|
Local Actions and Campaigns: Good Anti-War Calendars: Next BAUAW Meeting: |
Subscribe/Unsubscribe
Saturday, September 18, 2004
BAUAW NEWSLETTER-SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2004
Don't forget the next Bay Area United Against War (BAUAW) meeting
coming up this Wednesday, September 22, 7:00 p.m.,
1380 Valencia Street, between 24th & 25th Streets in S.F.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) RALLY AGAINST RADIO FREQUENCY
IDENTIFICATION (RFID) TECHNOLOGY
AT THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY
Sunday, September 19, 2004 at 2:00 p.m.
2) FBI data sought in bid to free Indian activist
By PHIL FAIRBANKS and MARK SOMMER
News Staff Reporters
9/14/2004
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040914/1049110.asp
3) ANSWER Activist Meeting
Tuesday, Sept. 21, 7pm
2489 Mission St. Room 30 (at 21st St.)
Help us launch a new national campaign -
the People's Anti-War Referendum Â
Vote No on War & Occupation!
4) US Soldiers Shoot First, No Questions Asked
by Gethin Chamberlain
BAGHDAD
Published on Friday, September 17, 2004
by The Scotsman (Scotland)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0917-25.htm
5) NEWS: Constitution be damned:
CIA acting director opposes release of 1947-1970
CIA budget totals
6) Dozens more die in Iraq violence
·45 die in Falluja raids
·Baghdad car bomb kills 13
·UK may send extra troops
The Guardian
5pm update
Friday September 17, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1306807,00.html
7) From: No One is Illegal Montreal
From the Family of the Late FAROUK ABDEL-MUHTI:
A Statement of Solidarity for the Coalition Against the
Deportation of Palestinian Refugees in Montreal
on the eve of the September 18th
STATELESS and DEPORTED Demonstration.
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
8) This Is Bush's Vietnam
By BOB HERBERT
OP-ED COLUMNIST
ARLINGTON, Va.
September 17, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/opinion/17herbert.html
9) TERROR ON THE JOB
According to Human Rights Watch 200,000 employees in
the U.S. were fired in the last decade because of
their union activities.
Where is the "War on Corporate Terror"?
Tidbit from: Howard Keylor
10) Subject: [ufpj-disc] RE: March Count
From: "John Bostrom"
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:30:46 -0400
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) RALLY AGAINST RADIO FREQUENCY
IDENTIFICATION (RFID) TECHNOLOGY
AT THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY
Sunday, September 19, 2004 at 2:00 p.m.
Join the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
Library Users Association, San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free
Union and other opponents of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
technology at the San Francisco Public Library for a rally and
informational picket line in front of the Main
Library at Larkin & Grove Streets in San Francisco.
The SF Public Library plans to
spend $300,000 in the next fiscal
year and $3 million over the next 6
years to replace its existing bar code system with
RFID chips and wireless readers.
RFID chips can be read anywhere without
the knowledge or consent of the
library user, even through a book bag,
enabling anyone with access to RFID
technology to identify and track the
movement of library materials and users.
The threats posed by RFID
technology to Library user privacy
are real, and the radiation emitted by
portable and stationary wireless
RFID readers has uncertain public health
implications and should be avoided
as a precautionary measure. If the
$300,000 the Library is requesting
for RFID is not approved by the Board of
Supervisors, the money is designated
to fund youth jobs at the Library
instead.
So come to the Main Library on Sunday,
September 19 at 2:00 p.m., bring a
friend and send a message to the Board
of Supervisors: No to RFID at the SF
Public Library! Yes to jobs for youth
at the Library!
See you on the 19th!
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) FBI data sought in bid to free Indian activist
By PHIL FAIRBANKS and MARK SOMMER
News Staff Reporters
9/14/2004
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040914/1049110.asp
Leonard Peltier, 60, is serving two
sentences of life imprisonment in the
deaths of two FBI agents in 1975.
Leonard Peltier's nearly 30-year quest
for freedom brought his defense team
to a Buffalo courtroom Monday seeking
FBI documents it believes could lead
to a new trial for the nationally known
Indian activist convicted of murder.
Peltier, sentenced to two terms of life
imprisonment in the 1975 shooting
deaths of two FBI agents in South
Dakota, wants a local judge to order the
release of 15 pages of documents,
part of a nationwide effort aimed at
proving that he was railroaded by the FBI.
Long championed as a "political prisoner"
by groups such as Amnesty
International, Peltier is a member
of the American Indian Movement. In the
eyes of the federal government, he
is a brutal killer who should never go
free.
"The FBI is hellbent on blocking the
disclosure of this information and
keeping Leonard Peltier in jail for
the rest of his natural life," Michael
Kuzma, a Buffalo lawyer and a
member of Peltier's defense team,
said in court Monday.
At issue before U.S. District Judge
William M. Skretny, who reserved
decision Monday, are 15 pages of
documents the FBI has withheld since 1975
on grounds of national security and
protection of confidential sources.
Peltier was not in court Monday,
but his attorney argued that the FBI is
withholding documents in order to
cover up its misconduct, an allegation the
government denies.
"The FBI has acted in good faith in
the processing of all these requests,"
Preeya M. Noronha, a U.S. Justice
Department attorney, told Skretny.
"There's no evidence that anything
improper was done."
Skretny took issue with Noronha's
contention, reminding her that two federal
appeals courts have criticized the
FBI's conduct in the Peltier case. One
panel of judges said the government's
decision to withhold and intimidate
witnesses should be "condemned."
Peltier, who contends that he was
framed by the government, has spent the
last several years seeking FBI
documents through the Freedom of Information
Act. Earlier this year, the government
acknowledged that more than 142,000
pages of documents pertaining to his
case were never turned over to his
attorneys.
The catalyst for the Buffalo case is a
heavily excised 1975 Teletype message
from the Buffalo office of the FBI to
then-FBI Director Clarence M. Kelley.
Kuzma said the Teletype message
indicates that a New York informant was
trying to infiltrate Peltier's defense effort.
Kelley later testified that
the government used informants
against the American Indian Movement, or AIM.
Peltier's attorneys learned of the
Teletype message after a FOIA request and
a subsequent lawsuit against the
FBI's Buffalo office pried loose 797 pages
of documents - some partially blacked
out - containing telex messages,
articles, letters and other memorandums.
"It appears a Buffalo source was
trying to infiltrate the defense team in
1975," Kuzma said during an interview
before the trial. "If we can show that
had a destructive role or impact on
the defense or the attorney-client
relationship, it could blow the case open."
The FBI tells a far different story.
Nearly 30 years after FBI Special
Agents Jack R. Coler and Ronald A.
Williams were killed at the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota,
the agency insists that Peltier is guilty.
"I stand behind the review of the
(U.S.) Supreme Court that he is a
convicted murderer," said Peter J.
Ahearn, special agent in charge of the
FBI's Buffalo office.
Ahearn said he has continued to
review material on the case through the
years and has found no reason to
believe that Peltier was innocent.
Among FBI agents, it is a case that
evokes great passion. Four years ago,
about 500 active and retired agents
held a march outside the White House to
dissuade President Bill Clinton from
granting clemency to Peltier. That view
was echoed by then-FBI Director
Louis J. Freeh in a public letter to the
president.
Despite the FBI's strong stance against
a new trial, Peltier's lead attorney
said the information they seek could
have a potentially explosive impact on
the case.
"It would be grounds for a new trial,
one which we'd relish because we know
they couldn't prove Leonard did it,"
said Barry Bachrach. "It could even be
grounds for an outright reversal."
Allan Jamieson, a Cayuga Indian who
lives in Buffalo and has tried to raise
public awareness about Peltier, agrees.
He sees the case as a symbol of the
injustices committed by the U.S.
government against Native Americans.
He also wonders why information
regarding Peltier can still be considered a
matter of national security nearly 30 years later.
"I don't understand how this information
can be perceived as a threat at
this point in time," Jamieson said.
Peltier, 60, is serving his two terms of
life in prison at Leavenworth
Federal Penitentiary in Kansas.
e-mail: pfairbanks@buffnews.com
and msommer@buffnews.com
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) ANSWER Activist Meeting
Tuesday, Sept. 21, 7pm
2489 Mission St. Room 30 (at 21st St.)
Help us launch a new national campaign -
the People's Anti-War Referendum Â
Vote No on War & Occupation!
The U.S. elections give us no say on the critical issue of war and
occupation. Rather, the big business candidates fight over who
will spend more money on the Âwar on terrorism and who will
send more troops to Iraq.
Join the peopleÂs anti-war ballot, a national independent grassroots
referendum to demonstrate and organize the breadth of opposition
to the U.S. wars and occupations and to bring the troops home now.
Unlike U.S. elections, our referendum doesnÂt discriminate by age,
immigration status, or prison history. We are all affected by the U.S.
policies of war and occupation, and we should have a say.
When you vote in the PeopleÂs Anti-War Referendum, your name
will not be sent to any branch of the government. Signatures will
be collected and the results presented to the media just before
the November election in a display of the strength of the
opposition to the war.
Join us this Tuesday at the ANSWER Activist Meeting to help
organize this important new campaign, set-up street polls
and tabling.
We will also have a political update on the Middle East, a
report on the Oct. 1 March Against Racism Discrimination
in the Castro and the Oct. 16 March for Immigrant Rights.
We will have break-out committees to work on these areas.
Get involved!
For more information, contact 415-821-6545 or
answer@actionsf.org.
To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) US Soldiers Shoot First, No Questions Asked
by Gethin Chamberlain
BAGHDAD
Published on Friday, September 17, 2004
by The Scotsman (Scotland)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0917-25.htm
BAGHDAD - His name was Ahmed Hameed and he was 36 years old.
He had taken the wrong turning up to the checkpoint on the July 14
Bridge which spans the Tigris on the south-eastern edge of what
used to be known in Baghdad as the Green Zone, but which has
now been renamed the International Zone.
Now he lies in a body-bag a few yards away from the US army gun
tower which opened fire on him as he tried to turn his moped around.
Soldiers from the US Airborne surround him, those at the back
peering over the shoulders of the ones in front to get a better
view as the bag is unzipped. In the tower, the heavy .240-calibre
machine-gun hangs limply on its mount, pointing at the ground.
The gunner is leaning on the parapet, looking out across the city.
Ahmed's head is turned away to one side, his mouth open, the
blood which streaks his face already dry. His right hand is by his
side, the left curled across his stomach. The fingers stop a few
inches from the inch-wide hole just above his groin. Someone
has tried to stem the bleeding from another hole in the top of
his chest, but there was too much blood. It has soaked his T-shirt,
which is pulled up to expose the wounds, and poured down his
body, mingling with his sweat, leaving pale rivulets across the skin.
Twenty yards away, his maroon Honda Spacy moped lies on its
right-hand side in front of a concrete barrier. There is a sign
painted on the barrier: it says "Do not enter or you will be shot",
in English and Arabic. There is a small bullet entry hole in the
top left-hand side of the seat, and a much larger exit hole on the
right-hand side of the rear fairing. The bike must have been
upright when the bullet struck, and almost sideways on to the
gun tower. Petrol has leaked from the tank and on to the tarmac.
Captain Mohammhad Mahde is taking in the details of the scene.
Mahde is an officer in the Iraqi police service, based inside the
International Zone. He bends low over Ahmed's body, pushing
down his black nylon boxer shorts with the blue stripe around
the waistband which poke out above his grey trousers, so that
he can get a better look at the lower wound.
"He was coming the wrong way," a US soldier is explaining to him,
gesturing towards the end of the bridge's exit ramp away around
the curve of the concrete wall on the right-hand side of the road
looking south.
"He didn't stop. They hit him and he got up, and they fired at him
again. He got up again and started running away, and because he
was running away they didn't shoot him. But then he just sort of
collapsed."
The body-bag is zipped closed. Mahde stands up and walks
towards the moped, and the soldier follows. "We yelled at him
to stop," he says. "He passed a few of the signs to stop, but he
just kept going."
Mahde walks past another concrete barrier, painted in English
and Arabic with three signs: "Exit only", "Do not enter", and "No
Stopping". There is no problem with the Arabic, he says. It is
quite clear. At the foot of the exit ramp, a small crowd watches
the soldiers and the policemen as they walk slowly towards them.
This is the reason the soldiers called Mahde's police station; they
wanted help to control the crowd. Mahde, though, wants to know
what happened. The soldiers eye him warily, but no-one tries to
stop him.
Mahde pulls out a notebook, writes down a few things, asks the
troops some more questions. He walks on to a thin patch of sand
that has been deposited on the tarmac. It is damp in a couple of
places, a slightly darker orange than the rest. There is a small
bloodstain on the checkpoint side of the line of sand which has
not been covered over. On the low concrete wall about three
feet away there are splashes where blood has sprayed up, and
a couple of flecks of flesh stick to the wall a foot or so closer to
the gun tower. "They killed him here," he says.
The soldiers say no. "The man got back here and collapsed," a
captain says. "We just covered up the blood."
Ahmed's shoes lie on the tarmac about four feet apart, between
where his body now lies and the spot where he died. The left
shoe is closer to the blood-stained sand, the right back towards
the gun tower. They are brown leather, quite new, a picture of a
stag and the name of the maker, the Dawara Company, embossed
on the inner sole. On the bridge side of the final concrete barrier
between the shoes and Mahde's body, there are four rough hollows
where bullets struck. An American soldier points them out; he refers
to them as splash marks.
The call came in to the police station a little after 10am from a US
captain in the Airborne. Dwight Murphy took it; he was sitting in
Mahde's office at the time, chatting to the captain. Murphy is the
deputy commander for support operations with the Civilian Police
Assistance Training Team, the organisation set up by coalition
forces to rebuild the Iraqi police service.
They got into Mahde's police Land Cruiser, with its blue and
white livery and blue and red flashing light, and drove to the
bridge. When they reached it, there was a US Bradley armoured
vehicle parked across the carriageway at the southern end, the
checkpoint end. Its main cannon was trained on the approaching
police car, as was the gun of the soldier in the turret.
With the index finger of his right hand, the soldier made a
horizontal circling gesture, then pointed back up the carriageway,
indicating that the car should turn around and leave. Murphy held
up his US identification card. The soldier repeated his gesture.
The driver began to swing the vehicle around, but Murphy had
taken out his mobile phone and was speaking to the captain
who had called the police station. The car stopped. The soldier
in the turret was speaking into his headset, his eyes still on the
police car. He gestured the policemen forward.
Murphy is crouched next to the sand, looking at the blood
splashed up the wall. "He was probably shot back here where
his body fell," he says.
"Maybe he was afraid," Mahde said. "Maybe he had explosives?
He lived in this city, he worked here, he knew this way. Why go
here?" The two men walk slowly back towards the moped. "We
haven't opened it up yet," one soldier tells them.
One of the soldiers picks up the machine and rests it on its stand.
The right-hand mirror has twisted round slightly, but there is no
other obvious damage, save for the bullet holes.
Another soldier has fetched a jemmy; he pokes it under the seat
and leans down on it to pop open the lock. It takes a quarter of a
minute, perhaps a little longer, before the lock gives. The soldier
places the seat on the ground. Inside, there is nothing but a thin
black plastic bag of the type used in some of the city's shops.
Inside the bag are two sheets of paper. The soldier hands them
to a captain, who looks at them briefly and hands them to Mahde.
They are Ahmed's identity papers. There is nothing else in the bag.
Mahde asks them to take the body to the morgue. The Americans
do not like the idea. Why can't the body be collected by the morgue,
they ask. Mahde says his men will take the body and the bike. He
looks around him. "This guy made a mistake, but he didn't put the
bike in that place or the shoes in that place," he says.
"Are you done here?" the US captain asks. "Can we open the
checkpoint again?" Mahde nods. They can, he says. He has no
authority over the US soldiers, but he will make a report.
