*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

New Orleans Veterans for Peace
http://foodmusicjustice.com/2007/01/10/new-orleans-veterans-for-peace/

Guantanamo Uncassified
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5E3w7ME6Fs

Blue Man Group on Global Warming
http://video. google.com/ videoplay? docid=8453442377 878175440

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

RALLY AND MARCH TO END THE WAR ON IRAQ
SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 2007, 12 NOON
POWELL AND MARKET STREETS, S.F.
Troops out of Iraq NOW!
Stop racism against Arabs and Muslims!
End the Occupation of Palestine!

Over 3,000 dead American soldiers, hundreds of thousands
of dead Iraqis. It's time to put a stop to the war machine.
Millions of people voted to get the Republicans out and
end the war, but we can't leave it up to the Democrats
to do the only reasonable thing:
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW FROM IRAQ!

President Bush just announced his intent to escalate the
number of troops in Iraq by over 20,000 more troops.

It's time to get the anti-war movement back in the streets!
On January 27, hundreds of thousands of people will march
in Washington, DC to demand an end to the war.

We're bringing the same message to the streets of San Francisco.
Make your own signs and banners and march with your friends,
family, co-workers, class-mates, church, union or organization.
Join us to show Bush and the new Democratic Congress
that the anti-war movement is back.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

MARCH AND RALLY IN SAN FRANCISCO
SUNDAY, MARCH 18, 2007
(The annual St. Patrick's Day Parade is taking
place on Sat., March 17 in SF.)
ASSEMBLE 12:00 NOON
JUSTIN HERMAN PLAZA -
MARCH TO CIVIC CENTER
For more information:
http://www.actionsf.org/#local4
answer@actionsf.org
Phone: 415-821-6545
Fax: 415-821-5782

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
ARTICLES IN FULL:
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

1) Deja vu, 67 to 07
"... what happened on January 10, 1967 ...
alan pogue wrote:
alanpogue@mac. com
Thu, 11 Jan 2007
From: alan pogue
alanpogue@mac. com
To: Tomas Heikkala
tomas_heikkala@ yahoo.com
[VIA Email...bw]

2) George Bush once again proved that he is a mass killer.
By Don Vasicek, Producer of "The San Creek Massacre,"
a documentary film.
http://www.donvasicek.com
[VIA Email...bw]

3) Open Letter to Members of the United States Congress from
Former Special Forces Soldier Stan Goff:
[Via Email - www.marxmail.org ...bw]

4)  AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE JOINS AMERICA
SAYS NO TO THE PRESIDENT’S CALL FOR MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ
“Not One More Death, Not One More Dollar”
and Bring the Troops Home Now!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE            
Contact:           
Sandra Schwartz cell (415) 999-2436
Stephen McNeil cell (415) 350-9305 
January 11, 2007
[VIA Email...bw]

5) Oaxaca Government Wants Police Back
January 11, 2007
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B1369D774-0BE2-4FC7-905F-1580013B196F%7D&language=EN

6) G.I.’s in Iraq Raid Iranians’ Offices
By JAMES GLANZ
January 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/middleeast/12raid.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

7) Military Eases Its Rules for Mobilizing Reserves
By DAVID S. CLOUD
January 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12guard.html

8) Massachusetts Rescinds Deal on Policing Immigration
By KATIE ZEZIMA
January 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/us/12patrick.html

9) PENTAGON INTENSIFIES PRESSURE ON IRAN
By Jay Solomon
"Amid Push to Stabilize Iraq, U.S. Seeks to Curb Influence of Tehran
Throughout Region"
Wall Street Journal
January 12, 2007 Page A4
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116856948010274729.html
(subscribers only)

10) Why we stand for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq
We call on the U.S. to get out of Iraq — not in six months, not in a year, but now.
Sign the Petition at:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/OutNow/

11) Statement by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney On the President's
Proposal to Expand American Troops in Iraq
January 11, 2007
http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/pr01112007.cfm

12) Judge demands to know whereabouts of Colo. suspects in Swift raid
By ROBERT WELLER, The Associated Press
Jan 12, 2007 11:22 AM (23 hrs ago)
http://www.examiner.com/a-505424~Judge_demands_to_know_whereabouts_of_Colo__suspects_in_Swift_raid.html

13) DECLARATION OF THE INDIGENOUS WORLD URANIUM SUMMIT
Window Rock, Navajo Nation, USA
December 2, 2006
[VIA Email...bw]

14) Pentagon Sees Move in Somalia as Blueprint
By MARK MAZZETTI
January 13, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/world/africa/13proxy.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

15) Iraq's Death Squads
[A bit of history to remember...bw]
Sunday, December 4, 2005; B06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120300881.html

16) Military Expands Domestic Surveillance
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and MARK MAZZETTI
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/washington/14spy.html?hp&ex=1168750800&en=203bd3d1f0cd9644&ei=5094&partner=homepage

17) Deletions in Army Manual Raise Wiretapping Concerns
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and MARK MAZZETTI
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/washington/14spyside.html

18) Mine Collapse Kills 2 Workers in West Virginia
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/us/14mine.html

19) Picking Up the Pieces
New York Times Editorial
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/opinion/14sun1.html?hp

20) Gunboat Diplomacy: The Watch on the Gulf
By JOHN KIFNER
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14kifn.html?ref=weekinreview
Gunboat Diplomacy: The Watch on the Gulf (map)
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/01/13/weekinreview/20070114_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

21) Nomadic Herdsmen Innocent Targets of Bombing in Somalia, Says OXFAM
By Joe De Capua
Washington
12 January 2007
http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2007-01-12-voa26.cfm

22) The Best We Can Hope For
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html?ref=weekinreview

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

1) Deja vu, 67 to 07
"... what happened on January 10, 1967 ...
alan pogue wrote:
alanpogue@mac. com
Thu, 11 Jan 2007
From: alan pogue
alanpogue@mac. com
To: Tomas Heikkala
tomas_heikkala@ yahoo.com
[VIA Email...bw]

"... what happened on January 10, 1967 ...

The big news story that night? President Lyndon B. Johnson's State of the
Union address.

The topic that dominated all others: Vietnam.

I'm going to guide you to some excerpts of that address -- exactly 40 years
ago tonight.See how it compares to some of the excerpts from the Bush
speech,"... tonight victory wont be declared on deck of a battleship."

*LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967*: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an
attempt to prevent a larger war--a war almost certain to follow, I believe,
if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by
aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority,
that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price
to check them later.

*GWB, Jan. 10, 2007*: Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States
are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global
war on terror and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline
tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the
fight against terror.

*LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967*: I wish I could report to you that the conflict is
almost over. This I cannot do. We face more cost, more loss, and more agony.
For the end is not yet. I cannot promise you that it will come this year--or
come next year. Our adversary still believes, I think, tonight, that he can
go on fighting longer than we can, and longer than we and our allies will be
prepared to stand up and resist.

*GWB, Jan. 10, 2007*: Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two
principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure
neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there
were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.

*LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967*: Our South Vietnamese allies are also being tested
tonight. Because they must provide real security to the people living in the
countryside. And this means reducing the terrorism and the armed attacks
which kidnaped and killed 26,900 civilians in the last 32 months, to levels
where they can be successfully controlled by the regular South Vietnamese
security forces. It means bringing to the villagers an effective civilian
government that they can respect, and that they can rely upon and that they
can participate in, and that they can have a personal stake in. We hope that
government is now beginning to emerge.

*GWB, Jan. 10, 2007*: Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and
secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan
to do it.

*LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967*: This forward movement is rooted in the ambitions and
the interests of Asian nations themselves. It was precisely this movement
that we hoped to accelerate when I spoke at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore in
April 1965, and I pledged "a much more massive effort to improve the life of
man" in that part of the world, in the hope that we could take some of the
funds that we were spending on bullets and bombs and spend it on schools and
production.

*GWB, Jan. 10, 2007:* A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military
operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are
accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities.
So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has
announced.

*LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967*: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an
attempt to prevent a larger war--a war almost certain to follow, I believe,
if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by
aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority,
that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price
to check them later.

*GWB, Jan. 10, 2007*: The challenge playing out across the broader Middle
East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological
struggle of our timeŠIn the long run, the most realistic way to protect the
American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology
of the enemy by advancing liberty across a troubled region.

*LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967*: A time of testing--yes. And a time of transition. The
transition is sometimes slow; sometimes unpopular; almost always very
painful; and often quite dangerous. But we have lived with danger for a long
time before, and we shall live with it for a long time yet to come. We know
that "man is born unto trouble." We also know that this Nation was not
forged and did not survive and grow and prosper without a great deal of
sacrifice from a great many men.

*GWB, Jan. 10, 2007*: Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and
grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a
battleshipŠA democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country
that fights terrorists instead of harboring them and it will help bring a
future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

Not much to add here -- the words of Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush
pretty much speak for themselves.

Two things, though.

*First of all, ** 7,917 American troop had died in Vietnam through the
end of 1966* *, or ten days before Johnson's speech. From the beginning
of 1967 though the end of the war, an addition 50,285 -- more than six
times as many -- Americans would lose their lives*.

Also, and we're not endorsing this action by any means, then or now, but it
is interesting to note that in that 1967 SOTU, LBJ also called for a 6
percent surcharge on personal and corporate income taxes to pay for the cost
of the war. That's a level of responsibility -- and yes, sacrifice -- for
war that our current president is unwilling to take."
*"E-Day":It was 40years ago today*

January 10, 2006

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

2) George Bush once again proved that he is a mass killer.
By Don Vasicek, Producer of "The San Creek Massacre,"
a documentary film.
http://www.donvasicek.com
[VIA Email...bw]

"On January 10, 2007, the President of the United States, George
Bush, once again proved that he is a mass killer. He ignored the
Iraq Study Group Report, complied and put together by some of the
greatest minds we have in America. He virtually thumbed his nose at
the report. He is closer to being a dictator, than any other
president in the history of the United States. He and his chronies
are direct threats to all that we, as Americans, hold dear. Amongst
other things that he stated on his televised speech, was that he
knows there will be more American and Iraqi casualties with the surge
of the 20,000 troops being placed in Iraq. He added, in so many of
his choice words, something like, that this is what is needed for us
to prevail in Iraq. Then, he moved on with his speech.

