress from a Veteran and Military Dad On Power By STAN GOFF (Disclaiming in advance for the rare exceptions in Congress) If there is one thing we can always count on, it's politicians who walk over human corpses to show fear only in the face of something as formless and abstract as an opinion poll. Many of us in the veterans and military families antiwar movement are well-versed on so-called realism--and that deference we are supposed to exercise when we approach elected officials, hat in hand, for a few crumbs of your attention and support. We understand power very well. You are fighting each other for your careers, and you are retaining your power over us through distance and guile, and trying to promote that power by pretending you are hearing our "concerns." But we have more than "concerns" at stake here. It is because we understand power that we haven't the slightest intention of allowing ourselves to be used to promote your careers past the 2006 elections. If you fail to demand US withdrawal now, you are supporting the war; and if you support the war, as far as we are concerned, you can go straight to hell in 2006. It is because we understand power that we are not going to forgive and forget that when the war fever was up, fed by the lies of Republicans, the war was facilitated by the eager xenophobic complicity of most Democrats, and by the slavish obedience of the corporate press. Most of you not only co-signed what you knew to be an illegal invasion--you have continued to sign the checks to perpetuate the war. You wanted to be lied to about the war, because the polls supported the war, and you were sniffing the political air. It is because we understand power that we know that most of you did this out of craven opportunism and a concern for your political ambitions--knowing full well that no one you loved was likely to be sent home without a limb, without an eye, without a life. It is because we understand power that we know how cynically cavalier you are with the lives of others, and how narcissistically self-promoting. It is because we understand power that we understand why many of you are backpedaling in your support for the war. You are maneuvering to be "critical" of the war. You "demand" the administration provide "an effective exit strategy." And you haven't said a goddamned substantive thing, as the cameras shutter away for you. And you want us to play along--so you can beat Republicans without taking a single real position. You don't want to stop this war. You want to win an election. By the time you win that election, another thousand troops and another 20,000 Iraqis could be dead. We do not calculate time the way you do. It is because we understand power that we know most of you will stand by while those of us with less privilege see our loved ones sent to kill and die. The real corpses produced by the exercise of power are no more to you than a political calculation. We understand power, because we know what really stands behind it. Power is embodied in the mounted cops you use to police our protests. Power is expressed by the armed guards for your gated communities. Power is the ability to kill and maim and get away with it, even if you dress it up in $5,000 suits and trot it out on the talk-show circuit, on C-Span, in your interviews with CNN. Power is projected onto other peoples using your Cruise missiles and A-10s and Bradley fighting vehicles and the people who join the military. And the price of that power doesn't merely come from our pockets. We probably wouldn't fight you about how you rob us for your pork barrel defense contracts. The price that has us in motion right now--you really must understand this, because it means we will never back off--is exacted on the bodies of human beings. The price is exacted with mortars, with IEDs, with high powered rifle ammunition, with bombs, with the same A-10s and Bradleys; and it is exacted on the bodies of our loved ones and the loved ones of the Iraqi people. That's why we are not going to grant you the power to manipulate us, to contain us, to corral us, or to pimp our grief over this war and its costs on behalf of your political careers or the needs of a political party. That's why were are going to be rudely explicit when we say that your bombast against the Bush administration--as if they did this without your help--in calling for a more effective "exit strategy" and demanding that people merely think about a plan for withdrawal from Iraq that will take months or years this verbiage is meaningless and manipulative. We will never stand for studying a withdrawal, for phasing a withdrawal, for delaying a withdrawal, for setting conditions for a withdrawal, or for partial withdrawal. Never. Our demand from the beginning remains unchanged. It is for withdrawal, and for immediate, unilateral, unconditional withdrawal; and if political careers go up in smoke as a consequence, we do not give a good goddamn. People are dying in Iraq as a direct result of this war every single day. Go back to your fucking law offices and let our children live. Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while those military sedans continue to roll up in front of people's houses to announce the extinction of a human being to his or her family and while the bodies are dropped into the fresh graves at the cemeteries of Iraq. Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the poisons accumulate in the soil and water and food of Iraq, and in the bodies of Iraqis and occupation troops. Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the hospitals fill up with the lamed, maimed, blinded, and disfigured. Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the grief and horror associated with this criminal war become the daily emotional fare of more and more people, occupation forces and Iraqis. No member of Congress has the moral right to dither on the question of his or her precious career while a single constituent is facing the fear of that devastating knock on the door. We say the emperor has no clothes; and we say we know you when you feign "concern" with your eye fixed firmly on your ambition. An exit is not a strategy. An exit is a command. If the commander in chief won't give that command, then you in Congress--if you want to salvage anything that looks vaguely like a conscience or a soul--will refuse to grant this administration another penny to continue this war. We are not hearing you when you tap dance about political "realism." The mounting mass of corpses, that you have walked over every time you voted a cent to continue this war, is about as real as it gets. Don't you dare ever lecture military families and veterans about realism. And don't you doubt that we understand power. You may think you can respond to your careerist concerns in the face of reversing polls. You may think you can pretend to do something, that you can bewilder us into accepting half a loaf better than none. To the tiny handful of you in Congress who have said what we say, "Out Now!," we commend you and thank you for your principled voices. To those of you who are openly supporting this criminal administration, we'll see you in the street, and history will consign your names to the chapters about imperial bullying, comb-over machismo, and cognitive mediocrity. To those of you who call for half measures, phases, and strategies, you are directly in front of us now. You are standing directly in our path, and we are not going to go around you. We are not going to commend you on being "better" than the reactionaries. We are not going to thank you for our half a loaf. We are not going to try and give you the political cover you need to wiggle around those shifting opinion polls while you salvage your careers. We do not love you. We find your ambivalence contemptible. We love the people who are facing the real consequences of this war while you schmooze your way through the chicken-salad circuits of imperial power, nattering on about realism and phases and strategies. You will not divert our attention away from you. You will redirect neither our anger nor our will away from you. It is you who are standing directly in our way; and every time you try to dicker about people's lives with us like we are in street market, every time you try to pimp our outrage at this crime, as a mere "concern" that only you are entitled to address with your careerist half-measures, we will call you to account. We will embarrass you. We will shine a spotlight on your cowardice, your opportunism, and your grotesque cynical hypocrisy. November 2006 is not an election to us; it is a body count. If you think you can take us for granted over an election, think again. Get it right, because we have never wavered on our position. The mass of American society is moving toward us, not you. They are listening more and more to us, and less and less to you. We are about saving lives, not saving face. So get it right, and get it right fast. We are looking at your political house with an eye to pulling it down. We understand power very well. Stan Goff Dear Sgt. Goff, Your recent letter to me concludes with the claim that "we understand power very well." I am assuming that this is meant as a joke. Whether it was or not, you should know that it elicited more than a few chuckles around the office. The "we" which is referred to -- the left -- is about as dead as at any point in the last three centuries, completely incapable of even raising a finger against what is now more than three decades of declining real wages, military adventurism, assaults on the environment, etc. In short the entire left has been so thoroughly trampled by the corporate right of both parties, it might as well not have existed. If this is what "understanding power" has gotten you, perhaps you should try ignorance. Given this reality, you can imagine that your various threats to "retaliate" against me next November for my support of the administration's Iraq policy have an equally comical ring to them. To state the obvious, elections are won by votes -- votes which are acquired through money and organization. Here is the organization I bring to the table: * Several hundred union members available for phone banking, canvassing and an election day get out the vote drive. * A sophisticated polling operation able to target and mobilize likely supporters by identifying hot button issues. * A professional public relation firm ready and able to smear any candidate you might put up against me as an extremist, potential terrorist, child molester, etc. should that become necessary (as it almost certainly will not!). * A press who can be counted on to circulate these canards. * The endorsement of the national party who will support any incumbent with a D by their name, no matter how craven and corrupt. * All this is made possible through a seven-figure campaign war chest acquired from calling in chips from the corporate execs, lobbying outfits and law firms I have done favors for over the years. What, may I ask, do you bring to the table? "The righteous anger of the masses ready to spontaneously rise up in rebellion against their war mongering corporate masters." Oh, I forgot. Well go ahead, make my day. Retaliate to your hearts content. So far I've been polite. But now I'll tell you what my friends and i say over our rounds of golf when the subject of "the left" comes up. As far as we're concerned, you are dogshit. What are you going to do about it, punk? On a personal note, allow me to mention that it has been a pleasure serving as your representative to Congress all these years. Yours Truly, ________________ Member of Congress From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 16:47:05 2005 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Oppose Alito's Confirmation to the Supreme Court: Sign NWLC's Petition! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051208234705.79216.qmail@web50808.mail.yahoo.com> December 08, 2005 Oppose Samuel Alito's Confirmation to the Supreme Court: Take Action Now! http://capwiz.com/nwlc/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7979586 -------------------------------------------------------------------- The National Women?s Law Center today announced its opposition to the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. His record clearly shows that Judge Alito would shift the Court in a new and dangerous direction on core legal issues for women, especially women's reproductive rights, Congress's power to protect the public, and legal protections against discrimination. The more Americans learn about his extreme positions on basic rights, the clearer it is that Sam Alito is the wrong choice to replace Sandra Day O?Connor, who was a key swing vote in favor of critical protections for women. The legal agenda Alito has advanced both on and off the court, and questions about his credibility, show that he isn?t the mainstream judge the country needs. To find out more, you can read our letter to the Senate. Stay current as the confirmation process unfolds at www.NominationWatch.org. Take Action? Keep Alito off the Supreme Court! 1) Sign NWLC?s Petition Opposing Alito's Confirmation! Add your name and urge as many of your friends, family and colleagues as possible to sign too. 2) Get your Alito Pocket Guide for all the critical information and action steps and ?Women are Watching? Post Cards to send to your Senators. 3) Share this alert. Please forward this e-mail to friends, family and colleagues and encourage them to take action and to sign up to receive information and alerts as the confirmation process unfolds. Over the next few weeks and throughout the confirmation hearings set to begin in early January, we will call on you at critical moments to urge your Senators to reject Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court. It is vital that you weigh in at these times, and urge everyone you know to speak out, too. Tell-A-Friend Send a note to a friend to let them know about this alert! NWLC Action Center Visit the NWLC Action Center to take action on other issues affecting women and their families. NWLC Home Get the facts. Visit the National Women's Law Center web site to learn more about issues impacting women and their families. NWLC E-Update and Action Alert Network Join or update your contact info. Privacy Statement National Women's Law Center Copyright 2004 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Dec 8 17:22:13 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Cuba fast becomes a hotbed for IT outsourcing Message-ID: <200512090022.jB90MDwM010240@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051208/TWCU BA08/Business/Idx Globe and Mail Report on Business Thursday, December 8, 2005 Page B13 Cuba fast becomes a hotbed for IT outsourcing Canadian companies tap into burgeoning tech culture in communist stronghold By David Pye Special to The Globe and Mail Havana -- Despite being one of the world's last standing communist regimes, Cuba has proved masterful at reinventing its economic priorities in troubled times. The latest transformation is an IT revolution that is positioning the country as an attractive outsourcing option for Canadian companies, and as a natural gateway to the Latin American market. Since 1991, Cuba's information technology sector has been developing at warp speed and now consists of about 45,000 highly skilled workers, 38 per cent of whom have specialized degrees. More than 85 per cent of the country's IT industry is concentrated in technical services and software development. "We've been investing in this sector for the last 14 years and we now have highly skilled IT workers at every level," says Luis Marin, general manager of Avante, the marketing arm of Cuba's Ministry of Information Technology and Communications. "IT doesn't require a lot of investment . . . except in human resources." Canada is Cuba's third-largest trading partner and fourth-largest foreign investor, with more than $750-million tied up in the island nation. Cuban officials and the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service won't say how much of that investment is tied directly to technology, but government authorities are actively seeking Canadian investment in the form of outsourcing projects and joint venture opportunities. Cuba is particularly interested in joint ventures that will enhance the local infrastructure, while transferring skills to citizens. It wants to attract Western partners who can teach more about the standards and demands of the international market. Cuba's Centresoft Corp. and Cimex Corp., for example, have partnered with Sentai Software Corp. of Edmonton and Indcom Trading Co. of Orleans, Ont., to create an international software consortium called CubaSoft Solutions Inc. CubaSoft is recruiting Cuban IT talent to work on projects for the Canadian companies and is also developing domestic IT projects. "IT is among the main investment opportunities in Cuba for Canadian companies right now," says Raciel Proenza, economic counsellor with the Cuban embassy in Ottawa. "It's a high-priority sector because it also contributes to the development of our country." The catalyst for bolstering the sector has been Cuba's commitment to education. An hour north of Havana, the University of Information Sciences boasts 6,000 students on a high-tech campus ringed by fibre optics. The institution produces 2,000 graduates annually who, along with computer science grads from the mathematics faculty of the University of Havana, are leading Cuba's IT revolution. "These people are very well educated and offer an outsourcing option that I think we need to take a look at," one Canadian insider says. "I can go down there and say I want this done, here's the project and here's what we'll pay." He spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of U.S. reprisals under the Helms-Burton Act and other pressures that prevent U.S. companies and affiliates from doing business with Cuba. While baby steps are a necessary part of the learning process, industry insiders are confident that Cuba has what it takes to develop a critical mass and knowledge base that will position the island as an attractive option for IT outsourcing contracts -- particularly for software development in the medical, financial, biotech and education fields. Cuba is also poised to become a gateway to the lucrative Latin American market by providing software adaptation and localization services, offering the added benefit of regional economic associations within the Caribbean and Latin American economies. "Latin America is starting to roll and they won't be far behind in technology down the road," the Canadian insider says. "Cuba offers a front row seat to one of the world's fastest emerging markets, just a three hour flight from Canada." As the fifth-largest buyer of Canadian goods in Latin America, Cuba's IT revolution is two-way. The country is also moving at a rapid pace to develop its own infrastructure, concentrating on networking all of its science and technology institutions the way the University of Havana has been. The project eventually will link more than 6,000 primary and middle school libraries, 300 university libraries and more than 200 scientific institutions. Those numbers represent a significant opportunity for Canadian companies, based on Cuba's inability to buy U.S. goods and services. "It's a huge undertaking that will require hardware, software and everything in between," says Eduardo Orozco, director-general of the Institute for Scientific and Technological Information. "Canadian companies with good products at attractive price points have an excellent opportunity." While sources admit that Cuba still needs experience at competing in a global business environment, they are encouraged by the direction that the country is taking. "If they can bring their people up to speed in terms of international standards and regulations, they will be a serious contender in software outsourcing in the years to come," says one Canadian IT consultant who did not want to be named because of the Helms-Burton issue. "What I see is really encouraging, and we would be remiss not to take a look at what they are doing there." From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Dec 8 17:22:40 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] One Palestine, Complete Message-ID: <200512090022.jB90MeuC011633@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.vcn.bc.ca/outlook/library/articles/israel/05s_onepalestine.htm Canadian Jewish Outlook September / October 2005 Chutzpah in World History One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate Tom Segev. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2001, 612 pp. Reviewed by Yakov M. Rabkin This review is being completed as the news from Israel/Palestine tells of the pain and conflict brought about by the impending evacuation of Zionist settlers from Gaza. Businesses and family life are to be disrupted as about 9000 Israelis are moved north with their belongings. The evacuation is to be total, and will include both the living and the dead: remains of the settlers' family members are to be disinterred and transferred to cemeteries in Israel proper. To the best of my knowledge, such removal of the dead creates a precedent. No other evacuation and population transfer in history included the dead. There is good reason to fear that the tombs might otherwise be desecrated and destroyed, since during the Jordanian tenure in Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, tombstones from Jewish cemeteries were used to build latrines for Jordanian soldiers. Indeed, the hatred fomented by the Zionist enterprise has eclipsed centuries of peaceful relations between Jews and Muslims. On a recent trip to Morocco, I overheard a question posed by an Israeli tourist to the tour guide. When the guide pointed out a large Jewish cemetery in El-Jadida, which no longer has a Jewish community, the tourist exclaimed in disbelief, "And the Arabs did not destroy it?!" She must be also aware of many Muslim graves bulldozed over in the early-some still claim "innocent"-years of the State of Israel. These acts were not fuelled by hatred, but rather constituted a consistent attempt to erase all traces of Arab presence and replace them with moshavim, kibbutzim and other manifestations of victorious Zionism. Even such a citadel of Israeli liberalism as the Tel Aviv University has skeletons in its collective closet: it was built on the site of a destroyed Arab village, including its graves. It is hard for many Israelis to fathom a tolerant and respectful society in which Jews and Muslims coexist without significant tension, let alone violence. Tom Segev, a prominent Israeli journalist and author of several innovative books on his country's history, shows in his latest book how just such a society was destroyed during the British Mandate in Palestine under the unrelenting pressure from the Zionists to create a separate Jewish state. Segev divides his account in three chronological parts: Illusion (1917-1927), Terror (1928-1938) and Resolution (1939-1948). The book is well documented and brings to light the many ingredients that went into converting a mixed neighbourhood of different religions and ethnic groups ruled by relatively benevolent imperial powers into a mosaic of antagonistic new nations. It shows how the tenacity of East European Zionists succeeded in defeating Jewish and Arab opposition to the establishment of a Zionist state and in harnessing the full power of Great Britain to achieve their goals. Contrary to much of the early Zionist historiography, Britain is shown to be a staunch ally of the Zionist enterprise. The book shows how Christian Zionism and the concomitant anti-Semitism were used by the future president of Israel Chaim Weizmann to manipulate the British authorities into believing in the might of "the Jewish power." He overtly referred to Palestinian Arabs as "a demoralised race" (p. 110). Segev quotes Lord Balfour, who stated candidly that "Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is of far profounder import than the desires of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land." According to Segev: "Weizmann's principal achievement was to create among British leaders an identity between the Zionist movement and 'the world Jewry' ? as if these were synonyms. He also succeeded in persuading them that British and Zionist interests were the same. Yet none of this was true. Moreover, the movement that was supposed to be a centre of world influence in fact occupied four small, dark rooms in Picadilly Circus in London; its entire archives were kept in a single box in a small hotel room, under the bed of Nachum Sokolow, a leader of the World Zionist Organization. Most Jews did not support Zionism? "But [continues Segev] Britain's belief in the mystical power of 'the Jews' overrode reality, and it was on the basis of such spurious considerations that Britain took two momentous decisions: the establishment of a Jewish Legion and the Balfour Declaration" (pp. 42-45). Segev artfully shows how the profoundly secular Zionists cynically used religious symbols to gain power. The Christian British could not grasp the transformation of the traditional Jewish religious community into a militantly nationalist corpus of activists who negated and despised traditional Judaism. This is how the Zionists transmuted the Western Wall "from a place of prayer into a national symbol" (p. 71). Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Hacohen Kook was one of the very few rabbis who supported the Zionists in their war cry "Western Wall to the Jews!" He would even desecrate the holiday of Passover to sign a petition protesting the arrest of the militant Russian Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky. His many disciples form today the most dedicated force of religious Zionists who do not hesitate to oppose the State of Israel if, in their view, the government is not aggressive and Zionist enough (as in the evacuation from Gaza). The cynicism of the Zionist leaders is shown prominently in Segev's book. One such instance is the motto "Purity of Arms," that continues to be used to convince the world of the exceptional morality of the IDF. While Labour Zionist units directed violence at civilians, including children, their leaders concluded that "there was a division of labour-[Berl] Katznelson wrote on morality for the newspaper [Davar], and they did what was necessary in the field" (p. 387). While Ben Gurion viewed the rise of the Nazis in Germany as "a means to advance Zionism," he also opposed acceptance of Jewish refugees into countries other than Palestine. "He saw other endeavours to help European Jews as harmful competition." For Ben Gurion, the Jews of Europe were nothing more than "human material necessary to establish the state," and he never considered the state as a means to save the Jews (pp. 393-4). Segev has written a masterful narrative, weaving together elements of personal history, world developments and dispassionate reflection. This kind of prose is admirable against the trend among many Jewish intellectuals in Europe and North America who have given up any pretence of integrity, and joined as foot soldiers the coordinated Zionist campaign under the motto "My country right or wrong." It so happens that Tom Segev or David Grossman, for whom Israel is indeed their country, show more honesty and decency, and therefore command more credibility, than Alan Dershowitz or Alain Finkelkraut, who defend the Israel of their dreams from Boston and Paris. This book must be read by all those who do not believe in the possibility of Arab-Jewish coexistence. It shows how civilized life could prosper until the romantic dream of the Zionists and the ensuing Arab reaction tore that life apart, and engendered unprecedented hatred that would not spare even the dead. This is a truly tragic story of European nationalism gone wild in the Middle East. The book may also help readers to appreciate attempts made to solve the chronic conflict not through partition and evacuation, but rather by restoring Arab-Jewish coexistence in the framework of a single liberal state. Those who think that this is political science fiction should read Segev's book with special attention. YAKOV M. RABKIN is Professor of History at the University of Montreal. His book Au nom de la Torah: Une histoire de l'opposition juive au sionisme was reviewed in the March/April 2005 issue of Outlook. An English translation of this book is scheduled to appear later this year under the title A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Dec 8 17:22:20 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Khadr says Ottawa knew of his torture Message-ID: <200512090022.jB90MKlK010588@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5fe57674-1ebc-4bca-82d d-c4423cc73811 National Post Thursday, December 08, 2005 Khadr says Ottawa knew of his 'torture' Canadian agents used information obtained in Pakistani jail: lawyer By Michael Friscolanti and Natalie Alcoba Toronto - A Toronto man under investigation for his alleged links to al-Qaeda says he was tortured in a Pakistani prison for 18 months and repeatedly interrogated by Canadian officials who had "full knowledge" of the abuse. In a statement issued last night by his lawyer, Abdullah Khadr accused the federal government of "being implicit" in his alleged torture by turning a blind eye. "Although it does not appear that Canadian government officials directly inflicted this abuse," the statement claims, Canadian intelligence agents were "provided with summaries of information obtained through the application of torture and relied upon this information for official purposes." Mr. Khadr, the son of a notorious al-Qaeda financier, returned to Toronto last week, escorted by two Canadian consular officials. Until then, his whereabouts were unknown, although his family had long suspected he was imprisoned near Islamabad. "Mr. Khadr was essentially a ghost detainee being held incommunicado and beyond the reach of the Rule of Law," his lawyer, Dennis Edney, said in the statement. "It is apparent that this detention was effected in co-operation with the government of the United States, and constituted an example of a Canadian citizen being unlawfully detained in a secret prison beyond the review of the courts or the Constitution." The 24-year-old was never provided an attorney, nor told the reasons why he was being detained, Mr. Edney said in an interview. All the while, Canadian officials questioned Mr. Khadr "with full knowledge as to his circumstances." Mr. Edney tried, but failed, to locate Mr. Khadr through the Canadian government after he disappeared. Last night, he said he believes Canada knew of his client's whereabouts since February of this year. "I would suggest Canada knew well before that," he added. Mr. Khadr says he was held in two Pakistani prisons, in or near Islamabad. His first 48 hours were spent "hooded, shackled" Mr. Edney said, made to "stand up continuously" for 48 hours naked. He says he was interrogated simultaneously and individually by Pakistani and American authorities the 18 days that followed. After that, he was moved to a prison about 30 minutes south of Islamabad, where Mr. Khadr said he was visited by Canadian embassy officials, by CSIS and by the RCMP on at least five separate occasions, starting in mid February until mid-November of this year. All but one of those interviews happened in a safehouse, with as many as seven people present. Interviewers asked him about his family background and about why he wanted to return to Canada. One three-day interview with CSIS officials included questions about a prominent Toronto Imam Ali Hindy. On another occasion, officials told him they were trying to arrange for his deportation back to Canada, where they would take him "to a cabin someplace in Canada so they could get to know each other better," Mr. Edney said. "What we clearly have is the detention of a Canadian citizen ... in a place that has a history of torture, and Canada is participating in interrogating." Mr. Edney says the Canadian government is implicit in the torture because it relied upon evidence obtained through it -- specifically evidence that led them to seek a search warrant for Mr. Khadr's sister's laptop. "That's obviously derived from information taken from Abdullah, and that's taken from a man whose being tortured," said Mr. Edney. Abdullah Khadr's return to Canada -- and his subsequent claim of torture -- is just the latest chapter in the ongoing saga surrounding his infamous family. Abdullah is the eldest son of Ahmed Said Khadr, a notorious al-Qaeda financier who urged his children to follow in the ways of fanatical Islam. Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the entire family lived in the same Afghanistan compound as Osama bin Laden, and Abdullah allegedly ran one of the terrorist leader's training camps. The federal government had little to say yesterday about Mr. Khadr's return or his sensational accusations. Neither the RCMP nor the Canadian Security Intelligence Service would discuss whether he was questioned during his detention in Pakistan. Abdullah Khadr disappeared after the 9/11 attacks, but his name resurfaced in February, 2004, when a radical Islamic Web site claimed he was responsible for a suicide bombing that killed a Canadian soldier near Kabul. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Dec 8 17:22:33 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Harold Pinter Nobel Lecture Message-ID: <200512090022.jB90MXWh011231@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html Harold Pinter – Nobel Lecture Art, Truth & Politics (Harold Pinter's Nobel Lecture was pre-recorded, and shown on video December 7, 2005, in Börssalen at the Swedish Academy in Stockholm.) In 1958 I wrote the following: 'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.' I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false? Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it but the search for it is compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavour. The search is your task. More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without realising that you have done so. But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other, recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand, then it slips through your fingers and is lost. I have often been asked how my plays come about. I cannot say. Nor can I ever sum up my plays, except to say that this is what happened. That is what they said. That is what they did. Most of the plays are engendered by a line, a word or an image. The given word is often shortly followed by the image. I shall give two examples of two lines which came right out of the blue into my head, followed by an image, followed by me. The plays are The Homecoming and Old Times. The first line of The Homecoming is 'What have you done with the scissors?' The first line of Old Times is 'Dark.' In each case I had no further information. In the first case someone was obviously looking for a pair of scissors and was demanding their whereabouts of someone else he suspected had probably stolen them. But I somehow knew that the person addressed didn't give a damn about the scissors or about the questioner either, for that matter. 'Dark' I took to be a description of someone's hair, the hair of a woman, and was the answer to a question. In each case I found myself compelled to pursue the matter. This happened visually, a very slow fade, through shadow into light. I always start a play by calling the characters A, B and C. In the play that became The Homecoming I saw a man enter a stark room and ask his question of a younger man sitting on an ugly sofa reading a racing paper. I somehow suspected that A was a father and that B was his son, but I had no proof. This was however confirmed a short time later when B (later to become Lenny) says to A (later to become Max), 'Dad, do you mind if I change the subject? I want to ask you something. The dinner we had before, what was the name of it? What do you call it? Why don't you buy a dog? You're a dog cook. Honest. You think you're cooking for a lot of dogs.' So since B calls A 'Dad' it seemed to me reasonable to assume that they were father and son. A was also clearly the cook and his cooking did not seem to be held in high regard. Did this mean that there was no mother? I didn't know. But, as I told myself at the time, our beginnings never know our ends. 'Dark.' A large window. Evening sky. A man, A (later to become Deeley), and a woman, B (later to become Kate), sitting with drinks. 'Fat or thin?' the man asks. Who are they talking about? But I then see, standing at the window, a woman, C (later to become Anna), in another condition of light, her back to them, her hair dark. It's a strange moment, the moment of creating characters who up to that moment have had no existence. What follows is fitful, uncertain, even hallucinatory, although sometimes it can be an unstoppable avalanche. The author's position is an odd one. In a sense he is not welcomed by the characters. The characters resist him, they are not easy to live with, they are impossible to define. You certainly can't dictate to them. To a certain extent you play a never-ending game with them, cat and mouse, blind man's buff, hide and seek. But finally you find that you have people of flesh and blood on your hands, people with will and an individual sensibility of their own, made out of component parts you are unable to change, manipulate or distort. So language in art remains a highly ambiguous transaction, a quicksand, a trampoline, a frozen pool which might give way under you, the author, at any time. But as I have said, the search for the truth can never stop. It cannot be adjourned, it cannot be postponed. It has to be faced, right there, on the spot. Political theatre presents an entirely different set of problems. Sermonising has to be avoided at all cost. Objectivity is essential. The characters must be allowed to breathe their own air. The author cannot confine and constrict them to satisfy his own taste or disposition or prejudice. He must be prepared to approach them from a variety of angles, from a full and uninhibited range of perspectives, take them by surprise, perhaps, occasionally, but nevertheless give them the freedom to go which way they will. This does not always work. And political satire, of course, adheres to none of these precepts, in fact does precisely the opposite, which is its proper function. In my play The Birthday Party I think I allow a whole range of options to operate in a dense forest of possibility before finally focussing on an act of subjugation. Mountain Language pretends to no such range of operation. It remains brutal, short and ugly. But the soldiers in the play do get some fun out of it. One sometimes forgets that torturers become easily bored. They need a bit of a laugh to keep their spirits up. This has been confirmed of course by the events at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. Mountain Language lasts only 20 minutes, but it could go on for hour after hour, on and on and on, the same pattern repeated over and over again, on and on, hour after hour. Ashes to Ashes, on the other hand, seems to me to be taking place under water. A drowning woman, her hand reaching up through the waves, dropping down out of sight, reaching for others, but finding nobody there, either above or under the water, finding only shadows, reflections, floating; the woman a lost figure in a drowning landscape, a woman unable to escape the doom that seemed to belong only to others. But as they died, she must die too. Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed. As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true. The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it. But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here. Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified. But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked. Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued – or beaten to death – the same thing – and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer. The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now. I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s. The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.' Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch. Innocent people, indeed, always suffer. Finally somebody said: 'But in this case “innocent people” were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?' Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said. As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply. I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.' The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution. The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated. The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador. I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships. Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright. The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed. But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened. The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven. Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it. It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis. I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.' It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US. The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain. What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally – a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up. The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading – as a last resort – all other justifications having failed to justify themselves – as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people. We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'. How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London. Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks. Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television. The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves. Here is an extract from a poem by Pablo Neruda, 'I'm Explaining a Few Things': And one morning all that was burning, one morning the bonfires leapt out of the earth devouring human beings and from then on fire, gunpowder from then on, and from then on blood. Bandits with planes and Moors, bandits with finger-rings and duchesses, bandits with black friars spattering blessings came through the sky to kill children and the blood of children ran through the streets without fuss, like children's blood. Jackals that the jackals would despise stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out, vipers that the vipers would abominate. Face to face with you I have seen the blood of Spain tower like a tide to drown you in one wave of pride and knives. Treacherous generals: see my dead house, look at broken Spain: from every house burning metal flows instead of flowers from every socket of Spain Spain emerges and from every dead child a rifle with eyes and from every crime bullets are born which will one day find the bull's eye of your hearts. And you will ask: why doesn't his poetry speak of dreams and leaves and the great volcanoes of his native land. Come and see the blood in the streets. Come and see the blood in the streets. Come and see the blood in the streets!* Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda's poem I am in no way comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I quote Neruda because nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a powerful visceral description of the bombing of civilians. I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources. The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right. The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity – the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons – is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it. Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force – yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish. I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man. 'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.' A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We don't have to weep about that. The writer makes his choice and is stuck with it. But it is true to say that you are open to all the winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a limb. You find no shelter, no protection – unless you lie – in which case of course you have constructed your own protection and, it could be argued, become a politician. I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now quote a poem of my own called 'Death'. Where was the dead body found? Who found the dead body? Was the dead body dead when found? How was the dead body found? Who was the dead body? Who was the father or daughter or brother Or uncle or sister or mother or son Of the dead and abandoned body? Was the body dead when abandoned? Was the body abandoned? By whom had it been abandoned? Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey? What made you declare the dead body dead? Did you declare the dead body dead? How well did you know the dead body? How did you know the dead body was dead? Did you wash the dead body Did you close both its eyes Did you bury the body Did you leave it abandoned Did you kiss the dead body When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror – for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us. I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us – the dignity of man. * Extract from "I'm Explaining a Few Things" translated by Nathaniel Tarn, from Pablo Neruda: Selected Poems, published by Jonathan Cape, London 1970. Used by permission of The Random House Group Limited. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Dec 8 17:22:26 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] The Politics of Money: Haiti and the Left Message-ID: <200512090022.jB90MQ2V010818@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2005/11/01/207/ Canadian Dimension November/December 2005 The Politics of Money: Haiti and the Left By Yves Engler Since the U.S.-backed overthrow of progressive Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the severe level of political repression launched by the new government has left tens of thousands of Lavalas (Aristide’s political party) supporters the victims of rapes, incarcerations, firings and murders. One tragic aspect of this story is the extent to which Canadian federal government money has been able to buy the support of supposedly progressive organizations and individuals. Today they continue to align themselves with Canada’s brutal pro-coup policy. The Politics of NGO Funding In September, 2003, for example, Rights and Democracy, a Montreal-based NGO whose money comes from the federal government and which was formerly headed by the NDP’s Ed Broadbent, released a report on Haiti. The report described Haiti’s pro-coup Group of 184 as “grassroots” and a “promising civil society movement.” The group says this even though the Group of 184 is funded by the International Republican Institute and is headed by the country’s leading sweatshop owner, Andy Apaid. Apaid has been active in right-wing Haitian politics for many years, and, like G-184 spokesperson Charles Henry Baker himself, is white. Moreover, several Quebec unions that received hundreds of thousands of CIDA dollars for work in Haiti through the Centre International de Solidarité Ouvrière (CISO) passed resolutions condemning Aristide’s alleged anti-union activities. The FTQ and CSQ union federations and a half dozen NGOs are part of an informal group known as the Concertation Pour Haiti (CPH). Prior to the coup, they branded Aristide a “tyrant” and his government a “dictatorship” and a “regime of terror.” In mid-February, 2004, CPH representatives told the Canadian Press, “We think there will not be a solution without Aristide leaving.” This demand was made at the same time CIA-trained thugs swept across the country to depose Aristide. Yves Engler being taken into custody by Montreal city police after setting up an information table about the FTAA inside Concordia University during a ban on “political activity” on campus. No charges were laid. Since Aristide’s overthrow, these same Quebec unions have failed to criticize the installed government for its far more severe harassment of unionists. Last October, for example, Lulu Cherie, head of Haiti’s CTH union, had his life threatened by the Haitian Police. No unions in Quebec have said anything about this or about numerous other post-coup affronts to union activity. In addition, Quebec unions also worked to dilute an anti-coup resolution proposed by a number of English-Canadian unions to the Canadian Labour Congress convention held in Montreal in June. The CPH’s antagonism towards Lavalas isn’t merely a by-product of the political upheaval of February. In October, 2004 — after months of widespread political repression directed at Lavalas sympathizers — the CPH released a statement blaming the victims. The CPH repeated the claim first made by Haiti’s ruling elite and ultra-right that Lavalas launched an “Operation Baghdad,” which included beheading police officers. Numerous observers have noted that “Operation Baghdad” is simply pro-coup propaganda designed to divert attention from the de facto government’s misdeeds, particularly the murder of at least five peaceful, pro-constitution demonstrators on September 30, 2004. Imperialism and the Rhetoric of Human Rights In April, 2005, the CPH organized a delegation from Haiti to Montreal and Ottawa. Yolène Gilles, one of the speakers invited by the CPH, is the coordinator of the “human rights” monitoring program at the National Network for the Defense of Human Rights (RNDDH), formerly known as NCHR-Haiti, which is funded by CIDA. This organization changed its name in mid-March, 2005, after its parent group in the U.S., itself pro-coup, condemned the blatantly partisan work of NCHR-Haiti regarding the imprisonment of constitutional Prime Minister Yvon Neptune. Immediately after the coup, Gilles, a “human rights” worker, went on elite-owned radio to name wanted Lavalas “bandits,” contributing to a climate of anti-Lavalas terror. The other delegate, Danielle Magloire, is a member of the “Council of Wise People” that appointed Gerard Latortue as interim prime minister. Latortue’s appointment was a blatant violation of Haiti’s constitution, since the U.S., France and Canada created the council after overthrowing the elected government. The Funding of Anti-Class Struggle Feminism Magloire’s status as a “wise” person, moreover, arose largely out of her positions at Enfofanm (Women’s info) and the National Coordination for Advocacy on Women’s Rights (CONAP). Both of these organizations are CIDA-funded feminist organizations that would not have grown to prominence without international funding. In particular, CONAP is a virulently anti-Lavalas feminist organization that has shunned the language of class struggle in a country where a tiny percentage of the population owns nearly everything. It is also an organization that has expressed little concern about the dramatic rise in rapes targeting Lavalas sympathizers since the coup. In mid-July, 2005, Magloire issued a statement on behalf of the seven-member “Council of Wise People” saying any media that gives voice to “bandits” (code for Lavalas supporters) should be shut down. She also asserted that Lavalas should be banned from upcoming elections. Alternatives: The Politics of Money Even the Montreal-based Alternatives, usually on the left of the NGO world, has helped to justify the coup. Alternatives is now working with 15 groups in Haiti, all of which are anti-Lavalas. They also support virulently anti-Lavalas AlterPresse, the most prominent on-line Haitian media outlet and newswire. In April, 2005, Alternatives received a share of a $2-million CIDA media project to train Haitian journalists about covering elections — the very elections Canada hopes will legitimize its role in the February 29, 2004 coup. (A proper political parallel would be an organization receiving money from the U.S. government to cover elections in Iraq.) In late June an Alternatives supplement in Le Devoir featured a prominent report that parroted the neoconservative narrative about Haiti. Alternatives’ reporting has omitted any mention of political prisoners, violent repression of Lavalas activists and the basic facts about the coup. Canada’s recent actions in Haiti may be Canada’s greatest-ever foreign-policy crime. Among other things, Canada helped organize a meeting to plan the coup, sent troops to overthrow the elected government, commanded the occupying UN police force, employed high-level officials in the installed government and trained the murderous Haitian police. Nevertheless, Canadian Haiti solidarity activism is growing in response to the Liberal government’s role in suppressing that country’s democratic will. Solidarity Groups have sprouted up in half a dozen cities and the Canada Haiti Action Network listserve now has 200 members in 18 cities across the country. Five cities held actions — from banner drops to marches — to commemorate Haiti’s Flag Day on May 18. Six Canadian cities also joined worldwide protests on July 21, which prompted the United Nations to investigate a massacre committed two weeks earlier that left as many as 80 slum dwellers dead. From aaron at istop.com Thu Dec 8 16:55:55 2005 From: aaron at istop.com (aaron@istop.com) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] Jack Layon stops in Halifax Message-ID: <20051209005555.B00CC17C005@www.istop.com> Jack layton had a stop of on his campaign at peir 21 in Halifax. CHAN( Canada, Haiti Action network was there in full force with leaflets to pass out to NDPer. There security onterage seemed a little perinoid that we might heckle Jack, but we just wanted to raise the issue of hait and paticularly Get layton to hould Martin to acount for his comment in November 2004 of there Being no political prisoners in Haiti. A Catiolic prest by the name of Gerard Jean-juste has been in prison for some time now. He has been held withou charge or trial and has recently been diagnoised with cancer. Rather the the Catholic church call for his release, They have been actually tring to strip him of his priesthood. As a result of sustained pressure at recent NDP campaign stops, We managed to get a meeting with Jack Layton's head campaign manajor where we brought up many issues about Haiti and in paticular the recent arrest of CHAN activist and auther Yves angle. Yves was recently aressted for heckling the prime Minister at a recent campaign stop.He was quated as saying "Martin lies and Haitians die". to make the connection between Martin lying about whats going on in Haiti and the repression,disaperances and killing that have been happening while the UN toops in Haiti either look on or take an active roll. Yves aresst is a sign of the continued loss of civil liberties in Canada As a result of our meeting,there now is a good possibility that some chan members will get to meet with Jack about the issue of haiti.Granted, we won't get a meeting before the election, I personally believe it can still result in the NDP taking a more progressive stance when it comes to the issie of Haiti.If we all keep the pressure on, I believe we can be sucessful in not only raising the issue of haiti but also in putting pressure on polititions which hopfully will result in a withdrawl of Canadian governments support for the illeagal government of Haiti Aaron Doncaster From david.mcr at earthlink.net Thu Dec 8 22:27:44 2005 From: david.mcr at earthlink.net (David Mcreynolds) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] NY Times for Thursday re Catholic Workers and Guantanamo Message-ID: <410-22005125952744513@earthlink.net> I hope folks there saw the excellent editorial in the NY Times today, Thursday, at the bottom of the editorial page. Will also send this to others who may still have today's edition at hand or can find it online. First rate. Peace, David McReynolds david.mcr@earthlink.net From aaron at istop.com Fri Dec 9 09:07:39 2005 From: aaron at istop.com (aaron@istop.com) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?Washington=92s_=93war_on_terrorism=94_comes?