He and Murphy start to walk back towards the police car. The
US soldiers follow, grumbling among themselves. They do not
understand what is happening. One can be heard complaining:
"All the other bodies, they just put in the truck and took them away."
(c) 2004 The Scotsman
###
Common Dreams NewsCenter
(c) Copyrighted 1997-2004
www.commondreams.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) NEWS: Constitution be damned:
CIA acting director opposes release of 1947-1970
CIA budget totals
[On page 12 of his recently
published book, *The Sorrows of Empire*
(Metropolitan Books, 2004), historian
Chalmers Johnson writes: "A revolution
would be required to bring the Pentagon
back under democratic control, or to
abolish the Central Intelligence Agency,
or even to contemplate enforcing
article 1, section 9, clause 7 of the
Constitution: 'No money shall be drawn
from the Treasury, but in Consequence
of Appropriations made by Law; and a
regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public
Money shall be published from time to
time.'" -- Steven Aftergood, of the
Federation of American Scientists' Secrecy
News project, has been engaged in a
long-term project to have Article I,
Section 9, Clause 7 respected by the CIA.
Here's his latest report in an ongoing
battle. --Mark]
http://ufppc.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1369
CIA REJECTS DISCLOSURE OF HISTORICAL BUDGET DATA
By Steven Aftergood
Secrecy News
September 17, 2004
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html
Acting Director of Central
Intelligence John E. McLaughlin told a federal
court this week that releasing
the amounts of historical CIA budgets from 1947
through 1970 would compromise intelligence methods.
Mr. McLaughlin's statement was
presented in opposition to a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit brought
by the Federation of American Scientists.
"I have carefully considered the
ramifications of releasing the total CIA
budgets for fiscal years 1947-70
and a few budget numbers from other agencies
for fiscal year 1947," he said in a sworn declaration.
"I have concluded that publicly
disclosing the intelligence budget information
that plaintiff seeks would tend to
reveal intelligence methods that, in the
interest of maintaining an effective
intelligence service, ought not be
publicly revealed," he wrote.
Acting DCI McLaughlin's insistence
on preserving the secrecy of even
half-century old budget figures
contrasts with the recommendation of the 9/11
Commission that current and future
intelligence agency budgets "should no
longer be kept secret."
DCI McLaughlin's September 14
declaration is posted here (1.25 MB PDF file):
http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/1947/mclaughlin.pdf
In accordance with Attorney General
Ashcroft's FOIA policy, the CIA's position
on budget secrecy is being vigorously
defended by the Department of Justice
Office of Information and Privacy. See the
defendant's motion for summary
judgment here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/1947/cia091504.pdf
A reply from FAS is due on September 29.
"We must do something about the problem
of overclassification," said Secretary
of State Colin Powell at a hearing of
the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee on September 13.
"Today, the intelligence community routinely
classifies information at higher
levels and makes access more difficult than
was the case even at the height of the Cold War."
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) Dozens more die in Iraq violence
·45 die in Falluja raids
·Baghdad car bomb kills 13
·UK may send extra troops
The Guardian
5pm update
Friday September 17, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1306807,00.html
More than 50 people were killed today in separate incidents in Iraq,
ending one of the bloodiest weeks since George Bush declared an
end to the Iraq war just over 12 months ago.
US strikes on militant targets in the city of Falluja killed 45 people
and injured 27.
Hours later at least 13 people died and 50 were wounded when a
car bomber struck near a major police checkpoint in central
Baghdad, the Iraqi health ministry and US military officials said.
According to a statement by the US military, the strikes,
which began last night, targeted a compound in Fazat Shnetir,
about 12 miles south of the Sunni stronghold of Falluja, where
militants loyal to the Jordanian-born al-Qaida ally Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi were gathering to plot attacks on US-led forces in Iraq.
Militants who survived the strikes later sought refuge in near
by villages, but US forces quickly broke off an offensive to hunt
them down in an effort to avoid civilian casualties, the statement said.
"The number of foreign fighters killed during the strike is estimated
at approximately 60. The terrorists targeted in this strike were
believed to be associated with recent bombing attacks and other
terrorist activities throughout Iraq," the US military said.
But a health ministry spokesman, Saad al-Amili, said at least 17
children and two women were among the wounded. Hospital
officials in Falluja said women and children were also among
the dead, but exact figures were not immediately available.
Residents of Fazat Shnetir were seen digging graves today
and burying the dead in groups of four.
Doctors at Falluja general hospital struggled to cope with the
wave of casualties, many of whom were transported in private
cars as the ambulance service was overwhelmed.
Relatives pounded their chests in grief and denounced the US
while religious leaders switched on loudspeakers at the mosque
to call on residents to donate blood and chanted "God is great."
US forces have not patrolled inside Falluja since the end of a
three-week siege that left hundreds dead. Insurgents have
strengthened their grip since then, mounting regular attacks
against US positions and military convoys on the town's outskirts.
In Baghdad, the bomb exploded beside a line of police vehicles
set up to seal off routes to nearby Haifa Street, where US and
Iraqi forces had spent the morning raiding insurgent hideouts.
The midday attack occurred on a busy market day, and officials
said the number of casualties was expected to rise.
As the death toll mounts in Iraq, Britain said today it was
prepared to send more troops if needed to bolster security ahead
of elections in January.
"We will deploy those numbers of troops that are required given
the situation. If it is necessary to put a few extra troops in to
provide appropriate security for the elections we will do that,"
the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, told reporters at a meeting
of EU defence ministers in the Netherlands.
·The British engineer kidnapped by gunmen from his house in
Baghdad was Kenneth Bigley, the Foreign Office confirmed today.
Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) From: No One is Illegal Montreal
From the Family of the Late FAROUK ABDEL-MUHTI:
A Statement of Solidarity for the Coalition Against the
Deportation of Palestinian Refugees in Montreal
on the eve of the September 18th
STATELESS and DEPORTED Demonstration.
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
Below is a statement of solidarity from the family of the late Farouk
Abdel-Muhti a stateless Palestinian refugee, who died in July 2004. With
Farouk's passing the struggle for Palestinian liberation lost one of its
leading fighters in the US.
Farouk Adbel-Muhti was born in 1947 in Ramallah, a Palestinian city in the
occupied West Bank of Jordan. Like many Palestinians, Farouk lived the
uprooted life of a stateless refugee, traveling from country to country
until finally settling in New York in the 1970s.
He came to the attention of US immigration officials in the mid-1970s
after overstaying his visa. An immigration judge ordered him deported,
however, there was no way to carry out the deportation, since the West
Bank was now controlled by Israel, which did not allow the return of
people who left the Palestinian territories before the Israeli occupation
of 1967.
Farouk continued to live openly in the New York area, engaging in a number
of public political activities, with a focus on the struggle for
Palestinian liberation and issues relating to immigration and Latin
America.
In March 2002, Farouk began working regularly at Pacifica Radio station
WBAI. He used his contacts to arrange interviews with Palestinians in the
Occupied Territories. One month later, three New York police officers and
an INS agent, came to his Queens apartment without a warrant. They claimed
they wanted to ask Farouk some questions about September 11th.
Farouk was detained on April 26, 2002 and jailed in various facilities
around the country for two years. He was never charged with a crime. He
was often held in solitary confinement, subjected to extensive
interrogation, and often denied food. His health was failing but he
remained handcuffed and shackled whenever he went to the health clinic.
Two years after his detention, a US federal judge ordered Farouk to be
deported, charged or released. He walked out of prison on April 12, 2004.
Farouk died in July 2004 of a hear attack, after giving a speech in
Philadelphia. In his last speech, Farouk called for unity among groups
fighting for Palestinian liberation and social justice. His death came
just three months after he was released from jail where he was detained
for two years without charge.
Statement of Solidarity with the Palestinian Refugees of Canada
From the Family of the Late Farouk Abdel-Muhti:
This statement is to express solidarity with the Palestinian refugees of
Canada, on this very important occasion, the Montreal demonstration
against the deportation of Palestinians from Canada, on the eve of the
Sabra and Chatila massacres, as we approach the twenty-second anniversary
of the heinous crimes committed against the Palestinian people by the
Lebanese right-wing Christian militia, the Phalange, on the orders of
Ariel Sharon, who gave the orders to enter the camp when the Palestine
Liberation Organization had already left, to slaughter the innocent people
in the camps. In this brutal act of genocide, more than three thousand
unarmed Palestinian civilians, men, women, and children, including babies,
were brutally massacred, their bodies dumped mostly in mass graves, while
the world looked on in horror, but did nothing.
Twenty-two years later, we see the sons and daughters of this generation
still suffering, as war rages in Palestine, as Israel continues to
practice ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people, imprisoning
them, demolishing their homes, and now building an apartheid wall that
cuts deep into Palestinian lands, separating families from their lands,
their livelihoods, and each other. Meanwhile, in Canada, Palestinian
refugees who escaped the horrors and degradation of life in the refugee
camps of Lebanon and throughout the world are now facing deportation from
Canada, having committed no crime, but being Palestinian. These stateless
Palestinians have truly inherited the experience of their parents, and are
feeling the intense pain of being stateless refugees. It is for this
reason that the world must realize the urgency of the Palestinians
achieving their independence, in a Palestinian state of their own, with
Jerusalem as its capital. The vulnerable position of the Palestinian
deportees in Canada, in Lebanon, in the United States and all over the
world obviates this fact and disproves any argument that the Palestinians
can be "absorbed" into the polities of any other country, including Arab
countries.
In the meantime, however, the countries where they reside, such as Canada,
have an obligation to accept the Palestinians, and to extend to them the
rights and dignities that are extended to all their other citizens and
residents, including granting them political asylum.
Palestinian refugees of Canada, we share your pain. Our dear brother,
Farouk Abdel-Muhti, who is now deceased, was also a stateless Palestinian.
As such, he lived for thirty some odd years in the United States, with no
serious problems until, after September 11th, he was picked up by
immigration authorities, incarcerated for nearly two years, 8 months of
which was spent in solitary confinement, tortured, beaten, withheld
medication, belittled and called a terrorist, simply for being a
Palestinian in the post-September 11th climate of paranoia and xenophobia
in the United States.
Our dear brother was ultimately released in April of this year, but the
irreparable damage was already done, to his life and to ours. Farouk died
exactly one hundred days after his release, weakened from the terrible
treatment, food, and conditions he endured in the immigration jails of the
United States, Allah yarhamouh! His only crime was being a stateless
Palestinian. We are left to live with the tragic reality of this and other
misfortunes which are largely a result of the unjust, inhuman and
misguided policies directed at Arab and Muslim immigrants, especially
Palestinians, since 9/11, by the Bush Administration in the United States,
and by other governments. We see similar policies being implemented in
Canada against immigrants, in what the Bush Administration is attempting
to portray as a "global war on terror". But what do these immigrants,
especially the Palestinians, have to do with this, being victims of the
state terror and genocide inflicted upon them by the Zionist State and its
war machine for the last 56 years?
We must not let what happened to our brother Farouk, who fought tirelessly
for the rights of workers and the oppressed all over the world, especially
for his people, the Palestinians, happen to Palestinians in Canada, who
have migrated there to seek a better life, and better opportunities, away
from war-torn lands and squalid refugee camps. We must demand that this
inhuman treatment of immigrants be stopped, once and for all.
Our struggles are the same, and we send this statement of solidarity to
express to you that we are behind you in your struggle, we feel your pain,
and we say to you, you must continue to fight for justice until your human
rights and your dignity is acknowledged, in Canada, in the United States,
and in Palestine, where ultimately you will prevail, with the
establishment of your own state, where you the Palestinians, not an
occupying power where World-War Two era fascists and murderers masquerade
as a government, will be free to determine your own destiny. We wish you
peace and success, and offer you solidarity on this very special occasion,
where you are taking your struggle to the streets and demanding your
rights, letting the world know how unjustly you are being treated. May the
struggle continue until you win! If Farouk were with us today, he would
encourage you to keep going, to network with all of us, for us all to work
together until we achieve social justice, human rights, equality, civil
and political rights! We will see the phoenix rising from the ashes, if we
remain steadfast in our fight to end oppression, racism, and imperialism,
and to demand justice and rights for all peoples, regardless of their
race, religion, or nationality. His spirit remains with us, and if we
continue, we will win; our dignity, our independence and our inalienable
right to be free!
Venceremos!
With Revolutionary Fervor and Congratulations!
With Love and Solidarity!
Long Live Palestine!
Sharin Chiorazzo (the fiancée of Farouk Abdel-Muhti)
and Tariq Abdel-Muhti (Farouk's Son)
For more information, please see www.freefarouk.org, or e-mail us at
freefarouk@yahoo.com or abufkheida@maktoob.com.
Phone: (201) 951-6919, (212) 674-9499.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) This Is Bush's Vietnam
By BOB HERBERT
OP-ED COLUMNIST
ARLINGTON, Va.
September 17, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/opinion/17herbert.html
The rows of simple white headstones in the broad expanses of brilliant
green lawns are scrupulously arranged, and they seem to go on and on,
endlessly, in every direction.
It was impossible not to be moved. A soft September wind was the only
sound. Beyond that was just the silence of history, and the collective
memory of the lives lost in its service.
Nearly 300,000 people are buried at Arlington National Cemetery,
which is just across the Potomac from Washington. On Tuesday
morning I visited the grave of Air Force Second Lt. Richard VandeGeer.
The headstone tells us, as simply as possible, that he went to Vietnam,
that he was born Jan. 11, 1948, and died May 15, 1975, and that he
was awarded the Purple Heart.
His mother, Diana VandeGeer, who is 75 now and lives in Florida,
tells us that he loved to play soldier as a child, that he was a helicopter
pilot in Vietnam and that she longs for him still. He would be 56 now,
but to his mother he is forever a tall and handsome 27.
Richard VandeGeer was not the last American serviceman to die in the
Vietnam War, but he was close enough. He was part of the last group
of Americans killed, and his name was the last of the more than 58,000
to be listed on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. As I
stood at his grave, I couldn't help but wonder how long it will take us
to get to the last American combat death in Iraq.
Lieutenant VandeGeer died heroically. He was the pilot of a CH-53A
transport helicopter that was part of an effort to rescue crew members
of the Mayaguez, an American merchant ship that was captured by the
Khmer Rouge off the coast of Cambodia on May 12, 1975. The
helicopter was shot down and half of the 26 men aboard, including
Lieutenant VandeGeer, perished.
(It was later learned that the crew of the Mayaguez had already
been released.)
The failed rescue operation, considered the last combat activity
of the Vietnam War, came four years after John Kerry's famous
question, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for
a mistake?"
Although he died bravely, Lieutenant VandeGeer's death was as
senseless as those of the 58,000 who died before him in the fool's
errand known as Vietnam. His remains were not recovered for 20
years - not until a joint operation by American and Cambodian
authorities located the underwater helicopter wreckage in 1995.
Positive identification, using the most advanced DNA technology,
took another four years. Lieutenant VandeGeer was buried at
Arlington in a private ceremony in 2000.
The Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation put me in touch
with the lieutenant's family. "I'm still angry that my son is gone,"
said Mrs. VandeGeer, who is divorced and lives alone in Cocoa
Beach. "I'm his mother. I think about him every day."
She said that while she will always be proud of her son, she
believes he "died for nothing."
Lieutenant VandeGeer's sister, Michelle, told me she can't think
about her brother without recalling that the last time she saw
him was on her wedding day, in May 1974. "He looked so
handsome and confident," she said. "He wanted to change
the world."
Wars are all about chaos and catastrophes, death and suffering,
and lifelong grief, which is why you should go to war only when
it's absolutely unavoidable. Wars tear families apart as surely as
they tear apart the flesh of those killed and wounded. Since we
learned nothing from Vietnam, we are doomed to repeat its agony,
this time in horrifying slow-motion in Iraq.