In my interpretation of this, I see it as an indictment against human
beings, human beings who will die because of one man's (Cheney and a
couple of other thugs as well) desire to "win" so that he can leave a
"positive" legacy about himself in history books. Our soldiers and
civilians in Iraq are victims of poor leadership. Victims of sick
leadership. Victims of a person who believes it is more vital to
"win" than to preserve human life. Victims of a person who spends
more money in Bagdad than in New Orleans, a city in the United
States of America. Victims of a power monger who does what he wants to do
when he wants to do it (see how he circumvented the law to get Thomas
Bolton, a thug, in my opinion, into the United Nations as US
Ambassador, as one example).

What has Bush learned since the Viet Nam War? He has proved to me
that he has learned nothing. He believes that might over right
works. While people were dying in Viet Nam, Bush was sniffing coke
and getting drunk, how could he have learned anything of the horrors
of war? One has to care before they can learn. One learns by living
in the trenches of everyday life in America to survive, not by living
in an elitist world where reality is composed of power brokering, at
the expense of human beings.

During his presidency, Bush (it is difficult for me to address him as
President Bush for it degrades the office of the Presidency in my
opinion) has always done what he's wanted to do, regardless of the
law, regardless of the loss of life, and regardless of the welfare
for the people of the United States. He also stated that if Iraqi
President Milaki doesn't conform to his wishes and take control of
the sectarian violence, that Milaki will lose the support of the
American people. This is outrageous! It is misleading. It is a
lie! I did not vote for this man. I have never supported the War in
Iraq, or any other war during my 66 years of life. I don't want this
man speaking for me. This man should be impeached and thrown out of
office. He should be put on trial for murder, just like Saddam
Hussein was. This man is a danger to the American way of life."

January 11, 2007

Donald L. Vasicek
Olympus Films+, LLC
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Vasicek,+Don
http://www.donvasicek.com
dvasicek@earthlink.net
303-903-2103

The Sand Creek Massacre Documentary Film Project
consists of eight parts and can be viewed at:

http:// www.donvasicek.com

1. Award-winning trailer (1:45) (completed)
Click on Sand Creek Massace, then Trailer.

2. Award-winning documentary short (6:37)(completed)
Click on Shop.

3. Educational Documentary Presentation (completed).
Click on Shop.

4. Two-hour, six part series documentary film titled "Ghosts of Sand
Creek" (goes into production when money is raised).
Click on Sand Creek Massacre, then on Proposal.

5. Book (will be written when money is in place.)

6. Interactive Media (goes into production when money is raised.)

7. Curriculum/Lesson Plans (completed and available.)
Click on Shop.

8. Study Guide (completed and available).
Click on Shop.

Donald L. Vasicek
Olympus Films+, LLC
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Vasicek,+Don
http://www.donvasicek.com
dvasicek@earthlink.net
303-903-2103

Letter to Don Vasicek
By Bonnie Weinstein, www.bauaw.org

Dear Don,

I just viewed your powerful documentary, The Sand Creek Massacre.
I can't get the words out of my mind, question to Rivington from
a soldier: "Should we kill the children?" answer, "Nits make lice."

This horror needs to be exposed. I am so honored that you sent this
to me. We are meeting this Monday evening and I will make the
proposal for a film festival. I want this to be first on the list.
Meanwhile, I will circulate this to our members for review over
the weekend.

I profoundly feel that this information has terrific relevance for
today.

We can't let this continue to slide!

Again, I am so honored. I thank you so much.

In solidarity,

Bonnie Weinstein, www.buaw.org

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

3) Open Letter to Members of the United States Congress from
Former Special Forces Soldier Stan Goff:
[Via Email - www.marxmail.org ...bw]
http://stangoff.com/?p=444

The Bush-Maliki Plan, now called The Surge, to deploy an additional 20,000
US troops to Iraq is a last-ditch effort to prevent a decisive US political
defeat in Iraq. The principle purpose of this „surge‰ is to destroy the
Mehdi Army of Muqtada al Sadr , who broke his alliance with the Maliki
government after Maliki met with George Bush to confirm Iraqi government
submission to US forces two months ago. Sadr enjoys immense local support
from almost 3 million Iraqis, and is a very popular figure through most of
the Southern half of Iraq. Not only will the attempt to use this „surge‰
to destroy the Mehdi Army inflict massive civilian casualties in the
tightly-packed warrens of Sadr City, it will ignite a popular rebellion
among Shia, from Baghdad to Um Qasr, that will effectively destroy what is
left of the legitimacy of the Maliki „government.‰

Opposing this „surge‰ is not only politically smart for Democrats; it is a
moral imperative because of the civilian casualties that are certain to
accrue. But it is also a maneuver to dodge the larger issue of the war
itself, and of the 2006 election‚s implicit demand that the US withdraw
from Iraq. Now is the time to put as much local pressure as possible on
both parties‚ Senators and Representatives in order to accelerate the
inevitable US withdrawal from Iraq at the least costing lives. It is in
that spirit that this Open Letter to Members of the United States Congress
is offered.

Please distribute this Open Letter to Members of the United States Congress
as widely as possible, with the suggestions for using it.

Suggestion 1: Sign a copy and send it by email and paper mail to your own
Congressperson.

Suggestion 2: Have a group from the same Congressional district sign it
and send it to your Representatives and Senators.

Suggestion 3: Circulate the letter to as many people and organizations as
possible in your city, county, or state, and send copies to both Senators
and all Representatives.

Suggestion 4: Set up local web sites and lists to garner signatures, and
publish the letter and signatories in the local liberal entertainment
weekly. Then send copies of the paper to both Senators and all
Congresspersons.

Suggestion 5: Come up with more creative suggestions∑ and implement them, now.

***

Open Letter to Members of the United States Congress

We the undersigned are opposed to the Bush administration‚s continuing war
in Iraq, but we are also disappointed with much of Congress – Republican
and Democrat – as well as with much of the media, for failing to explain
the real situation in Iraq and refusing to take decisive steps to halt the
US-led occupation.

Media and therefore Congressional representations of the situation in Iraq
are not just over-simplified; they are deceptive.

(1) There is never any mention of oil in these accounts. Both the media
and most members of Congress are pretending that the US government‚s
preoccupation with Iraq has nothing to do with fossil energy reserves; but
most people in the US know that were it not for oil, the US government
would have little interest in the region or its people. We do not believe
that continuing the US addiction to oil (five percent of the world‚s
population consuming 25% of its oil) is a valid reason to bomb and invade
other nations and engage in wars of aggression.

(2) Media and Congressional accounts of the war almost always suggest that
the war in Iraq – however „flawed‰ – is part of something called the Global
War on Terrorism. But there can be no such thing as a war on a tactic, so
we have to ask ourselves if this is not just another one-size-fits-all
pretext for future military adventures. Iraq is not now nor has it ever
been a threat to the security of people in the United States.

(3) There is no such thing as an Iraqi government except inside the Green
Zone. Congressional and the media accounts constantly refer to the Iraqi
government as the entity that requires US military assistance to become the
guarantor of Iraqi security. But the relationship of all Iraqi forces
demonstrates that this is a dangerous fantasy. The Maliki government – or
any other government that relies on US military protection to survive for a
week – commands the loyalty of only a fraction of the armed actors in
Iraq. The armed forces being trained for that „government‰ are themselves
loyal to factions with agendas, and these forces are filled with
opportunists and infiltrators. With 80% of Iraqis now asking for an end to
the Anglo-American occupation, and the Iraqis themselves identified not
merely as Sunni or Shia (as simplified accounts have it), but of three
major armed Shia factions, two major Sunni armed factions, and a Kurdish
militia of 100,000 that resides in the north itself is divided into two
camps, there is no possibility of one faction gaining the acquiescence of
the whole Iraqi population and the various armed expressions of
populations. The Ma.liki-Bush „surge‰ plan is designed to eliminate
Maliki‚s Shia and Sunni opposition inside Baghdad.

(4) The various sectors of the Iraqi population share one goal: they want
stability to rebuild. This goal cannot be accomplished without
negotiations between the various groups. With most Iraqis now supporting
armed resistance to the Anglo-American occupation, no sector that is
identified with the occupation can gain legitimacy in the eyes of most
Iraqis. American support for any Iraqi „government‰ is not preventing
so-called „sectarian‰ violence, it is incubating it. There may be some
fighting in Iraq after a US withdrawal, but the balance of forces and their
geographical dispersion are more likely to produce negotiations than
protracted civil war. At any rate, it is not the role of the US government
to shape the future of Iraq. What our government has already done to the
future of Iraqis is quite enough, thank you. Iraqis are far more qualified
to figure this out than the US Departments of State and Defense.

(5) An exit is not a strategy; it is a command. Elaborate plans about how
to withdraw are the responsibility of the military commanders, not
Congress. Most members of Congress wouldn‚t know how to run a rifle
platoon for an hour, much less the en masse redeployment of 150,000
troops. Leaving is a technical and tactical exercise. What is required,
and what requires the political will of Congress – by de-funding the war –
is the order to withdraw. Your job is the what, not the how.

(6) Half-measures happen while people continue to die. Opposing a „surge‰
in troop levels, but failing to oppose the war, is a half-measure.