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_home?= Message-ID: <20051209170739.C88A117C303@www.istop.com> Miami airplane shooting: Washington’s “war on terrorism” comes home By Bill Van Auken 9 December 2005 Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author The most chilling aspect of the brutal state killing of Rigoberto Alpizar, the 44-year-old Costa Rican immigrant gunned down while fleeing an American Airlines Boeing 757 in Miami Wednesday, is the utter absence of any statement of remorse by government officials. Rather than publicly acknowledge that a horror and a tragedy had resulted from the use of lethal force against an unarmed and innocent man, spokesmen for the Bush administration and various state agencies praised those who killed him and virtually celebrated the spilling of blood on American soil in the so-called “global war on terrorism.” The initial facts that have emerged from the shooting are appalling. Alpizar, a US citizen who left his native country 20 years ago, was returning with his wife from South America, where they had participated in missionary work with her uncle, a Michigan dentist who provides free treatment to the poor. As the two were boarding a connecting flight in Miami bound for Orlando, Florida, Alpizar became extremely agitated, bolted up the aisle and tried to flee the aircraft. It was then that he was confronted by two undercover air marshals. Passengers said that his wife was running after him shouting, “My husband is sick, my husband is sick.” Others heard her pleading, saying that he was bipolar and had not taken his medicine. She told them that it was her fault for persuading him to get on the plane. Bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness, affects an estimated 2 million American adults. It is characterized by severe mood swings that can include provocative or aggressive behavior. Alpizar’s wife of 20 years, Anne Buechner, is a project director with the Council on Quality and Leadership, a not-for-profit agency that assists people with disabilities and mental illness. Alpizar fled the aircraft after being confronted by the plainclothes marshals. It was then that passengers heard five or six shots fired. A spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, Dave Adams, told the press that Alpizar had “run up and down the aisle yelling, ‘I have a bomb in my bag,’” CNN reported. Passengers interviewed, however, said that they didn’t hear him say anything. After the shooting, the marshals claimed that Alpizar had told them that he had a bomb and that they shot him after he failed to obey orders to put the bag down and appeared to reach into it. Given the unsupported claim by the spokesman about Alpizar yelling he had a bomb, this version of events is also suspect. The only thing that is clear is that a man suffering from mental illness acted in an agitated fashion and was shot to death while fleeing. What happened next was a police response that was far more berserk than anything that the slain passenger had done. Police and federal agents stormed onto the plane and ordered every passenger to put their hands on their heads and not to move. John McAlhany, a Florida construction worker on the plane, told the Miami Herald that other passengers were “treated roughly” by the cops. “They put a gun to the back of my head and said, ‘Put you hands on the seat,’” he said. “That was more scary than anything else.” McAlhany continued: “I don’t know if they shot an innocent man or not. I don’t think he was armed or had a bomb. I think he had a mental illness. I don’t think they really had to shoot him.” After being held on the plane at gunpoint for an hour, the other passengers were ordered off—again with their hands on their heads. They were then held at the airport for questioning, the last of them released nine hours after the incident. Meanwhile, law enforcement agents blew up Alpizar’s luggage on the tarmac, confirming that he was carrying no bomb or other weapon. All of the other passengers’ bags were searched using explosive-sniffing dogs. In Costa Rica, the slain man’s 72-year-old father said that his relatives were stunned by the killing. “I cannot believe what has happened to my son,” Carlos Alpizar Fonseca told the San Jose daily Nación. “I cannot get over the fact that they gunned my son down like a criminal.” Neighbors of Alpizar in the town of Maitland, Florida were equally shocked by the killing. They described him as friendly and helpful, having never shown signs of volatile behavior. Louis Gunther, who said he was looking after the couple’s home while they were in South America, said, “Everybody is talking about a guy I know nothing about.” The fatal shooting has shed some light on the secret air marshal program initiated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. While the number of such marshals, their procedures and even their names are all classified information, there are reportedly between 3,000 and 4,000 currently riding undercover on American passenger planes. It is now clear that they have been given shoot-to-kill orders. Even if the marshals’ account is taken at its face value, the sudden lethal response to Alpizar’s actions is at best questionable. First, his bag had been inspected three times before he boarded the plane—once before boarding in Ecuador, once in clearing customs and a third time before boarding the connecting flight in Miami. The odds of getting a bomb on board were minuscule. Second, he was shot after leaving the plane. David Laird, the former security director of Northwest Airlines and head of an aviation security consulting firm, called the decision to shoot the passenger “a terrible call.” In an interview with UPI, he pointed out that if he indeed had had a bomb, the shooting could have caused him to trigger it. No such questions, nor the slightest indication of regret, however, were forthcoming from Washington. Instead, the fatal shooting was hailed as a success. “They did an outstanding job,” Adams, the marshals service spokesmen said of the two agents who shot an innocent man to death. “Their training showed they made the right decision, though there turned out to be no bomb in the bag,” Department of Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle told the media. Asked about the shooting at a White House press conference Thursday, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan declared: “...the air marshals that were on this flight appear to have acted consistent with the extensive training that they have received, and that’s important to note. And so we are appreciative of all that our air marshals do day in and day out in terms of trying to protect the American people.” The most enthusiastic response, however came from Congressman John Mica, a Florida Republican whose district office is located in Maitland, the same town where Rigoberto Alpizar lived. “This shows that the program has worked beyond our expectations,” the Congressman said of the slaying. Mica is chairman of the House transportation subcommittee on aviation. Asked on CNN television news whether the marshals shouldn’t be able to distinguish someone suffering from mental illness from a terrorist—as many of Alpizar’s fellow passengers did— Mica replied contemptuously, “Air marshals don’t have time for counseling.” Mica is typical of the right-wing element that dominates in Washington. Earlier this year, he delivered a speech declaring the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo “too good for the bastards” and dismissing the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib by declaring, “I saw worse things at fraternity houses in college than what our troops were involved in.” Summing up his attitude to the gunning down of a mentally ill airplane passenger—one of his own constituents—Mica declared, “This should send a message to a terrorist or anyone else who is considering disrupting an aircraft with a threat.” Official Washington’s celebration of the fatal shooting of an innocent man fleeing a commercial airliner, however, sends another message entirely. It is a message of a brutal society, increasingly indifferent to human life, and prepared to inflict the methods of Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and Fallujah on its own citizens. What those like Mica and the Bush White House welcome in this bloodletting is that the “war on terror” has come home. They see in the killing of Rigoberto Alpizar an act that will serve to intimidate the public at large and an affirmation of the unfettered powers of the state and its security forces to act as judge, jury and executioner. From david.mcr at earthlink.net Fri Dec 9 13:42:17 2005 From: david.mcr at earthlink.net (David Mcreynolds) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] WRAPPED IN A FLAG OF DECEPTION Message-ID: <41155-220051259204217781@earthlink.net> I don't ever know when my "forwards" work, but Hillary, who may have won the far right with this move, has hardened and embittered many liberals and progressives who now see her for what she is, a politician driven by ambition, not principles. David ----- Original Message ----- From: Global Network To: Global Network Sent: 12/9/2005 12:23:48 PM Subject: [Organizing Notes] WRAPPED IN A FLAG OF DECEPTION WRAPPED IN A FLAG OF DECEPTION Hillary Clinton wants to be president so badly that she is now wrapping herself in the flag. It was reported this week that she will now be co-sponsoring a bill in the Senate with Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), who is one of the very worst right-wing reactionary folks in Congress. The bill would make it a crime to desecrate the flag. Hillary is doing this to try to win conservative voters to her side. The move shows just how much contempt she has for people. Does Hillary think that conservatives are so stupid that they will rally to her side just because she makes this blatantly political move? Hillary is also saying it would be "a big mistake" for the U.S. to end the occupation of Iraq. She has told the American people to relax and be patient, we will be in Iraq for a long time. We've been in Korea for 50 years she said last February on Faze the Nation....I heard her with my own ears. So these are the Democrats....the opposition party......Joseph Biden, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman (who is now considering becoming Bush's next Secretary of War after Rumsfeld resigns after the first of the new year), and many "leading" Dems are saying they would do a better job of running the war in Iraq. And they want my vote? Forget it. Hillary and the rest of the reactionary Dems think people like me are so desperate that we will settle for anything but Bush....but I don't see much difference. I've spent my entire adult life working to end war....what makes them think that I will just roll over and vote for another version of the same thing? People in the progressive movement should not fall for this slight of hand by the Dems. We should have more self respect. We need to think long-term right now and demand real change in America. We need to withdraw our support from a political party that ignores the truth and is ultimately a partner in this whole deception. We should put our energies behind local and statewide candidates that will tell the truth....whether they are good Dems, Greens or Independents. Don't worry if they win or lose. We win by going out and organizing people and showing that there are people out there who will speak the truth. That will give people hope. We need to rebuild this thing from the ground up and quit thinking that electing a compromised president will change things. We've got hard work ahead of us. There is no magic bullet or easy way out of this. Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 globalnet@mindspring.com http://www.space4peace.org http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Our blog) Posted by Bruce Gagnon to Organizing Notes at 12/09/2005 10:20:08 AM From cbcox at ilstu.edu Fri Dec 9 13:56:29 2005 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:17 2006 Subject: [R-G] WRAPPED IN A FLAG OF DECEPTION References: <41155-220051259204217781@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4399EF7D.CB95E5E0@ilstu.edu> David Mcreynolds wrote: > > I don't ever know when my "forwards" work, but Hillary, who may have won the far right with this move, has hardened and embittered many > liberals and progressives who now see her for what she is, a politician driven by ambition, not principles. I see this as being essentially a defense of the Democratic Party; it fits in with the profoundly false theory that DP politicians "really" believe in good things but fail to support those good things out of cowardice, greed, ambition, etc. It follows that all we need to do is to convince the DP to be "principled" and all will be well. BUT THE DP IS PRINCIPLED. THE DP LEADERSHIP REALLY BELIEVES IN THESE POLITICS. And for nearly 50 years the DP leaders have willingly suffered defeat after defeat rather than betray those principles. The Clintons believe, REALLY AND DEEPLY, really believe in the rightness of U.S. imperialism. They are principled defenders of the U.S. Ruling Class. They really believe that it is essential for the U.S. to maintain a strong military presence in the Near East. They really believe that it is essential for the US to WIN the war in Iraq. And Hillary Clinton is quite willing to sacrifice her chances of being president in order to defend the right of the u.s. to burn all, loot all, kill all in Iraq. Until leftists see, and deeply believe, that the DP is a wholly principled defender of evil there will be no real left in the u.s. Carrol From mstainsby at resist.ca Fri Dec 9 18:06:25 2005 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Ontario Provincial Police Timeline Message-ID: <439A2A11.8000809@resist.ca> Ontario Provincial Police Timeline Mar. 22, 2005 OPP withdraws from Race Relations Awards Ceremony after learning that reporters Peter Edwards and Harold Levy are to be honoured. Edwards and Levy were honoured for outstanding reporting on issues faced by First Nations people and particularly in the wake of the OPP shooting death of Dudley George and Public Inquiry on Ipperwash. March 12, 2004 OPP Elite Unit disbanded after allegations officers had defaced a Mohawk Unity flag and a poster of an OKA protester from 1990 found in a home on the Chippewa of the Thames reserve. Eight members of the OPP's Central Tactics and Rescue Unit, a paramilitary outfit based in Barrie, were charged with discreditable conduct and deceit. Nov. 11, 2001 Elderly Nawash woman dies after OPP fail to initiate any meaningful search. On the night of Nov 11/01, Lucy Pedoniquott wandered out of the Wiarton Hospital where she was a patient wearing only bedclothes and paper slippers. The Wiarton OPP searched only the grounds of the hospital before calling off their search. When family initiated a search of their own, they approached the OPP for assistance. They were refused even requests for flashlights. At 4PM on November 12th, the OPP's Emergency Response Team found Lucy, deceased, in the swamp directly across from the Wiarton Hospital. July 5, 2001 60 OPP officers under investigation for circulation of racist emails, including autopsy photos of an Indian woman with the accompanying caption: "Steak knives are good for more than just steak." September 6, 1995 OPP shooting death of Stoney Point member, Dudley George. OPP also shot a 16-year-old boy in the back that evening and beat a Kettle Point band councillor unconscious. Shortly after Dudley's death family members found OPP commemorative mugs & t-shirts reading "Team Ipperwash '95" with an OPP crest with an arrow through it and others with a feather lying horizontal under the OPP crest appearing in some stores in the neighbouring town. -- Macdonald Stainsby http://independentmedia.ca/survivingcanada http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green In the contradiction lies the hope --Bertholt Brecht. From epcraig at gmail.com Fri Dec 9 18:14:47 2005 From: epcraig at gmail.com (Edward Craig) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] WRAPPED IN A FLAG OF DECEPTION In-Reply-To: <4399EF7D.CB95E5E0@ilstu.edu> References: <41155-220051259204217781@earthlink.net> <4399EF7D.CB95E5E0@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: <306c560512091714l6a928619k1a21cf7800db21a6@mail.gmail.com> It's just the United States going pagan, setting up the flag as an idol to be worshipped in the place of Free Speech. On 12/9/05, Carrol Cox wrote: > > > > David Mcreynolds wrote: > > > > I don't ever know when my "forwards" work, but Hillary, who may have won > the far right with this move, has hardened and embittered many > > liberals and progressives who now see her for what she is, a politician > driven by ambition, not principles. > > I see this as being essentially a defense of the Democratic Party; it > fits in with the profoundly false theory that DP politicians "really" > believe in good things but fail to support those good things out of > cowardice, greed, ambition, etc. It follows that all we need to do is to > convince the DP to be "principled" and all will be well. > > BUT THE DP IS PRINCIPLED. THE DP LEADERSHIP REALLY BELIEVES IN THESE > POLITICS. And for nearly 50 years the DP leaders have willingly suffered > defeat after defeat rather than betray those principles. > > The Clintons believe, REALLY AND DEEPLY, really believe in the rightness > of U.S. imperialism. They are principled defenders of the U.S. Ruling > Class. They really believe that it is essential for the U.S. to maintain > a strong military presence in the Near East. They really believe that it > is essential for the US to WIN the war in Iraq. > > And Hillary Clinton is quite willing to sacrifice her chances of being > president in order to defend the right of the u.s. to burn all, loot > all, kill all in Iraq. > > Until leftists see, and deeply believe, that the DP is a wholly > principled defender of evil there will be no real left in the u.s. > > Carrol > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > -- Edward P. Craig "Think this through with me. Let me know your mind" Hunter/Garcia From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Dec 9 19:04:51 2005 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Bloody U.N. (MINUSTAH) siege on Cite Soleil - Bush continues the war on Haiti's poor through UN guns References: Message-ID: > > > San Francisco Bayview > > > December 7, 2005 > > > Bloody U.N. siege on Cit? Soleil > by Lyn Duff > > At least 15 residents were killed and dozens wounded by United > Nations troops during incursions in the zone of Cit? Soleil this past > week. Cit? Soleil is a highly populated area with 300,000 residents > living in only a few square miles. The neighborhood residents are > known to support Fanmi Lavalas, the party led by ousted President > Jean Bertrand Aristide. Cit? Soleil has been the site of several > recent shootings by U.N. soldiers. > > Beginning the evening of Tuesday, Nov. 22, U.N. soldiers initiated an > infiltration of Cit? Soleil with patrols through the narrow streets > on foot and in armored personnel carriers. The U.N. troops were seen > arresting civilians and occasionally shooting into crowded > residential areas. In the early morning hours of Nov. 23, a > 15-year-old girl was reportedly shot in the leg and arm by U.N. > soldiers who were attempting to raid the home of her neighbor on a > search for illicit arms. No weapons were recovered. > > Also on Nov. 23, a man who makes kitchen utensils was killed when > U.N. soldiers fired into his shop. Five others were reported wounded > in the attack. > > Raids continued over the next few days, with three wounded on Nov. > 25, when Jordanian U.N. troops shot into a yard where several > children were playing, wounding an adult cousin who was babysitting > the children and two unrelated bystanders. Later an anonymous U.N. > official was quoted in the French press claiming that ?armed gangs? > were using children as ?human shields.? > > Residents dispute this characterization, saying that children have > been wounded and killed because the U.N. shoots indiscriminately into > crowded areas where children are living, playing and going to school. > On a visit to the area on Nov. 27 ? one day after Jordanian soldiers > reportedly killed a husband and wife and wounded eight others ? > bullet holes and spent ammunition could be seen scattered through the > streets and in front of a church and an elementary school building. > Residents told reporters that the bullets were from an attack several > hours earlier by Jordanian troops. > > ?We?re tired of these supposedly accidental killings,? one community > leader told the Bay View. ?When you shoot into a zone that?s full of > people, you?re going to hit someone. How can (the U.N.) say that > these shootings are not their responsibility? The Brazilians, the > Jordanians, the Chinese, the Americans ? they have our blood on their > hands.? > > Another resident told the Bay View that people in his neighborhood > had erected barriers of burned out cars and piles of trash to prevent > U.N. soldiers from entering the street. U.N. official Col. El Ouafi > Boulbars confirmed his report, claiming that residents were also > pelting the troops with trash, rocks and Molotov cocktails. > > ?Residents in Cit? Soleil are once again trapped and under siege. > This could be a massacre that is in the making as we send out this > alert,? read a statement from the Bay Area?s Haiti Action Committee > regarding this week?s events. > > ?Unfortunately, the U.N. troops have already demonstrated on July 6 > that they will shoot and kill men, women and children in their homes, > in their beds and as they go about their daily chores. Now is the > time to act ? to let them know the world is watching and demands an > end to the killings.? > > -- > Lyn Duff () is a reporter currently based in > Port-au-Prince. She first traveled to Haiti in 1995 to help establish > a children's radio station and has since covered Haiti extensively > for Pacifica Radio's Flashpoints , heard > on KPFA weekdays at 5 p.m., and other local and > national media. > > ********************************** > Forwarded by the Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network > http://www.margueritelaurent.com/law/lawpress.html > ********************************** > > Please send letters to the media to request release of political > prisoners > held without charges, especialy Father Gerard Jean Juste, call > Lavarice > Gaudin to send direct support for his release and demand UN > occupation of > Haiti be terminated and Haiti's sovereignty respected by the > international > community. > > Go to for media contact information: > > Demand a Stop to the killings in Site Soley, Bel Air, Martissant, > Solino - > stop killing of Haitian people by UN Troops > http://www.margueritelaurent.com/campaigns/campaignone/presswork/ > protect.html > > * > Demand Release of Father Jean Juste, for background info, go to: > http://www.margueritelaurent.com/campaigns/campaignone/presswork/ > freejeanjuste.html > > * > Urgent Action Alert: Citizens of this planet, the people of Haiti > remembering > their roots, are calling out to you > http://www.margueritelaurent.com/campaigns/campaignone/presswork/ > mediacall.html > ************************************ > > Turning Haiti into a (Penal) Colony: > Criminalization of Haiti's Children > > The systemic criminalization of black males in Haiti by the Haiti's > US-imposed Miami government parallels U.S. habits > http://www.margueritelaurent.com/pressclips/damocles.html > ************************************* > > ***************************************** > > NY Fanmi Lavalas denounces Marc Bazin and his renegade Fanmi > Lavalas acolytes > http://www.margueritelaurent.com/law/nylavalas.html > > * > Condemn Sham Elections in Haiti > http://www.margueritelaurent.com/law/shamelection.html > * > > HLLN's position on the sham elections > http://www.margueritelaurent.com/pressclips/withoutfear.html > > * > ?We?re Not Participating In Selections!? > http://www.margueritelaurent.com/campaigns/campaignone/testimonies/ > stdemo.html > > ***************************************** > > > "We are abandoning the position of the moderates who tell us to be > peaceful > and work within the system while we starve and the interim > government kills > us. While we don't have the weapons to go seeking out battles, we have > decided as a community that enough is enough." 