Three more marines were killed yesterday in Iraq. Kidnappings are
commonplace. The insurgency is growing and becoming more
sophisticated, which means more deadly. Ordinary Iraqis are
becoming ever more enraged at the U.S.
When the newscaster David Brinkley, appalled by the carnage in
Vietnam, asked Lyndon Johnson why he didn't just bring the troops
home, Johnson replied, "I'm not going to be the first American
president to lose a war."
George W. Bush is now trapped as tightly in Iraq as Johnson was
in Vietnam. The war is going badly. The president's own intelligence
estimates are pessimistic. There is no plan to actually win the war
in Iraq, and no willingness to concede defeat.
I wonder who the last man or woman will be to die for this
colossal mistake.
Paul Krugman is on vacation.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) TERROR ON THE JOB
According to Human Rights Watch 200,000 employees in
the U.S. were fired in the last decade because of
their union activities.
Where is the "War on Corporate Terror"?
Tidbit from: Howard Keylor
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
10) Subject: [ufpj-disc] RE: March Count
From: "John Bostrom"
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:30:46 -0400
Thank you, Bob, and whoever else is responsible, for taking the time
to address this issue. This is the first time I've ever seen any major
march organization dare to publish and its methods for arriving at
its claimed of march numbers. The mere fact of doing that so is a
plus for our credibility. And that's the real question here, our
credibility. The often-repeated perception that "everyone always
overestimates their march numbers" doesn't really reflect well on
the validity or moral stature of what we're doing.
The questions now are, how accurate are the methods we used,
and can we improve on them to get more accurate numbers? The
calculations and measurements used are certainly way better than
simple wild guesstimates, but I would suggest that we can, and
should, do much better.
As for the basic calculation of numbers, there are three basic
factors: duration, length, and density. Two of these were covered
with actual verifiable measurements::
Duration: the elapsed time measured at 23rd Street. Front of
the march: 11:36 AM to just after 1:00 PM or 1.5 hours.
Front to end, 11:36 AM to 2:36 PM or 3 hours.
Length: the length of the march was measured as 43 blocks.
For density, however, we're relying solely on estimates:
Density (1): a reported police estimate of 5000 people in a
tightly packed block
Density (2): a report from two observers at 23rd Street that
"for the entire three hours the entire march was tightly packed."
Everything else is calculation based on those factors. Length
was doubled to 86 blocks based on the difference between
duration measurements, 3 hours being twice 1.5 hours Then,
applying duration, 86 x 5000 = 430,000. And the estimated
("very large") numbers of people who joined above 23rd Street
were then added to get 500,000. This would be 70,00 people
- a large estimate to say the least.
There should be no problem with the fact that a large percentage
of people left the march at 34th Street to go to Central Park.
Those people should definitely be counted as participating in
the march. But there are several dubious points about the basic
data and calculation.
Observers: Where exactly was or were the observation points
on 23rd Street? That's a long stretch of street. Were the
observers standing together at one point, or at different points?
And why only at 23rd? Why not post observers every three
blocks or so all along the route, have them take notes, count,
or film?
Length: How was "43 blocks" arrived at? All blocks are not the same.
Distances along east-west Streets like 23rd and 34th are significantly
greater (perhaps between two to three times as long) than those
along north-south Avenues like Fifth and Seventh.
Density (1): First, it's hard to believe we're relying on police
estimates for our basic calculations. How do we know they aren't
skewed? It's nice that they agree this time. but what about when they
don't? Independently verifiable, science-based methods are much better.
Further, which type of blocks are used in this 5000-person estimate?
North-south blocks along Avenues, or east-west blocks along Streets?
It's a major difference.
Density (2) The entire calculation rests on the validity of this point,
and unfortunately it's very seriously flawed. The density of "entire"
march simply can't be generalized from any one observation point.
The march was definitely packed like sardines from the point of
origin at 11:30 all the way up to 23rd Street. But as soon as it
turned the corner on 23rd, it started to thin out, and by the time
it turned up Seventh, it was far, far thinner. At Eighteenth Street,
where I stopped to rest and film from around 12:30 to 1:00,
it got extremely spaced out and straggly, with frequent ten-yard
holes all the way across the street, followed by less than dozen or so
marchers spaced several yards apart But a tightly packed block of
5000 people at one point simply does not mean that the rest of the
march is just as tightly packed.
We can do much better. Actual counts of marchers passing
several given observation points at key march locations would be
much more accurate and verifiable. A single video camera at a
given location could provide irrefutable, verifiable evidence. In
fact, I believe CSPAN recorded the entire march at 34th and 7th.
That tape could be analyzed.
JB
From: Bob Wing [ mailto:bobwing@sbcglobal.net ]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:53 AM
To: John Bostrom; Shirley H. Young; dm.silver@verizon.net;ufpj-
disc@yahoogroups.com; amyh@texnology.com; andrea Buffa
Subject: March Count
Dear All,
I have been asked how we
arrived at the 400,000-500,000 count
of marchers on Aug. 29. I
might start by saying that
the NY Times, based on their
observation, our estimate, as well as
a late estimate of the police, accepted
the 500,000 number. Here's how
we came up with the number.
1. We had two people stationed at
23rd Street for the entire day. They
report that the beginning of the march
stepped off at 11:36 AM. They
further report that the last people
passed 23rd Street at 2:36 PM, exactly
3 hours after the first folks began,
and they report that for the entire
three hours the march was tightly packed.
2. The front of the march arrived at
Union Square just after 1 PM, meaning
it took them one and a half hours to
march the route. Of course, the head
of a march always takes longer than
any other section of the march because
it must constantly stop so as to avoid
big gaps behind it. Plus we stopped a
number of times specifically for photo
ops. In other words, on average it took
most of the march less than 1.5 hours
to march the whole route.
3. From points 1 and 2, we deduce that
the march was more than twice the
length of the march route. The march
route was approximately 43 blocks long.
That means the march was at least 86
blocks and probably 5 to 10 more. The
police estimate a packed block to be
5,000 people. From this alone, then, we
can say the march was 400-500,000 people.
4. We know from personal experience that
thousands of people joined the march
above 23rd Street, meaning they never
passed 23rd Street. We have no estimate
of this factor, but it was very large.
5. The last marchers arrived at Union
Square at 5:35 PM, almost 4-1/2 hours
after the leaders of the march arrived.
There was one disruption at Madison
Square Garden that prolonged the end.
But on the other side thousands of people
left the march along 34th Street to go to Central Park.
UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE | 212-868-5545
coming up this Wednesday, September 22, 7:00 p.m.,
1380 Valencia Street, between 24th & 25th Streets in S.F.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) RALLY AGAINST RADIO FREQUENCY
IDENTIFICATION (RFID) TECHNOLOGY
AT THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY
Sunday, September 19, 2004 at 2:00 p.m.
2) FBI data sought in bid to free Indian activist
By PHIL FAIRBANKS and MARK SOMMER
News Staff Reporters
9/14/2004
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040914/1049110.asp
3) ANSWER Activist Meeting
Tuesday, Sept. 21, 7pm
2489 Mission St. Room 30 (at 21st St.)
Help us launch a new national campaign -
the People's Anti-War Referendum Â
Vote No on War & Occupation!
4) US Soldiers Shoot First, No Questions Asked
by Gethin Chamberlain
BAGHDAD
Published on Friday, September 17, 2004
by The Scotsman (Scotland)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0917-25.htm
5) NEWS: Constitution be damned:
CIA acting director opposes release of 1947-1970
CIA budget totals
6) Dozens more die in Iraq violence
·45 die in Falluja raids
·Baghdad car bomb kills 13
·UK may send extra troops
The Guardian
5pm update
Friday September 17, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1306807,00.html
7) From: No One is Illegal Montreal
From the Family of the Late FAROUK ABDEL-MUHTI:
A Statement of Solidarity for the Coalition Against the
Deportation of Palestinian Refugees in Montreal
on the eve of the September 18th
STATELESS and DEPORTED Demonstration.
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
8) This Is Bush's Vietnam
By BOB HERBERT
OP-ED COLUMNIST
ARLINGTON, Va.
September 17, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/opinion/17herbert.html
9) TERROR ON THE JOB
According to Human Rights Watch 200,000 employees in
the U.S. were fired in the last decade because of
their union activities.
Where is the "War on Corporate Terror"?
Tidbit from: Howard Keylor
10) Subject: [ufpj-disc] RE: March Count
From: "John Bostrom"
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:30:46 -0400
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) RALLY AGAINST RADIO FREQUENCY
IDENTIFICATION (RFID) TECHNOLOGY
AT THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY
Sunday, September 19, 2004 at 2:00 p.m.
Join the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
Library Users Association, San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free
Union and other opponents of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
technology at the San Francisco Public Library for a rally and
informational picket line in front of the Main
Library at Larkin & Grove Streets in San Francisco.
The SF Public Library plans to
spend $300,000 in the next fiscal
year and $3 million over the next 6
years to replace its existing bar code system with
RFID chips and wireless readers.
RFID chips can be read anywhere without
the knowledge or consent of the
library user, even through a book bag,
enabling anyone with access to RFID
technology to identify and track the
movement of library materials and users.
The threats posed by RFID
technology to Library user privacy
are real, and the radiation emitted by
portable and stationary wireless
RFID readers has uncertain public health
implications and should be avoided
as a precautionary measure. If the
$300,000 the Library is requesting
for RFID is not approved by the Board of
Supervisors, the money is designated
to fund youth jobs at the Library
instead.
So come to the Main Library on Sunday,
September 19 at 2:00 p.m., bring a
friend and send a message to the Board
of Supervisors: No to RFID at the SF
Public Library! Yes to jobs for youth
at the Library!
See you on the 19th!
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) FBI data sought in bid to free Indian activist
By PHIL FAIRBANKS and MARK SOMMER
News Staff Reporters
9/14/2004
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040914/1049110.asp
Leonard Peltier, 60, is serving two
sentences of life imprisonment in the
deaths of two FBI agents in 1975.
Leonard Peltier's nearly 30-year quest
for freedom brought his defense team
to a Buffalo courtroom Monday seeking
FBI documents it believes could lead
to a new trial for the nationally known
Indian activist convicted of murder.
Peltier, sentenced to two terms of life
imprisonment in the 1975 shooting
deaths of two FBI agents in South
Dakota, wants a local judge to order the
release of 15 pages of documents,
part of a nationwide effort aimed at
proving that he was railroaded by the FBI.
Long championed as a "political prisoner"
by groups such as Amnesty
International, Peltier is a member
of the American Indian Movement. In the
eyes of the federal government, he
is a brutal killer who should never go
free.
"The FBI is hellbent on blocking the
disclosure of this information and
keeping Leonard Peltier in jail for
the rest of his natural life," Michael
Kuzma, a Buffalo lawyer and a
member of Peltier's defense team,
said in court Monday.
At issue before U.S. District Judge
William M. Skretny, who reserved
decision Monday, are 15 pages of
documents the FBI has withheld since 1975
on grounds of national security and
protection of confidential sources.
Peltier was not in court Monday,
but his attorney argued that the FBI is
withholding documents in order to
cover up its misconduct, an allegation the
government denies.
"The FBI has acted in good faith in
the processing of all these requests,"
Preeya M. Noronha, a U.S. Justice
Department attorney, told Skretny.
"There's no evidence that anything
improper was done."
Skretny took issue with Noronha's
contention, reminding her that two federal
appeals courts have criticized the
FBI's conduct in the Peltier case. One
panel of judges said the government's
decision to withhold and intimidate
witnesses should be "condemned."
Peltier, who contends that he was
framed by the government, has spent the
last several years seeking FBI
documents through the Freedom of Information
Act. Earlier this year, the government
acknowledged that more than 142,000
pages of documents pertaining to his
case were never turned over to his
attorneys.
The catalyst for the Buffalo case is a
heavily excised 1975 Teletype message
from the Buffalo office of the FBI to
then-FBI Director Clarence M. Kelley.
Kuzma said the Teletype message
indicates that a New York informant was
trying to infiltrate Peltier's defense effort.
Kelley later testified that
the government used informants
against the American Indian Movement, or AIM.
Peltier's attorneys learned of the
Teletype message after a FOIA request and
a subsequent lawsuit against the
FBI's Buffalo office pried loose 797 pages
of documents - some partially blacked
out - containing telex messages,
articles, letters and other memorandums.
"It appears a Buffalo source was
trying to infiltrate the defense team in
1975," Kuzma said during an interview
before the trial. "If we can show that
had a destructive role or impact on
the defense or the attorney-client
relationship, it could blow the case open."
The FBI tells a far different story.
Nearly 30 years after FBI Special
Agents Jack R. Coler and Ronald A.
Williams were killed at the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota,
the agency insists that Peltier is guilty.
"I stand behind the review of the
(U.S.) Supreme Court that he is a
convicted murderer," said Peter J.
Ahearn, special agent in charge of the
FBI's Buffalo office.
Ahearn said he has continued to
review material on the case through the
years and has found no reason to
believe that Peltier was innocent.
Among FBI agents, it is a case that
evokes great passion. Four years ago,
about 500 active and retired agents
held a march outside the White House to
dissuade President Bill Clinton from
granting clemency to Peltier. That view
was echoed by then-FBI Director
Louis J. Freeh in a public letter to the
president.
Despite the FBI's strong stance against
a new trial, Peltier's lead attorney
said the information they seek could
have a potentially explosive impact on
the case.
"It would be grounds for a new trial,
one which we'd relish because we know
they couldn't prove Leonard did it,"
said Barry Bachrach. "It could even be
grounds for an outright reversal."
Allan Jamieson, a Cayuga Indian who
lives in Buffalo and has tried to raise
public awareness about Peltier, agrees.
He sees the case as a symbol of the
injustices committed by the U.S.
government against Native Americans.
He also wonders why information
regarding Peltier can still be considered a
matter of national security nearly 30 years later.
"I don't understand how this information
can be perceived as a threat at
this point in time," Jamieson said.
Peltier, 60, is serving his two terms of
life in prison at Leavenworth
Federal Penitentiary in Kansas.
e-mail: pfairbanks@buffnews.com
and msommer@buffnews.com
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) ANSWER Activist Meeting
Tuesday, Sept. 21, 7pm
2489 Mission St. Room 30 (at 21st St.)
Help us launch a new national campaign -
the People's Anti-War Referendum Â
Vote No on War & Occupation!
The U.S. elections give us no say on the critical issue of war and
occupation. Rather, the big business candidates fight over who
will spend more money on the Âwar on terrorism and who will
send more troops to Iraq.
Join the peopleÂs anti-war ballot, a national independent grassroots
referendum to demonstrate and organize the breadth of opposition
to the U.S. wars and occupations and to bring the troops home now.
Unlike U.S. elections, our referendum doesnÂt discriminate by age,
immigration status, or prison history. We are all affected by the U.S.
policies of war and occupation, and we should have a say.
When you vote in the PeopleÂs Anti-War Referendum, your name
will not be sent to any branch of the government. Signatures will
be collected and the results presented to the media just before
the November election in a display of the strength of the
opposition to the war.
Join us this Tuesday at the ANSWER Activist Meeting to help
organize this important new campaign, set-up street polls
and tabling.
We will also have a political update on the Middle East, a
report on the Oct. 1 March Against Racism Discrimination
in the Castro and the Oct. 16 March for Immigrant Rights.
We will have break-out committees to work on these areas.
Get involved!
For more information, contact 415-821-6545 or
answer@actionsf.org.
To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) US Soldiers Shoot First, No Questions Asked
by Gethin Chamberlain
BAGHDAD
Published on Friday, September 17, 2004
by The Scotsman (Scotland)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0917-25.htm
BAGHDAD - His name was Ahmed Hameed and he was 36 years old.
He had taken the wrong turning up to the checkpoint on the July 14
Bridge which spans the Tigris on the south-eastern edge of what
used to be known in Baghdad as the Green Zone, but which has
now been renamed the International Zone.