(7) It has been said that „cutting and running‰ would send the „wrong
message‰ to the world about the US∑ as if being ground down in a
humiliating series of daily defeats hasn‚t already accomplished this.
That‚s what they are. Defeats. Speak plainly. Military success is not
predicated on tactical outcomes; but on political outcomes. By this
measure, the US has already lost the war in Iraq. We never should have
gone there in the first place. If this is about preserving the „national
masculinity,‰ then every life lost in this effort is a pure sin. This
machismo is the ideology of gangsters.

(8) De-funding the war will not put troops in danger. Specific conditional
allocations of funds can be made available for the sole purpose of
conducting a re-deployment. Much of the money being used in Iraq is paying
exorbitant prices to private contractors. The war is what is putting
troops in danger, not cutting funds to continue an illegal and immoral war.

In November 2006, the majority of voting Americans expressed its opposition
to the war by putting Democrats back in control of Congress. You must
understand that this was a „vote against,‰ not a „vote for.‰
Many of us have been disappointed and even angered by Democratic complicity
in this criminal war.

Quit reading the wind, and start reading the weather. Since this horror
began, support for US aggression in Iraq has gone from 90% to 30%. Ask
yourself what the pattern is here. Republicans are already breaking ranks
with the war. Democratic equivocation is establishing the basis for a
historical reversal on the political question of the war. Those who are
reading the weather will succeed in 2008. Those who are merely reading
today's winds will be caught in the storm.

We want out of Iraq. By 2008, the majority of voters will want out of
Iraq, and want out immediately, as we do now. They will remember who had
the courage to say this before it crossed the 50% tipping point.
They will also remember those who had their eyes fixed on today‚s
anemometer. You have one weapon to use against this administration – the
power of the purse – and you must use it.

Not one more day; not one more dime; not one more life; not one more lie.

Cut the funds for the war, and bring the troops home now.

www.marxmail.org

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

4)  AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE JOINS AMERICA
SAYS NO TO THE PRESIDENT’S CALL FOR MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ
“Not One More Death, Not One More Dollar”
and Bring the Troops Home Now!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE            
Contact:           
Sandra Schwartz cell (415) 999-2436
Stephen McNeil cell (415) 350-9305 
January 11, 2007
[VIA Email...bw]

San Francisco, CA—The American Friends Service Committee calls
on all Americans to voice their opposition to both the call for more
troops in Iraq as well as the forthcoming funding supplemental for
the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The U.S. public has clearly called
for a new direction, and this is not it.  We call upon Congressional
leadership to stop giving the Administration a blank check.  We call
upon all to recognize in action that military force is not the solution
to the war in Iraq.  Rebuilding Iraq remains an obligation under
international law and cannot proceed until a political solution
is achieved.  Contact you members of Congress:

Senators Diane Feinstein at 415-393-0707
Barbara Boxer at 415-403-0100
Nancy Pelosi at 415-556-4862
Ellen Tauscher at 925-932-8899
Barbara Lee at 510-763-0360
Tom Lantos at 415-566-5257

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

5) Oaxaca Government Wants Police Back
January 11, 2007
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B1369D774-0BE2-4FC7-905F-1580013B196F%7D&language=EN

Mexico, Jan 11 (Prensa Latina) Ulises Ruiz, governor of the Mexican
state of Oaxaca, requested that the Secretariat of Government on
Thursday return the federal forces to help deal with the intensification
of the social movement.

At his first meeting with Francisco Ramirez, secretary of Government,
Ruiz asked for a security boost in Oaxaca capital as the Popular
Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO) reactivated its protest
actions.

The encounter came two days after denunciations against sexual
abuse of fifteen APPO members, detained on Nov 25, by federal
officers.

It also coincides with the presentation of those events before
the Chamber of Deputies and with the decision of legislators
of the Democratic Revolution Party to take such denunciations
to the international court The Hague.

Ruiz's request is due to the new action plan by the social movement
since the Secretariat of Government refused to resume talks on
Monday, saying that APPO lacks a concrete agenda to transform
Oaxaca.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

6) G.I.’s in Iraq Raid Iranians’ Offices
By JAMES GLANZ
January 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/middleeast/12raid.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

ERBIL, Iraq, Jan. 11 — American troops backed by attack helicopters
and armored vehicles raided an Iranian diplomatic office in the dead
of night early Thursday and detained as many as six of the Iranians
working inside.

The raid was the second surprise seizure of Iranians by the American
military in Iraq in recent weeks and came a day after President Bush
bluntly warned Iran to quit meddling in Iraqi affairs.

There was a tense standoff later in the day between the American
soldiers and about 100 Kurdish troops, who surrounded the American
armored vehicles for about two hours in this northern Iraqi city.

The attack was denounced by senior Kurdish officials, who are
normally America’s closest allies in Iraq but regarded the action
as an affront to their sovereignty in this highly tribal swath of the
country. Iran’s Foreign Ministry reacted in Tehran with a harsh
denunciation that threatened to escalate tensions with the Bush
administration.

The American military said that it had been “conducting routine
security operations in Erbil Jan. 11 and detained six individuals
suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraqi and
coalition forces. One individual was released and five remain
in custody.”

American officials have long accused Iran of sending weapons
and money into Iraq. In late December the American military
detained a number of Iranians in Baghdad, including two
diplomats and two who turned out to be senior Iranian military
officials. The diplomats were released but the others were forced
to leave Iraq under suspicion that they had been working with
Shiite militias. The incident also comes at a time when tensions
are high between the United States and Iran over its nuclear
program.

The incident was a major embarrassment for the Iraqi government,
which has been trying to foster initiatives with its neighbor for
improving regional security and trade, as well as other issues,
and it calls into question the extent of Iraqi control over its
own affairs.

In Thursday’s raid, attack helicopters roared above the normally
placid neighborhood here, as American troops backed by armored
vehicles broke into the office at around 3:30 a.m., carrying away
documents and computer equipment.

American Black Hawk helicopters also swooped over the confrontation
with the Kurdish troops, and at least two landed, said an American
witness. But there were no reports of shots being fired, and the
incident ended peacefully.

Witnesses said the attack was directed at a building that an American
official described as a liaison office that was properly accredited with
Iraq as an Iranian government facility. It was unclear whether the
Iranians who were arrested carried diplomatic passports and whether
the office was supposed to share some of the immunities enjoyed
by embassies and consulates.

Local residents said the main function of the office was to process
papers for people who want to go to Iran for visits or medical
treatment.

Muhammad Ahmad, who lives near the neighborhood, known as
Old Korea, said that he was awakened by shooting and helicopters.
“These kinds of actions are totally unacceptable and the Kurdish
leadership is very angry,” said Fuad Hussein, the spokesman for
the president of the semiautonomous territory, Massoud Barzani.
Mr. Hussein called the raid an “abduction.”

The Iranian government said the raid violated international law
and demanded the detainees’ release.

“This is a provocative action by the United States and is against
all international laws and regulations,” said the Foreign Ministry
spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, the state-run radio reported.

“The Americans are following two aims,” he said. “They want to
continue their pressure against Iran and, secondly, to create tension
among Iraq’s neighbors.”

He added: “The provocative and mischievous actions cannot damage
the friendly relations with Iraq.”

A senior State Department official said that the Iranian office in
Erbil was not technically a consulate, but rather a liaison office
which also provided some consular services.

He said that American officials believed that the Iranians intended
to turn the office into a consulate at some point, but that had
not yet happened. Therefore, he said, the State Department
does not consider the office to be Iranian territory.

Thursday afternoon, the Kurdish interior minister, Karim Sinjari,
appeared surprised when an American reporter asked him during
a meeting with American businessmen to confirm the raid
on the liaison.

“Yes,” Mr. Sinjari said tightly. “It was American-led.” Asked for
further details, he said: “We have no information. They did it
by themselves.” He then cut off questions.

The standoff began around 11 a.m. in Einkawa, a pleasant and
predominantly Christian suburb of Erbil where many Western
officials live and keep offices. Possibly angered by the earlier
raid, the Kurdish forces refused to let several American Humvees
through a checkpoint.

“It was the Americans’ fault,” said a Kurdish guard from the
checkpoint, who refused to give his name. “We asked them
to stop but they did not stop. That is why we pointed our
guns at each other.”

The standoff, while tense, was carefully controlled by the
Kurds. The American who witnessed it said that as the lines
of traffic lengthened on the blocked road, the Kurds began
waving cars through and they drove directly past the
stopped Humvees.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry summoned the Iraqi and Swiss
ambassadors in Tehran in protest, and demanded the
immediate release of what it called diplomats, the state-
run television reported.

The Swiss represent American interests in Tehran. The United
States has had no embassy in Iran since 1979, when radical
students attacked the American Embassy in Tehran and took
44 diplomats hostage.

Mr. Hosseini told state-run television on Thursday that the
consulate in Erbil was set up after coordination with Iraqi
officials and that “it was involved in consulate work.”

A measured statement late in the day from Mr. Barzani’s
office expressed “its sadness over these actions,” indicating
that it believed the building had diplomatic immunity.
“It is better to inform the Kurdistan government before
taking actions against anybody,” the office said.

The American military said in a statement that “the
documents and equipment that were removed will be
examined to determine the extent of the alleged illegal
or terrorist activity. Based on the outcome of that investigation,
appropriate action will be taken regarding the detainees.”

Reporting was contributed by Yerevan Adham from Erbil, Iraq,
Helene Cooper from Washington and Nazila Fathi from Tehran.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

7) Military Eases Its Rules for Mobilizing Reserves
By DAVID S. CLOUD
January 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12guard.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 — The Pentagon announced steps Thursday
to make more reservists available for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan
by changing the policies that govern how often members of the
Army National Guard and Reserve can be mobilized.