'We won't be > peaceful and let > them kill us any longer' Bel Air interview with Roaean Baptiste > http://www.sfbayview.com/101905/wewontbe101905.shtml > > HLLN Note. Haiti is hallowed ground, set by our African ancestors > as a place > Black people could be free within a sea full of Euro/U.S. > enslavers. We > Haitians stand firm against the re-colonization of Haiti through > dictatorship > as being instigated and masked by the chaos and instability brought > on by the > bicentennial coup d'etat, phony elections fever, all, divide and > conquer > mechanisms and pretexts used to cloak and justify the poverty pimp's > (USAID/US/IMF/WB) planned establishment of an ultimate US/UN > protectorship in > Haiti. > * > From hunterbadbear at earthlink.net Fri Dec 9 19:16:15 2005 From: hunterbadbear at earthlink.net (Hunter Gray) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Good Folks and Lying Critics Message-ID: <001201c5fd2f$b6164450$2603e404@intel> NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR: December 9 2005 It's very cold in Eastern Idaho -- and the past several days have been even much, much colder. Worse than it's been at Duluth, MN -- to which grandson/son Thomas, and his good spouse Mimie [Yirengah] from Zambia, have recently moved. Worse at this point, even than North Dakota. Water pipes have been bursting around our entire region. Our home is extremely solid and well built and warm -- out of the direct impact of strong super-freezing winds -- and heated, too, by the frequently exploding passions therein. But a major pipe has broken on City turf 'way up here [we are up on the edge] and the front part of our home yard [and that of many other good neighbors] looks like a full dress multi-company motor pool in a Combat Engineers' battalion. Our water was turned off a few hours ago and now it's dark, "they" are still noisily sinking their version of discovery shafts in an effort to find the break or breaks, and the Water Honchos have assured us that crews will work all night to ensure that all of us up here recover our flow. If worst comes to worst, we may melt snow and I might even try my hand at "water witching" -- a willow-branch practice in which I genuinely believe but I'm not certain our Russian Olive grove would capably provide. [We do have several maple, pine and plum trees.] But the problems will be fixed, sooner or later, and -- since we order Teton water in quantities of 25 or 30 gallons at a time and presently still have much on hand -- we can keep drinking. [And we are prepared to share with neighbors.] Drawing on our experiences in the massive Grand Forks Flood of '97, we can, if necessary, work out other living arrangement details for the duration. But this post really isn't about All That. It's about polygamy [polygyny] and attached is a post I did on that interesting topic quite awhile back. What brings this to mind once again is not only the pretty obvious existence of the practice here and there in our general Eastern Idaho region -- NOT by the official, mainline LDS [Mormon] church which has explicitly and firmly NOT sanctioned polygamy for over a century -- but by small direct and indirect spinoff groups. Idaho has some of these, Utah and Northern Arizona have even more of them, and with much of this general Intermountain Region being LDS in religious persuasion [this part of Idaho is 70% Mormon] and thus almost always with many polygamous folks in the family trees -- well, polygamy controversies are good reading for many in our Idaho State Journal. And lately, there has been lots to read. Although Idaho remains pragmatically silent on the Controversy, there is plenty of political oratory down in Utah and Northern Arizona. Some urge arresting and rounding up the "Cohabs" -- to which the polygamists are sometimes crudely referred by singularly unattractive fundamentalist bigots -- and, to be sure, now and then there is an isolated individual arrest when something seems to have gotten 'way out of hand. Even then, convictions are scarce. But mostly, although investigations a'plenty are promised, there is no action from the Authorities. [Native American polygamy, of which there is traditionally some culturally-speaking, is protected as culture and religious freedom by Federal administrative rulings and Federal statutes and, of course, by the Indians.] A commendable sense of old-time Western mountain libertarianism, plus the fact that many genealogies are extremely interesting in their many branches and leaves, and an awareness of what happened down in extreme Northern Arizona more than a half century ago during the politically disastrous State raid on the Short Creek community [now called Colorado City], gives any canny politician much pause. Most, even today, would at least quietly agree with Arizona's Old Governor, George W.P. Hunt, essentially a socialist who, quoted by me in my attached post, reflected tolerance and understanding when he saw first hand the controversial folk and their geographical setting. One of the most venomous Western writers was Zane Grey ["no relation" as a prominent Mississippi journalist named Salter always indicates when discussing me]. Grey was born in Zanesville, Ohio, in 1872 and, in due course, settled in North Central Arizona, under the Tonto Rim. He lived in that general region for a very long time [before returning to the East and dying there in 1939] and wrote a myriad of Western novels -- some dimensions of which reflect capable observation of the cattle culture and the rough country. But, a puritan in the most narrow and rigid sense, he was venomously anti-Mormon and anti-Industrial Workers of the World -- all of these fine folks frequently found in the region where he pitched his tents. [It's also much around the area where I grew up.] In RIDERS OF THE PURPLE SAGE, written many years after the LDS church had formally abandoned polygamy, and first published in 1912, Grey provides the full package of anti-Mormon bigotry undergirded and pervaded by massive and sensational falsehoods: e.g., "closed towns," "captive women," Mormon "enforcers." If this was puzzling to the local "Gentiles" [non-Mormons] who failed completely to recognize their pleasant and hospitable Mormon neighbors in these lurid accounts, it played well -- as the poison still sometimes does -- in the East and West coast bastions of Liberal America. Zane Grey's viciously [and I don't use the word lightly], best known anti-IWW novel, THE DESERT OF WHEAT, written and published [1919] during the worst of the Red Scare, depicts the Wobblies as torch-carrying, field-burning saboteurs. Since some members of my mother's family were involved in large wheat acreages and flour mills in Kansas and Oklahoma, I was interested [but not surprised] in their comments after I read this tract when a very young man. None of my kin on that side of the family had the slightest awareness of IWW "sabotage" -- and some of the old-timers, indeed, had been Populists and Debs Socialists, while a well known close cousin of Mother's, Chris Hoffman, who was known as the "millionaire Socialist of Kansas," had dropped dead of a heart attack while addressing an IWW rally in Kansas City. Even the old Republican relatives in Kansas remembered the Wobbly harvest hands as good, dependable workers -- a sentiment shared by other kin in North Dakota. In his classic and highly detailed A HISTORY OF CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1939] -- a good copy of which I have right here -- Professor Eldridge Foster Dowell can find nothing in IWW practice involving destructive sabotage and he states categorically on pages 34-35 that "The three great Federal trials of the I.W.W. and the state criminal syndicalism trials yield, in the writer's opinion, no reliable evidence of the commission of sabotage by the I.W.W. . . ." So much for Zane Grey's perfidy on the Mormons and the Wobblies. Hereabouts, at almost 7 pm MST, the water is still not running. And the polygamists aren't running from anyone and never will. Here they are: POLYGAMY: ARIZONA MEMORIES AND CURRENT ISSUES [HUNTER BEAR] First, though, a couple of definitions. Polygamy refers simply to plural marriage. Polygyny involves multiple wives [common in various parts of the world]; and polyandry, much less common, refers to multiple husbands. I'll generally use polygamy here in the context of two or more wives. Personally, I'm pretty libertarian on these things -- as long as people aren't being coerced and held against their will and children are treated properly. Utah is having its polygamy problems once again. Idaho, which could if it wanted to make issues, isn't saying a word. Arizona went through very heavy crises on this thing -- and wouldn't touch it again under any circumstances. Polygyny is common in some Native American tribes. It's still widely practiced among the Navajo -- of which an example would be a very active older man that we knew in the Tsaile area of the vast reservation. Mr Litzen had four wives and many, many descendants, some of whom my wife, Eldri, taught at Tsaile Elementary. [Easy may remember the family.] In any case, like most Navajo families, theirs was strong, cohesive, vital, and happy. Indian people are no longer bothered on this issue by any Federal bureaucrats -- or by most Christian missionaries. The polygamy issues in the West stem from the legacy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [Mormons] and non-Mormon bigotry. I grew up with many Mormons, have some as neighbors right here, and we get along well. >From its inception in the 1830s until 1890, the LDS Church practiced -- indeed -- vigorously encouraged polygamy. There was a faith to build and spread, and big country to settle. The Mormons were hit by vicious persecution from the moment Joseph Smith [as per his vision in 1827] began to propound the New Faith -- doing so in the context of American utopian tradition and vision. Attacked by mobs, in Missouri and Illinois, the Church continued to grow. Then Joseph Smith and his brother were lynched. Under the leadership of Brigham Young, the Saints made their way to the region of the Great Salt Lake, established their communalistic Zion in the Land of Deseret, and hoped for peace. They didn't get it. Capitalists -- especially those involved in copper, gold, and silver mining -- pushed into Mormon country. The Mormons resisted. The U.S. government, always hostile and -- increasingly using the polygamy issue -- moved troops through the Colorado mountains toward the LDS world. The Saints then organized the famous, heavily armed Mormon Battalion to do battle with the United States. Essentially, the Federals blinked. In those days, Porter Rockwell, the famous Mormon gunman, served as Brigham Young's bodyguard -- but Prophet Young was himself heavily armed. They were able to successfully protect their world for a long time. [I always like to point out that the famous Western outlaw, Butch Cassidy, and most of his Wild Bunch, were Mormon boys.] In time, with Utah filling more and more with "Gentiles" [as non-Mormons are called], and with US government pressure becoming ever more hostile, and the "polygamy issue" more and more of a "Red Scare" type tactic, the LDS Church formally abandoned polygamy in 1890 -- indicating the change had come via revelation. Most Mormons accepted this. The many polygamous families continued as always -- but no new marriages of this sort ever occurred again. That is, they never occurred in the official church. A sizeable number of Mormons refused to accept this, taking the 1890 change as heretical and antithetical vis-a-vis the teachings of Joseph Smith. These were formally excommunicated from the official church -- although some polygamy continued quietly within the official church and probably still does. The cast-out Ishmaelites promptly made their way into remote areas [Arizona, Utah, Idaho] and set up their own very traditional, communalistic communities -- with polygamy very much a major dimension. Thirteen of these were in extreme Northern Arizona, right under Utah, in what's called The Strip: between the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and the Utah border. The most famous of the towns is Short Creek [now called Colorado City, after the Colorado River.] In the early 1920s, the "Old Governor" of Arizona, who had been territorial governor, George W. P. Hunt -- essentially a socialist and very pro-labor -- bowed briefly to the critical pressure of some Protestant activists in the Phoenix setting and paid a visit to the polygamy country. Accompanied by newspeople and Protestants, the governor's caravan took three days on torturous roads to make the trip. When they got to the Short Creek setting, all stopped. The Gov got out. The news folk and the Protestant observers gathered around him. George Hunt was a direct-speaking man. He looked for a long time at the generally rough and barren, empty country -- in which Short Creek and the other communities are tiny green spots. Then he spoke, "Hell," he said, "If I lived here, I'd need more than one wife myself." They turned around and returned to Phoenix. When I was a kid growing up in Flagstaff [many Mormons and many Catholics], polygamy talk was not uncommon. In high school, we met them face-to-face. The polygamy towns in The Strip had a state elementary school or two -- but no real high school. Those kids were sent down to Flagstaff and some other towns where, in the homes of sympathetic official Mormons, they were quietly boarded while they went to high school. Flagstaff school officials asked no questions and I very much doubt any others did either. The polygamy kids were very quiet kids. Incredibly shy. The guys were dressed like us guys [us being everyone else, regardless of race and culture, including my official Mormon buddies] -- Levis, western shirts, engineer's boots. But, unlike us, they never got into trouble. We did, were constantly winding up in unpleasant sessions with the principal et al. -- but not they. They were really super quiet. The girls were dressed a little differently than ours. Their dresses were less colorful and somewhat longer. Almost all of the polygamy kids came to our school dances -- but mostly hung out on the edges. Once, at Camp Townsend, an early day type trailer park and grocery store not far out of Flagstaff on northbound Highway 89 [to Utah], I was visiting with an old family friend, venerable Andrew Jackson Townsend, the proprietor, in his adjoining gun shop. [An old cowboy, he had learned to drink literally boiling coffee during brief round-up breaks and, in his very advanced years, still did.] Suddenly, a caravan of vehicles -- many of them old-time vehicles -- appeared from the north and swung into the Camp. Jack stepped out and walked over. I followed. The leaders, dressed in old dark suits rather than Levis, and wearing Stetsons, walked to us. We all -- including me -- shook hands formally. Jack Townsend asked no questions, simply explained the organization of his Camp, welcomed them. But, by now, he and I both noted a revealing dimension. In the people of the caravan, men and women and kids, now out and walking about, there were many more women than men. Jack and I returned to his gun shop but, later when I left, I saw a Caravan kid my age, and walked over and visited with him. He was quiet, shy. But, saying nothing about polygamy, he volunteered that they were going to Mexico, "to set up and live down there for good." His face glowed as he said this. I wished him well -- and I still do. I was still in the Army in the early 1950s, when Howard Pyle, governor of Arizona and a Baptist -- a Republican who was a far cry from the "Old Governor" of legend -- in a move seeking to recoup his falling political fortunes, sent a huge army of state police and related forces up to Short Creek. Once there, his witch-hunting legion arrested parents and seized children by the many dozens -- and carried them all off to far away places of incarceration and foster parent-hood. It may have been the 1950s -- but the outcry went around the world. Within Arizona and without, Pyle was condemned and denounced by everything and everybody from Left labor leaders to many Republicans. In between were most Democrats, spokespeople from all of the mainline religious denominations [including many from the official Mormon Church] -- and a wide array of Native American religious leaders. Singed and then burning, Pyle fled from the issue. For him, it was pure disaster. The children were quickly reunited with their parents who were released from the various jails -- and they all went back to Short Creek [now, as I say, known as Colorado City.] And, although there was an occasional flareup or two over the issue for awhile, they've all been living there and in the other towns. Happily ever after. As I say, Arizona won't touch the issue again -- ever. Idaho [and I know there are polygamists very close to us] utters not a word on any of it. Utah's got problems. For my part, live and let live. It's a Big Creation and it's got all sorts of wondrous things in it. I'm like Andrew Jackson Townsend -- and the old Indians. I don't ask questions. As long as the arrangements follow the basic organization and teachings of the old utopian Mormons, I'm on their side. As I told the kid my age at Camp Townsend so long ago -- he who was off and far beyond to Mexico and who had a vision in his eyes -- "I wish you luck." HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk www.hunterbear.org Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' As a boy, I shot my huge Coming of Age Bear -- deep in the vast Sycamore Canyon wilderness area in Northern Arizona. At that point, I then became a man. The fiery spirit of the Bear and its abundantly fine qualities -- intelligence, courage, stamina, instinct -- are with me always and have served me very well and faithfully on my swift and rocky River of No Return. I plan to do much more in my life -- much more indeed -- before the eventual trip into the Fog and Deep Canyon, up over the High Mountains, and Far Beyond to the Shining Sun in the Turquoise Sky that glows forever down on the Headwaters of Life. And when that Journey finally comes the great Bear will accompany me. From david.mcr at earthlink.net Fri Dec 9 21:41:32 2005 From: david.mcr at earthlink.net (David Mcreynolds) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] WRAPPED IN A FLAG OF DECEPTION Message-ID: <410-220051261044132937@earthlink.net> Carrol, We agree on the Democratic Party (for the most party). There are differences between the two parties, but the question is how deep are those differences, and I think not very deep. There is always the reality that individuals will act as individuals - John McCain really does seem to be against torture (though otherwise I think he is very far right) and Cheney really does seem enthusiastic about it. John Murtha really does want the US out of Iraq, even though on most issues he has supported the military. We don't confront a monolith - but yes, we certainly don't find much to be enthusiastic about in either major party. Solidarity, David > [Original Message] > From: Carrol Cox > To: ; Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion. > Date: 12/9/2005 3:58:28 PM > Subject: Re: [R-G] WRAPPED IN A FLAG OF DECEPTION > > > > David Mcreynolds wrote: > > > > I don't ever know when my "forwards" work, but Hillary, who may have won the far right with this move, has hardened and embittered many > > liberals and progressives who now see her for what she is, a politician driven by ambition, not principles. > > I see this as being essentially a defense of the Democratic Party; it > fits in with the profoundly false theory that DP politicians "really" > believe in good things but fail to support those good things out of > cowardice, greed, ambition, etc. It follows that all we need to do is to > convince the DP to be "principled" and all will be well. > > BUT THE DP IS PRINCIPLED. THE DP LEADERSHIP REALLY BELIEVES IN THESE > POLITICS. And for nearly 50 years the DP leaders have willingly suffered > defeat after defeat rather than betray those principles. > > The Clintons believe, REALLY AND DEEPLY, really believe in the rightness > of U.S. imperialism. They are principled defenders of the U.S. Ruling > Class. They really believe that it is essential for the U.S. to maintain > a strong military presence in the Near East. They really believe that it > is essential for the US to WIN the war in Iraq. > > And Hillary Clinton is quite willing to sacrifice her chances of being > president in order to defend the right of the u.s. to burn all, loot > all, kill all in Iraq. > > Until leftists see, and deeply believe, that the DP is a wholly > principled defender of evil there will be no real left in the u.s. > > Carrol From david.mcr at earthlink.net Sat Dec 10 09:58:08 2005 From: david.mcr at earthlink.net (David Mcreynolds) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Marching to Guantanamo Message-ID: <4138-220051261016588125@earthlink.net> Terrific summary of the march. David From: Michael Munk To: Michael Munk Sent: 12/10/2005 4:09:36 AM Subject: Marching to Guantanamo http://www.witnesstorture.org/ more We need your support! Please sign a solidarity letter, attend a vigil, or make a donation. Marchers to Reach Guantánamo Tomorrow Friday, 7pm - After camping out last night, today the marchers continued their trek through the Santiago de Cuba Province -- the second most populated province in the island of Cuba. Tonight they are staying in a hotel in Niceto Pérez. Tomorrow, International Human Rights Day, the marchers plan to arrive in the city of Guantánamo, about 12 miles from the detention centers. update read more Pilgrimage to Guantánamo by DAN BELL, The Nation On December 7 twenty-five Christians set out from Santiago de Cuba on a seventy-mile pilgrimage to Guantánamo Bay. Their mission is simple: to meet with more than 500 men who have been held without trial, virtually incommunicado, for nearly four years. If they are turned away, they will fast in support of Guantánamo's hunger strikers and hold a three-day vigil at the prison gates. clipping read more Exporting Torture—America’s Shame By Linn Washington Jr., Black World Today Three weeks before a group of American peace activists entered Cuba to stage an anti-torture protest at the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison a renowned American peace clipping read more Walking A line from a Gipsy King song has been going through my head for the passed few days as we have walked through the Cuban countryside. "Estoy caminando a la montanya donde naci." it is such a rousing song to walk with, and i wish i knew the rest of the words. But, I am not walking to the mountains where i was born. the landscape is rolling hills and sugar cane fields- not mountains. And every time I try and speak with someone I know I was not born here. But as i walk, each step bringing us closer to the prisoners, closer to Guantanamo base, closer the modern heart of darkness, i feel hope being born inside of me. Hope for what people with faith, frida's blog | login or register to post comments | read more U.S. Activists Trek Towards Guantanamo By ANITA SNOW Associated Press Writer Dec 8, 10:35 PM EST HAVANA (AP) -- American activists reached the halfway point in a long trek toward the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay to protest treatment of terror suspects, but it appeared unlikely the communist government would let them enter a Cuban military zone to reach the U.S. outpost. clipping read more Press Release: With Sec. Rice in Europe, US Christians challenge US detention centers by marching to Guantánamo FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 8, 2005 Contact: Mike McGuire, 347.683.4928, press@witnesstorture.org Solidarity Vigils Planned Across Country for International Human Rights Day (Sat.) "This is the most powerful protest of US torture policy to happen since 9/11 and the 'War on Terror'" -Gitanjali Gutierrez, attorney for Guantánamo detainees Santiago de Cuba - While US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tours Europe defending secret US detention centers, torture and indefinite detentions, a group of 25 US Christians are challenging these policies by marching 50 miles from Santiago de Cuba to the US Naval Base at Guantánamo. The group arrived in Santiago de Cuba on Monday evening and began marching yesterday. They expect to reach Guantánamo on Monday, December 12. release read more American Anti-War Activists March in Cuba By