Now he lies in a body-bag a few yards away from the US army gun
tower which opened fire on him as he tried to turn his moped around.
Soldiers from the US Airborne surround him, those at the back
peering over the shoulders of the ones in front to get a better
view as the bag is unzipped. In the tower, the heavy .240-calibre
machine-gun hangs limply on its mount, pointing at the ground.
The gunner is leaning on the parapet, looking out across the city.
Ahmed's head is turned away to one side, his mouth open, the
blood which streaks his face already dry. His right hand is by his
side, the left curled across his stomach. The fingers stop a few
inches from the inch-wide hole just above his groin. Someone
has tried to stem the bleeding from another hole in the top of
his chest, but there was too much blood. It has soaked his T-shirt,
which is pulled up to expose the wounds, and poured down his
body, mingling with his sweat, leaving pale rivulets across the skin.
Twenty yards away, his maroon Honda Spacy moped lies on its
right-hand side in front of a concrete barrier. There is a sign
painted on the barrier: it says "Do not enter or you will be shot",
in English and Arabic. There is a small bullet entry hole in the
top left-hand side of the seat, and a much larger exit hole on the
right-hand side of the rear fairing. The bike must have been
upright when the bullet struck, and almost sideways on to the
gun tower. Petrol has leaked from the tank and on to the tarmac.
Captain Mohammhad Mahde is taking in the details of the scene.
Mahde is an officer in the Iraqi police service, based inside the
International Zone. He bends low over Ahmed's body, pushing
down his black nylon boxer shorts with the blue stripe around
the waistband which poke out above his grey trousers, so that
he can get a better look at the lower wound.
"He was coming the wrong way," a US soldier is explaining to him,
gesturing towards the end of the bridge's exit ramp away around
the curve of the concrete wall on the right-hand side of the road
looking south.
"He didn't stop. They hit him and he got up, and they fired at him
again. He got up again and started running away, and because he
was running away they didn't shoot him. But then he just sort of
collapsed."
The body-bag is zipped closed. Mahde stands up and walks
towards the moped, and the soldier follows. "We yelled at him
to stop," he says. "He passed a few of the signs to stop, but he
just kept going."
Mahde walks past another concrete barrier, painted in English
and Arabic with three signs: "Exit only", "Do not enter", and "No
Stopping". There is no problem with the Arabic, he says. It is
quite clear. At the foot of the exit ramp, a small crowd watches
the soldiers and the policemen as they walk slowly towards them.
This is the reason the soldiers called Mahde's police station; they
wanted help to control the crowd. Mahde, though, wants to know
what happened. The soldiers eye him warily, but no-one tries to
stop him.
Mahde pulls out a notebook, writes down a few things, asks the
troops some more questions. He walks on to a thin patch of sand
that has been deposited on the tarmac. It is damp in a couple of
places, a slightly darker orange than the rest. There is a small
bloodstain on the checkpoint side of the line of sand which has
not been covered over. On the low concrete wall about three
feet away there are splashes where blood has sprayed up, and
a couple of flecks of flesh stick to the wall a foot or so closer to
the gun tower. "They killed him here," he says.
The soldiers say no. "The man got back here and collapsed," a
captain says. "We just covered up the blood."
Ahmed's shoes lie on the tarmac about four feet apart, between
where his body now lies and the spot where he died. The left
shoe is closer to the blood-stained sand, the right back towards
the gun tower. They are brown leather, quite new, a picture of a
stag and the name of the maker, the Dawara Company, embossed
on the inner sole. On the bridge side of the final concrete barrier
between the shoes and Mahde's body, there are four rough hollows
where bullets struck. An American soldier points them out; he refers
to them as splash marks.
The call came in to the police station a little after 10am from a US
captain in the Airborne. Dwight Murphy took it; he was sitting in
Mahde's office at the time, chatting to the captain. Murphy is the
deputy commander for support operations with the Civilian Police
Assistance Training Team, the organisation set up by coalition
forces to rebuild the Iraqi police service.
They got into Mahde's police Land Cruiser, with its blue and
white livery and blue and red flashing light, and drove to the
bridge. When they reached it, there was a US Bradley armoured
vehicle parked across the carriageway at the southern end, the
checkpoint end. Its main cannon was trained on the approaching
police car, as was the gun of the soldier in the turret.
With the index finger of his right hand, the soldier made a
horizontal circling gesture, then pointed back up the carriageway,
indicating that the car should turn around and leave. Murphy held
up his US identification card. The soldier repeated his gesture.
The driver began to swing the vehicle around, but Murphy had
taken out his mobile phone and was speaking to the captain
who had called the police station. The car stopped. The soldier
in the turret was speaking into his headset, his eyes still on the
police car. He gestured the policemen forward.
Murphy is crouched next to the sand, looking at the blood
splashed up the wall. "He was probably shot back here where
his body fell," he says.
"Maybe he was afraid," Mahde said. "Maybe he had explosives?
He lived in this city, he worked here, he knew this way. Why go
here?" The two men walk slowly back towards the moped. "We
haven't opened it up yet," one soldier tells them.
One of the soldiers picks up the machine and rests it on its stand.
The right-hand mirror has twisted round slightly, but there is no
other obvious damage, save for the bullet holes.
Another soldier has fetched a jemmy; he pokes it under the seat
and leans down on it to pop open the lock. It takes a quarter of a
minute, perhaps a little longer, before the lock gives. The soldier
places the seat on the ground. Inside, there is nothing but a thin
black plastic bag of the type used in some of the city's shops.
Inside the bag are two sheets of paper. The soldier hands them
to a captain, who looks at them briefly and hands them to Mahde.
They are Ahmed's identity papers. There is nothing else in the bag.
Mahde asks them to take the body to the morgue. The Americans
do not like the idea. Why can't the body be collected by the morgue,
they ask. Mahde says his men will take the body and the bike. He
looks around him. "This guy made a mistake, but he didn't put the
bike in that place or the shoes in that place," he says.
"Are you done here?" the US captain asks. "Can we open the
checkpoint again?" Mahde nods. They can, he says. He has no
authority over the US soldiers, but he will make a report.
He and Murphy start to walk back towards the police car. The
US soldiers follow, grumbling among themselves. They do not
understand what is happening. One can be heard complaining:
"All the other bodies, they just put in the truck and took them away."
(c) 2004 The Scotsman
###
Common Dreams NewsCenter
(c) Copyrighted 1997-2004
www.commondreams.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) NEWS: Constitution be damned:
CIA acting director opposes release of 1947-1970
CIA budget totals
[On page 12 of his recently
published book, *The Sorrows of Empire*
(Metropolitan Books, 2004), historian
Chalmers Johnson writes: "A revolution
would be required to bring the Pentagon
back under democratic control, or to
abolish the Central Intelligence Agency,
or even to contemplate enforcing
article 1, section 9, clause 7 of the
Constitution: 'No money shall be drawn
from the Treasury, but in Consequence
of Appropriations made by Law; and a
regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public
Money shall be published from time to
time.'" -- Steven Aftergood, of the
Federation of American Scientists' Secrecy
News project, has been engaged in a
long-term project to have Article I,
Section 9, Clause 7 respected by the CIA.
Here's his latest report in an ongoing
battle. --Mark]
http://ufppc.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1369
CIA REJECTS DISCLOSURE OF HISTORICAL BUDGET DATA
By Steven Aftergood
Secrecy News
September 17, 2004
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html
Acting Director of Central
Intelligence John E. McLaughlin told a federal
court this week that releasing
the amounts of historical CIA budgets from 1947
through 1970 would compromise intelligence methods.
Mr. McLaughlin's statement was
presented in opposition to a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit brought
by the Federation of American Scientists.
"I have carefully considered the
ramifications of releasing the total CIA
budgets for fiscal years 1947-70
and a few budget numbers from other agencies
for fiscal year 1947," he said in a sworn declaration.
"I have concluded that publicly
disclosing the intelligence budget information
that plaintiff seeks would tend to
reveal intelligence methods that, in the
interest of maintaining an effective
intelligence service, ought not be
publicly revealed," he wrote.
Acting DCI McLaughlin's insistence
on preserving the secrecy of even
half-century old budget figures
contrasts with the recommendation of the 9/11
Commission that current and future
intelligence agency budgets "should no
longer be kept secret."
DCI McLaughlin's September 14
declaration is posted here (1.25 MB PDF file):
http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/1947/mclaughlin.pdf
In accordance with Attorney General
Ashcroft's FOIA policy, the CIA's position
on budget secrecy is being vigorously
defended by the Department of Justice
Office of Information and Privacy. See the
defendant's motion for summary
judgment here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/1947/cia091504.pdf
A reply from FAS is due on September 29.
"We must do something about the problem
of overclassification," said Secretary
of State Colin Powell at a hearing of
the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee on September 13.
"Today, the intelligence community routinely
classifies information at higher
levels and makes access more difficult than
was the case even at the height of the Cold War."
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) Dozens more die in Iraq violence
·45 die in Falluja raids
·Baghdad car bomb kills 13
·UK may send extra troops
The Guardian
5pm update
Friday September 17, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1306807,00.html
More than 50 people were killed today in separate incidents in Iraq,
ending one of the bloodiest weeks since George Bush declared an
end to the Iraq war just over 12 months ago.
US strikes on militant targets in the city of Falluja killed 45 people
and injured 27.
Hours later at least 13 people died and 50 were wounded when a
car bomber struck near a major police checkpoint in central
Baghdad, the Iraqi health ministry and US military officials said.
According to a statement by the US military, the strikes,
which began last night, targeted a compound in Fazat Shnetir,
about 12 miles south of the Sunni stronghold of Falluja, where
militants loyal to the Jordanian-born al-Qaida ally Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi were gathering to plot attacks on US-led forces in Iraq.
Militants who survived the strikes later sought refuge in near
by villages, but US forces quickly broke off an offensive to hunt
them down in an effort to avoid civilian casualties, the statement said.
"The number of foreign fighters killed during the strike is estimated
at approximately 60. The terrorists targeted in this strike were
believed to be associated with recent bombing attacks and other
terrorist activities throughout Iraq," the US military said.
But a health ministry spokesman, Saad al-Amili, said at least 17
children and two women were among the wounded. Hospital
officials in Falluja said women and children were also among
the dead, but exact figures were not immediately available.
Residents of Fazat Shnetir were seen digging graves today
and burying the dead in groups of four.
Doctors at Falluja general hospital struggled to cope with the
wave of casualties, many of whom were transported in private
cars as the ambulance service was overwhelmed.
Relatives pounded their chests in grief and denounced the US
while religious leaders switched on loudspeakers at the mosque
to call on residents to donate blood and chanted "God is great."
US forces have not patrolled inside Falluja since the end of a
three-week siege that left hundreds dead. Insurgents have
strengthened their grip since then, mounting regular attacks
against US positions and military convoys on the town's outskirts.
In Baghdad, the bomb exploded beside a line of police vehicles
set up to seal off routes to nearby Haifa Street, where US and
Iraqi forces had spent the morning raiding insurgent hideouts.
The midday attack occurred on a busy market day, and officials
said the number of casualties was expected to rise.
As the death toll mounts in Iraq, Britain said today it was
prepared to send more troops if needed to bolster security ahead
of elections in January.
"We will deploy those numbers of troops that are required given
the situation. If it is necessary to put a few extra troops in to
provide appropriate security for the elections we will do that,"
the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, told reporters at a meeting
of EU defence ministers in the Netherlands.
·The British engineer kidnapped by gunmen from his house in
Baghdad was Kenneth Bigley, the Foreign Office confirmed today.
Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) From: No One is Illegal Montreal
From the Family of the Late FAROUK ABDEL-MUHTI:
A Statement of Solidarity for the Coalition Against the
Deportation of Palestinian Refugees in Montreal
on the eve of the September 18th
STATELESS and DEPORTED Demonstration.
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
Below is a statement of solidarity from the family of the late Farouk
Abdel-Muhti a stateless Palestinian refugee, who died in July 2004. With
Farouk's passing the struggle for Palestinian liberation lost one of its
leading fighters in the US.
Farouk Adbel-Muhti was born in 1947 in Ramallah, a Palestinian city in the
occupied West Bank of Jordan. Like many Palestinians, Farouk lived the
uprooted life of a stateless refugee, traveling from country to country
until finally settling in New York in the 1970s.
He came to the attention of US immigration officials in the mid-1970s
after overstaying his visa. An immigration judge ordered him deported,
however, there was no way to carry out the deportation, since the West
Bank was now controlled by Israel, which did not allow the return of
people who left the Palestinian territories before the Israeli occupation
of 1967.
Farouk continued to live openly in the New York area, engaging in a number
of public political activities, with a focus on the struggle for
Palestinian liberation and issues relating to immigration and Latin
America.
In March 2002, Farouk began working regularly at Pacifica Radio station
WBAI. He used his contacts to arrange interviews with Palestinians in the
Occupied Territories. One month later, three New York police officers and
an INS agent, came to his Queens apartment without a warrant. They claimed
they wanted to ask Farouk some questions about September 11th.
Farouk was detained on April 26, 2002 and jailed in various facilities
around the country for two years. He was never charged with a crime. He
was often held in solitary confinement, subjected to extensive
interrogation, and often denied food. His health was failing but he
remained handcuffed and shackled whenever he went to the health clinic.
Two years after his detention, a US federal judge ordered Farouk to be
deported, charged or released. He walked out of prison on April 12, 2004.
Farouk died in July 2004 of a hear attack, after giving a speech in
Philadelphia. In his last speech, Farouk called for unity among groups
fighting for Palestinian liberation and social justice. His death came
just three months after he was released from jail where he was detained
for two years without charge.
Statement of Solidarity with the Palestinian Refugees of Canada
From the Family of the Late Farouk Abdel-Muhti:
This statement is to express solidarity with the Palestinian refugees of
Canada, on this very important occasion, the Montreal demonstration
against the deportation of Palestinians from Canada, on the eve of the
Sabra and Chatila massacres, as we approach the twenty-second anniversary
of the heinous crimes committed against the Palestinian people by the
Lebanese right-wing Christian militia, the Phalange, on the orders of
Ariel Sharon, who gave the orders to enter the camp when the Palestine
Liberation Organization had already left, to slaughter the innocent people
in the camps. In this brutal act of genocide, more than three thousand
unarmed Palestinian civilians, men, women, and children, including babies,
were brutally massacred, their bodies dumped mostly in mass graves, while
the world looked on in horror, but did nothing.
Twenty-two years later, we see the sons and daughters of this generation
still suffering, as war rages in Palestine, as Israel continues to
practice ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people, imprisoning
them, demolishing their homes, and now building an apartheid wall that
cuts deep into Palestinian lands, separating families from their lands,
their livelihoods, and each other. Meanwhile, in Canada, Palestinian
refugees who escaped the horrors and degradation of life in the refugee
camps of Lebanon and throughout the world are now facing deportation from
Canada, having committed no crime, but being Palestinian. These stateless
Palestinians have truly inherited the experience of their parents, and are
feeling the intense pain of being stateless refugees. It is for this
reason that the world must realize the urgency of the Palestinians
achieving their independence, in a Palestinian state of their own, with
Jerusalem as its capital. The vulnerable position of the Palestinian
deportees in Canada, in Lebanon, in the United States and all over the
world obviates this fact and disproves any argument that the Palestinians
can be "absorbed" into the polities of any other country, including Arab
countries.
In the meantime, however, the countries where they reside, such as Canada,
have an obligation to accept the Palestinians, and to extend to them the
rights and dignities that are extended to all their other citizens and
residents, including granting them political asylum.
Palestinian refugees of Canada, we share your pain. Our dear brother,
Farouk Abdel-Muhti, who is now deceased, was also a stateless Palestinian.