The new rules mean that individual Guard members and entire units
that have already been deployed in the last five years may be called
up again for as long as 24 consecutive months, officials said. In
practice, the Pentagon intends to try to limit future mobilizations
to no more than a year, once every five years, Gen. Peter Pace, the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters.

The policy change was brought on by the prolonged American troop
commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and military officials said
it would have been necessary even if President Bush had not decided
to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

The change, announced by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates at
a White House news conference, will enable the Bush administration
to call up tens of thousands of Guard members who were off limits
under the previous rules, without having to issue another politically
delicate mobilization order.

The decision to send five active-duty combat brigades to Iraq in the
next few months means the Army will need to call up National Guard
combat brigades that have already done one-year tours in Iraq, and
to do so sooner, officials said.

A senior military official said that by "this time next year," the Pentagon
"probably will be calling again on Guard units that have previously
done combat tours."

General Pace told reporters that some of the Guard units “that will
be mobilized in the coming period will not have had five years since
their last mobilization.” Some, he said, will have been home for
four years and some for only three.

Until now, the Defense Department’s policy on employing Guard
and Reserve units was that soldiers’ time on active duty could not
exceed a cumulative total of 24 months in any five-year period.
Under the new rules, the cumulative limit is removed.

The result, officials said, is that soldiers who have already done
a tour in Iraq in the last five years can now be sent back to Iraq
if their entire unit is remobilized. The goal of limiting deployments
to a year is meant to offset the burden on Guard members, who
must leave civilian jobs to serve.

Until now, many members of the Army National Guard, which has
an authorized total strength of 350,000 soldiers, have been deployed
to Iraq or Afghanistan as individuals, sometimes for 18 months or longer.
Mr. Gates said the Pentagon would now mobilize units, not individuals.
Any soldiers who have already done tours will again be eligible,
regardless of previous deployments, if their units are called into service.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

8) Massachusetts Rescinds Deal on Policing Immigration
By KATIE ZEZIMA
January 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/us/12patrick.html

BOSTON, Jan. 11 — Gov. Deval L. Patrick said Thursday that as expected,
he had rescinded a new agreement between Massachusetts and federal
officials that empowered the state police to arrest illegal immigrants
on charges of violating immigration law.

The agreement was announced last month by Mitt Romney, who was
then governor and has since opened a campaign for the Republican
presidential nomination in 2008. Within nine days of the
announcement, Mr. Patrick, as the Democratic governor-elect,
said he would void the accord on the ground that state troopers
already had enough to do enforcing Massachusetts statutes and
should not have the added responsibility of dealing with federal law.

Mr. Patrick said at a news conference Thursday that he would
negotiate a new agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
giving 12 Massachusetts corrections officers the power to search
for illegal immigrants in the state prison system and report them
to federal authorities for possible deportation.

These officers will be stationed at prisons in Concord and Framingham
that process all inmates in the system. The governor said he would
consider broadening this accord to include county and local jails,
depending on what happened at the state level.

Mr. Patrick said doing away with the arrangement negotiated by
Mr. Romney would allow state troopers to maintain a focus on gun,
drug and gang-related crime.

“The wisest and most practical course,” he said, “is for state troopers
to focus on enforcing Massachusetts laws.”

The governor was joined at the news conference by the Massachusetts
secretary of public safety, Kevin M. Burke, who said state police
officials had expressed concern that the increased responsibilities
would overburden their officers.

“It would definitely have affected, according to their analysis, their
ability to deal with their core mission” of enforcing state law,
Mr. Burke said.

There were no arrests under the Romney agreement, since,
Mr. Patrick said, the state troopers chosen to carry out the policy
had not yet begun a required six-week training course.

At least eight other jurisdictions have already partnered with
the federal government in helping enforce immigration law.
Arizona and five counties in California and North Carolina have
agreements with Washington involving state corrections officers,
while Alabama and Florida have arrangements involving the state police.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

9) PENTAGON INTENSIFIES PRESSURE ON IRAN
By Jay Solomon
"Amid Push to Stabilize Iraq, U.S. Seeks to Curb Influence of Tehran
Throughout Region"
Wall Street Journal
January 12, 2007 Page A4
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116856948010274729.html (subscribers only)

WASHINGTON -- Even as President Bush seeks larger numbers of troops to
stabilize Iraq, the Pentagon is intensifying operations there on another
front: challenging Iran over its alleged role in destabilizing its Arab
neighbor.

Yesterday, multinational forces including U.S. troops detained six Iranian
officials in Iraqi Kurdistan suspected of aiding Shiite Muslim militants in
Iraq. It was the second detainment by U.S.-led forces of Iranian officials
in Iraq in less than a month. The U.S. and its allies have also sought to
seal off Iran's ability to penetrate Iraq and ship arms there, with British
forces stepping up patrols along the Iran-Iraq border and U.S. warships and
aircraft carriers increasing patrols in the Persian Gulf. Mr. Bush, in his
speech to the nation Wednesday, announced the deployment of a second
aircraft-carrier battle group to patrol the Gulf.

And the Pentagon has significantly increased its intelligence activities
targeting suspected Iranian agents and Shiite Muslim militants, U.S.
intelligence officials said. Besides working with Iraqi security forces,
the U.S. has intensified information-sharing with dissident Iranian groups
such as Mujahedin-e Khalq, according to officials associated with the group.

U.S. officials say the intensifying actions targeting Iran are central to
the new White House push to underpin the shaky government of Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They come against a backdrop of growing, broader
tensions between Washington and Tehran, over Iran's suspected pursuit of
nuclear weapons, U.S. efforts to curb Iran's financial transactions and
Tehran's moves to increase its influence throughout the Middle East.

Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said the
administration is seeking to counter Iranian provocations across the region
as part of a broader strategy. "Iran needs to learn to respect us," he
said. "And Iran certainly needs to respect American power in the Middle
East."

Some U.S. lawmakers and many Arab officials fear the U.S.'s latest tactics
could stoke a broader regional conflict.

A number of Democratic and Republican lawmakers yesterday drew analogies to
the Vietnam War, when American military activities secretly moved into
neighboring Cambodia and Laos from Vietnam. These lawmakers said U.S.
efforts to target insurgents and alleged Iranian agents in Iraq could spill
over into Iran and Syria, and potentially spark wider, sectarian conflicts
between Sunni and Shiite Muslims around the region.

"When you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking
about here, it's very, very dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican
from Nebraska and a Vietnam veteran.

Mr. Bush Wednesday hinted at a significant hardening of policy toward Iran
and Syria, saying the U.S. "will seek out and destroy the networks providing
advanced training and weaponry to our enemies in Iraq." Mr. Bush and other
U.S. officials have regularly accused Iran and Syria of arming and funding
militants fighting in Iraq, charges both countries deny.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pushed an even-harder line toward Tehran
yesterday. Washington "will continue to work with the Iraqis and use all
our power to limit and counter activities of Iranian agents who are
attacking our people and innocent civilians in Iraq," she said.

The White House's emerging policy on Iran's role in Iraq directly counters
recommendations made last month by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The
congressionally funded group, headed by former U.S. Secretary of State James
Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, had recommended that the U.S.
directly engage Tehran and Damascus to build a regional consensus on how to
stabilize Iraq.

Bush administration officials working on Middle East policy said the White
House's moves to confront Tehran directly in Iraq predates the ISG study,
having been in development for nearly six months. From the earliest days of
the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Pentagon officials have voiced fears that
Iran was using the fall of Saddam Hussein to increase its influence among
Iraqi Shiites, who constitute a majority in the country but had lived under
Sunni Muslim rule for decades prior to Mr. Hussein's fall.

And U.S. intelligence officials said that during the past year, they have
noticed a significant increase of munitions and designs for the construction
of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, coming across the Iranian border.
IEDs are the largest killers of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, according to the
Pentagon.

Of particular concern to Pentagon planners is the alleged role of Qods
Force, the international arm of Tehran's Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps,
in trafficking IEDs into Iraq, intelligence officials said. The guard corps
is believed to have developed close ties to both the Mahdi Army, a Shiite
militia headed by the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Badr Brigade,
the militant arm of Iraq's largest Shiite political party, the Supreme
Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

The Pentagon moves in Iraq to arrest Iranian diplomats in both Irbil and
Baghdad over the past month were directly aimed at trying to stanch the flow
of IEDs and other armaments into Iraq, U.S. officials involved in the
program said. The U.S. has alleged that the Revolutionary Guard corps has
used front companies and religious foundations to move some of these
armaments over the Iran-Iraq border. And U.S. officials said they have
extensive intelligence showing many of the diplomats detained were senior
members of the corps.

The Iranian government immediately protested the U.S. moves, while Iraqi and
Kurdish officials asked the U.S. to show restraint in confronting Iran.
Baghdad views Tehran as an increasingly important economic partner and
crucial to its internal stability. "Sometimes we pay the price for the
tension in relations between Iran and the U.S. and Syria," said Iraqi
government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh, according to the Associated Press.

Aside from escalating strains between the U.S. and Iran, Middle East
analysts said Mr. Bush's new Iraq strategy -- such as adding more than
10,000 troops in Baghdad -- will inevitably increase tensions between
American forces and the Mahdi Army, which controls much of the Iraqi
capital, and that an escalation in fighting could turn Iraq's Shiite
majority even further against the U.S.

Of more concern to U.S. lawmakers is the potential that these U.S. actions
against Iran could escalate. Under one possible scenario, U.S. forces could
cross into Iran or Syria in pursuit of suspected insurgents or their allies,
or use alleged Iranian activities inside Iraq as a pretext for a wider
assault on Iran. The fear is that any such military activities could ignite
a wider conflict.