ANITA SNOW Associated Press Writer HAVANA (AP) - American anti-war activists marched Wednesday from the eastern Cuban city of Santiago toward the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay to protest treatment of terror suspects there. The 25 members of the Witness Against Torture group had hoped to begin their daylong march a day earlier, but spent Tuesday negotiating with Cuban communist officials about how close they could get to the American military installation, the protesters said by telephone. Cuba and the United States have had no diplomatic relations for more than four decades, and the American base is surrounded by a miles-wide Cuban military zone peppered with mines. clipping login or register to post comments | read more >From the Bowery to Guantánamo With Dorothy Day By LAWRENCE DOWNES The New York Times The Catholic Worker movement has now officially lasted 25 years beyond the death of its founder, Dorothy Day, and looks sturdy enough to last another 25. There is something of a riddle in that. The harsh rules that limit the shelf lives of utopian impulses would seem to spell doom for an institution as shapeless and impractical as Day's. Lots of organizations want to lift up the poor, oppose war and reshape society, but few try to do so with no governing structure, no official means of support, no paid staff members and - since Day's death on Nov. 29, 1980 - no leader. clipping login or register to post comments | read more A Fact Sheet Concerning Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Brief overview 1903-2002 The US has a naval base near Caimanera, south of the city of Guantanamo. In 1903 the US made Cuba agree to let the US use this section of Cuba as a condition of independence. (Platt Amendment) The base was supposed to protect the eastern approach to the Panama Canal and be only used as a coaling station. The base is 45 square miles. In 1943 Roosevelt amended the terms so that both the US and Cuba have to agree before the lease can be terminated. In 1959, Castro asked the US to leave the base, but the US refused. In 1991, 11,000 Haitian migrants were held at the US naval base. In August 1994, 32,000 Cubans who were picked up by the US Coast Guard on their way to Florida were held at the base. About 8000 were allowed into the US, about 2000 returned to Cuba. In May, 1995, the Cuban and US governments agreed that most of the remaining people on the base would be allowed into the US. In January 2002, the US started holding prisoners kidnapped or captured in Afghanistan on the base without any right to see, speak to, or write to lawyers; without visits from family members; without any charges specified against them. (Gorry, Conner, Cuba, Lonely Planet Publications, 2004) login or register to post comments | read more Illegal trip protests Guantanamo prison; Baltimore activists will join others in march through Cuba to U.S. base By Matthew Hay Brown, The Baltimore Sun More than two dozen activists from Baltimore and elsewhere have arrived in Cuba to protest the U.S. detention-and-interrogation operation at Guantanamo Bay. clipping login or register to post comments | read more From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Dec 10 12:03:31 2005 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Peak Oil: important articles out of the UK Message-ID: <002f01c5fdbc$6d28da40$0200a8c0@wp.shawcable.net> [from the energyresources list-serv] This is a selection of some of the most important Peak Oil news from the past few weeks from the UK site http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal Please pass this on, post in forums etc. Some very strong Peak Oil material here. If you're concerned about life beyond Peak Oil, and think we need to raise awareness, sending this on to other people could help. *THE FUSION OF PEAK OIL AND CLIMATE CHANGE* The bottom line is that business can live with Climate Change to an extent but it is the threat of declining oil supplies that really strikes fear into politicians, economists, and many other people who prefer to ignore Climate Change as a problem, because it will hit them financially, and soon. The Climate Change movement can sell the green solutions to the challenge of oil decline. The Climate Change movement has been saying for a long time that we should change, Peak Oil means categorically we have to change. Fuse them together and hopefully we'll get more momentum moving us in the right direction. http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1403&Itemid=2 *BIODIESEL WORSE THAN FOSSIL FUELS* The most destructive crop on earth is no solution to the energy crisis. By promoting biodiesel as a substitute, we have missed the fact that it is worse than the fossil-fuel burning it replaces. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1658898,00.html *CITIES, PEAK OIL AND SUSTAINABILITY* Will a post-oil era look like the Depression? The Depression was not a time of scarce resources, but rather of money. Peak Oil, however, means scarce resources, so comparisons may not be apt. One thing we know about the future is that predictions are almost always wrong. Perhaps the doom-and-gloomers are right and Peak Oil will result in an utterly calamitous crash and unspeakable horror. In that case, all bets are off and both cities and farms will be places of death and misery. But the fact that the end-of-the-world crowd has been crowing for millennia and still have a 100% record of error suggests that they are wrong this time too http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1419&Itemid=2 *PEAK OIL AND PENSIONS* The main reason for the unfolding [pensions] crisis will be Peak Oil and not Baby Boomers. As Peak Oil passes and we enter the new era of global energy depletion, the world economy will as a matter of course enter a multi-decade decline, this is a cast-iron certainty. This will only halt and reverse when new, alternative sources of energy eventually offset the equivalent energy decline from depleting oil and gas reserves. That time between Peak Oil and Energy Balance will be a long one and by then the pension landscape will have taken on a totally different topology. The fact of the matter is that government and private pensions both depend on economic growth. http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1393&Itemid=2 *CANTARELL IS IN DECLINE* The latest OilCast is out. This bumper 28 minute show breaks an exclusive interview with a senior engineer from Mexican state oil company Pemex, who says "the days of the Mexican super giants are over." He claims Pemex is in the "doorway of depletion" and "in the middle of the Hubbert curve." Hear this amazing interview online now... http://www.oilcast.com/Audio_Files/show28final.mp3 and visit http://www.oilcast.com for more. *PEAK OIL STIRS IN WASHINGTON D.C* Until recently, the phrase "peak oil" was among the last elected and appointed official in Washington wanted to hear or see in print. Last week this pattern was broken, or at least shaken a bit, by two stories appearing in select newspapers. The first was published by USA Today and has all the earmarks of an administration leak to a friendly journalist. The Secretary of Energy is clearly asking the leaders of the oil industry the key question: Is imminent peak oil for real? Can you oilmen continue to provide the American people all the cheap oil they need and want for many years or not? The underlying issue is whether this request signals that the administration might be considering policy change in the not too distant future. http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1396&Itemid=2 *CNN COVERS PEAK OIL* The world's oil supply won't run out tomorrow, but lawmakers worry so much about the possibility that they're dealing with it today. A House energy subcommittee met Wednesday morning to learn more about the so-called peak oil movement, which claims that by 2008 humans will have extracted half the earth's oil... http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1418&Itemid=2 *BP - PEAK IN 2020?* At a news briefing in London where he talked about BP's plans for increased investment in alternative energy sources, Chief Executive John Browne "added that peak oil production could come in 2020 but said it was difficult to gauge, partly because of the shifting economics of the oil industry." http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1388&Itemid=2 *THE KINSALE ENERGY DESCENT PLAN NOW ONLINE* The Kinsale Energy Descent Plan is a project plan for a village in Ireland called Kinsale to become truly sustainable by 2020. It plots out a complete overhaul. What is more, the plan is realistic. This is a must read. http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1411&Itemid=2 *IS UK OIL OUTPUT RUNNING ON EMPTY?* How much will you pay for fuel? This is a question people often ask themselves. How much will it cost to fill my car? How much will it cost to heat my home? But are there more hidden costs to the British citizen other than just the cash they hand over to oil companies, gas providers and electricity generators? British North Sea oil output has declined steadily since 1999. http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1376&Itemid=2 *AUSTRALIA TO LAUNCH OIL SUPPLY INQUIRY* Australia is following the UK in launching an oil inquiry (assuming that the DTI carries through with their suggestion). It will be interesting to see if they come to similar results. http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1389&Itemid=2 *SHAPING THE PEAK* "The onset of peaking can occur quite suddenly, peaks can be very sharp, and post-peak production declines can be comparatively steep (3 - 13%). Thus, if historical patterns are appropriate indicators, the task of planning for and managing world conventional oil peaking will indeed be very challenging," says Robert Hirsch at worldoil.com http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1374&Itemid=2 *PREPARE FOR LIFE PAST PEAK SAY U.S LAWMAKERS* While there is disagreement about when world crude oil production will hit its peak, the US should begin preparing for it now, two US House members told an Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on Dec. 7. http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1420&Itemid=2 *BEGIN TO PREPARE SAYS SCHELSINGER* "We face a fundamental, longer-term problem. In the decades ahead, we do not know precisely when, we shall reach a point, a plateau or peak, beyond which we shall be unable further to increase production of conventional oil worldwide. We need to understand that problem now and to begin to prepare for that transition." - James R. Schelsinger, Former U.S Secretary of Defence, testifying before the U.S Senate http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1373&Itemid=2 *LAST GASP FROM ASIA NOT ENOUGH TO OFFSET PEAK* A prime example of how decline can mean that even extra flow cannot balance out the decline. The Pacific Basin oil market is poised for its biggest wave of new regional crude in a decade but it will be a last-gasp effort far too meagre to offset waning output from other fields in their sunset years. http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1402&Itemid=2 *HIGH OIL PRICE THREATENS IT INDUSTRY* Next year has the potential to be one of the most positive years in IT spending since the burst of the dot-com bubble. Whether we actually see an IT spending recovery in 2006, however, depends largely on the price of oil. http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1405&Itemid=2 *BUSBY REPORT - NUCLEAR (UPDATED)* When the energy inputs, past, present and future are totalled up and set against the actual energy derived from the entire nuclear power programme and its waste handling, it may well be that the overall energy gain has been negative. This has been masked by the availability of cheap fossil fuels, but as that era passes it behoves energy professionals to make an honest assessment of the energy and monetary economics of proceeding further with a failed technology. http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1421&Itemid=2 *HALF GONE : OIL, GAS, HOT AIR AND THE GLOBAL ENERGY CRISIS* "The single global marketplace we all inhabit is built on the notion of a solid, unending supply of cheap oil and gas for decades to come. But that bedrock is about to crack and crumble. And the oil companies know it. As geologists, civil servants and industry insiders in this hard-hitting book tell us, the day the oil wells start to run dry is a lot closer than we think." Thus says a new and highly recommend book on Peak Oil by Jeremy Leggett. http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1416&Itemid=2 From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Dec 10 11:59:37 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Observers say Venezuela vote was fair Message-ID: <200512101859.jBAIxb8R019398@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1102AP_Venezuela_Election.html Seattle Post-Intelligencer Tuesday, December 6, 2005 Observers say Venezuela vote was fair By Jorge Rueda Associated Press writer Caracas, Venezuela -- European observers said Tuesday that Venezuela's congressional elections were fair and transparent despite opposition claims of irregularities and a low voter turnout. President Hugo Chavez's party and allies claimed to have swept Sunday's balloting after five opposition parties pulled out, saying they did not trust the electoral system. Partial, regional results issued so far showed candidates aligned with Chavez taking a commanding lead. While official results were not yet in, ruling party lawmakers have said candidates of Chavez's Fifth Republic Movement party won 114 seats and that allied parties won all the rest in the 167-member chamber. Jose Silva, head of the European Union team, said the vote was clean and praised the elections council. "For us, there was transparency in the electoral process," said Silva, who oversaw about 160 observers. He said many Venezuelans did not trust the nation's elections system, leading them to abstain from voting. Sunday's voter turnout of about 25 percent was lower than in recent Venezuelan congressional elections in 1998 and 2000, when about 50 percent to 60 percent turned out. Chavez, who accused the opposition of plotting the boycott with the help of the United States as part of a plot to "destabilize" the country, said Tuesday that the low turnout "must be looked at, analyzed and considered." Washington and the opposition have denied the accusations. "Nobody can claim the abstention as a victory," Chavez told supporters in Caracas. "The group of parties from the old order pulled out the elections without any good reason." The boycotting parties expressed concerns about the voter registry and touch-screen voting machines. Election officials denied any problems, saying they made many concessions for the opposition. The Organization of American States, which had 60 observers monitoring the vote, expressed concern about growing political divisions in Venezuela and urged election officials "to establish necessary conditions for the participation of all sectors" of Venezuelan society. Venezuela is split between those who accuse Chavez of becoming increasingly authoritarian and supporters who say the former paratrooper commander has given new opportunities to the country's poor majority. Silva told reporters the elections represented a "lost opportunity" for resolving differences that have caused "a fracture in Venezuelan society." Court authorities on Tuesday delayed the start of a trial for leaders of a Venezuelan vote-monitoring group accused of conspiring against Chavez's republican system by receiving U.S. funding. The group, Sumate, has alleged that Chavez's administration is guilty of electoral irregularities. Its lawyer, Juan Martin Echeverria, said the trial was deferred until Jan. 18 while a higher court examines defense motions challenging the judge's impartiality and alleging legal violations. From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Dec 10 11:59:56 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] (Afghanistan) Opium farmers sell daughters to cover debts to traffickers Message-ID: <200512101859.jBAIxudV019673@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article316683.ece The Independent October 3, 2005 Opium farmers sell daughters to cover debts to traffickers Critics say the country is turning into a narco-state under the noses of Nato peacekeeping forces By Justin Huggler in Laghman, Afghanistan Afghan farmers prevented from growing poppies under a British-led eradication programme have been forced to hand over their daughters to drug traffickers to settle their debts, according to reports from Afghanistan. The claim is the latest in a series to dog the British effort to curb Afghanistan's opium industry. Opium dominates Afghanistan's economy, accounting for 60 per cent of its income. Critics say the country is turning into a narco-state under the noses of Nato peacekeeping forces, and of the Western governments involved in reconstruction. The latest claims come from Nangahar province, which has been held up by the British, put in charge of the fight against opium in Afghanistan, as their biggest success. Opium cultivation fell by 96 per cent there this year, part of a 21 per cent fall nationwide. But farmers are now coming forward to say that the forced loss of their poppy crop has left them unable to repay debts to drug traffickers who lent them money to buy the seeds. In desperation, they have had to turn to a traditional Afghan practice in which a family can pay off its debt by handing over a daughter to a relative of the creditor. Usually, there is a marriage ceremony for the sake of propriety - but the woman is treated as property. The problem is familiar to Mohamed Hanif Isamuddin from Laghman province, next to Nangahar. He has given up his poppy crop under pressure from the authorities. For one acre of poppies he can make 150,000 Afghanis (£2,000). If he sows the same acre with wheat, he makes only 6,000 Afghanis. Mr Isamuddin, 68, says that when the local authorities first started pressuring the farmers to stop growing poppies, the Westerners promised to help them grow alternative crops by providing them with free seed, but they got nothing. Mr Isamuddin gave up growing poppies of his own volition when he heard that the government was going to clamp down. But further up the valley, he says, helicopters sprayed the poppy fields with insecticide. The British, put in charge of the effort to curb the opium trade, say there has been no spraying. Although the Americans proposed spraying poppy fields, it was rejected because of opposition from the Afghan government. "The government is doing the right thing," said Mr Isamuddin. "According to our religion, opium is prohibited. But if you have to feed your family, you do what you have to do. "If people here cannot earn enough to feed their families, they will start growing opium again." Although he has not had to take measures as drastic as some farmers in neighbouring Nangahar, his son has had to leave home and go to Iran to find work. At least Mr Isamuddin's son left voluntarily. Richard Danziger, of the International Organisation for Migrants, says that when poppy farmers in northern Afghanistan have a good crop it means they do not have to sell their children. In Afghanistan's barren landscape, no other crop brings a return close to that of opium. A French think-tank called last week for the legal cultivation of opium in Afghanistan. The Senlis Council pointed out the irony that, while Afghanistan today provides 87 per cent of the world's illegal opium, legal opium-based medicines are in short supply in Afghanistan and all over the developing world. A handful of countries, including Australia, India and Turkey, grow opium legally for use in medicine under licences granted by the United Nations. But drug companies have resisted the production of cheap versions of their opium-based medicine, according to Jorrit Kamminga of the Senlis Council. The group's proposal was that legally grown opium in Afghanistan could satisfy its domestic medical need, and might even allow it to export opium for medicinal use. But the proposal was rejected by the Afghan government after being rubbished by the US and by the UN Office for Drug Control. The Afghan government said it could not put in place safeguards to ensure legally grown opium was not channelled into the black market. From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Dec 10 12:20:07 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] The End Of Habeas Corpus in Great Britain Message-ID: <200512101920.jBAJK7S4009049@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://monthlyreview.org/1105paye.htm Monthly Review November 2005 The End Of Habeas Corpus in Great Britain by Jean-Claude Paye The British Parliament adopted a new antiterrorist law, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, on March 11, 2005. By doing so, Parliament made it possible for the government to carry out the long-standing project of expanding the emergency provisions to which foreigners are subjected within the context of the war on terrorism to cover the whole population, including citizens. This change is important because it calls into question the notion of habeas corpus. The law attacks the formal separation of powers by giving to the secretary of state for home affairs judicial prerogatives. Further, it reduces the rights of the defense practically to nothing. It also establishes the primacy of suspicion over fact, since measures restricting liberties, potentially leading to house arrest, could be imposed on individuals not for what they have done, but according to what the home secretary thinks they could have done or could do. Thus, this law deliberately turns its back on the rule of law and establishes a new form of political regime. The Prevention of Terrorism Act is a modification of Part Four of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, specific provisions of which concerning detention of foreigners accused of terrorism expired on March 14, 2005. The 2001 Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act The attacks of September 11, 2001, allowed the British government to force the urgent adoption of a new antiterrorist law, the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act, which was enacted on December 14, 2001. In comparison with the 2000 Terrorism Act, which is still in force, the 2001 legislation authorizes the indefinite detention, without an indictment, of a foreigner suspected of terrorist activities, just as in the United States. Article 21 allows indefinite incarceration based on a certificate issued by the secretary of state for home affairs. "The Secretary of State may issue a certificate under this section in respect of a person if the Secretary of State reasonably believes that (a) the person present in the United Kingdom is a risk to national security, and (b) suspects that the person is a terrorist."1 No objective fact is necessary to justify the decision. The time limit for "conviction" is entirely subjective. The power of detention is effective until November 10, 2006. The certificate issued by the home secretary permits the detention of the accused person within the terms of the Immigration Act of 1971, i.e., for the purpose of either expulsion or return to the country of origin. The possibility of detention for an indefinite period is necessary when expulsion is prevented by an international agreement or another reason. In this case, the person has a choice between remaining in indefinite detention in the United Kingdom or returning to his or her country of origin and being subjected there to a whole set of proceedings that are exceptional under the terms of international law. Most often, the countries of origin of the incarcerated persons are well known for their systematic violations of human rights. It is in these terms, moreover, that the debate was presented to Parliament.2 The foreigner suspected of terrorism by the English government thus enters into a global system of non-law in which every option is closed to him or her. A Suspension of the Law By permitting potentially unlimited detention, this act effectively suspends the law for all persons not having British citizenship or legal residence or not benefiting from the right of protection as refugees. Thus, the suspension of habeas corpus is less extensive than in the United States, where all foreigners are affected. In order to pass this law, the British government instituted an exception to the European Convention on Human Rights. This exception is based on the notion of a state of emergency and is thus an exception to Article 5, Paragraph 1 of this convention, which guarantees the liberty of persons. According to Article 15 of the convention, exceptional measures must be limited strictly to the minimum necessary as required by the situation. As judged by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), this is not true of unlimited detention. The SIAC was created in order to assure some control over detentions. The law does not allow appeals to be made before this commission. That has not prevented the latter from ordering the release of nine out of the eleven detained under this law, the other two having chosen expulsion. The government reacted to the judgment by announcing its intention to resort to other procedures that would allow it to pursue incarceration. It has thus clearly announced that it does not intend to respect the judgment of a special commission that it established. The government appealed and the higher court fundamentally found in its favor on the question of discrimination between foreign nationals and British citizens.3 Suspension of the Law Questioned by the Law Lords On December 22, 2004, the secretary-general of the Council of Europe demanded the immediate abrogation of the 2001 Terrorism Act: "Antiterrorist legislation in the United Kingdom must be changed immediately. We will not win the war on terrorism if we undermine the foundation of our democratic societies."4 This position follows a decision reached by the Appeals Court of the House of Lords, the highest judicial body in Great Britain, on December 16, 2004, that considers the unlimited detention, without indictment and trial, of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities as illegal and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.5 The judgment resulted from a challenge made by the same nine detainees who had earlier, in July 2002, obtained a victory before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). However, they had seen their demand for release rejected once again in August 2004 by the Appeals Court in London. None of the applicants is the subject of legal proceedings nor have any charges been filed. The appellants contest the legality of their detention, asserting that it is contrary to the obligations assumed by the United Kingdom with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and thus with the Human Rights Act 1998, which integrates this convention into British law. In its opinion, the Appeals Court of the House of Lords found in favor of the applicants. The judgment indeed recognizes that the 1971 Immigration Act provides the possibility of detaining an individual who is not a British citizen with the intention of proceeding with that individual’s extradition, but specifies that this law does not grant any mandate permitting a long or indefinite detention. State of Emergency The grounds for the decision clarify the opposition between the classic definition of the state of emergency, limited in time and objectively defined, defended by the Law Lords and the position of the government, which wants to implement an indefinite and unverifiable suspension of constitutional liberties. The decision stipulates that the indefinite incarceration authorized by the 2001 Terrorism Act, which would not be, moreover, the result of any judicial verdict, is indeed contrary to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the liberty of persons. At the same time, the decision invalidates the exception to this article instituted by the government. This exception refers to Article 15 of the convention that stipulates: "In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation...." The court agreed with the argument presented by the applicants that the exceptions to Article 5, which are strictly limited to situations of war or emergency in which the life of the nation is threatened, are not applicable in the present situation. For the court, the state of emergency is limited in time. There must be an imminent danger or exceptional circumstances that must be objectively determined. Article 15 does not refer to the specific nature of the danger, but this question was treated by the European Court as a necessary condition of the suspension of Article 5. The Court quoted from the Siracusa Principles in this context: "The principle of strict necessity shall be applied in an objective manner. Each measure shall be directed to an actual, clear, present, or imminent danger and may not be imposed merely because of an apprehension of potential danger."6 By returning to these basic principles, the Law Lords opposed the argument presented by the attorney general, for whom a situation of emergency is not necessarily temporary and can cover a considerable number of years. For him, it falls within the competence of the executive power to protect the population. He did "resist the imposition of any artificial temporal limit to an emergency of the present kind...."7 For the executive power, the question of the suspension of liberties is a purely political matter, in the narrow sense of the term. It is a matter for its own initiative and under the control of Parliament. As "it is the function of political and not judicial bodies to resolve political questions,"8 the question of the exception to the law must be outside the jurisdiction of various judicial authorities. The Law Lords opposed to this position the idea that the role of the courts consists of verifying the legality of the acts of various authorities. By doing this, the highest British judicial authority evoked the principle of separation of powers and did "not accept the full breadth of the Attorney General’s argument on what is generally called the deference owed by the courts to the political authorities."9 The Prevention of Terrorism Bill The decision of the Lords of Appeal is a simple opinion without constraining force. The government can choose not to take it into account. But in the end, the government concluded that taking the decision into consideration was a good occasion to legitimize the generalization of the emergency provisions to the whole population. The highest British court found that the indefinite detention, without indictment or trial, of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities is illegal and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.10 It also considered the distinction between foreigners and citizens as discriminatory. A Generalized State of Exception The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 appears to be non-discriminatory since it concerns British citizens as much as foreigners. By pushing the enactment of a modification to Part 4 of the Terrorism Act 2001, which allows the indefinite detention of foreigners without evidence or trial, the English prime minister succeeded in extending to British citizens a whole series of exceptional procedures that call into question the individual liberties of all Britons. Tony Blair appealed to fear in order to justify his project. He claimed: "The present law is called for by the police and security services. Voting it down would mean jeopardising the country’s security."11 Tony Blair has been able to impose on the United Kingdom what George W. Bush has not succeeded in imposing on the United States, i.e., the possibility for the government to take measures that call into question the right of citizens to self-determination within the context of the war on terrorism. In the United States, the procedures that would extend to citizens the provisions of the Patriot Act that authorize imprisonment of indefinite duration, without charges or indictment, of any foreigner suspected of terrorism have not been adopted. The Bush administration has been unable to put the bill, known as Patriot II,12 on the Congressional agenda. The End of Habeas Corpus The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005,13 passed on March 11, 2005, authorizes the home secretary to initiate control orders over a person, potentially leading to house arrest, when he has reasons to suspect that an individual is or was implicated in an action linked to terrorism. He would also be able to prohibit the use of a mobile telephone, limit access to the internet, prevent that person from having contacts with certain persons, oblige him or her to be at home at certain times, and authorize the police and special services to have access to his or her home at all hours. He also has the possibility of limiting access to employment or to an occupation. The list of fifteen control orders provided for by the law is not exhaustive and is only provided as a list of examples. The government has the possibility of indefinitely introducing new provisions that limit the freedom of movement of the persons concerned. If the latter do not respect these orders, they are liable for imprisonment. These provisions could be taken when the home secretary considers that the individual in question presents a danger to national security, but that the facts in his possession do not allow him to take the case before a court. Home Secretary Charles Clarke declared before Parliament that control orders could be taken "on the basis of an intelligence assessement provided by the Security Service (where) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an individual is, or has been, concerned with terrorism."14 A Subjective Law The justification for the decision to place a person under supervision is not found in objective facts, but in the suspicion that falls on that person or in the intention that is attributed to that person. Terrorist activity is defined as: "(a) the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; (b) conduct which facilitates the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or which is intended to do so; (c) conduct which gives encouragement to the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or which is intended to do so; (d) conduct which gives support or assistance to individuals who are known or believed to be involved in terrorism-related activity."15 Thus the law does not concern definite acts, but punishes assistance to persons who are simply suspected of activities or intentions linked to terrorism. This notion is particularly indeterminate and subjective. Its area of application is very large, nearly unlimited, and totally unverifiable. What is an activity linked to terrorism? Is it, for example, to have accommodated persons who later weresuspected of participating or of having had the intention of participating in actions designated as terrorist? Does it include belonging to a support group for political prisoners? The reaction of the House of Lords was problematic for the government. Initially, the lords rejected the project, considering the text as an attack on liberties. It ended up accepting it after thirty hours of debate and after having gotten agreement that control orders would be taken with the consent of a court. In accordance with the new text, the home secretary must apply to a judge before carrying out a house arrest, but, in cases of emergency, he could immediately order minimal measures and ask for a court’s concurrence within seven days. Above all, the upper house laid down the condition that passage of the law must be accompanied by a sunset clause effective in one year. Thus the law would have to be submitted to debate again in July 2006. The work of an independent commission, charged with following the application of the law, must serve as the basis for future parliamentary work. Even if the home secretary makes a decision with the consent of a court, this judicial guarantee obtained by the House of Lords has nothing in common with the classic judicial procedure that guarantees the rights of the defense. Under the provisions of this law, the defense has no access to the file containing the alleged facts and no possibility of contesting them. The only ones with access to these facts are the judge and "special attorneys" selected by the home secretary. The special attorneys are responsible for representing the point of view of the defense, but without providing the defense with the "proof" alleged against it and without giving it the possibility of refuting that proof. The decision is made in the absence of the incriminated person. Contrary to what the home secretary claims, this exceptional procedure has nothing in common with long-term preventive detention as applied in matters of terrorism by countries such as Spain or Germany. In those countries, the detention is exclusively ordered by a judge, the incriminated person knows the charges that are held against him or her and the defense has the possibility of contesting the evidence or the reasons for the detention. This new procedure results in the abolition of the presumption of innocence that is normally granted to persons prosecuted within a judicial context. An Evaluation by Secret Services Control orders can be made based on information provided by a security service. This source can be from outside the United Kingdom, from the United States, for example. During the debates in the House of Lords, the government had conceded that the prosecution could not use evidence obtained through torture. However, the government does not appear to have renounced using such information. The Independent related the statements of the foreign secretary who claimed that "while torture is of course thoroughly unacceptable, our country cannot dismiss intelligence that has been gained in this way by the US, especially when the lives of 3,000 people are at stake."16 The assessment made by the security services can rely on a great diversity of sources, many of which could not serve as proof in judicial proceedings. It is not only a question of intercepting telephone calls or e-mails, but all of the intrusive acts implemented by a secret service, such as video surveillance, infiltration, and information obtained by undercover agents. The information contained in the reports or statements made by such agents or informers are evaluated according to a scale of plausibility dependent on "various degrees of truthfulness and accuracy." The evaluation made by the intelligence services on the danger to national security presented by an individual is separate from the observation of a specific act. An individual can be considered dangerous and subjected to control orders if he or she issuspected of being "a member of or associated with suspect organizations." It is not necessary that the "proofs" established on the basis of information supplied by the secret services be objective. They can amount to the subjective evaluation of a potential danger to which a determinate level of dangerousness is attributed. The law’s explanatory notes insist on the preventive character of the surveillance provisions, since these measures are designed to prevent terrorist attacks on Great Britain. The fate reserved by the government for English citizens imprisoned at Guantánamo is a good example of the anticipated implementation of this law. Four Britons, detained at Guantánamo for more than three years, were freed in January 2005. After having been interrogated by the English antiterrorist police, they were freed one day later. No charge was filed against them. This fact did not prevent the home secretary from considering them a terrorist danger for Great Britain. He initiated control orders on them, such as prohibiting travel to foreign countries and making it impossible to obtain a passport. He justified these measures on the basis of information obtained from interrogations at Guantánamo.17 Thus, on the basis of "intelligence" given by the United States, obtained in conditions of torture or mistreatment, and without possibility of verification or contestation, the prisoners freed from Guantánamo remain in an international system of non-law. The End of a Double Judicial System The most significant part of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill is the fact that it expands the suspension of law to include citizens. It puts an end to a double judicial system: rule of law for citizens and pure violence for foreigners. The suppression of habeas corpus is extended to the whole population. It is now a generalized state of exception. This law, like the American Patriot II project, must be envisaged as the first step in a process intended to extend measures that suspend the law to the entire population, including citizens, within the context of the war on terrorism. The home secretary already revealed this project. He also spoke of the possibility of trying simple suspects in special courts of law. The accused would not have the choice of his or her attorney. The latter would be selected by the executive power, on the basis of a list approved by the secret services. The USA Patriot Act and the English 2001 Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act are still based on the existence of a double judicial system: on the one hand, protection of the law for citizens, even if it is increasingly restricted, and, on the other hand, suspension of the law for foreigners. It is this double judicial order that begins to disappear, with the Patriot II project as well as the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. The war on terrorism thus marks a rupture in the western mode of political organization, founded traditionally on a double system that takes the form of the rule of law inside a society and the use of "pure violence" outside of it. The exception becomes the rule. The rule, which inscribes the exception in the law, is constructed as a function of it. This is exactly the process that is unfolding before our eyes State of Emergency or Dictatorship? By imposing a review clause (sunset provision) on the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act that authorizes evaluation of the law after one year, the House of Lords kept that law within the formal context of a state of emergency, since these measures could be abrogated after one year. The government did not want to set any temporal limit, the war on terrorism being viewed as a war of long duration against a multiform enemy. It has not, however, renounced its project and wishes to profit from the review procedure by pushing for the adoption of control orders freed from their temporal constraints. However, this law is no more than formally part of a state of emergency. It gives judicial prerogatives to the home secretary. A person is designated as terrorist not by the decision of a court, but by a certificate issued by a representative of the executive power. At no point does the latter have to justify a decision that is applied to simple suspects. Objective facts, which should be used as the basis of these suspicions, are not even necessary since they remain secret. It suffices that the administrative authority assert that it is detaining the suspects and that this declaration be corroborated by a court. What is the guarantee of a judicial control that is exercised without the possibility for the defense to assert its rights, even to know what it is being charged with? What independence can the judicial power assert in a decision-making process in which it does not have the means to verify the information that is given to it as well as the means of proof? This law represents one step forward in the dismantling of the rule of law. It is an example of a purely subjective law, allowing a maximum of interpretation. It is a law that assures the primacy of firm belief over facts. The executive power concentrates in its hands all the power, including judicial prerogatives. With this legislation, the United Kingdom moves into a new type of political regime called by the theory of law a dictatorship. Notes 1. Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/2001004.htm 2. Home Affairs Select Committee, "The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill," HC(2001-O2) 351,10/11/2001, First Report. 3. Elspeth Guild, "Facettes de l’insécurité. Agamben face aux juges. Souveraineté, exception et antiterrorisme," Cultures et Conflits, no. 51. 4. Statewatch News Online, December 22, 2004, http://www.statewatch.org/news/archive2004.htm 5. 5. Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for judgement in the cause: A(FC) and others(FC) (appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home department (Respondent), House of Lords, session 2004-05, (2004) UKHL 56, December 16, 2004. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/dec/belmarsh-appeal.pdf 6. Opinions of the Lords of Appeal, 13 7. Opinions of the Lords of Appeal, 15 8. Opinions of the Lords of Appeal, 17 9. Opinions of the Lords of Appeal, 17. 10. 10. Opinions of the Lords of Appeal. 11. 11. Jerôme Rassetti, "Blair revoit sa copie antiterroriste," Le Soir, March 9, 2005. 12. 12. Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, http://www.publicintegrity.org/docs/PatriotAct/Story_01_020703_doc_1.pdf 13. Prevention of Terrorism Bill, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs4/terrorism_bill.pdf 14. Statewatch report, "The exceptional and draconian become the norm," 9, http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/mar/exceptional-and-draconian.pdf 15. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Article 1(9), http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/20050002.htm 16. Colin Brown, "Straw: Britain cannot ignore evidence obtained by torture," The Independent, March 11, 2005. 17. Statewatch report, "The exceptional and draconian become the norm," 8. Jean-Claude Paye is a Belgian sociologist studying the transformations of the juridical forms of the state. He has published many articles on this topic, as well as two books, Vers un Etat policier en Belgique? (EPO, 2000) and La fin de l’Etat de droit (La Dispute, 2004), which was translated into the main European languages. This essay was translated from the French by James H. Membrez. From david.mcr at earthlink.net Sat Dec 10 17:35:29 2005 From: david.mcr at earthlink.net (David Mcreynolds) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Blessed Are the Merciful in Baghdad Message-ID: <410-220051201103529500@earthlink.net> While we wait for word from Iraq, where four members of the Christian Peacemakers Teams are being held and threatened with death at any moment, we want to relay this post from Kathy Kelly, and to remind ourselves that among the most forceful voices raised on behalf of these four Christians are those coming from the Muslim community - not only in Canada, or Britain, or Palestine (where CPT members have long acted as observers of the Occupation), but in Iraq itself. If death comes, it will not be proof that Islam is bloody - anymore than Bush's war is proof that Chrisitanity is bloody. Only proof of the madness of war, and of fanatical beliefs. Peace, David McReynolds > [Original Message] > From: Viviane Lerner > To: David McReynolds > Cc: RAD TIMES ; GLOBALNETNEWS > Date: 12/10/2005 5:20:09 PM > Subject: [Kathy Kelly] Blessed Are the Merciful in Baghdad > > > Published on Thursday, December 8, 2005 by CommonDreams.org > Blessed Are the Merciful in Baghdad > by Kathy Kelly > > In January of 2004, two Palestinian college students visited me in > Amman, Jordan, the evening before our small Voices in the Wilderness > team traveled to Baghdad. “Please, if you can, help our friends,” they > pleaded. “They have been in the Bucca compound, south of Basra. We were > released from there after six months, but till now we have heard > nothing of them.” The young men explained that they had been living in > a student dormitory, in Baghdad, and had decided not to return to their > families in Palestine when the U.S. threatened attacks against Iraq. > Leaving Baghdad might mean losing all the years they had devoted to > their studies. One was a pre-med student, the other an engineer. When > U.S. Marines arrived in Baghdad, they decided to take over the > students’ dorm, recognizing that it had the advantage of being one of > the tallest buildings in the area. The students were swiftly placed > under arrest and transported to a series of detention centers until > they reached the Bucca Compound in a bleak, isolated area of Iraq > called Umm Qasr. Our two visitors had been released, perhaps because > they spoke English so well. But they were desperate to do something on > behalf of the friends they left behind. We didn’t want to raise their > hopes, yet we knew that we could at least ask the Christian Peacemaker > Team (CPT) members to help. > > Once in Baghdad, CPT members advised us about whom we could approach in > the Bucca compound and then helped us connect with a young dentist who > sought accompaniment to visit his brother inside the camp. Their advice > worked; an official at the Bucca compound, upon hearing that we worked > closely with the CPT, allowed us to visit the prisoners and expressed > sympathy with their plight. Later, visiting CPT’s small apartment in > Baghdad, I was amazed at how efficiently CPT volunteers maintained > lists of people who were imprisoned along with careful notes assembled > over months of research. > > Since the beginning of the U.S. occupation, CPT members have quietly > yet courageously worked on behalf of Iraqi detainees imprisoned by U.S. > authorities. After collecting lists of prisoners, they translated the > lists, formed data bases, met with communities and individuals seeking > loved ones, documented human rights abuses, and wrote reports about > their experiences living alongside ordinary Iraqis as Baghdad became > the most violent city in the world. > > Interviewed by Amy Goodman on the November 30th segment of Democracy > Now, Seymour Hersh (who helped break the Abu Ghraib story) told about > his first encounter with CPT members: “…they were on a cutting edge. > …most of the things that I ended up writing about in Abu Ghraib, most > of the general concepts, they knew a great deal about earlier…so, these > are people toiling, really for the good of Iraqi people, and often in > obscurity, in terms of the mainstream media. > > Now Christian Peacemaker Team has entered the mainstream media with > headlines telling about a previously unknown Iraqi group called Swords > of Righteousness, which has been holding four CPT members since > November 26th. The group demands the release all Iraqi detainees held > in U.S.- and Iraqi-run prisons. They’ve threatened to kill the four CPT > men if this demand isn’t met. A painful irony is that CPT has worked so > fervently on behalf of Iraqi detainees. > > Our friends in the CPT are learning first hand the agonizing experience > of over 5,000 Iraqi families whose loved ones have been abducted over > the past year. The lives of other westerners who’ve been abducted, a > German archaeologist, a French engineer, and an American security > contractor are also in jeopardy. > > Throughout the past week, CPT made clear that their prayers include > loving care and concern not only for their own team members but also > for all of the people in Iraq afflicted by the sad and tragic realities > of warfare, including those who call themselves Swords of > Righteousness. > > By living outside the Green Zone and traveling without armed guards, > CPT has risked a great deal to educate us about the plight of people > living through the strains of war and occupation. Now they are helping > us learn at deep and challenging levels about embracing the teachings > of Jesus, who urged his followers, love your enemies and pray for those > who persecute you. Their courage helps liberate the essential Christian > call to take serious risks on behalf of bringing liberty to the > captive, relief to the oppressed and good news to the poor. With CPT > members in the public eye, and as we enter the season when people will > ostensibly celebrate the birth of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, who was > crucified under Roman Occupation, I hope we can still hear that call, > above all, to pursue the works of mercy and end the works of war. > ------- > To sign a petition on behalf of releasing the CPT members, visit > www.freethecpt.org. > -------- > Kathy Kelly (kathy@vitw.org) is a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative > Nonviolence. www.vcnv.org. > ============== > ***NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this > material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a > prior interest in receiving the included information for research and > educational purposes.