As such, he lived for thirty some odd years in the United States, with no
serious problems until, after September 11th, he was picked up by
immigration authorities, incarcerated for nearly two years, 8 months of
which was spent in solitary confinement, tortured, beaten, withheld
medication, belittled and called a terrorist, simply for being a
Palestinian in the post-September 11th climate of paranoia and xenophobia
in the United States.
Our dear brother was ultimately released in April of this year, but the
irreparable damage was already done, to his life and to ours. Farouk died
exactly one hundred days after his release, weakened from the terrible
treatment, food, and conditions he endured in the immigration jails of the
United States, Allah yarhamouh! His only crime was being a stateless
Palestinian. We are left to live with the tragic reality of this and other
misfortunes which are largely a result of the unjust, inhuman and
misguided policies directed at Arab and Muslim immigrants, especially
Palestinians, since 9/11, by the Bush Administration in the United States,
and by other governments. We see similar policies being implemented in
Canada against immigrants, in what the Bush Administration is attempting
to portray as a "global war on terror". But what do these immigrants,
especially the Palestinians, have to do with this, being victims of the
state terror and genocide inflicted upon them by the Zionist State and its
war machine for the last 56 years?
We must not let what happened to our brother Farouk, who fought tirelessly
for the rights of workers and the oppressed all over the world, especially
for his people, the Palestinians, happen to Palestinians in Canada, who
have migrated there to seek a better life, and better opportunities, away
from war-torn lands and squalid refugee camps. We must demand that this
inhuman treatment of immigrants be stopped, once and for all.
Our struggles are the same, and we send this statement of solidarity to
express to you that we are behind you in your struggle, we feel your pain,
and we say to you, you must continue to fight for justice until your human
rights and your dignity is acknowledged, in Canada, in the United States,
and in Palestine, where ultimately you will prevail, with the
establishment of your own state, where you the Palestinians, not an
occupying power where World-War Two era fascists and murderers masquerade
as a government, will be free to determine your own destiny. We wish you
peace and success, and offer you solidarity on this very special occasion,
where you are taking your struggle to the streets and demanding your
rights, letting the world know how unjustly you are being treated. May the
struggle continue until you win! If Farouk were with us today, he would
encourage you to keep going, to network with all of us, for us all to work
together until we achieve social justice, human rights, equality, civil
and political rights! We will see the phoenix rising from the ashes, if we
remain steadfast in our fight to end oppression, racism, and imperialism,
and to demand justice and rights for all peoples, regardless of their
race, religion, or nationality. His spirit remains with us, and if we
continue, we will win; our dignity, our independence and our inalienable
right to be free!
Venceremos!
With Revolutionary Fervor and Congratulations!
With Love and Solidarity!
Long Live Palestine!
Sharin Chiorazzo (the fiancée of Farouk Abdel-Muhti)
and Tariq Abdel-Muhti (Farouk's Son)
For more information, please see www.freefarouk.org, or e-mail us at
freefarouk@yahoo.com or abufkheida@maktoob.com.
Phone: (201) 951-6919, (212) 674-9499.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) This Is Bush's Vietnam
By BOB HERBERT
OP-ED COLUMNIST
ARLINGTON, Va.
September 17, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/opinion/17herbert.html
The rows of simple white headstones in the broad expanses of brilliant
green lawns are scrupulously arranged, and they seem to go on and on,
endlessly, in every direction.
It was impossible not to be moved. A soft September wind was the only
sound. Beyond that was just the silence of history, and the collective
memory of the lives lost in its service.
Nearly 300,000 people are buried at Arlington National Cemetery,
which is just across the Potomac from Washington. On Tuesday
morning I visited the grave of Air Force Second Lt. Richard VandeGeer.
The headstone tells us, as simply as possible, that he went to Vietnam,
that he was born Jan. 11, 1948, and died May 15, 1975, and that he
was awarded the Purple Heart.
His mother, Diana VandeGeer, who is 75 now and lives in Florida,
tells us that he loved to play soldier as a child, that he was a helicopter
pilot in Vietnam and that she longs for him still. He would be 56 now,
but to his mother he is forever a tall and handsome 27.
Richard VandeGeer was not the last American serviceman to die in the
Vietnam War, but he was close enough. He was part of the last group
of Americans killed, and his name was the last of the more than 58,000
to be listed on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. As I
stood at his grave, I couldn't help but wonder how long it will take us
to get to the last American combat death in Iraq.
Lieutenant VandeGeer died heroically. He was the pilot of a CH-53A
transport helicopter that was part of an effort to rescue crew members
of the Mayaguez, an American merchant ship that was captured by the
Khmer Rouge off the coast of Cambodia on May 12, 1975. The
helicopter was shot down and half of the 26 men aboard, including
Lieutenant VandeGeer, perished.
(It was later learned that the crew of the Mayaguez had already
been released.)
The failed rescue operation, considered the last combat activity
of the Vietnam War, came four years after John Kerry's famous
question, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for
a mistake?"
Although he died bravely, Lieutenant VandeGeer's death was as
senseless as those of the 58,000 who died before him in the fool's
errand known as Vietnam. His remains were not recovered for 20
years - not until a joint operation by American and Cambodian
authorities located the underwater helicopter wreckage in 1995.
Positive identification, using the most advanced DNA technology,
took another four years. Lieutenant VandeGeer was buried at
Arlington in a private ceremony in 2000.
The Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation put me in touch
with the lieutenant's family. "I'm still angry that my son is gone,"
said Mrs. VandeGeer, who is divorced and lives alone in Cocoa
Beach. "I'm his mother. I think about him every day."
She said that while she will always be proud of her son, she
believes he "died for nothing."
Lieutenant VandeGeer's sister, Michelle, told me she can't think
about her brother without recalling that the last time she saw
him was on her wedding day, in May 1974. "He looked so
handsome and confident," she said. "He wanted to change
the world."
Wars are all about chaos and catastrophes, death and suffering,
and lifelong grief, which is why you should go to war only when
it's absolutely unavoidable. Wars tear families apart as surely as
they tear apart the flesh of those killed and wounded. Since we
learned nothing from Vietnam, we are doomed to repeat its agony,
this time in horrifying slow-motion in Iraq.
Three more marines were killed yesterday in Iraq. Kidnappings are
commonplace. The insurgency is growing and becoming more
sophisticated, which means more deadly. Ordinary Iraqis are
becoming ever more enraged at the U.S.
When the newscaster David Brinkley, appalled by the carnage in
Vietnam, asked Lyndon Johnson why he didn't just bring the troops
home, Johnson replied, "I'm not going to be the first American
president to lose a war."
George W. Bush is now trapped as tightly in Iraq as Johnson was
in Vietnam. The war is going badly. The president's own intelligence
estimates are pessimistic. There is no plan to actually win the war
in Iraq, and no willingness to concede defeat.
I wonder who the last man or woman will be to die for this
colossal mistake.
Paul Krugman is on vacation.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) TERROR ON THE JOB
According to Human Rights Watch 200,000 employees in
the U.S. were fired in the last decade because of
their union activities.
Where is the "War on Corporate Terror"?
Tidbit from: Howard Keylor
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
10) Subject: [ufpj-disc] RE: March Count
From: "John Bostrom"
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:30:46 -0400
Thank you, Bob, and whoever else is responsible, for taking the time
to address this issue. This is the first time I've ever seen any major
march organization dare to publish and its methods for arriving at
its claimed of march numbers. The mere fact of doing that so is a
plus for our credibility. And that's the real question here, our
credibility. The often-repeated perception that "everyone always
overestimates their march numbers" doesn't really reflect well on
the validity or moral stature of what we're doing.
The questions now are, how accurate are the methods we used,
and can we improve on them to get more accurate numbers? The
calculations and measurements used are certainly way better than
simple wild guesstimates, but I would suggest that we can, and
should, do much better.
As for the basic calculation of numbers, there are three basic
factors: duration, length, and density. Two of these were covered
with actual verifiable measurements::
Duration: the elapsed time measured at 23rd Street. Front of
the march: 11:36 AM to just after 1:00 PM or 1.5 hours.
Front to end, 11:36 AM to 2:36 PM or 3 hours.
Length: the length of the march was measured as 43 blocks.
For density, however, we're relying solely on estimates:
Density (1): a reported police estimate of 5000 people in a
tightly packed block
Density (2): a report from two observers at 23rd Street that
"for the entire three hours the entire march was tightly packed."
Everything else is calculation based on those factors. Length
was doubled to 86 blocks based on the difference between
duration measurements, 3 hours being twice 1.5 hours Then,
applying duration, 86 x 5000 = 430,000. And the estimated
("very large") numbers of people who joined above 23rd Street
were then added to get 500,000. This would be 70,00 people
- a large estimate to say the least.
There should be no problem with the fact that a large percentage
of people left the march at 34th Street to go to Central Park.
Those people should definitely be counted as participating in
the march. But there are several dubious points about the basic
data and calculation.
Observers: Where exactly was or were the observation points
on 23rd Street? That's a long stretch of street. Were the
observers standing together at one point, or at different points?
And why only at 23rd? Why not post observers every three
blocks or so all along the route, have them take notes, count,
or film?
Length: How was "43 blocks" arrived at? All blocks are not the same.
Distances along east-west Streets like 23rd and 34th are significantly
greater (perhaps between two to three times as long) than those
along north-south Avenues like Fifth and Seventh.
Density (1): First, it's hard to believe we're relying on police
estimates for our basic calculations. How do we know they aren't
skewed? It's nice that they agree this time. but what about when they
don't? Independently verifiable, science-based methods are much better.
Further, which type of blocks are used in this 5000-person estimate?
North-south blocks along Avenues, or east-west blocks along Streets?
It's a major difference.
Density (2) The entire calculation rests on the validity of this point,
and unfortunately it's very seriously flawed. The density of "entire"
march simply can't be generalized from any one observation point.
The march was definitely packed like sardines from the point of
origin at 11:30 all the way up to 23rd Street. But as soon as it
turned the corner on 23rd, it started to thin out, and by the time
it turned up Seventh, it was far, far thinner. At Eighteenth Street,
where I stopped to rest and film from around 12:30 to 1:00,
it got extremely spaced out and straggly, with frequent ten-yard
holes all the way across the street, followed by less than dozen or so
marchers spaced several yards apart But a tightly packed block of
5000 people at one point simply does not mean that the rest of the
march is just as tightly packed.
We can do much better. Actual counts of marchers passing
several given observation points at key march locations would be
much more accurate and verifiable. A single video camera at a
given location could provide irrefutable, verifiable evidence. In
fact, I believe CSPAN recorded the entire march at 34th and 7th.
That tape could be analyzed.
JB
From: Bob Wing [ mailto:bobwing@sbcglobal.net ]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:53 AM
To: John Bostrom; Shirley H. Young; dm.silver@verizon.net;ufpj-
disc@yahoogroups.com; amyh@texnology.com; andrea Buffa
Subject: March Count
Dear All,
I have been asked how we
arrived at the 400,000-500,000 count
of marchers on Aug. 29. I
might start by saying that
the NY Times, based on their
observation, our estimate, as well as
a late estimate of the police, accepted
the 500,000 number. Here's how
we came up with the number.
1. We had two people stationed at
23rd Street for the entire day. They
report that the beginning of the march
stepped off at 11:36 AM. They
further report that the last people
passed 23rd Street at 2:36 PM, exactly
3 hours after the first folks began,
and they report that for the entire
three hours the march was tightly packed.
2. The front of the march arrived at
Union Square just after 1 PM, meaning
it took them one and a half hours to
march the route. Of course, the head
of a march always takes longer than
any other section of the march because
it must constantly stop so as to avoid
big gaps behind it. Plus we stopped a
number of times specifically for photo
ops. In other words, on average it took
most of the march less than 1.5 hours
to march the whole route.
3. From points 1 and 2, we deduce that
the march was more than twice the
length of the march route. The march
route was approximately 43 blocks long.
That means the march was at least 86
blocks and probably 5 to 10 more. The
police estimate a packed block to be
5,000 people. From this alone, then, we
can say the march was 400-500,000 people.
4. We know from personal experience that
thousands of people joined the march
above 23rd Street, meaning they never
passed 23rd Street. We have no estimate
of this factor, but it was very large.
5. The last marchers arrived at Union
Square at 5:35 PM, almost 4-1/2 hours
after the leaders of the march arrived.
There was one disruption at Madison
Square Garden that prolonged the end.
But on the other side thousands of people
left the march along 34th Street to go to Central Park.
UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE | 212-868-5545
Friday, September 17, 2004
BAUAW NEWSLETTER-FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2004
1) This announcement concerns the unprovoked
second arrest by MIT campus cops of
Aimee Smith, a long time Palestine support activist.
2) U.S. Report to Say No WMD Found in Iraq
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:00 PM ET http://www.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6260752&src=eDialog/
GetContent§ion=news
3) GIs claim threat by Army
Soldiers say they were told to re-enlist
or face deployment to Iraq
By Dick Foster, Rocky Mountain News
COLORADO SPRINGS
September 16, 2004
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/
0,1299,DRMN_21_3185596,00.html
4) March & Rally for Immigrants Rights
Sat. October 16, 12noon
Olympic and Broadway, Los Angeles
5) ADC Update
22 Years Later, Sabra and Shatila Remembered
Washington DC, Sept 16
6) US may run out of guard and reserve
troops for war on terrorism: report
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Wed Sep 15, 4:14 PM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=afp/us_military_reserves
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) This announcement concerns the unprovoked second
arrest by MIT campus cops of
Aimee Smith, a long time Palestine support activist.
MIT hires private police agency to
investigate its own police abuses.
MIT has hired Pinkerton Inc., a for-hire
police agency, to investigate the second
false arrest, by the same MIT police officer
Joseph D'Amelio, of MIT alumna Aimee
Smith (PhD '02). Aimee Smith was first
falsely arrested by officer D'Amelio for
handing out flyers on a public sidewalk
before Commencement ceremonies on
June 4, 2004. MIT subsequently dropped
those charges. On August 25, the same
officer again falsely arrested Aimee and
attacked her after she discussed the First
Amendment with three MIT police officers.
The same day, Aimee filed a
complaint with MIT against D'Amelio.
MIT has claimed that they have brought
in an "independent third-party investigator
to examine the case." MIT has not stated
how much they are paying the Pinkerton
corporation, a private police agency with
a history of violently suppressing union
organizing and spying on political activists
(see web links below) and now in the
business of protecting the interests and
investments of large companies. How can
a private police agency, paid by MIT, be
independent in its judgment of abuse by
MIT police? Many Pinkerton employees are
recruited from the ranks of the police and
the FBI. The Pinkertons are known to
cooperate closely with law enforcement
agencies and sell intelligence on a range
of groups, including political organizations.
It is as if a private mercenary company were
asked to investigate complaints about war
crimes committed by a state army.
The outcome of any report from
Pinkerton is certain to be a whitewash.
The MIT police, while paid by MIT, are
deputized by the County of Middlesex
and, therefore, have jurisdiction over the
whole county. Nevertheless, any public
(i.e. democratic) oversight of the MIT
police is non-existent. Unlike the Cambridge
police, there is no publicly accountable
police over-sight board, made up of
representatives from the citizenry, to
investigate police misconduct.
It is unacceptable that MIT has hired a
private police agency to investigate abuses
by its own police force. It is absurd that
MIT claims that this investigation is being
performed by an "independent third-party."
Please write to President Vest and demand
that a truly independent committee composed
of people from the general public and not paid
for by MIT, is assembled to investigate MIT
police abuse. Furthermore, demand that MIT
drop the charges of this second false arrest
of Aimee Smith and that these charges be
fully expunged from her record.
Please cc peace-request@mit.edu on
any correspondence with the MIT administration.