"The potential for sparking a wider conflict is great," said Trita Parsi, an
Iran analyst and president of the National Iranian American Council in
Washington. "I think that if we're going for a confrontation with Iran, the
pretext will be Iraq."

--Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

10) Why we stand for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq
We call on the U.S. to get out of Iraq — not in six months, not in a year, but now.
Sign the Petition at:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/OutNow/

THE U.S. occupation of Iraq has not liberated the Iraqi people, but
has made life worse for most Iraqis.

Tens of thousands of U.S. service people have been killed or maimed,
and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as
a result of the U.S. invasion in 2003, the ongoing occupation, and
the violence unleashed by them.

Iraq's infrastructure has been destroyed, and U.S. plans for
reconstruction abandoned. There is less electricity, less clean
drinking water, and more unemployment today than before
the U.S. invasion.

All of the justifications initially provided by the U.S. for waging
war on Iraq have been exposed as lies; the real reasons for the
invasion — to control Iraq's oil reserves and to increase U.S. strategic
influence in the region — now stand revealed.

The Bush administration has insisted again and again that stability,
democracy, and prosperity are around the next bend in the road.
But with each day that the U.S. stays, the violence and lack of
security facing Iraqis worsen. The U.S. says that it cannot withdraw
its military because Iraq will collapse into civil war if it does. But
the U.S. has deliberately stoked sectarian divisions in its ongoing
attempt to install a U.S.-friendly regime, thus driving Iraq towards
civil war.

The November elections in the United States sent a clear message
that voters reject the Iraq war, and opinion polls show that seven
in 10 Iraqis want the U.S. to leave sooner rather than later. Even
most U.S. military and political leaders agree that staying the
course in Iraq is a policy that is bound to fail.

Yet all the various alternative plans for Iraq now being discussed
in Washington, including those proposed by House and Senate
Democrats, aren't about withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq.
Rather, these strategies are about continuing the pursuit of U.S.
goals in Iraq and the larger Middle East using different means.

Even the proposal to redeploy U.S. troops outside of Iraq, a plan
favored by many Democratic Party leaders, envisions continued
U.S. intervention inside Iraq.

With former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger insisting that
a military victory in Iraq is no longer possible and (Ret.) Lt. Gen.
William Odom calling for "complete withdrawal" of all U.S. troops,
the antiwar movement should demand no less than the immediate
withdrawal of the U.S. military — as well as reparations to the
Iraqi people, so they can rebuild their own society and genuinely
determine their own future.

Ali Abunimah
ElectronicIraq.net
Gilbert Achcar
Author
Clash of Barbarisms
Michael Albert
ZNet
Tariq Ali
Author
Bush in Babylon
Anthony Arnove
Author
Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal
Noam Chomsky
Author
Hegemony or Survival
Kelly Dougherty
Executive Director
Iraq Veterans Against the War*
Eve Ensler
Playwright
The Vagina Monologues
Eduardo Galeano
Author
The Open Veins of Latin America
Rashid Khalidi
Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies
Columbia University
Camilo Mejía
First Iraq War resister to refuse redeployment
Arundhati Roy
Author
God of Small Things
Cindy Sheehan
Gold Star Families for Peace, mother of
Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, killed in Iraq
Howard Zinn
Author
A People's History of the United States

* for identification purposes only

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

11) Statement by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney On the President's
Proposal to Expand American Troops in Iraq
January 11, 2007
http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/pr01112007.cfm

No United States foreign policy can be sustained without the informed
consent of the American people. Last November the American people
spoke loudly and clearly that the President’s course in Iraq was flawed
and that he should begin bringing our troops home rapidly.

Rather than heed the will of American citizens, or listen to military
leaders speaking out against the current policy in Iraq, the President
is choosing to make one last attempt to salvage his own legacy
by putting in harm’s way more young American soldiers.

These soldiers – the men and women risking their lives in Iraq –
come from America’s working families. They are our sons and
daughters, our sisters and brothers, our husbands and wives.
They always answer when called to duty. For that fundamental
commitment to this nation, they deserve leaders who will call
them only when the nation’s security is at risk and there is
a clear plan for victory. This administration has failed and
continues to fail that basic obligation.

As our generals on the ground in Iraq have said, there is no
military solution to the civil strife that now wracks that country.
Only a political solution – effected by the Iraqis themselves –
can resolve what has become an internal struggle among
Iraqis themselves.

What is needed in Iraq is an expansion of political and
diplomatic efforts – not an increase in United States military
performing police functions. Moreover, sustainable social and
economic development and the guarantee of fundamental
labor and trade union rights are absolutely essential. The
President insists that we must succeed militarily in order
to establish the conditions for a political settlement. In fact,
the reverse is true. Unless there is first the political will
to stop the violence, there can be no military solution
involving American troops.

American policy in Iraq has been based on false premises
and wishful thinking since the beginning. And we have tried
to increase American troop presence in the most violent
and dangerous areas of Iraq before without success.

We urge the Congress of the United States to perform its
constitutional responsibilities and insist that the President,
and his military leaders, clearly articulate the path for
withdrawal of American troops from Iraq rapidly. The
dedication and patriotism of those young men and women
who answer the call to service deserve no less.

Contact: Steve Smith (202) 637-5018

Copyright © 2007 AFL-CIO

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

12) Judge demands to know whereabouts of Colo. suspects in Swift raid
By ROBERT WELLER, The Associated Press
Jan 12, 2007 11:22 AM (23 hrs ago)
http://www.examiner.com/a-505424~Judge_demands_to_know_whereabouts_of_Colo__suspects_in_Swift_raid.html

DENVER - A federal judge demanded Friday that immigration officials
disclose the whereabouts of 265 people arrested in a raid at
a meatpacking plant in Greeley last month.

U.S. District Judge John L. Kane gave Immigration and Customs
Enforcement until Jan. 22 to submit a list accounting for all the
detainees, including those who have been deported.

"There are people in custody - there is an urgency to this,"
Kane said.

Kane told ICE officials to work on the list with union attorneys
who are contesting the Greeley arrests.

ICE agents raided Swift & Co. meatpacking plants in six
states on Dec. 12, arresting a total of 1,282 people. ICE has
said about 220 face identity theft or other criminal charges
and the rest face immigration charges, which are considered
administrative rather than criminal.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union filed
a lawsuit in Denver federal court, alleging the arrests
of the 265 Greeley workers violated their constitutional
rights to due process.

ICE has denied the charge.

ICE also raided Swift plants in Grand Island, Neb.; Cactus, Texas;
Hyrum, Utah; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Worthington, Minn.
The Denver lawsuit did not include workers arrested at those plants.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

13) DECLARATION OF THE INDIGENOUS WORLD URANIUM SUMMIT
Window Rock, Navajo Nation, USA
December 2, 2006
[VIA Email...bw]

We, the Peoples gathered at the Indigenous World
Uranium Summit, at this critical time of
intensifying nuclear threats to Mother Earth and
all life, demand a worldwide ban on uranium
mining, processing, enrichment, fuel use, and
weapons testing and deployment, and nuclear waste
dumping on Native Lands.

Past, present and future generations of
Indigenous Peoples have been disproportionately
affected by the international nuclear weapons and
power industry. The nuclear fuel chain poisons
our people, land, air and waters and threatens
our very existence and our future generations.
Nuclear power is not a solution to global
warming. Uranium mining, nuclear energy
development and international agreements (e.g.,
the recent U.S.-India nuclear cooperation treaty)
that foster the nuclear fuel chain violate our
basic human rights and fundamental natural laws
of Mother Earth, endangering our traditional
cultures and spiritual well-being.

We reaffirm the Declaration of the World Uranium
Hearing in Salzburg, Austria, in 1992, that
"uranium and other radioactive minerals must
remain in their natural location." Further, we
stand in solidarity with the Navajo Nation for
enacting the Diné Natural Resources Protection
Act of 2005, which bans uranium mining and
processing and is based on the Fundamental Laws
of the Dine. And we dedicate ourselves to a
nuclear-free future.

Indigenous Peoples are connected spiritually and
culturally to our Mother, the Earth. Accordingly,
we endorse and encourage development of renewable
energy sources that sustain - not destroy -
Indigenous lands and the Earth's ecosystems.

In tribute to our ancestors, we continue
centuries of resistance against colonialism. We
recognize the work, courage, dedication and
sacrifice of those individuals from Indigenous
Nations and from Australia, Brazil, Canada,
China, Germany, India, Japan, the United States,
and Vanuatu, who participated in the Summit. We
further recognize the invaluable work of those
who were honored at the Nuclear-Free Future
Awards ceremony on December 1, 2006. And we will
continue to support activists worldwide in their
nonviolent efforts to stop uranium development.

We are determined to share the knowledge we have
gained at this Summit with the world. In the
weeks and months ahead, we will summarize and
disseminate the testimonies, traditional
Indigenous knowledge, and medical and scientific
evidence that justify a worldwide ban on uranium
development. We will enunciate specific plans of
action at the tribal, local, national and
international levels to support Native resistance
to the nuclear fuel chain. And we will pursue
legal and political redress for all past, current
and future impacts of the nuclear fuel chain on
Indigenous Peoples and their resources.