*** > ============== From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Dec 10 17:39:21 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Ex-neocon hawk Paul Wolfowitz now touts peace Message-ID: <200512110039.jBB0dLK1024494@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/08/MNG75G4IM51.DTL San Francisco Chronicle Thursday, December 8, 2005 Ex-neocon hawk Paul Wolfowitz now touts peace World Bank chief tries to distance himself from Bush By Dana Milbank, Washington Post Washington -- On another day when the Iraq war was tearing Washington apart, a leading architect of that war, Paul Wolfowitz, was donning sheep's clothing over at the National Press Club. The former deputy defense secretary, now president of the World Bank, gave a 30-minute speech Wednesday about the virtues of peace, the ills of poverty and the benefits of multilateralism -- without a mention of Iraq. "One of the things that's fun about this job is (that) development is a unifying mission and you can get a lot of people together across a table to put their political differences aside," said the man President Bush calls "Wolfie." Only when questioners pressed him about Iraq would Wolfowitz address the subject. "How do you account for the intelligence failures regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" he was asked. "Well," he said after a long pause, "I don't have to." Being Wolfie means not having to say you're sorry. Nearly three years ago, he offered some of the most memorable forecasts about Iraq: that it was "wildly off the mark" to think hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to pacify a postwar Iraq; that the Iraqis "are going to welcome us as liberators"; and that "it is just wrong" to assume that the United States would have to fund the Iraq war. Wolfowitz was 0-for-3 on those, but since taking the World Bank job six months ago he has found a second act. He has toured sub-Saharan Africa, danced with the natives in a poor Indian village, badgered the United States to make firmer foreign aid commitments and cuddled up to the likes of Bono and George Clooney. But Iraq haunts him still. Outside the National Press Building Wednesday, a half-dozen demonstrators greeted Wolfowitz with a sign saying, "Wolfowitz Is a Weapon of Mass Destruction." Upstairs, Wolfowitz entered the ballroom to scattered applause from a respectable, but not capacity, crowd. Wolfowitz lunched on filet mignon -- and Press Club president Richard Dunham of Business Week tried to goad him into a red-meat speech. "His admirers have called him the intellectual high priest of the neoconservatives," Dunham said in his introduction. "I can't repeat some of the things his critics have called him." Wolfowitz pursed his lips and sipped his coffee as Dunham recalled how Wolfowitz "drew fire from Democrats for predicting that U.S. forces would be welcomed as liberators." By the time Dunham got to Wolfowitz's student deferment during Vietnam, Wolfowitz was shaking his head. Wolfowitz, hoarse with a case of laryngitis, said he had received some lavish introductions before, and "this isn't that kind of introduction." He then read a prepared text that sounded more Mother Teresa than Vice President Dick Cheney. He noted that there are "as many orphans from AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa as there are children east of the Mississippi." He recalled his visit to "a poor village just outside of Ouagadougou." He lamented the "1.2 billion people worldwide living on less than a dollar a day." And he urged people to remember the World Bank's lofty mission, "helping free the world of poverty." The crowd was silent through this talk, except for the occasional clink of teaspoon in coffee cup. Dunham, reading questions submitted by the audience, softened up Wolfowitz with some queries allowing him to establish his independence. "I work for 184 countries; I don't work for the Bush administration," Wolfowitz said. He even asserted that Bush's foreign aid spending is not "adequate." With 10 minutes to go, Dunham started the Iraq questions. Wolfowitz insisted that, "believe it or not," his Iraq role has not interfered with his work at the World Bank. Asked about the weapons in Iraq, Wolfowitz explained that this wasn't his problem. "And it's not just because I don't work for the U.S. government any more," he said. "In my old job I didn't have to. I was like everyone else outside the intelligence community. ... We relied on the intelligence community for those judgments, so the question is, in a way, how do they account for it." It was an unexpected response from a man who, as the Pentagon's No. 2, sat atop 80 percent of the nation's intelligence budget and an intelligence agency that made particularly aggressive claims about Iraq's weapons. But Wolfowitz said the military shared his fear that weapons of mass destruction could be used against U.S. troops. Wolfowitz was asked about the common criticism that more troops should have been used to pacify Iraq. "Um," he said after a long pause, then paused again before concluding, "I personally don't think more troops would have answered the problem." Dunham took the precaution of presenting Wolfowitz with the customary Press Club mug and certificate "before we ask the final question," and for good reason: It tied the Nuremburg war trials to Wolfowitz and the Iraq war. Wolfowitz was unbowed. "I still think that what has been done for the United States and the world is something important," he said. Praising the sacrifices of U.S. and allied troops, he added that Iraq will become a place of "tolerance and freedom" in the Muslim world. "I think the whole world, frankly, should be enormously grateful." Page A - 9 From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Dec 10 17:40:05 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] If it's not torture, then it's OK to use it on Cheney Message-ID: <200512110040.jBB0e5O6025315@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20051204/OPINION/112040069&SearchID=7322 8725544116 Nevada Appeal December 4, 2005 If it's not torture, then it's OK to use it on Cheney By Kirk Caraway "We do not torture." That's what President George W. Bush said, and we can believe him, right? After all, that whole water boarding thing is just a walk in the park. Here is how CIA sources described this technique to ABC News: "The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt." And it seems to work pretty well. Another passage from the ABC story: "According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al-Qaida's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess." Wow. Two-and-a-half minutes to get the truth. Not bad. Perhaps the Justice Department could use this to speed up some investigations that are taking forever. How about that two-year investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's CIA status? Stick Karl Rove on the water board and we can see who really leaked what in just a couple of minutes. That would be fair, wouldn't it? After all, his boss says it's not torture, right? And how about this whole question about whether we were lied into the war in Iraq. I bet Dick Cheney would have the answer for that one, though the water board may be tough on his bad heart. At least we would know for sure if 2,120+ brave Americans died for a lie. Just for fun, we could strap Bill Clinton to the water board and find out a whole lot on what happened during his term in the White House. That's one interrogation people would pay big money to see on pay-per-view. Think of all the situations this could be used for. Hook up Tom DeLay, see if he really did break Texas campaign laws. Get the Halliburton executives in there and ask what happened to all our money. Stick O.J. Simpson on the water board and find out if he killed his ex-wife. Remember, it's not torture. Bush says so. Of course, this method isn't foolproof. The confessions obtained this way aren't exactly trustworthy. The ABC story recounts how one subject was water boarded into claiming Iraq helped train al-Qaida members to use biochemical weapons. This information then was used by the Bush Administration to justify the war. As it turns out, the subject had no knowledge of such training, and he fabricated the story in order to stop the treatment. "This is the problem with using the water board. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," a source told ABC. So maybe we weren't lied into war, just water boarded into it. At least it's not torture. Bush said so. And we can believe him, right? Perhaps he can volunteer for the water board and prove he's telling the truth. Kirk Caraway is Internet Editor for the Nevada Appeal. Contact him at kcaraway@nevadaappeal.com or 881-1273. From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Dec 10 17:47:53 2005 From: shniad at sfu.ca (shniad@sfu.ca) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Comedy Central's Colbert Report on the Venezuelan heating oil program Message-ID: <200512110047.jBB0lrog003189@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> Comedy Central's Colbert Report on the Venezuelan heating oil program The Venezuelan heating oil program was the subject of Comedy Central's Colbert Report the other night. The link is available below. It even includes a picture of Ambassador Alvarez. (after clicking on the link, click on the segment called "Hell No.") http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/the_word/index. j html From hunterbadbear at earthlink.net Sat Dec 10 19:28:31 2005 From: hunterbadbear at earthlink.net (Hunter Gray) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Bruce Babbitt and the Moral Fall Message-ID: <000c01c5fdfa$96068c30$7403e404@intel> NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR: Bruce Babbitt's fall continues. But, for some of us, it has been a good while since we've seen him perched that [morally] high up in the Ponderosa Pine tree. He and I grew up together in the very same then-small Flagstaff, Arizona -- in the same time period -- right under the now embattled San Francisco Peaks. Four years younger than I, he was much more a peer of my two younger brothers -- but I do vaguely recall Bruce, then still in junior high, coming along on some of the wide-ranging junkets of our really great high school hiking club. [I think he was too young, or at least not interested in Monsignor Albouy's Explorer Scout troop in which I was active.] He took pretty much a career-oriented path -- graduating from Notre Dame and securing a law degree from Harvard. As I recall, he worked a stint as a Justice Department lawyer and in that capacity put in a brief, very safe appearance or two in the South during the Civil Rights Wars. [In the late summer of '63, not long at all out of a Jackson hospital and out of the South for just a couple of weeks, I gave a substantial speech in my home town on the Southern Movement, and especially the Jackson campaign. Sponsored by the local NAACP, and held on the south side of town -- the other side of the Santa Fe tracks and close to the Southwest Lumber Mill -- it was well attended by Blacks, Indians and Chicanos -- but Flagstaff Anglos were pretty scarce. Our family friend -- Platt Cline -- gave good coverage in our local newspaper. In those days, when Eldri and I -- and the offspring -- made one of our rare trips to Flagstaff, my folks' phone always got anonymous calls that were Birchy or worse.] Anyway, Bruce wound up as state AG in the mid-1970s. When the then Arizona governor was appointed to an ambassadorship, Wesley Bolin, the ancient and perennial Secretary of State became gov by law but soon died of a heart attack. Again, by Arizona law, Bruce then became governor and, later elected in his own right, served in that capacity from 1978 to 1987. During that era and thereafter, he and his wife annually sent a nice Christmas card to my mother. When I wrote him from Navajo Nation on an Indian educational matter [the poor road situation at one of the rare state-funded schools on the res], he was modestly helpful. It was also during this general period, 1983-84, that he used state troopers and related forces to crush the great Phelps Dodge copper strike -- thus earning the Forever Name, "Scabbitt." In 1993, he was appointed Secretary of Interior by Bill Clinton and, during this tenure, Bruce publicly and repeatedly threatened small ranchers in the Blue River region of extreme eastern Arizona with FBI and ATF and state agents if they harmed any of the wolves then being introduced. At that point, no one had harmed anything -- I knew one of those ranching families well -- and Bruce's ill-timed threats angered many in rural Arizona and New Mexico. And it was also during his Interior performance that problems worsened within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And now, Bruce Babbitt, back at Flagstaff, is fighting for the Arizona Snowbowl interests -- and fighting hard against the more than a dozen tribes and their many allies who oppose, on solid and traditionally theological grounds and on a practical scientific basis as well, the use of waste water to make artificial snow so the Snowbowl can expand and make ever and ever bigger bucks. The world and Northern Arizona were big, especially back when we were kids and 66 and its tourists ran right through town and the Santa Fe was still the Santa Fe. There were Indians and cowboys aplenty and the smoke-filled saloons ran 24 hours a day and still the Air was Pure. Like all kids, whoever and of whatever culture, we planned to someway Catch the World and Do Something. Others can judge me. I feel sorry about Bruce. Hunter Gray [Hunter Bear] Snowbowl lawsuit straining Babbitt's rapport with tribes Mark Shaffer Republic Flagstaff Bureau Dec. 10, 2005 PRESCOTT -- It had been another typically rough day outside the federal courthouse for Arizona Snowbowl consultant Bruce Babbitt. As Babbitt, the former Arizona governor, Interior secretary and one-time darling of environmentalists and Native Americans, returned from lunch, he was greeted by a group of protesters opposed to his involvement with the Snowbowl and its efforts to pipe treated wastewater up the mountains and turn it into artificial snow. "Shame!" the protesters chanted. "How do you sleep at night?" "Hey, hey, Bruce, you've got dirty underpants." This was not the same Babbitt who years earlier had stood side by side with Native Americans protesting a pumice mine and who had made a concerted effort to leave a legacy of conservation, especially in Arizona, during his last year in the Clinton administration. Rather than being pilloried by ranching and mining interests for being too environmentally sensitive for his job, this Bruce Babbitt was advising Arizona Snowbowl and the federal government about how to defend themselves in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court by state tribes and conservation groups after the U.S. Forest Service approved a plan to let the Snowbowl make snow out of wastewater. The two-month trial before Judge Paul Rosenblatt concluded this week, when the parties submitted closing briefs. The case has huge implications for both sides. Snowbowl employs about 400 people and pumps an estimated $20 million a year into Flagstaff's economy. But Snowbowl operators have said they will have to close eventually unless they can make their own snow. The tribes say the plan to turn treated wastewater into snow would desecrate their sacred peaks and interfere with traditional religious activities. Rosenblatt has not indicated when he will issue his ruling. But that day can't come soon enough for Babbitt, who one afternoon jaywalked across Goodwin Street in front of the courthouse to get away from his critics. Later, he assailed a member of the environmental group Save the Peaks, who had trailed him down a sidewalk while questioning him about working for Snowbowl. "I want you out of my space. Respect it!" Babbitt said angrily, jabbing his finger at the man. He left the trial for its final two weeks, in part because of a national tour to promote his book Cities in the Wilderness, in which Babbitt makes the case for a national vision of land use to balance human-development needs with preservation of the wilderness. 'Green for money' Native American protesters view Babbitt's involvement with the Snowbowl as an act of disloyalty by the man who stood with them in the spring of 2000 near the rim of White Vulcan Mine in the foothills of the San Francisco Peaks and later kept his promise to shut down the "sacrilege that had been perpetrated on this landscape." "We feel betrayed. That goes without saying," said Klee Benally of Flagstaff, son of a Navajo medicine man and the leader of the Save the Peaks group, members of which have followed Babbitt to several book-promotion appearances and disrupted one in Tempe in October. "You wonder how someone could be so green for the forest and then turn around and be so green for money." Babbitt, reached at home in Washington, D.C., declined to discuss the trial, those protesting him or his legacy. "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I won't talk about any of these kinds of things while we are still in litigation," he said. During a 2001 interview with PBS shortly before he left office, Babbitt acknowledged that he had been drained financially defending against an inquiry into purported influence peddling in the controversial rejection of a proposed Indian gaming casino in Wisconsin. Babbitt was exonerated. "I'm in a much worse financial position than I was eight years ago," Babbitt told PBS. "I'm going to have to go out at age 62 and kind of readdress some of that." Shortly thereafter, Babbitt raised eyebrows among environmentalists when he was hired by Ahmanson Ranch to help put together a plan to build more than 3,000 homes in rural Ventura County northwest of Los Angeles, one of the last expanses of hillsides in Southern California not covered by sprawl. The ranchland was later sold to the state as a wildlife refuge. Babbitt then went to work for the Hearst Corp. to help broker a deal for an 82,000-acre ranch it owned on the central California coast south of Big Sur. In February, escrow with California was closed on the 13 miles of coastline. In 2002, he was hired as chairman and chief executive of a subsidiary of Cadiz Inc., a California-based water and agricultural company, to help develop agriculture in Egypt and other countries. Babbitt's approach Don Moon of Prescott, a longtime friend and business partner, said he is not surprised by the former governor's role in the Snowbowl controversy. "Like with the pumice mine, he can be as green as green gets or he can be a very non-sexy centrist," Moon said. "He doesn't demonize and exclude folks, and with that attitude he runs into folks on both extremes. He's been able to get phenomenal things done with his approach." As proof of what he called Babbitt's effectiveness, Moon pointed to agreements hammered out as Interior secretary to restore Florida's Everglades, reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone National Park and restore salmon to the rivers of the Pacific Northwest. Fred DuVal, a Phoenix political consultant and former gubernatorial aide to Babbitt, said Babbitt would not want to harm the San Francisco Peaks, where the Snowbowl is located. "He grew up on those mountains and has a passion for them that has gotten stronger as he has gotten older. It taps into something primal with him," DuVal said. But Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. said he never considered Babbitt a friend to Native Americans, even though Babbitt closed the pumice mine and vetoed a bill in the 1980s that would have created an all-Indian county in northeastern Arizona. "I'd like to believe that he left the courtroom in Prescott because he didn't want to offend U.S. tribes anymore," Shirley said. "If he doesn't really, really need money, you wonder where he has been coming from on this one." Tribes face tall order As the final documents are filed in the case, Babbitt's side appears to be in an enviable position. The tribes face a tall order in getting the Forest Service decision overturned, even with the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act on the books. But they do have a sympathetic ear in Rosenblatt, a longtime federal judge and Arizona native, who acknowledged in court that he has deep friendships with Native American jurists around the state. Even if Rosenblatt decides that snowmaking using treated wastewater presents a "substantial burden" on Native American cultures, to overturn the Forest Service decision he would have to buck an established federal mandate of ensuring multiple uses of public lands. The federal government has permitted skiing in the peaks for 68 years, and Arizona Snowbowl is situated on only 1 percent of the total Kachina Peaks Wilderness Area. Rosenblatt also would have to conclude that there is a less-harmful alternative to making snow with wastewater, one that doesn't threaten the practice of Native religions. That likely would be the use of groundwater in snowmaking, an idea that was sharply criticized by Flagstaff and other water users in the water-deficient region when it was proposed years ago. Religious practices During the trial, religious leaders from the 13 tribes fighting Snowbowl fought to establish the significance of the peaks in their religious practices. But there were repeated problems with language and expressing Native religious and cultural concepts in what one lawyer referred to as "Western terms." Sacred peaks at stake The San Francisco Peaks are one of the four sacred peaks to the Navajos - the others are in southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico - within the boundaries of which traditional leaders say their people evolved. The Hopis believe that the Creator communicates to them through spiritual intermediaries called kachinas, who live in the peaks from early August until midwinter. The importance of the snowmaking issue prompted one Hopi spiritual leader to even testify where some of the tribe's most sacred sites are on the peaks, a heretofore taboo subject. Shirley testified that putting treated wastewater on the Snowbowl ski area would be, for traditional Navajos, akin to "a child watching his mother get raped." Behind the scenes "I think our witnesses established the burden on their religious practices, and the government repeatedly asserted the multiple uses of the land," said Howard Shanker, a Valley attorney who is representing tribes and environmental groups in the case. For his part, Babbitt just wants to remain behind the scenes. "Some day, we'll have to talk about all of these issues raised about me," he said. HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk www.hunterbear.org Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' As a boy, I shot my huge Coming of Age Bear -- deep in the vast Sycamore Canyon wilderness area in Northern Arizona. At that point, I then became a man. The fiery spirit of the Bear and its abundantly fine qualities -- intelligence, courage, stamina, instinct -- are with me always and have served me very well and faithfully on my swift and rocky River of No Return. I plan to do much more in my life -- much more indeed -- before the eventual trip into the Fog and Deep Canyon, up over the High Mountains, and Far Beyond to the Shining Sun in the Turquoise Sky that glows forever down on the Headwaters of Life. And when that Journey finally comes the great Bear will accompany me. From hunterbadbear at earthlink.net Sun Dec 11 09:03:37 2005 From: hunterbadbear at earthlink.net (Hunter Gray) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Whither Bruce Babbitt, Whither Us? Message-ID: <006101c5fe6c$741407c0$3e03e404@intel> Note by Hunter Bear: `12/11/05 In response to my post on Bruce Babbitt, our good friend, Bob Gately, well entrenched in Arizona, asks -- sociologically and provocatively: "We have read your post, Hunter,and acknowledged that Bruce Babbitt is a interesting case in point, our thoughts are that he is a product of the same scene you came from....Thus, whats next ? RWG" Response [it's very early in the morning, MST]: My short answer, Bob, is another cup of strong black coffee. . .And with that now in front of me, let me try: On Bruce Babbitt, what's next for him personally is obviously up to him. He has, to be sure, gone deeply down into what I see as the Wrong Canyon Complex but, at the risk of sounding supercilious, I think he could work his way back out -- toward the Sun. Or, he could proceed irreversibly further down -- down into the Inner Gorge. In any case, I doubt very much that his situation will remain static. I'm avoiding, and I don't think you are proposing, that we become entangled in the brushy tangle of Free Will/Determinism/Original Sin. Like all people, I have personal and experiential things within and around me about which I say little or nothing at all to Anyone at All -- I'm not inclined to use my former early youth as any excuse for anything -- but my on-going Life Review, engendered by present circumstances, does give me a reasonably good grade on basic matters such as consistency in the realms of courage and honor. Presumptuous as it sounds, I certainly give you, Bob, a damn good grade -- as we do a great many people in Humanity with whom we have been privileged to interact. I like Humanity, have faith in it. "Keep Fighting" sounds trite but it sums It all up nicely. We fight locally and constructively wherever we can, but we fight as well for the on-going materialization of a far better world. On the San Francisco Peaks situation, let's hope damn hard for a good judicial ruling at the District Court level at Prescott. If it doesn't come, the legal fight could, of course, go on for some time -- during which tactically appropriate demonstrations and well aimed political action [and possibly economic boycotts] can be launched. Creative media work is already well underway. And ceremonies and prayer are and will be, I am sure, a