For more information about the false arrests
visit: http://web.mit.edu/justice also ask
president Vest: ~ is it MIT policy to arrest
someone for discussing First Amendment
rights with MIT police officers? ~ Is it MIT
policy to allow MIT police to arrest someone
because they don't like what they're saying
or because they have a personal dislike for
them? ~ Why wasn't D'Amelio removed from
the MIT police force the first time he abused
his authority. ~ How long will the MIT
administration continue to allow female
members of its community to be threatened,
bullied, harassed, and physically assaulted
by a predominantly male campus police
force? ~ When will MIT ensure that the MIT
police force is subject to the Cambridge
Police Review Board, as a first step to establishing a
fully effective complaint/review process of the police at MIT?
Please cc
peace-request@mit.edu
on any correspondence with
the MIT administration. For more information about the
false arrests visit:
http://web.mit.edu/justice
Also ask president Vest:
~ Is it MIT policy to arrest someone for discussing First
Amendment rights with MIT police officers?
~ Is it MIT policy to allow MIT police to arrest someone because
they don't like what they're saying or because they have a personal
dislike for them?
~ Why wasn't D'Amelio removed from the MIT police force the first
time he abused his authority.
~ How long will the MIT administration continue to allow female
members of its community to be threatened, bullied, harassed,
and physically assaulted by a predominantly male campus police
force?
~ When will MIT ensure that the MIT police force is subject to the
Cambridge Police Review Board, as a first step to establishing a
fully effective complaint/review process of the police at MIT?
Contact info
President Charles Vest
e-mail:
cmvest@mit.edu
phone: (617) 253-0148
address: 77 Mass Ave, Rm. 3-208
Cambridge MA, 02139
FAX: (617) 253-0036
[Goes to the Vice President's office across the hall. Label
with "Please deliver immediately to president Charles Vest"
and it should get to him.
President's House on Memorial Drive contact info:
FAX: (617) 253-3100
Provost Robert Brown
e-mail:
rab@mit.edu
phone: (617) 253-4500
address: 77 Mass Ave, Rm. 3-208
Cambridge MA, 02139
FAX: (617) 253-8812
Chancellor Phillip Clay
e-mail:
plclay@mit.edu
phone: (617) 253-6164
address: 77 Mass Ave, Rm 10-200
Cambridge MA, 02139
FAX: (617) 258-6261
Special assistant to the president
Kirk Kolenbrander
e-mail:
kdk@mit.edu
phone: (617)-253-3365
address: 77 Mass Ave, Rm 10-205
Cambridge MA, 02139
FAX: (617) 258-6261
Director of Security and Campus Police
John DiFava
e-mail:
jdifava@mit.edu
phone: (617) 252-1703
address: 77 Mass Ave, W31-114
Cambridge MA, 02139
FAX: (617) 253-8822
References on Pinkertons
* Ward Churchill places the origins of the police state not with
the founding of the FBI in 1913, but in 1852 with the creation
of the Pinkerton Detective Agency. The Pinkerton Detective
Agency was a private investigative organization hired by both
the federal government and the leaders of private industry to
investigate labor dissent. It is here that Churchill finds the
first connection between industry and government, and all the
necessary ingredients that ultimately led to the establishment
of the FBI.
* Pinkerton early strike breakers, planted evidence, etc.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mh_blue.html
* FBI to award Pinkerton for assistance this October
http://www.ci-pinkerton.com/news/prConnelly9.26.html
* Pinkerton boasts about intelligence gathering on political movements:
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/9-11/0225paydirt.htm
Political activists will be interested to know that Pinkerton
Global Intelligence Services (PGIS) sells
intelligence on a range of groups,
including political organizations. Its website
(www.ci-pinkerton.com/global/groupProfiles.html
explains:
"The Group Profiles provide a detailed overview of
high-profile fringe organizations and terrorist groups.
The Group Profiles highlight both global and domestic
organizations. PGIS covers the following groups:
politically-based, environmentalists, anti-globalists,
anti-Western groups, extremist religious factions,
recognized terrorists, among many others."
Similar claims at the bottom of the following website:
http://www.pinkerton-europe.com/business_intelligence_two.htm
"
Pinkerton is also able to provide specific information about a
range of terrorist and activist groups which operate in the
UK, Europe and worldwide."
Announce mailing list
Announce@onepalestine.org
http://mail.onepalestine.org/mailman/listinfo/announce_onepalestine.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) U.S. Report to Say No WMD Found in Iraq
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:00 PM ET http://www.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6260752&src=eDialog/
GetContent§ion=news
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A draft report by the top U.S. weapons
inspector in Iraq concludes no stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction were found, but there was evidence Saddam Hussein
intended to resurrect weapons programs, U.S. government sources
said on Thursday.
Charles Duelfer, the CIA-appointed leader of the weapons hunt, was
still finalizing the roughly 1,500 page-report, which was expected
to say no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons were found,
the sources told Reuters.
The perceived threat from weapons of mass destruction was the
main justification used by the Bush administration for the U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq in March 2003 that toppled Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein.
Duelfer is expected to complete the report in the next several weeks.
His predecessor, David Kay, said when he stepped down in January
that no large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons existed
in Iraq when the United States went to war.
Earlier this week, Secretary of State Colin Powell told lawmakers he
now thought stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons would
probably never be found.
The most specific evidence of an illicit weapons program was
uncovered in labs operated by the Iraqi Intelligence Service,
which could have produced small quantities of chemical and
biological agents, The New York Times reported on its Web site,
citing government officials.
The report will leave open the possibility that illicit weapons may
have been moved to other countries, which has not been substantiated,
the newspaper said.
(c) Copyright Reuters 2004.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) GIs claim threat by Army
Soldiers say they were told to re-enlist
or face deployment to Iraq
By Dick Foster, Rocky Mountain News
COLORADO SPRINGS
September 16, 2004
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/
0,1299,DRMN_21_3185596,00.html
COLORADO SPRINGS - Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say
they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years
or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq.
Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were
presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series
of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on
condition of anonymity.
The effort is part of a restructuring of the Army into smaller, more
flexible forces that can deploy rapidly around the world.
A Fort Carson spokesman confirmed the re-enlistment drive is under
way and one of the soldiers provided the form to the Rocky Mountain
News. An Army spokesmen denied, however, that soldiers who don't
re-enlist with the brigade were threatened.
The form, if signed, would bind the soldier to the 3rd Brigade until
Dec. 31, 2007. The two soldiers said they were told that those who
did not sign would be transferred out of the 3rd Brigade Combat
Team.
"They said if you refuse to re-enlist with the 3rd Brigade, we'll send
you down to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is going to
Iraq for a year, and you can stay with them, or we'll send you to Korea,
or to Fort Riley (in Kansas) where they're going to Iraq," said one
of the soldiers, a sergeant.
The second soldier, an enlisted man who was interviewed separately,
essentially echoed that view.
"They told us if we don't re-enlist, then we'd have to be reassigned.
And where we're most needed is in units that are going back to Iraq
in the next couple of months. So if you think you're getting out, you're
not," he said.
The brigade's presentation outraged many soldiers who are close to
fulfilling their obligation and are looking forward to civilian life, the
sergeant said.
"We have a whole platoon who refuses to sign," he said.
A Fort Carson spokesman said Wednesday that 3rd Brigade
recruitment officers denied threatening the soldiers with Iraq duty.
"I can only tell you what the retention officers told us: The soldiers
were not being told they will go to Iraq, but they may go to Iraq,"
said the spokesman, who gave that explanation before being told
later to direct all inquiries to the Pentagon.
Sending soldiers to Iraq with less than one year of their enlistment
remaining "would not be taken lightly," Lt. Col. Gerard Healy said
from the Pentagon Wednesday.
"We realize that we deal with people and with families, and that's
got to be a factor," he said.
"There's probably a lot of places on post where they could put
those folks (who don't re-enlist) until their time expires. But I don't
want to rule out the possibility that they could go to a unit that
might deploy," said Healy.
Under current Army practice, members of Iraq-bound units are
"stop-lossed," meaning they could be retained in the unit for an
entire year in Iraq, even if their active-duty enlistment expires.
A recruiter told the sergeant that the Army would keep them "as
long as they needed us."
Extending a soldier's active duty is within Army authority, since
the enlistment contract carries an eight-year obligation, even if
a soldier signs for only three or four years of active duty.
The 3rd Brigade recruiting effort is part of the Army's plan to
restructure large divisions of more than 10,000 soldiers into
smaller, more flexible, more numerous brigade- sized "Units of
Action" of about 3,500 soldiers each.
The Army envisions building each unit into a cohesive whole and
staffing them with soldiers who will stay with the unit for longer
periods of time, said John Pike, head of the defense analysis think
tank Global Security.
"They want these units to fight together and train together. They're
basically trying to keep these brigades together throughout
training and deployment, so I can understand why they would
want to shed anybody who was not going to be there for the
whole cycle," Pike said.
But some soldiers presented with the re-enlistment message last
week believe they've already done their duty and should not be
penalized for choosing to leave. They deployed to Iraq for a year
with the 3rd Brigade last April.
"I don't want to go back to Iraq," said the sergeant. "I went through
a lot of things for the Army that weren't necessary and were risky.
Iraq has changed a lot of people.''
The enlisted soldier said the recruiters' message left him troubled,
unable to sleep and "filled with dread."
"For me, it wasn't about going back to Iraq. It's just the fact that
I'm ready to get out of the Army," he said.
Soldiers' choice at Fort Carson
WHAT THE FORM SAID
Â"Elect not to extend or re-enlist and understand that the soldier
will be reassigned IAW (in accordance with) the needs of the Army
by Department of the Army HRC (Human Resources Command) . . .
or Fort Carson G1 (Personnel Office).''
WHAT IT MEANS
ÂSoldiers who sign the letter are bound to the 3rd Brigade Combat
Team until Dec. 31, 2007.
ÂSoldiers who do not sign the letter might be transferred out of
the brigade and possibly to Iraq.
Copyright 2004, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) March & Rally for Immigrants Rights
Sat. October 16, 12noon
Olympic and Broadway, Los Angeles
Speakers include Dolores Huerta
Call to action on Immigrant Rights
Nearly ten years ago, on October 16, 1994, the Latino immigrant
community and its allies convened and held the largest ever mass
march and rally by Latinos in the history of the United States. The
main issue then was the movement to defeat Proposition 187, which
aimed to deny basic human services and constitutional and labor
rights to immigrants. That historic march united the Latino community
and their allies like never before and unleashed a rise in the political
consciousness of millions of people in California and throughout the
rest of the country.
To commemorate that historic march is important. We must also
elevate the level of struggle to win full rights for undocumented
workers and their families at this critical time.
Broad unity is needed
On October 16, 2004, everyone is invited to join the massive march
and rally in downtown Los Angeles to demand full rights for
undocumented workers, and to stop the raids and racism against
immigrants. We seek broad unity to build this event. All progressive
individuals and organizations who believe that the fight for immigrants'
rights is an important one are welcome and encouraged to participate.
A strong, united march and rally in downtown Los Angeles will
demonstrate the incredible strength and resolve of the movement
for immigrants' rights in the United States today.
This call for a demonstration on October 16, 2004 was initiated two
years ago by a pro-immigrant coalition led by Latino Movement USA
Hermandad Mexicana Nacional on October 22, 2002, during the rally
held at the Immigrant Rights March in downtown Los Angeles.
With continuing violent attacks by vigilantes and racist groupings
against immigrants, along the U.S.-Mexico border, on the rise; with
mass terrorizing raids in predominantly Latino communities by border
patrol agents, and other law enforcement units multiplying; with no
end in sight to the mass arrests of Latino immigrants at U.S. airports;
and with the prospect that this police terror campaign against immigrants
may increase in the aftermath of the November Presidential election,
the October 16 March and Rally represents a critical political test of
how we all understand our respective roles and political responsibilities
in the ongoing political battle to safeguard the human and labor rights
of the weakest sector of the U.S. working class, the undocumented worker.
Transportation and Flyers
Contact 415-821-6545 or answer@actionsf.org for information
regarding transportation from San Francisco to LA.
To download flyers for the March for Immigrants Rights, go to
www.answerla.org .
Youth Student Contingent
If you are interested in joining the Youth Student A.N.S.W.E.R.
Contingent in the March for Immigrants Rights, contact Silvia or
Nathalie at 415-821-6545 or apriorchid@yahoo.com.
Endorsers
Organizations from around the country have endorsed this event,
including the following sponsors:
Latino Movement USA, Hermandad Mexicana Nacional,
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Asociacion Nacional de Salvadorenos
Americanos, Alianza Hondurena de Los Angeles, Casa Nicaragua,
Ecuadorians Residing Abroad, Frente Civico Zacatecano, Federacion
de Clubes de Jalisco, Familias Unidas de Lynwood, Centro Azteca,
Free Palestine Alliance, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five,
Fuerza Revolucionaria Salvadorena, Dr. John Fernandez, Roosevelt
High School, Apostolic Church, Jovenes Inc., Coalicion Latinoamericana,
Moviemento Popular Inmigrante, Fundacion Pro-Inmigrante,
Club Ancon, Jornaleros del Valle de San Gabriel, Union Sin Fronteras,
National Network on Cuba (NNOC), California Congreso of U.S.-
Mexican Women Voters, Casa del Sinaloense, Zacatecanos en
Marcha, Federacion de Zacatecanos, American Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee (ADC), Palestinian American
Women's Association (PAWA), and many more.
To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
To remove your address from the list, just send a message to
the address in the ÂList-Unsubscribe'' header of any list
message. If you haven't changed addresses since subscribing,
you can also send a message to:
For addition or removal of addresses, We'll send a confirmation
message to that address. When you receive it, simply reply to it
to complete the transaction.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) ADC Update
22 Years Later, Sabra and Shatila Remembered
Washington DC, Sept 16
Today, September 16, marks 22 years since of one of the bloodiest
and most brutal massacres in recent history, the 1982 massacre of
Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.
Twenty two years ago, shortly after the Israeli army seized control
of West Beirut, Lebanon, right wing Phalangist militia forces, under
the direction of Israeli forces, made their way into the Palestinian
refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila located on the outskirts of the
city. Once in the camps the militias massacred hundreds of
defenseless men, women and children.
Israeli troops, who were in control of the area, allowed the
militias into the camps, prevented the refugees from fleeing for
their lives, and lit the night sky with a continuous series of
flares as the killing raged for two days. The US had pulled its
troops out of Beirut just days prior to the massacres, and had
given a guarantee of protection to the residents of the refugee
camps.
Following massive outrage and protest from the international
community as well as from Israeli citizens, the Israeli government
formed The Kahan Commision of Inquiry. The Commission found
that Israel was responsible for participating in the violence and
recommended the dismissal of the Army Chief of Staff. Rafual Eitan.
Then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon was also forced to resign after
the Commission concluded that he bore personal responsibility for
the massacre, and should never hold public office again. Sharon is
now the Prime Minister of Israel.
ADC President Mary Rose Oakar said, "We must take the time on
September 16 to remember the victims of the horrific Sabra and
Shatila massacre. The massacre is a reminder to us all of the
tragedy of exile of Palestinian refugees who have been excluded
from their homeland for more than half a century and their
vulnerability as a stateless people. It underlines the necessity for
a just settlement to the refugee issue based on the Right of Return,
which is enshrined for all refugees in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the Fourth Geneva Convention, and was
specifically applied to the Palestinian refugees in UN Resolution 194."