Jamie Kneen
Communications & Outreach Coordinator ofc. (613) 569-3439
MiningWatch Canada cell: (613) 761-2273
250 City Centre Ave., Suite 508 fax: (613) 569-5138
Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6K7 e-mail: jamie@miningwatch. ca
Canada http://www.miningwa tch.ca
Skype: jamiekneen

join signing following petitions and forward, spread the word, thank you

Tell the Department of Energy that we reject Nuclear Bombplex 2030! (US Citizens only)
http://www.democrac yinaction. org/dia/organiza tionsORG/ Peaceact/ campaign. jsp?campaign_ KEY=6141

One million signatures against nuclear power
http://www.million- against-nuclear. net/#sign

Britain is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has
made 'an unequivocal undertaking' to accomplish the total elimination
of its nuclear arsenal. http://www.ipetitio ns.com/petition/ notrident/

Sign Declaration against Nuclear Weapons
http://abolition200 0europe.org/ index.php? op=ViewArticle&articleId=2&blogId=1

We undersigned strongly urge the City Council, the Mayor and Citizens
to take steady steps to join Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision and stating
that the City and Citizens support the Program to Promote the
Solidarity of Cities toward the Total Abolition of Nuclear Weapons.
http://www.thepetit ionsite.com/ takeaction/ 621077558

Campaign: International Petition to Ban Uranium Weapons
http://web.bandeple teduranium. org/campaign/ person.php? id=1&id_topic=1

Safer Energy Policy for EU, Russia and World
http://www.thepetit ionsite.com/ takeaction/ 856918651

The Failed Policies will Haunt Us and the World for Decades!

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

14) Pentagon Sees Move in Somalia as Blueprint
By MARK MAZZETTI
January 13, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/world/africa/13proxy.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 — Military operations in Somalia by American
commandos, and the use of the Ethiopian Army as a surrogate force
to root out operatives for Al Qaeda in the country, are a blueprint
that Pentagon strategists say they hope to use more frequently
in counterterrorism missions around the globe.

Military officials said the strike by an American gunship on terrorism
suspects in southern Somalia on Sunday showed that even with the
departure of Donald H. Rumsfeld from the Pentagon, Special
Operations troops intended to take advantage of the directive
given to them by Mr. Rumsfeld in the weeks after the
Sept. 11 attacks.

American officials said the recent military operations have been
carried by the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command,
which directs the military’s most secretive and elite units, like
the Army’s Delta Force.

The Pentagon established a desolate outpost in the Horn of
Africa nation of Djibouti in 2002 in part to serve as a hub for
Special Operations missions to capture or kill senior Qaeda
leaders in the region.

Few such “high value” targets have materialized, and the
Pentagon has gradually relocated members of the covert
Special Operations units to more urgent missions in Iraq
and Afghanistan.

But officials in Washington said this week that the joint command
had quietly been returning troops and weaponry to the region
in recent weeks in anticipation of a mission against members
of a Qaeda cell believed to be hiding in Somalia.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told
members of Congress on Friday that the strike in Somalia was
executed under the Pentagon’s authority to hunt and kill terrorism
suspects around the globe, a power the White House gave
it shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

It was this authority that Mr. Rumsfeld used to order commanders
to develop plans for using American Special Operations troops
for missions within countries that had not been declared war
zones.

But since the retreat of the Taliban in 2001, when American Special
Forces worked with Afghan militias, Mr. Rumsfeld’s ambitious
agenda for Special Operations troops has been slow to materialize.

The problem has partly been a shortage of valuable intelligence
on the whereabouts of top terrorism suspects. Mr. Rumsfeld also
dispatched teams of Special Operations forces to work in American
embassies to collect intelligence and to develop war plans
for future operations.

Pentagon officials said it is still not known whether any senior
Qaeda suspects or their allies were killed in the airstrike on Sunday,
carried out by an AC-130 gunship. A small team of American
Special Operations troops has been to the scene of the airstrike,
in a remote stretch near the Kenya border, to collect forensic
evidence in the effort to identify the victims.

Some critics of the Pentagon’s aggressive use of Special Operations
troops, including some Democratic members of Congress,
have argued that using American forces outside of declared
combat zones gives the Pentagon too much authority in
sovereign nations and blurs the lines between soldiers and
spies.

The State Department and Pentagon took control of Somalia
policy in the summer, after a failed effort by the Central Intelligence
Agency to use Somali warlords as proxies to hunt down
the Qaeda suspects.

The trail of the terrorism suspects in Somalia, blamed for the
1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, had long
gone cold. But American military and intelligence officials
said that the Ethiopian offensive against the Islamist forces
who ruled Mogadishu and much of Somalia until last month
flushed the Qaeda suspects from their hide-outs and gave
American intelligence operatives fresh information about
their whereabouts.

The Bush administration has all but officially endorsed the
Ethiopian offensive, and Washington officials have said that
Ethiopia’s move into Somalia was a response to “aggression”
by the Islamists in Mogadishu.

In the weeks before the military campaign began, State Department
and Pentagon officials said that they had some concerns about the
impending Ethiopian government’s offensive in Somalia.

But as the Ethiopian’s march toward war looked more likely,
Americans began providing Ethiopian troops with up-to-date
intelligence on the military positions of the Islamist fighters
in Somalia, Pentagon and counterterrorism officials said.

According to a Pentagon consultant with knowledge about Special
Operations, small teams of American advisers crossed the border
into Somalia with the advancing Ethiopian army.

“You’re not talking lots of guys,” the Pentagon consultant said,
speaking on condition of anonymity. “You’re talking onesies
and twosies.”

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

15) Iraq's Death Squads
[A bit of history to remember...bw]
Sunday, December 4, 2005; B06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120300881.html

OF ALL THE bloodshed in Iraq, none may be more disturbing than the
campaign of torture and murder being conducted by U.S.-trained
government police forces. Reports last week in the Los Angeles
Times and New York Times chronicled how Iraqi Interior Ministry
commando and police units have been infiltrated by two Shiite
militias, which have been conducting ethnic cleansing and
rounding up Sunnis suspected of supporting the insurgency.
Hundreds of bodies have been appearing along roadsides and
in garbage dumps, some with acid burns or with holes drilled
in them. According to the searing account by Solomon Moore
of the Los Angeles Times, "the Baghdad morgue reports that
dozens of bodies arrive at the same time on a weekly basis,
including scores of corpses with wrists bound by police handcuffs."
The reports followed a raid two weeks ago by U.S. troops on
a clandestine Baghdad prison run by the Interior Ministry,
where some 170 men, most of them Sunni and most of them
starved or tortured, were found.

The danger this development poses to Iraq, and to the prospects
of a successful end to the U.S. mission there, ought to be obvious.
A dirty war conducted by the Iraqi government against one ethnic
group will make civil war inevitable. It will render impossible
a political accord among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, while
increasing the likelihood that Iraq will splinter. U.S. commanders
will be unable to hand responsibility off to Iraqi forces without
inviting a bloodbath, and the training mission that President
Bush described at length in his speech on Wednesday will be
utterly discredited. If there is to be any chance of achieving
Mr. Bush's goals of a united and democratic Iraq that protects
the rights of its minorities, the state-sponsored death squads
and torture chambers must be dismantled.

Once again, however, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
is ignoring a critical threat. Just as he dismissed the insurgency

in its formative months as a few "deadenders" and minimized
the systematic breakdown of U.S. discipline in the handling
of foreign prisoners as isolated freelancing, Mr. Rumsfeld
now pretends not even to know about the government death
squads. In a press conference last week, he called the reports
"unverified comments." This despite the facts that U.S. troops
uncovered the clandestine prison and that officials from the
Army, FBI, Justice Department and U.S. Embassy are
participating in an investigation.

Worse, Mr. Rumsfeld maintained that "the United States
does not have a responsibility" to do anything about the
crimes of the police forces it established and trained, other
than "report it." Even the man he selected to be chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace,
could not support such an irresponsible position. Standing
alongside Mr. Rumsfeld, he asserted that "it is absolutely
the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see
inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it."

If Mr. Rumsfeld's view prevails, Mr. Bush's latest "strategy
for victory" in Iraq will be fatally undermined. Many of the
death squads are run by the Badr Organization, which is
the military wing of the leading party in Iraq's Shiite-led
government, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution
in Iraq. Its leader, Abdul Aziz Hakim, not only refused to
acknowledge any wrongdoing in an interview last month
with the Post's Ellen Knickmeyer, but asserted that U.S.
forces were tying Iraqi hands and should get out of the
way so that even tougher tactics could be adopted.
Should that happen, any hope for peace in Iraq will be lost.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

16) Military Expands Domestic Surveillance
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and MARK MAZZETTI
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/washington/14spy.html?hp&ex=1168750800&en=203bd3d1f0cd9644&ei=5094&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — The Pentagon has been using a little-known
power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans
and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United
States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic
intelligence gathering.

The C.I.A. has also been issuing what are known as national security
letters to gain access to financial records from American companies,
though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.

Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions
receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily,
allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions
of American military personnel and civilians, officials say.

The F.B.I., the lead agency on domestic counterterrorism and espionage,
has issued thousands of national security letters since the attacks of
Sept. 11, 2001, provoking criticism and court challenges from civil
liberties advocates who see them as unjustified intrusions into
Americans’ private lives.

But it was not previously known, even to some senior counterterrorism
officials, that the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency
have been using their own “noncompulsory” versions of the letters.
Congress has rejected several attempts by the two agencies since
2001 for authority to issue mandatory letters, in part because of
concerns about the dangers of expanding their role in domestic
spying.

The military and the C.I.A. have long been restricted in their domestic
intelligence operations, and both are barred from conducting
traditional domestic law enforcement work. The C.I.A.’s role
within the United States has been largely limited to recruiting
people to spy on foreign countries.

Carl Kropf, a spokesman for the director of national intelligence,
said intelligence agencies like the C.I.A. used the letters
on only a “limited basis.”

Pentagon officials defended the letters as valuable tools and
said they were part of a broader strategy since the Sept. 11
attacks to use more aggressive intelligence-gathering tactics —
a priority of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. The
letters “provide tremendous leads to follow and often with which
to corroborate other evidence in the context of counterespionage
and counterterrorism,” said Maj. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon
spokesman.

Government lawyers say the legal authority for the Pentagon
and the C.I.A. to use national security letters in gathering
domestic records dates back nearly three decades and, by their
reading, was strengthened by the antiterrorism law known
as the USA Patriot Act.