most integral dimension at every juncture. Toward the high ground, always - HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk www.hunterbear.org Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' As a boy, I shot my huge Coming of Age Bear -- deep in the vast Sycamore Canyon wilderness area in Northern Arizona. At that point, I then became a man. The fiery spirit of the Bear and its abundantly fine qualities -- intelligence, courage, stamina, instinct -- are with me always and have served me very well and faithfully on my swift and rocky River of No Return. I plan to do much more in my life -- much more indeed -- before the eventual trip into the Fog and Deep Canyon, up over the High Mountains, and Far Beyond to the Shining Sun in the Turquoise Sky that glows forever down on the Headwaters of Life. And when that Journey finally comes the great Bear will accompany me. From mstainsby at resist.ca Sun Dec 11 15:45:28 2005 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Deh Cho urged to get realistic Message-ID: <439CAC08.7020301@resist.ca> Providing coverage of Alaska and northern Canada's oil and gas industry December 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vol. 10, No. 50 Week of December 11, 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deh Cho urged to get realistic The hold-out Deh Cho First Nations got a clear message from Imperial Oil Chief Executive Officer Tim Hearn Dec. 6 that they should not expect a better deal than other aboriginal regions along the planned Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline route. He said the Deh Cho has a "pretty good model for what is realistic and available" from the land access and benefits agreements reached with the Inuvialuit, Gwich'in and two Sahtu communities. At a session for analysts and reporters, Hearn said the work accomplished so far should encourage the Deh Cho "to see what is possible." But the Deh Cho continue to cling to a demand for property taxes from the pipeline - a prospect that has been rejected by the Mackenzie consortium and Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan. Hearn urged the Deh Cho to deal separately with the pipeline and their attempts to negotiate a self-government and land claim agreement with the Canadian government and not attempt to use the pipeline for political leverage. However, he said discussions have not broken off with the Deh Cho. He hopes the agreements in principle reached with the other aboriginal regions will result in ratified deals by year's end. Hearn also announced the latest uptick in the Mackenzie cost estimates, with the forecast now C$7.5 billion, an increase of C$500 million. -Gary Park -- Macdonald Stainsby http://independentmedia.ca/survivingcanada http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green In the contradiction lies the hope --Bertholt Brecht. From mstainsby at resist.ca Sun Dec 11 15:48:02 2005 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Land Claims and Treaties and Bands, Oh My! Message-ID: <439CACA2.7080800@resist.ca> Land Claims and Treaties and Bands, Oh My! First Ministers' Meeting coverage limited to official story by Dru Oja Jay When those with decision making power and access to the media come to a consensus, it is often easy to conclude that their account reflects reality--that, to the extent that one understands the official story, one understands the situation itself. While the usual suspects may not dispute such an account, dissent can nonetheless be found by those willing to look. The First Minister's Meeting in November was, according to media coverage, a "historic summit" held in Kelowna, British Columbia where $5 billion in spending was announced to "alleviate poverty" and "improve the quality of life" of Indigenous people in Canada. The plan, it was noted, focuses on housing, health care, education, economic development, and relations between natives and provincial and federal governments. Reporting typically presented a positive outcome, despite difficulties in reaching agreement. A Globe and Mail report, for example, referred to a "feud" between the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) over whether wording would include natives without government-recognized status. Criticism of the process was tempered by an overall impression that progress was being made. "The government is doing the honourable thing, but it does have the stink of desperation to it," NDP native affairs critic Pat Martin told the CBC, referring to the imminent fall of Paul Martin's Liberal government. In a brief foray outside of this narrow range of views offered by the political establishment, the Globe and Mail made mention of some deeper criticisms of the process. The Globe's Bill Curry quoted Arthur Manuel of the Grassroots Peoples Coalition (GPC) as saying that "The minute you recognize our economic and treaty rights, our poverty would disappear immediately." The Globe report also noted that the deal signed in Kelowna made no mention of treaty rights. While the media failed to provide the minimal context for Manuel's remarks--indeed, the CBC, the National Post, the Canadian Press and others ignored the grassroots perspective completely--the information is readily available for those who look. "The federal government has co-opted the Assembly of First Nations... as Aboriginal and Treaty rights are traded off for the modern day equivalent of 'trinkets and beads'," Manuel wrote in a GPC communiqu?. In the analysis of Manuel and many others, the federal government and Canadian corporations have made hundreds of billions of dollars on resources and land that, by law, belongs to Indigenous peoples. By one estimate, the value of oil revenues from unceded land in Alberta totals over $70 billion for the last 12 years. There was, in fact, considerable dissent about the meeting. One has to search the website of CBC North, however, to learn that "about 200 bands from across Canada" boycotted the meeting. "It's as if the agreements were already prewritten with the AFN in Ottawa," Bill Namagoose of the Cree Grand Council was quoted as saying. Another layer still obscures understanding of the situation: the band system itself. The band council system was imposed in 1884, with the Indian Advancement Act. Traditional systems of government were outlawed. Typically, traditional government held chiefs as spokespeople rather than decisionmakers, and decisionmaking power rested with the people of the nation. By imposing a system against the will of the affected communities, the federal government transfered control to the Ministry of Indian Affairs. To this day, the Federal government controls band funding, and can withdraw it as it sees fit. A resident of Grassy Narrows, a reservation in Ontario, told independent journalist Macdonald Stainsby that "The council and the chief make a good living, and get a very good income. In this very poor community, that's why people join the council. They have no real power, but they are scared to risk their funding." In a communiqu? sent after the meeting, Manuel raises yet another major issue not mentioned in media reports. Since Lester Pearson, the federal government has insisted on calling its funding to band councils "humanitarian assistance", instead of its legal obligation under Canadian law. Manuel writes: We view programs and services as part payment from the Canadian and provincial governments using and benefiting from our lands. The AFN and [others] have let the Canadian and BC government off-the-hook by unlinking programs and services from Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. Why aren't these challenges to the most basic assumptions upon which the plan to "lift natives out of poverty" is based reported in the media? Is it because the claims are outlandish? Probably not. The 1996 Royal Commission report came to essentially the same conclusions outlined above. According to the Commission, Aboriginal peoples' right of self-government within Canada is acknowledged and protected by the constitution. It recognizes that Aboriginal rights are older than Canada itself and that their continuity was part of the bargain between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people that made Canada possible. The remaining explanation is that instead of understanding things as they are, journalists chose the shortcut of understanding things the way the political establishment presents them. Whether journalists were unable to look beyond the official line, were not allowed to, or didn't want to, is a analysis for another day--analysis that requires insider access. That Canada's journalists told a woefully incomplete story, however, is a matter of the public record. -- Macdonald Stainsby http://independentmedia.ca/survivingcanada http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green In the contradiction lies the hope --Bertholt Brecht. From david.mcr at earthlink.net Sun Dec 11 19:53:11 2005 From: david.mcr at earthlink.net (David Mcreynolds) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Pelosi backs withdrawal from Iraq -- because of Greens? (SF Bay Guardian) Message-ID: <410-220051211225311968@earthlink.net> Thanks Scott - I'll pass along to some socialist contacts. Obviously the Democratic Party hasn't changed its stripes, it is committed to the long range goals of the Establishment, which are to get a firm hold on the oil resources. But, despite what some on the left seem to believe, both major parties respond to pressure from below. Hillary is responding to what she thinks her base in New York wants from her (and also the "tough" position on security that she thinks will qualify her for a Presidential run). Sometimes, as with Murtha, it seems to be a true act of conscience. In the case of Pelosi, it is her district that is pressuring her. These folks want to get re-elected, and so bad as both parties are, they are also not immune to pressure, including vigils, demonstrations, delegations that visit with them at the holiday season, etc. So Pelosi's shift should give us hope. David > [Original Message] > From: Scott McLarty > To: ; > Date: 12/9/2005 11:27:30 AM > Subject: Pelosi backs withdrawal from Iraq -- because of Greens? (SF Bay Guardian) > > One more against war > Under peace movement pressure at home, Pelosi > backs Murtha's call for withdrawal from Iraq > > By Tim Redmond > The San Francisco Bay Guardian, December 7-13, > 2005 > http://www.sfbg.com/40/10/news_war.html > > > Rep. Nancy Pelosi has finally taken a strong > antiwar position, demonstrating that the powerful > San Francisco Democrat is not immune to > constituent pressure and is finally paying > attention to political action from the city's > vocal antiwar majority. Yet Pelosi refuses to use > her position as the top Democrat in the US House > of Representatives to push her party to demand an > end to the US occupation of Iraq. > > Pelosi announced Nov. 30 that she would support > the call by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) for > a rapid withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. That > was a shift from her initial position: When > Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran who is > generally hawkish on military issues, held a > press conference Nov. 18 saying that the "troops > have done all they can" and that it was time for > President George W. Bush to withdraw the armed > forces from Iraq, Pelosi was unwilling to sign > on. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank quoted her > as saying only that "Mr. Murtha speaks for > himself." > > But there's been a tremendous outcry in her home > district for Pelosi to quit waffling on the war. > In September protesters held a "die-in" in front > of Pelosi's San Francisco office to demand she > oppose any further spending on the war. A month > later, on Oct. 26, the local Democratic County > Central Committee debated competing resolutions > on the war, one directly calling on Pelosi to > support troop withdrawal, and Pelosi's allies > were forced to scramble to create a compromised > plan that wouldn't appear to be a rebuke to the > House minority leader. > > And over the past few weeks, Green Party > activists, including former supervisor Matt > Gonzalez and Medea Benjamin, a longtime opponent > of the war, have been talking seriously about > challenging Pelosi in the midterm elections in > November. Benjamin was coming close to announcing > she'd run, and had gone as far as to draft (but > not yet send) a letter to Pelosi warning that her > refusal to back the Murtha plan would lead the > Greens to field a candidate against her. > > Of course, even a strong Green Party challenge > would be a long shot at best, but it would send > shock waves through the city's left and > potentially embarrass a congressional leader who > is used to having nothing more than a token > Republican opponent on the ballot. Most years she > barely bothers to come home and campaign for > re-election. > > There's evidence that she wasn't utterly > dismissing the Green Party threat. Early > Wednesday morning, Nov. 30 – well before Pelosi's > statement of support for Murtha was posted on her > Web site – a press release announcing her > position arrived in Benjamin's e-mail box at > Global Exchange, the nonprofit she runs. > > "Her office knew we were talking about [a > challenge]," Benjamin told the Bay Guardian. > > And the change in position has had an impact. > "The whole drive to challenge her was based on > the antiwar platform," Benjamin said, adding that > she's reevaluating her potential campaign. "I'll > wait and see what happens," she said. "This is a > major step for Pelosi, who has been such a > terrible disappointment. I hope she now will > provide some real leadership for the party." > > So far, that's still one for the hope column. > Pelosi told reporters Nov. 30 that she wouldn't > try to line up the House Democratic Caucus behind > Murtha's proposal, saying that "a vote for war is > an individual vote." > > Jennifer Crider, a press spokesperson for Pelosi, > told us the caucus is still divided on the issue, > and Pelosi doesn't see any reason to push it. > "It's clear that this isn't a party position," > she said. > > As for whether Pelosi is worried about angry > folks back home, Crider said, "She obviously > listens to what her constituents say, but this is > her own position." > > > E-mail Tim Redmond at tredmond@sfbg.com. > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com From aaron at istop.com Sun Dec 11 19:23:08 2005 From: aaron at istop.com (aaron@istop.com) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] the holiday slaughter Message-ID: <20051212032308.F196517C072@www.istop.com> It is that time of year again where mom, dad and the kids jump in the car to go christmas tree shopping. The tradition of having and decorating a tree at this time of year goes back well before the christians adopted this as their own tradition. Because this tradition pre-dates chistianity, I will refer to the chistmas tree as a holiday tree in this article and if you do not like it, I sugest you stop reading now. It was actually the romans who popularized the tree decorating tradition with their celabration of Saturnalia,named after the Roman god of agriculture.The Romans knew that the winter solstice represented a time when the days would start to get longer and soon the farmers would be planting their crops. I too think it is imprtant to be thankfull for the longer days and shorter nights, but do we have to give thanks buy needlessly slaughtering trees? In the United states alone, 34-36 million holiday trees are slaughtered every year,their lives of freely swaying in the wind and providing habitat and cover for all types of animals is cut short. The amount of space needed to grow all these trees is estimated to be about 1 million acres. imagine if all the holiday tree farms were replaced by fruit trees!!! imagine all the fuit that would be produced. We could have more apple trees, cherry trees,pear trees,ect.maybe we could just let forests take the place of these farms. If we had forests in place of all the tree farms,could you imagine how many animals would find new homes? When I say new home, I mean homes that will last in forests with hundred foot trees not 12 year homes that a tree that is only six feet high will provide. I will admit that on the farms, alot of oxogen is produced, they(the holiday tree advocates) claim that an acre of holiday trees will produce enough oxygen for 18 people;but when you take into consideration the cuting, bailing and tranporting of the holiday tree to home or the holiday tree lot, then the oxygen production of the tree is negated. I am willing to bet that all the stages from getting the tree to thowing it out after the holidays causes tremendous damage to the environment. I will also admit that getting a real tree is a better option then getting an artificial tree,but why have a tree at all? because it looks nice? because of tradition? please be a friend to the environment this year and every year from now on and go holiday tree free.It is time for us to stop the slaughter!!!! Aaron Doncaster From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 02:44:26 2005 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Sat Aug 5 04:43:18 2006 Subject: [R-G] Digest for ActionAlertsDiscussPP@topica.com, issue 338 (Alito) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051212094426.55398.qmail@web50807.mail.yahoo.com> Topica Digest -- How and Why To Oppose Judge Alito By webweaver@progressiveportal.org ------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:29:51 +0000 How and Why To Oppose Judge Alito AS MORE IS LEARNED ABOUT BUSH'S LATEST SUPREME-COURT NOMINEE, REASONS TO OPPOSE -- AND BENEFITS OF DOING SO -- BECOME CLEAR [From People for the American Way , EarthJustice , Feminist Majority , Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , MoveOn.org Political Action , National Organization for Women , NARAL Pro-Choice America , Planned Parenthood Federation , and others] ---------- EDITOR'S NOTE: A major focus of ProgressivePortal.org is to cull through and summarize the best progressive action alerts from a range of organizations. In keeping with that objective, we have reviewed more than 30 alerts from almost a dozen organizations to compile this Action Alert. Your activist friends and associates may appreciate your forwarding this alert, which saves you, and them, wading through a thicket of messages about Judge Alito. To receive alerts like this one by e-mail, send a blank message to: alerts-all@progressiveportal.org Read recent alerts online at: http://www.progressiveportal.org/alerts ---------- In this alert: - What's the Matter with Sam Alito? - Can This Nomination Be Stopped? - Take Action (What You Can Do) - More Information About Judge Alito 1. WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH SAM ALITO? What's the problem with Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court? Here's a summary from some leading organizations: People for the American Way: "On the appeals court, Alito endorsed radical restrictions on reproductive choice -- such as requiring that a woman notify her husband before obtaining an abortion -- raising serious concerns about the future of Roe v. Wade if he is confirmed. He is a leader of the radical right-wing legal movement to prevent the federal government from enforcing civil rights protections. He has claimed that the federal government cannot fully apply the Family and Medical Leave Act to state employees. [His decision was effectively overturned by the Supreme Court.] He has even argued that Congress could not enact a ban on the possession of machine guns. If confirmed, Alito could be a threat to our rights and liberties for a generation or more." ... "While working under Attorney General Edwin Meese, Alito urged President Reagan to veto a bill to protect consumers from used car dealers who roll back odometers - he said it wasn't the federal government's job to protect citizens' health, safety and welfare." ... "Alito supported a law that allowed a police officer to knowingly shoot in the back and kill an unarmed 15 year-old boy who fled a police attempt to arrest him as a suspect in a $10 burglary. The Supreme Court and police groups opposed this position." Earthjustice (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund): "A few of Judge Alito's past decisions are especially frightening. In one case, Judge Alito joined in a 2-1 ruling that denied citizens access to courts under the Clean Water Act, which authorizes citizens to bring a civil enforcement action against alleged polluters. Judge Alito ruled that a citizen group did not have standing to sue because it had not demonstrated that serious harm to the environment had occurred, despite the fact that the trial court had imposed a rare $2.6 million fine for the company's violations of the Act. The Supreme Court has since rejected Alito's analysis. Alito also wrote a dissent that would have unjustifiably restricted Congress' authority under the "Commerce Clause" (which is the basis for most federal environmental laws) when he claimed that the law prohibiting the transfer or possession of machine guns was unconstitutional. What will he decide about laws protecting our environment?" Feminist Majority: "Here is a sampling of Alito's positions: [He was] the only judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to require women to notify their husbands - even husbands who batter women - to obtain an abortion; voted against the Family and Medical Leave Act - this time not permitting state employees to sue for damages under the Act; dissented alone on a decision upholding a conviction under the federal law prohibiting the transfer or possession of machine guns - questioning whether Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to enact such a law; [was the] lone dissenter on a sex discrimination in employment case - he wanted "smoking gun"-type evidence making nearly impossible an effort to prove sex discrimination." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Alito would replace, writing for the Supreme Court majority in rejecting Alito's husband-notification abortion decision: Alito's position would give "a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children." Operation Rescue (radical anti-abortion group), commenting on Alito's nomination and the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion: "Roe's days are numbered. ... We are trusting that we are now on the fast-track to derailing Roe v. Wade as the law of the land." MoveOn.org Political Action: "In one significant case, Alito wrote a dissenting opinion that would have allowed an unauthorized strip search of a woman and her 10 year-old daughter, in their own home. ... Alito was outvoted and strongly criticized by his fellow judges." Judge Samuel Alito (in a 1985 job application to the Reagan White House): "I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." ... (Commenting on a case before the Supreme Court:) "What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?" 2. CAN THIS NOMINATION BE STOPPED? The battle to stop Judge Alito is certainly an uphill one - no question. But it's not unwinnable, as the information in this section indicates. However, the prospect of stopping the nomination isn't the only reason to speak out. This is a time when liberal and progressive voices are reasserting themselves strongly in the political discourse of the U.S., as public support for the Bush Administration crumbles and the Republicans face increasingly obvious policy failures as well as scandal and indictments. A powerful progressive outcry against Judge Alito not only has a chance of stopping his nomination; it will also embolden Congress (including the increasingly restive group of moderate Republicans) to take a more assertive stand against the collapsing Bush Administration on a range of issues for the remaining three years of his term. Some activists are beginning to see a chance that Alito can be stopped. People for the American Way (PFAW) writes: "Though we are in for a tough fight, we're in a better position than ever before to protect the Court. Plagued by scandal and policy failures, President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have lost Americans' confidence - Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low. As Minority Leader Harry Reid's forcing the Senate into closed session last Tuesday showed, Democrats have heard the public's call for the Senate to stand up to the President." PFAW continues: "Even conservative Republicans like Virginia's John Warner have said they would oppose a power grab like Sen. Frist's attempt to eliminate the filibuster with the "nuclear option." Rhode Island moderate Republican Lincoln Chafee, who faces a tough reelection battle next year, has said that Alito's nomination raises red flags: "Alito has taken many positions that appear to place him at odds with the protection of key fundamental rights." The group continues: "The Senate Judiciary Committee has already rebuffed the White House's attempt to steamroll through the advise and consent process, refusing to begin hearings until after the December recess. More and more senators are signaling that they're willing to fight all the way on Alito's nomination if their concerns are not put to rest." In a separate message, PFAW reports: "When Alito appeared to disagree with the Supreme Court case that established the fundamental democratic principal 'one man, one vote' [one U.S.] senator said, "If he really believes that is a questionable decision" then "you'll find a lot of people, including me, willing to do whatever they can to keep him off the court." One possible scenario involves a filibuster by one or more senators (almost certainly Democrats). The Republican senate leadership has threatened to do away with the filibuster for judicial nominees. (In a filibuster, a senator holds the floor indefinitely, refusing to yield to other speakers, to block the Senate from taking action. Currently, it takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster.) The filibuster is a rule that protects the rights of the minority in the Senate and has been in place almost since the founding of the country. Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of 14 senators headed off an effort to change the Senate rules on