To learn more, see the BBC's documentary on the Sabra and Shatila
massacre and also the court case against Ariel Sharon:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/audiovideo/programmes/panorama/1381328.stm
http://indictsharon.net/massacres.shtml
ADC DC Chapter Participating in Lebanon's 22nd
Commemoration of the Sabra & Shatila Massacre
The Washington, DC Chapter of the American-Arab Anti
Discrimination Committee helped to coordinate and is part
of a delegation participating in the 22nd Anniversary of the
Sabra and Shatila massacre. Lebanese and Palestinian NGOs in
Lebanon are hosting delegations from around the world from
September 10 - 19. The nine-day tour provides the opportunity
for a deeper understanding of Lebanon as a country, and provides
the means to engage in dialogue with local Lebanese and Palestinian
leaders and activists. Some itinerary highlights include: visiting the
Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, participating in UNESCO events,
meeting with the support committee regarding the case brought in
Belgium against Ariel Sharon, and touring the area. For more
information contact the ADC- Washington DC Area Chapter at
adcdcarea@yahoo.com.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) US may run out of guard and reserve
troops for war on terrorism: report
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Wed Sep 15, 4:14 PM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=afp/us_military_reserves
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military may run out of national
guard and reserve troops for the war on terrorism because of
existing limits on involuntary mobilizations, a congressional
watchdog agency warned in a report.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the government
has considered changing the policy to make members of the
1.2 million-strong guard and reserve subject to repeated involuntary
mobilization so long as no single mobilization exceeds 24 consecutive
months.
In commenting on the report, however, the Department of
Defense ( news -web sites ) (DOD) said it planned to keep
its current approach.
"Under DOD's current implementation of the authority, reserve
component members can be involuntarily mobilized more than
once, but involuntary mobilizations are limited to a cumulative
total of 24 months," the report said.
"If DOD's implementation of the partial mobilization authority
restricts the cumulative time that reserve component forces can
be mobilized, then it is possible that DOD will run out of forces,"
the report said.
The guard and reserves are crucial to the US war effort because
they include specialized units such as military police, intelligence
and civil affairs that are in high demand but short supply in the
active duty force.
The Pentagon ( news -web sites ) also has turned to guard and
reserve to ease the strain on active duty infantry divisions that have
had to deploy repeatedly to Iraq ( news -web sites ).
More than 47,600 members of the guard and reserve were serving
in Iraq as of August 1, about a third of the 140,000-member US
force there. When those who are deployed in Afghanistan ( news -
web sites ) and rear areas are added, the total is in excess of 66,000,
according to Pentagon figures.
Since September 11, 2003, more than 335,000 guard and reserves
have been involuntarily mobilized for active duty -- 234,000 from the
army alone, according to the report.
"The Department of Defense cannot currently meet its global
commitments without sizeable participation from its national
guard and reserve members," the GAO said in a cover letter to
the report.
The GAO said the Pentagon has projected it will continuously
have about 100,000 to 150,000 reserve members mobilized
over the next three to five years.
The Pentagon considered increasing the pool of available guard
and reserve troops by changing its mobilization policy.
"Under such a revised implementation, DOD could have mobilized
its reserve component forces for less than 24 consecutive months,
sent them home for an unspecified period and then remobilized
them, repeating this cycle indefinitely and providing an essentially
unlimited flow of forces," the report said.
Piecemeal policy changes already undertaken to increase the pool
of available guard and reserve troops have created uncertainties
among reservists that could affect retention, recruitment and the
long-term viability of the reserves, the report noted.
"There are already indications that some portions of the force are
being stressed," it said.
The army national guard, for instance, has failed to meet recruiting
goals in 14 of 20 months from October 2002 through May 2004,
the report said. It was 7,800 soldiers below its recruiting goal at
the end of fiscal 2003.
Copyright (c) 2004 Agence France Presse
second arrest by MIT campus cops of
Aimee Smith, a long time Palestine support activist.
2) U.S. Report to Say No WMD Found in Iraq
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:00 PM ET http://www.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6260752&src=eDialog/
GetContent§ion=news
3) GIs claim threat by Army
Soldiers say they were told to re-enlist
or face deployment to Iraq
By Dick Foster, Rocky Mountain News
COLORADO SPRINGS
September 16, 2004
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/
0,1299,DRMN_21_3185596,00.html
4) March & Rally for Immigrants Rights
Sat. October 16, 12noon
Olympic and Broadway, Los Angeles
5) ADC Update
22 Years Later, Sabra and Shatila Remembered
Washington DC, Sept 16
6) US may run out of guard and reserve
troops for war on terrorism: report
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Wed Sep 15, 4:14 PM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=afp/us_military_reserves
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) This announcement concerns the unprovoked second
arrest by MIT campus cops of
Aimee Smith, a long time Palestine support activist.
MIT hires private police agency to
investigate its own police abuses.
MIT has hired Pinkerton Inc., a for-hire
police agency, to investigate the second
false arrest, by the same MIT police officer
Joseph D'Amelio, of MIT alumna Aimee
Smith (PhD '02). Aimee Smith was first
falsely arrested by officer D'Amelio for
handing out flyers on a public sidewalk
before Commencement ceremonies on
June 4, 2004. MIT subsequently dropped
those charges. On August 25, the same
officer again falsely arrested Aimee and
attacked her after she discussed the First
Amendment with three MIT police officers.
The same day, Aimee filed a
complaint with MIT against D'Amelio.
MIT has claimed that they have brought
in an "independent third-party investigator
to examine the case." MIT has not stated
how much they are paying the Pinkerton
corporation, a private police agency with
a history of violently suppressing union
organizing and spying on political activists
(see web links below) and now in the
business of protecting the interests and
investments of large companies. How can
a private police agency, paid by MIT, be
independent in its judgment of abuse by
MIT police? Many Pinkerton employees are
recruited from the ranks of the police and
the FBI. The Pinkertons are known to
cooperate closely with law enforcement
agencies and sell intelligence on a range
of groups, including political organizations.
It is as if a private mercenary company were
asked to investigate complaints about war
crimes committed by a state army.
The outcome of any report from
Pinkerton is certain to be a whitewash.
The MIT police, while paid by MIT, are
deputized by the County of Middlesex
and, therefore, have jurisdiction over the
whole county. Nevertheless, any public
(i.e. democratic) oversight of the MIT
police is non-existent. Unlike the Cambridge
police, there is no publicly accountable
police over-sight board, made up of
representatives from the citizenry, to
investigate police misconduct.
It is unacceptable that MIT has hired a
private police agency to investigate abuses
by its own police force. It is absurd that
MIT claims that this investigation is being
performed by an "independent third-party."
Please write to President Vest and demand
that a truly independent committee composed
of people from the general public and not paid
for by MIT, is assembled to investigate MIT
police abuse. Furthermore, demand that MIT
drop the charges of this second false arrest
of Aimee Smith and that these charges be
fully expunged from her record.
Please cc peace-request@mit.edu on
any correspondence with the MIT administration.
For more information about the false arrests
visit: http://web.mit.edu/justice also ask
president Vest: ~ is it MIT policy to arrest
someone for discussing First Amendment
rights with MIT police officers? ~ Is it MIT
policy to allow MIT police to arrest someone
because they don't like what they're saying
or because they have a personal dislike for
them? ~ Why wasn't D'Amelio removed from
the MIT police force the first time he abused
his authority. ~ How long will the MIT
administration continue to allow female
members of its community to be threatened,
bullied, harassed, and physically assaulted
by a predominantly male campus police
force? ~ When will MIT ensure that the MIT
police force is subject to the Cambridge
Police Review Board, as a first step to establishing a
fully effective complaint/review process of the police at MIT?
Please cc
peace-request@mit.edu
on any correspondence with
the MIT administration. For more information about the
false arrests visit:
http://web.mit.edu/justice
Also ask president Vest:
~ Is it MIT policy to arrest someone for discussing First
Amendment rights with MIT police officers?
~ Is it MIT policy to allow MIT police to arrest someone because
they don't like what they're saying or because they have a personal
dislike for them?
~ Why wasn't D'Amelio removed from the MIT police force the first
time he abused his authority.
~ How long will the MIT administration continue to allow female
members of its community to be threatened, bullied, harassed,
and physically assaulted by a predominantly male campus police
force?
~ When will MIT ensure that the MIT police force is subject to the
Cambridge Police Review Board, as a first step to establishing a
fully effective complaint/review process of the police at MIT?
Contact info
President Charles Vest
e-mail:
cmvest@mit.edu
phone: (617) 253-0148
address: 77 Mass Ave, Rm. 3-208
Cambridge MA, 02139
FAX: (617) 253-0036
[Goes to the Vice President's office across the hall. Label
with "Please deliver immediately to president Charles Vest"
and it should get to him.
President's House on Memorial Drive contact info:
FAX: (617) 253-3100
Provost Robert Brown
e-mail:
rab@mit.edu
phone: (617) 253-4500
address: 77 Mass Ave, Rm. 3-208
Cambridge MA, 02139
FAX: (617) 253-8812
Chancellor Phillip Clay
e-mail:
plclay@mit.edu
phone: (617) 253-6164
address: 77 Mass Ave, Rm 10-200
Cambridge MA, 02139
FAX: (617) 258-6261
Special assistant to the president
Kirk Kolenbrander
e-mail:
kdk@mit.edu
phone: (617)-253-3365
address: 77 Mass Ave, Rm 10-205
Cambridge MA, 02139
FAX: (617) 258-6261
Director of Security and Campus Police
John DiFava
e-mail:
jdifava@mit.edu
phone: (617) 252-1703
address: 77 Mass Ave, W31-114
Cambridge MA, 02139
FAX: (617) 253-8822
References on Pinkertons
* Ward Churchill places the origins of the police state not with
the founding of the FBI in 1913, but in 1852 with the creation
of the Pinkerton Detective Agency. The Pinkerton Detective
Agency was a private investigative organization hired by both
the federal government and the leaders of private industry to
investigate labor dissent. It is here that Churchill finds the
first connection between industry and government, and all the
necessary ingredients that ultimately led to the establishment
of the FBI.
* Pinkerton early strike breakers, planted evidence, etc.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mh_blue.html
* FBI to award Pinkerton for assistance this October
http://www.ci-pinkerton.com/news/prConnelly9.26.html
* Pinkerton boasts about intelligence gathering on political movements:
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/9-11/0225paydirt.htm
Political activists will be interested to know that Pinkerton
Global Intelligence Services (PGIS) sells
intelligence on a range of groups,
including political organizations. Its website
(www.ci-pinkerton.com/global/groupProfiles.html
explains:
"The Group Profiles provide a detailed overview of
high-profile fringe organizations and terrorist groups.
The Group Profiles highlight both global and domestic
organizations. PGIS covers the following groups:
politically-based, environmentalists, anti-globalists,
anti-Western groups, extremist religious factions,
recognized terrorists, among many others."
Similar claims at the bottom of the following website:
http://www.pinkerton-europe.com/business_intelligence_two.htm
"
Pinkerton is also able to provide specific information about a
range of terrorist and activist groups which operate in the
UK, Europe and worldwide."
Announce mailing list
Announce@onepalestine.org
http://mail.onepalestine.org/mailman/listinfo/announce_onepalestine.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) U.S. Report to Say No WMD Found in Iraq
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:00 PM ET http://www.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6260752&src=eDialog/
GetContent§ion=news
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A draft report by the top U.S. weapons
inspector in Iraq concludes no stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction were found, but there was evidence Saddam Hussein
intended to resurrect weapons programs, U.S. government sources
said on Thursday.
Charles Duelfer, the CIA-appointed leader of the weapons hunt, was
still finalizing the roughly 1,500 page-report, which was expected
to say no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons were found,
the sources told Reuters.
The perceived threat from weapons of mass destruction was the
main justification used by the Bush administration for the U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq in March 2003 that toppled Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein.
Duelfer is expected to complete the report in the next several weeks.
His predecessor, David Kay, said when he stepped down in January
that no large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons existed
in Iraq when the United States went to war.
Earlier this week, Secretary of State Colin Powell told lawmakers he
now thought stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons would
probably never be found.
The most specific evidence of an illicit weapons program was
uncovered in labs operated by the Iraqi Intelligence Service,
which could have produced small quantities of chemical and
biological agents, The New York Times reported on its Web site,
citing government officials.
The report will leave open the possibility that illicit weapons may
have been moved to other countries, which has not been substantiated,
the newspaper said.
(c) Copyright Reuters 2004.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) GIs claim threat by Army
Soldiers say they were told to re-enlist
or face deployment to Iraq
By Dick Foster, Rocky Mountain News
COLORADO SPRINGS
September 16, 2004
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/
0,1299,DRMN_21_3185596,00.html
COLORADO SPRINGS - Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say
they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years
or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq.
Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were
presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series
of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on
condition of anonymity.
The effort is part of a restructuring of the Army into smaller, more
flexible forces that can deploy rapidly around the world.
A Fort Carson spokesman confirmed the re-enlistment drive is under
way and one of the soldiers provided the form to the Rocky Mountain
News. An Army spokesmen denied, however, that soldiers who don't
re-enlist with the brigade were threatened.
The form, if signed, would bind the soldier to the 3rd Brigade until
Dec. 31, 2007. The two soldiers said they were told that those who
did not sign would be transferred out of the 3rd Brigade Combat
Team.
"They said if you refuse to re-enlist with the 3rd Brigade, we'll send
you down to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is going to
Iraq for a year, and you can stay with them, or we'll send you to Korea,
or to Fort Riley (in Kansas) where they're going to Iraq," said one
of the soldiers, a sergeant.
The second soldier, an enlisted man who was interviewed separately,
essentially echoed that view.
"They told us if we don't re-enlist, then we'd have to be reassigned.
And where we're most needed is in units that are going back to Iraq
in the next couple of months. So if you think you're getting out, you're
not," he said.
The brigade's presentation outraged many soldiers who are close to
fulfilling their obligation and are looking forward to civilian life, the
sergeant said.
"We have a whole platoon who refuses to sign," he said.
A Fort Carson spokesman said Wednesday that 3rd Brigade
recruitment officers denied threatening the soldiers with Iraq duty.
"I can only tell you what the retention officers told us: The soldiers
were not being told they will go to Iraq, but they may go to Iraq,"
said the spokesman, who gave that explanation before being told
later to direct all inquiries to the Pentagon.
Sending soldiers to Iraq with less than one year of their enlistment
remaining "would not be taken lightly," Lt. Col. Gerard Healy said
from the Pentagon Wednesday.
"We realize that we deal with people and with families, and that's
got to be a factor," he said.
"There's probably a lot of places on post where they could put
those folks (who don't re-enlist) until their time expires. But I don't
want to rule out the possibility that they could go to a unit that
might deploy," said Healy.
Under current Army practice, members of Iraq-bound units are
"stop-lossed," meaning they could be retained in the unit for an
entire year in Iraq, even if their active-duty enlistment expires.
A recruiter told the sergeant that the Army would keep them "as
long as they needed us."
Extending a soldier's active duty is within Army authority, since
the enlistment contract carries an eight-year obligation, even if
a soldier signs for only three or four years of active duty.
The 3rd Brigade recruiting effort is part of the Army's plan to
restructure large divisions of more than 10,000 soldiers into
smaller, more flexible, more numerous brigade- sized "Units of
Action" of about 3,500 soldiers each.
The Army envisions building each unit into a cohesive whole and
staffing them with soldiers who will stay with the unit for longer
periods of time, said John Pike, head of the defense analysis think
tank Global Security.
"They want these units to fight together and train together. They're
basically trying to keep these brigades together throughout
training and deployment, so I can understand why they would
want to shed anybody who was not going to be there for the
whole cycle," Pike said.
But some soldiers presented with the re-enlistment message last
week believe they've already done their duty and should not be
penalized for choosing to leave. They deployed to Iraq for a year
with the 3rd Brigade last April.
"I don't want to go back to Iraq," said the sergeant. "I went through
a lot of things for the Army that weren't necessary and were risky.
Iraq has changed a lot of people.''
The enlisted soldier said the recruiters' message left him troubled,
unable to sleep and "filled with dread."
"For me, it wasn't about going back to Iraq. It's just the fact that
I'm ready to get out of the Army," he said.
Soldiers' choice at Fort Carson
WHAT THE FORM SAID
Â"Elect not to extend or re-enlist and understand that the soldier
will be reassigned IAW (in accordance with) the needs of the Army
by Department of the Army HRC (Human Resources Command) . . .
or Fort Carson G1 (Personnel Office).''