Pentagon officials said they used the letters to follow up on a variety
of intelligence tips or leads. While they would not provide details
about specific cases, military intelligence officials with knowledge
of them said the military had issued the letters to collect financial
records regarding a government contractor with unexplained
wealth, for example, and a chaplain at Guantánamo Bay
erroneously suspected of aiding prisoners at the facility.

Usually, the financial documents collected through the letters
do not establish any links to espionage or terrorism and have
seldom led to criminal charges, military officials say. Instead,
the letters often help eliminate suspects.

“We may find out this person has unexplained wealth for reasons
that have nothing to do with being a spy, in which case we’re
out of it,” said Thomas A. Gandy, a senior Army
counterintelligence official.

But even when the initial suspicions are unproven, the documents
have intelligence value, military officials say. In the next year, they
plan to incorporate the records into a database at the
Counterintelligence Field Activity office at the Pentagon to
track possible threats against the military, Pentagon officials
said. Like others interviewed, they would speak only on the
condition of anonymity.

Military intelligence officers have sent letters in up to 500
investigations over the last five years, two officials estimated.
The number of letters is likely to be well into the thousands,
the officials said, because a single case often generates letters
to multiple financial institutions. For its part, the C.I.A. issues
a handful of national security letters each year, agency officials
said. Congressional officials said members of the House and
Senate Intelligence Committees had been briefed on the use
of the letters by the military and the C.I.A.

Some national security experts and civil liberties advocates are
troubled by the C.I.A. and military taking on domestic intelligence
activities, particularly in light of recent disclosures that the
Counterintelligence Field Activity office had maintained files
on Iraq war protesters in the United States in violation of the
military’s own guidelines. Some experts say the Pentagon has
adopted an overly expansive view of its domestic role under
the guise of “force protection,” or efforts to guard military
installations.

“There’s a strong tradition of not using our military for domestic
law enforcement,” said Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, a former
general counsel at both the National Security Agency and the
C.I.A. who is the dean at the McGeorge School of Law at the
University of the Pacific. “They’re moving into territory where
historically they have not been authorized or presumed
to be operating.”

Similarly, John Radsan, an assistant general counsel at the C.I.A.
from 2002 to 2004 and now a law professor at William Mitchell
College of Law in St. Paul, said, “The C.I.A. is not supposed
to have any law enforcement powers, or internal security functions,
so if they’ve been issuing their own national security letters, they
better be able to explain how they don’t cross the line.”

The Pentagon’s expanded intelligence-gathering role, in particular,
has created occasional conflicts with other federal agencies. Pentagon
efforts to post American military officers at embassies overseas
to gather intelligence for counterterrorism operations or future war
plans has rankled some State Department and C.I.A. officials, who
see the military teams as duplicating and potentially interfering
with the intelligence agency.

In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has complained
about military officials dealing directly with local police — rather than
through the bureau — for assistance in responding to possible
terrorist threats against a military base. F.B.I. officials say the
threats have often turned out to be uncorroborated and, at times,
have stirred needless anxiety.

The military’s frequent use of national security letters has sometimes
caused concerns from the businesses receiving them, a counterterrorism
official said. Lawyers at financial institutions, which routinely provide
records to the F.B.I. in law enforcement investigations, have contacted
bureau officials to say they were confused by the scope of the military’s
requests and whether they were obligated to turn the records over,
the official said.

Companies are not eager to turn over sensitive financial data about
customers to the government, the official said, “so the more this
is done, and the more poorly it’s done, the more pushback there
is for the F.B.I.”

The bureau has frequently relied on the letters in recent years
to gather telephone and Internet logs, financial information and
other records in terrorism investigations, serving more than
9,000 letters in 2005, according to a Justice Department tally.
As an investigative tool, the letters present relatively few hurdles;
they can be authorized by supervisors rather than a court.
Passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001 lowered the standard
for issuing the letters, requiring only that the documents sought
be “relevant” to an investigation and allowing records requests
for more peripheral figures, not just targets of an inquiry.

Some Democrats have accused the F.B.I. of using the letters
for fishing expeditions, and the American Civil Liberties Union
won court challenges in two cases, one for library records in
Connecticut and the other for Internet records in Manhattan.
Concerned about possible abuses, Congress imposed new
safeguards in extending the Patriot Act last year, in part by
making clear that recipients of national security letters could
contact a lawyer and seek court review. Congress also directed
the Justice Department inspector general to study the F.B.I.’s
use of the letters, a review that is continuing.

Unlike the F.B.I., the military and the C.I.A. do not have wide-
ranging authority to seek records on Americans in intelligence
investigations. But the expanded use of national security letters
has allowed the Pentagon and the intelligence agency to collect
records on their own. Sometimes, military or C.I.A. officials work
with the F.B.I. to seek records, as occurred with an American
translator who had worked for the military in Iraq and was
suspected of having ties to insurgents.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Rumsfeld directed military lawyers
and intelligence officials to examine their legal authorities
to collect intelligence both inside the United States and abroad.
They concluded that the Pentagon had “way more” legal tools
than it had been using, a senior Defense Department official said.

Military officials say the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978,
which establishes procedures for government access to sensitive
banking data, first authorized them to issue national security
letters. The military had used the letters sporadically for years,
officials say, but the pace accelerated in late 2001, when lawyers
and intelligence officials concluded that the Patriot Act
strengthened their ability to use the letters to seek financial
records on a voluntary basis and to issue mandatory letters
to obtain credit ratings, the officials said.

The Patriot Act does not specifically mention military intelligence
or C.I.A. officials in connection with the national security letters.

Some F.B.I. officials said they were surprised by the Pentagon’s
interpretation of the law when military officials first informed
them of it. “It was a very broad reading of the law,” a former
counterterrorism official said.

While the letters typically have been used to trace the financial
transactions of military personnel, they also have been used to
investigate civilian contractors and people with no military ties
who may pose a threat to the military, officials said. Military
officials say they regard the letters as one of the least intrusive
means to gather evidence. When a full investigation is opened,
one official said, it has now become “standard practice” to issue
such letters.

One prominent case in which letters were used to obtain financial
records, according to two military officials, was that of a Muslim
chaplain at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who was suspected in 2003
of aiding terror suspects imprisoned at the facility. The espionage
case against the chaplain, James J. Yee, soon collapsed, and he was
eventually convicted on lesser charges of adultery and downloading
pornography.

Eugene Fidell, a defense lawyer for the former chaplain and
a military law expert, said he was unaware that military investigators
may have used national security letters to obtain financial information
about Mr. Yee, nor was he aware that the military had ever claimed
the authority to issue the letters.

Mr. Fidell said he found the practice “disturbing,” in part because
the military does not have the same checks and balances when
it comes to Americans’ civil rights as does the F.B.I. “Where is the
accountability?” he asked. “That’s the evil of it — it doesn’t leave
fingerprints.”

Even when a case is closed, military officials said they generally
maintain the records for years because they may be relevant to
future intelligence inquiries. Officials at the Pentagon’s
counterintelligence unit say they plan to incorporate those
records into a database, called Portico, on intelligence leads.
The financial documents will not be widely disseminated, but
limited to investigators, an intelligence official said.

“You don’t want to destroy something only to find out that the
same guy comes up in another report and you don’t know that
he was investigated before,” the official said.

The Counterintelligence Field Activity office, created in 2002 to
better coordinate the military’s efforts to combat foreign
intelligence services, has drawn criticism for some domestic
intelligence activities.

The agency houses an antiterrorist database of intelligence tips
and threat reports, known as Talon, which had been collecting
information on antiwar planning meetings at churches, libraries
and other locations. The Defense Department has since tightened
its procedures for what kind of information is allowed into the
Talon database, and the counterintelligence office also purged
more than 250 incident reports from the database that officials
determined should never have been included because they centered
on lawful political protests by people opposed to the war in Iraq.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

17) Deletions in Army Manual Raise Wiretapping Concerns
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and MARK MAZZETTI
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/washington/14spyside.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — Deep into an updated Army manual,
the deletion of 10 words has left some national security experts
wondering whether government lawyers are again asserting the
executive branch’s right to wiretap Americans without a court
warrant.

The manual, described by the Army as a “major revision” to
intelligence-gathering guidelines, addresses policies and procedures
for wiretapping Americans, among other issues.

The original guidelines, from 1984, said the Army could seek
to wiretap people inside the United States on an emergency basis
by going to the secret court set up by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, known as FISA, or by obtaining certification
from the attorney general “issued under the authority of section
102(a) of the Act.”

That last phrase is missing from the latest manual, which says
simply that the Army can seek emergency wiretapping authority
pursuant to an order issued by the FISA court “or upon attorney
general authorization.” It makes no mention of the attorney
general doing so under FISA.

Bush administration officials said that the wording change was
insignificant, adding that the Army would follow FISA requirements
if it sought to wiretap an American.

But the manual’s language worries some national security experts.
“The administration does not get to make up its own rules,” said
Steven Aftergood, who runs a project on government secrecy for
the Federation of American Scientists.

The Army guidelines were finalized in November 2005, and
Mr. Aftergood’s group recently obtained a copy under the Freedom
of Information Act. He said he was struck by the omission, particularly
because of the recent debate over the National Security Agency’s
domestic surveillance program. President Bush has asserted that he
can authorize eavesdropping without court warrants on the international
communications of Americans suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda.

Like several other national security experts, Mr. Aftergood said the
revised guidelines could suggest that Army lawyers had adopted the
legal claim that the executive branch had authority outside the courts
to conduct wiretaps.

But Thomas A. Gandy, a senior Army counterintelligence official
who helped develop the guidelines, said the new wording did not
suggest a policy change. The guidelines were intended to give Army
intelligence personnel more explicit and, in some cases, more restrictive
guidance than the 1984 regulations, partly to help them respond
to new threats like computer hackers.

“This is all about doing right and following the rules and protecting
the civil liberties of folks,” Mr. Gandy said. “It seeks to keep people
out of trouble.”

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

18) Mine Collapse Kills 2 Workers in West Virginia
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/us/14mine.html

CUCUMBER, W. Va., Jan. 13 (AP) — Two miners died on Saturday in
a collapse in a mine in McDowell County, the authorities said.

The cause of the accident was under investigation. The authorities
were trying to determine whether a pillar or a section of mine roof fell.

Ron Wooten, director of the state Office of Miners’ Health, Safety
and Training, said, “There’s no need for rescue teams, the
individuals have been recovered.”

Dispatchers said the accident scene was up to 1.5 miles beyond the
entrance to the Brooks Run Mining Company mine in McDowell County,
about 90 miles west of Roanoke, Va.

More details were unavailable. Mr. Wooten said he expected to learn
more once investigators returned from underground. Federal safety
investigators were on the scene.

The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration was “saddened
by the tragic accident,” Richard Stickler, the agency director, said.
The agency would work closely with the state to find out the cause,
Mr. Stickler said.

Brooks Run is a subsidiary of Alpha Natural Resources, which is based
in Abingdon, Va. The mine began operating in 2004. In October, a miner
was killed in a wall collapse at Alpha’s Whitetail Kittanning Mine
in Newburg, W.Va.

A company spokesman did not return a message.

The Brooks Run mine produced 375,665 tons of coal last year. Federal
inspectors cited it 65 times in 2006 and proposed penalties totaling
$5,000, according to the federal mine safety agency’s Web site.

The deaths were the first in West Virginia’s coal mines this year and
the second and third in the nation’s. A miner was killed Jan. 6 at
a Colorado mine, according to the agency.

Last year, 47 miners died in the nation’s coal mines — 24 of them
in West Virginia. The toll was the highest since 1995.

The West Virginia deaths included 12 men killed in an explosion
last year at the Sago Mine in Upshur County. Also last January, two
miners died in a fire at the Aracoma Alma No. 1 Mine in Logan County.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

19) Picking Up the Pieces
New York Times Editorial
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/opinion/14sun1.html?hp

It was surreal how disconnected President Bush was the other night,
both from Iraq’s horrifying reality and America’s anguish over this
unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war. Indeed, most
Americans seem far ahead of the president. They understand that
what the country urgently needs is for Mr. Bush to chart a way out
of Iraq that also limits the chaos that will be left behind.

The president’s disconnect goes far to explain the harshly critical
reaction of Congress and the public to his plan to further bleed
America’s overstretched forces by sending some 20,000 additional
troops in an attempt to impose peace on Baghdad’s vengeful streets.
He proposes to do that without any enforceable commitments
from the Iraqi government that it will take the necessary political
steps that are the only hope for tamping down a spiraling civil war.

There are no really satisfying answers in Iraq, since all of the
remaining options are bad. Still, some are notably worse than others,
and Mr. Bush has come up with possibly the worst. He would mortgage
thousands more American lives and what remains of Washington’s
credibility in the region to a destructively sectarian Shiite government
that he seems unwilling or unable to influence or restrain.

•

Unlike Mr. Bush’s views on the American military presence in Iraq,
our views have evolved as the evident realities on the ground
have changed. At the outset, although we opposed Mr. Bush’s
invasion, we hoped the United States military could provide
enough security to allow an elected government to build the
foundations of national unity and eventual democracy.

As it became increasingly clear that Iraqi political leaders had
other, less noble intentions, we still hoped that a substantial
American military presence could be used to shield innocent
civilians from the growing violence, train reliable and professional
Iraqi security forces to take over that task, and exert leverage
on Iraqi leaders to follow a less divisive and destructive course.

Now, with Mr. Bush unwilling or unable to persuade Prime
Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to take the minimum steps
necessary to justify any deeper American commitment, we
recognize that even that has become unrealistic. Mr. Maliki
gave the latest White House plan an even chillier reception
than it received in the United States Congress, boycotting
a Thursday news conference in Baghdad announcing it. He
apparently would have preferred to see American forces sent
to fight Sunni insurgents in western Anbar Province, leaving
Baghdad as a free-fire zone for his Shiite militia partners.

But even knowing all that, America cannot simply wash its
hands of Iraq and go home. The region’s problems, many of
them made worse by this war, are unavoidably America’s
problems as well. For starters, Iraq is in imminent danger
of violently breaking apart, driving millions of refugees
across its borders — who will bring with them their ethnic
grievances, and in some cases their weapons — and potentially
unleashing a chain reaction of regional conflicts that could
draw in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and perhaps others as well.

•

Whatever else happens, Iran has already become more
formidable and dangerous. Where it once had a hostile
Saddam Hussein on its western border, it now has a friendly
Shiite fundamentalist government. Its other longtime enemy,
the United States, has had its diplomatic and military clout
severely diminished by this war.

The expanding power of a revolutionary, Shiite Iran is
profoundly unsettling to the conservative Sunni-led governments
in most of the Arab Middle East, which have been America’s
traditional allies in the region. If the United States is to recoup
any of its standing and influence there, it will have to find
a way to contain the chaos in Iraq. And it will have to do
a lot more to address other concerns of these governments
and their people, starting with a genuine and sustained
effort to mediate a peace agreement between Israel and
the Palestinians.

If Mr. Bush does persist in sending more American troops
to Baghdad, despite Congress’s amply justified opposition,
he will have to establish clear lines of command that assure
that those troops can enter the strongholds of the Shiite militias
responsible for much of the violence without militia leaders’
being tipped off by allies in the Iraqi government.

And so long as any American troops remain in Iraq, Mr. Bush
must put serious pressure on Mr. Maliki to support the troops’
efforts with a genuine program of national reconciliation. That
must include, at a minimum, ridding the police and other security
services of killers, torturers and criminals and disarming
all sectarian militias.

The government must also assure that Iraqi oil revenues are
fairly shared out among the entire Iraqi population. And it
must move quickly to offer an amnesty to Sunni insurgents
willing to put down their weapons, and narrow the legal
restrictions on former Baath Party members so that Sunni
professionals can once again fully participate in Iraqi national life.

These benchmarks should be accompanied by fixed timelines.
And they must be accompanied with a clear message that the
United States is prepared to withdraw its troops if the Iraqis
continue to refuse to take responsibility for their own future.
Mr. Bush and other American officials need to make clear that
as much as the United States will suffer from a complete collapse
in Iraq, Iraq’s leaders will suffer far worse from the loss of their
American protectors.

Mr. Bush should reinforce that message by convening a conference
of all of Iraq’s neighbors to discuss how they can help stabilize
Iraq — and what they can do to contain the wider chaos should
it come. With nearly two million Iraqis already seeking refuge,
mainly in Syria and Jordan, it is far past time for American
officials to begin their own planning and relief efforts.

If Mr. Bush refuses to deliver this ultimatum to Mr. Maliki,
Congress will have to do so in his stead. That’s not the usual
division of labor between the executive and legislative branches,
but it is one that Mr. Bush has made necessary by his refusal
to face realities. The potential consequences of his failed
leadership are so serious that neither the new Democratic
majorities in Congress, nor the public at large, can afford
the luxury of merely criticizing from the sidelines.

•

So far, Congress is off to an encouraging start, holding substantive
oversight hearings and asking probing questions of administration
officials for the first time in too many years. Similarly encouraging
has been the bipartisan character of this reinvigorated oversight.
The Congress should continue asking hard questions. And it must
insist on real answers before acting on any new requests for money
to support Mr. Bush’s plans to send more troops to Baghdad.
Congress has the authority to attach conditions to that money,
imposing benchmarks and timetables on Mr. Bush, who then
would be forced to impose them on the Iraqi government.

One immediate step could be a set of bipartisan resolutions
spelling out the broad policy directions Congress expects the
president to pursue on Iraq. That would send a useful message
to the American people that lawmakers are listening to their
concerns, if Mr. Bush is not, and also to Iraq’s leaders.

It’s now up to Congress to force the president to live up to his
constitutional responsibilities and rescue this country from the
consequences of one of its worst strategic blunders in modern
times.

History will surely blame Mr. Bush for leading America into Iraq,
but it will blame Congress if it does not act to push him onto
a more realistic path.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

20) Gunboat Diplomacy: The Watch on the Gulf
By JOHN KIFNER
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14kifn.html?ref=weekinreview
Gunboat Diplomacy: The Watch on the Gulf (map)
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/01/13/weekinreview/20070114_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

THE United States Central Command stretches across some of the
world’s most volatile real estate from Kenya in the southwest through
all of the Middle East to Kazakhstan in the northeast. It encompasses
two active combat theaters: Afghanistan, which is landlocked, and Iraq,
with a tiny uncontested shoreline.

In both, the main fighting is counterinsurgency, largely the task of light
infantry like the Marines and the Army’s 10th Mountain or 82nd
and 101st Airborne Divisions. CentCom, as it is known, has always
been run by a four-star general from the Army or Marines.

So why name a sailor — Adm. William J. Fallon — as CentCom’s new
commander, as President Bush did earlier this month?

One word: Iran.

Admiral Fallon’s appointment comes amid a series of indications
that the Bush administration is increasingly focused on putting
pressure on Iran and, perhaps, veering toward open confrontation.
They include the dispatching of a second Navy carrier battle group
to the Persian Gulf; a blunt singling out of Iran in Mr. Bush’s speech
Wednesday night, warning that America will “seek out and destroy
the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our
enemies in Iraq,” followed by a dawn raid Thursday on an Iranian