WHAT IT MEANS
ÂSoldiers who sign the letter are bound to the 3rd Brigade Combat
Team until Dec. 31, 2007.
ÂSoldiers who do not sign the letter might be transferred out of
the brigade and possibly to Iraq.
Copyright 2004, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) March & Rally for Immigrants Rights
Sat. October 16, 12noon
Olympic and Broadway, Los Angeles
Speakers include Dolores Huerta
Call to action on Immigrant Rights
Nearly ten years ago, on October 16, 1994, the Latino immigrant
community and its allies convened and held the largest ever mass
march and rally by Latinos in the history of the United States. The
main issue then was the movement to defeat Proposition 187, which
aimed to deny basic human services and constitutional and labor
rights to immigrants. That historic march united the Latino community
and their allies like never before and unleashed a rise in the political
consciousness of millions of people in California and throughout the
rest of the country.
To commemorate that historic march is important. We must also
elevate the level of struggle to win full rights for undocumented
workers and their families at this critical time.
Broad unity is needed
On October 16, 2004, everyone is invited to join the massive march
and rally in downtown Los Angeles to demand full rights for
undocumented workers, and to stop the raids and racism against
immigrants. We seek broad unity to build this event. All progressive
individuals and organizations who believe that the fight for immigrants'
rights is an important one are welcome and encouraged to participate.
A strong, united march and rally in downtown Los Angeles will
demonstrate the incredible strength and resolve of the movement
for immigrants' rights in the United States today.
This call for a demonstration on October 16, 2004 was initiated two
years ago by a pro-immigrant coalition led by Latino Movement USA
Hermandad Mexicana Nacional on October 22, 2002, during the rally
held at the Immigrant Rights March in downtown Los Angeles.
With continuing violent attacks by vigilantes and racist groupings
against immigrants, along the U.S.-Mexico border, on the rise; with
mass terrorizing raids in predominantly Latino communities by border
patrol agents, and other law enforcement units multiplying; with no
end in sight to the mass arrests of Latino immigrants at U.S. airports;
and with the prospect that this police terror campaign against immigrants
may increase in the aftermath of the November Presidential election,
the October 16 March and Rally represents a critical political test of
how we all understand our respective roles and political responsibilities
in the ongoing political battle to safeguard the human and labor rights
of the weakest sector of the U.S. working class, the undocumented worker.
Transportation and Flyers
Contact 415-821-6545 or answer@actionsf.org for information
regarding transportation from San Francisco to LA.
To download flyers for the March for Immigrants Rights, go to
www.answerla.org
Youth Student Contingent
If you are interested in joining the Youth Student A.N.S.W.E.R.
Contingent in the March for Immigrants Rights, contact Silvia or
Nathalie at 415-821-6545 or apriorchid@yahoo.com.
Endorsers
Organizations from around the country have endorsed this event,
including the following sponsors:
Latino Movement USA, Hermandad Mexicana Nacional,
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Asociacion Nacional de Salvadorenos
Americanos, Alianza Hondurena de Los Angeles, Casa Nicaragua,
Ecuadorians Residing Abroad, Frente Civico Zacatecano, Federacion
de Clubes de Jalisco, Familias Unidas de Lynwood, Centro Azteca,
Free Palestine Alliance, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five,
Fuerza Revolucionaria Salvadorena, Dr. John Fernandez, Roosevelt
High School, Apostolic Church, Jovenes Inc., Coalicion Latinoamericana,
Moviemento Popular Inmigrante, Fundacion Pro-Inmigrante,
Club Ancon, Jornaleros del Valle de San Gabriel, Union Sin Fronteras,
National Network on Cuba (NNOC), California Congreso of U.S.-
Mexican Women Voters, Casa del Sinaloense, Zacatecanos en
Marcha, Federacion de Zacatecanos, American Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee (ADC), Palestinian American
Women's Association (PAWA), and many more.
To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
To remove your address from the list, just send a message to
the address in the ÂList-Unsubscribe'' header of any list
message. If you haven't changed addresses since subscribing,
you can also send a message to:
For addition or removal of addresses, We'll send a confirmation
message to that address. When you receive it, simply reply to it
to complete the transaction.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) ADC Update
22 Years Later, Sabra and Shatila Remembered
Washington DC, Sept 16
Today, September 16, marks 22 years since of one of the bloodiest
and most brutal massacres in recent history, the 1982 massacre of
Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.
Twenty two years ago, shortly after the Israeli army seized control
of West Beirut, Lebanon, right wing Phalangist militia forces, under
the direction of Israeli forces, made their way into the Palestinian
refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila located on the outskirts of the
city. Once in the camps the militias massacred hundreds of
defenseless men, women and children.
Israeli troops, who were in control of the area, allowed the
militias into the camps, prevented the refugees from fleeing for
their lives, and lit the night sky with a continuous series of
flares as the killing raged for two days. The US had pulled its
troops out of Beirut just days prior to the massacres, and had
given a guarantee of protection to the residents of the refugee
camps.
Following massive outrage and protest from the international
community as well as from Israeli citizens, the Israeli government
formed The Kahan Commision of Inquiry. The Commission found
that Israel was responsible for participating in the violence and
recommended the dismissal of the Army Chief of Staff. Rafual Eitan.
Then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon was also forced to resign after
the Commission concluded that he bore personal responsibility for
the massacre, and should never hold public office again. Sharon is
now the Prime Minister of Israel.
ADC President Mary Rose Oakar said, "We must take the time on
September 16 to remember the victims of the horrific Sabra and
Shatila massacre. The massacre is a reminder to us all of the
tragedy of exile of Palestinian refugees who have been excluded
from their homeland for more than half a century and their
vulnerability as a stateless people. It underlines the necessity for
a just settlement to the refugee issue based on the Right of Return,
which is enshrined for all refugees in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the Fourth Geneva Convention, and was
specifically applied to the Palestinian refugees in UN Resolution 194."
To learn more, see the BBC's documentary on the Sabra and Shatila
massacre and also the court case against Ariel Sharon:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/audiovideo/programmes/panorama/1381328.stm
http://indictsharon.net/massacres.shtml
ADC DC Chapter Participating in Lebanon's 22nd
Commemoration of the Sabra & Shatila Massacre
The Washington, DC Chapter of the American-Arab Anti
Discrimination Committee helped to coordinate and is part
of a delegation participating in the 22nd Anniversary of the
Sabra and Shatila massacre. Lebanese and Palestinian NGOs in
Lebanon are hosting delegations from around the world from
September 10 - 19. The nine-day tour provides the opportunity
for a deeper understanding of Lebanon as a country, and provides
the means to engage in dialogue with local Lebanese and Palestinian
leaders and activists. Some itinerary highlights include: visiting the
Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, participating in UNESCO events,
meeting with the support committee regarding the case brought in
Belgium against Ariel Sharon, and touring the area. For more
information contact the ADC- Washington DC Area Chapter at
adcdcarea@yahoo.com.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) US may run out of guard and reserve
troops for war on terrorism: report
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Wed Sep 15, 4:14 PM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=afp/us_military_reserves
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military may run out of national
guard and reserve troops for the war on terrorism because of
existing limits on involuntary mobilizations, a congressional
watchdog agency warned in a report.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the government
has considered changing the policy to make members of the
1.2 million-strong guard and reserve subject to repeated involuntary
mobilization so long as no single mobilization exceeds 24 consecutive
months.
In commenting on the report, however, the Department of
Defense ( news -web sites ) (DOD) said it planned to keep
its current approach.
"Under DOD's current implementation of the authority, reserve
component members can be involuntarily mobilized more than
once, but involuntary mobilizations are limited to a cumulative
total of 24 months," the report said.
"If DOD's implementation of the partial mobilization authority
restricts the cumulative time that reserve component forces can
be mobilized, then it is possible that DOD will run out of forces,"
the report said.
The guard and reserves are crucial to the US war effort because
they include specialized units such as military police, intelligence
and civil affairs that are in high demand but short supply in the
active duty force.
The Pentagon ( news -web sites ) also has turned to guard and
reserve to ease the strain on active duty infantry divisions that have
had to deploy repeatedly to Iraq ( news -web sites ).
More than 47,600 members of the guard and reserve were serving
in Iraq as of August 1, about a third of the 140,000-member US
force there. When those who are deployed in Afghanistan ( news -
web sites ) and rear areas are added, the total is in excess of 66,000,
according to Pentagon figures.
Since September 11, 2003, more than 335,000 guard and reserves
have been involuntarily mobilized for active duty -- 234,000 from the
army alone, according to the report.
"The Department of Defense cannot currently meet its global
commitments without sizeable participation from its national
guard and reserve members," the GAO said in a cover letter to
the report.
The GAO said the Pentagon has projected it will continuously
have about 100,000 to 150,000 reserve members mobilized
over the next three to five years.
The Pentagon considered increasing the pool of available guard
and reserve troops by changing its mobilization policy.
"Under such a revised implementation, DOD could have mobilized
its reserve component forces for less than 24 consecutive months,
sent them home for an unspecified period and then remobilized
them, repeating this cycle indefinitely and providing an essentially
unlimited flow of forces," the report said.
Piecemeal policy changes already undertaken to increase the pool
of available guard and reserve troops have created uncertainties
among reservists that could affect retention, recruitment and the
long-term viability of the reserves, the report noted.
"There are already indications that some portions of the force are
being stressed," it said.
The army national guard, for instance, has failed to meet recruiting
goals in 14 of 20 months from October 2002 through May 2004,
the report said. It was 7,800 soldiers below its recruiting goal at
the end of fiscal 2003.
Copyright (c) 2004 Agence France Presse
Thursday, September 16, 2004
BAUAW NEWSLETTER, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2004
1) U.S. Intelligence Offers Gloomy Outlook for Iraq
By Tabassum Zakaria
Thu Sep 16, 2004 09:44 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6255423&src=eD
ialog/GetContent§ion=news
2) PENTAGON NOT LISTING 17,000 WAR CASUALTIES
United Press International
September 15, 2004
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040915-041621-5455r.htm
3) Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian
Thursday September 16, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5017264-103550,00.html
4) Far graver than Vietnam
Most senior US military officers now believe the war on
Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305360,00.html
5) Two Americans and Briton Are
Kidnapped by Rebels in Baghdad
By EDWARD WONG
BAGHDAD, Iraq
September 16, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/international/middleeast/16CND-IRAQ.html?h
p
6) UPDATE on Hostages in Iraq
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004
From: "Barbara Deutsch"
7) Torture for Profit
Private contractors face legal
action for crimes in Abu Ghraib
by David Phinney , Special to CorpWatch
September 15th, 2004
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11524
8) Intelligence Proposals Gain in Congress
By PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16panel.html
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) U.S. Intelligence Offers Gloomy Outlook for Iraq
By Tabassum Zakaria
Thu Sep 16, 2004 09:44 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6255423&src=eD
ialog/GetContent§ion=news
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. intelligence report prepared for
President Bush in July offered a gloomy outlook for Iraq through
the end of 2005, with the worst scenario being a deterioration
into civil war, a U.S. government official said on Thursday.
The National Intelligence Estimate, which is a compilation
of views from various intelligence agencies, predicted three
possible scenarios from a tenuous stability to political
fragmentation to the most negative assessment of civil war, the
official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
"There doesn't seem to be much optimism," the official said.
The New York Times first reported on the existence of the
50-page classified intelligence report, saying it had not
appeared to alter the more optimistic tenor of the Bush
administration's public statements on Iraq.
Iraq has been gripped by an insurgency involving constant
attacks on U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians and the kidnapping
and beheading of foreigners. More than 1,000 American troops
have died.
The July estimate was initiated under former CIA Director
George Tenet, who stepped down in July. The conclusions were
reached before the recent worsening of Iraq's security situation.
The previous National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in
October 2002 has been highly criticized for its assessments
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, when no large
stockpiles have been found since the U.S. invasion in March
2003.
The 2002 report was a key piece of intelligence used by the
Bush administration in making its case for going to war. It was
later criticized for not taking into account dissenting views
from some intelligence agencies about the status of Iraq's
banned weapons programs.
National Intelligence Estimates are produced by the
National Intelligence Council, which is like a government think
tank that compiles assessments from various intelligence
agencies.
The National Intelligence Council reports to the CIA
director in his dual role of director of central intelligence
in which he has responsibility for overseeing the 15
intelligence agencies.
(c) Copyright Reuters 2004.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) PENTAGON NOT LISTING 17,000 WAR CASUALTIES
United Press International
September 15, 2004
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040915-041621-5455r.htm
Washington, DC -- The Pentagon has
nearly 17,000 service members medically
evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan
not listed on their public casualty
reports.
According to military data reviewed by
United Press International those
evacuees appear to fit the Pentagon's
own definition of war casualties.
The military has evacuated 16,765
individual service members from Iraq and
Afghanistan for injuries and illnesses
not directly related to combat,
according to the U.S. Transportation
Command, which is responsible for the
medical evacuations. Most are from
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
But the Pentagon's public casualty
reports, available at www.defenselink.mil,
list only service members who died or
were wounded in action, even though the
Pentagon's own definition of a war
casualty is: "Any person who is lost to
the organization by having been declared
dead, duty status -- whereabouts
unknown, missing, ill, or injured."
In addition to those evacuations,
32,684 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan
now out of the military sought medical
attention from the Department of
Veterans Affairs by July 22, according
to VA reports obtained by UPI. The
number of those visits to VA
doctors that were related to war is unknown.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian
Thursday September 16, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5017264-103550,00.html
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly
for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security
council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an
interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was
asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in
conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and
from the charter point of view it was illegal."
Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention
at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that
the war was legitimised by security council resolutions.
Mr Annan also questioned whether it will be feasible on security
grounds to go ahead with the first planned election in Iraq
scheduled for January. "You cannot have credible elections if
the security conditions continue as they are now," he said.
His remarks come amid a marked deterioration of the situation
on the ground, an upsurge of violence that has claimed 200 lives
in four days and raised questions over the ability of the interim
Iraqi government and the US-led coalition to maintain control
over the country.
They also come as Mr Blair is trying to put the controversy over
the war behind him in the run-up to the conference season, a
new parliamentary term and next year's probable general election.
The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before
the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate
the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the
damning word "illegal".
Both Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that
Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution
1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling
on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and
other countries claimed these were insufficient.
No immediate comment was available from the White House
late last night, but American officials have defended the war as
an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of
Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass
destruction.
However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of
the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to
a breakdown in international order. Mr Annan last night said that
there should have been a second UN resolution specifically
authorizing war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to
secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to
the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.
Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution
1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its
demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to
determine what those consequences were.
Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Far graver than Vietnam
Most senior US military officers now believe the war on
Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305360,00.html
'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency
in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed
and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day,
in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is
"winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the
National Guard convention on Tuesday.
But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent
retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William
Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush
hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front.
That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too.
It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving
Bin Laden's ends."
Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and
head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going
to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good
options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being
conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so
unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The
priorities are just all wrong."
Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said:
"I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has
become true. There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation
in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in
Germany and Japan."
W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic
studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: "I don't
think that you can kill the insurgency". According to Terrill, the
anti-US insurgency, centred in the Sunni triangle, and holding
several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and
becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.
"We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me.
"We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are
getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are
x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can
get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to
regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the
ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more
hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they
are confirmed in that view."
After the killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, the marines
besieged the city for three weeks in April - the watershed event
for the insurgency. "I think the president ordered the attack on
Fallujah," said General Hoare. "I asked a three-star marine general
who gave the order to go to Fallujah and he wouldn't tell me.
I came to the conclusion that the order came directly from the
White House." Then, just as suddenly, the order was rescinded,
and Islamist radicals gained control, using the city as a base.
"If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by
a non-Islamic power it becomes a religious requirement to resist
that occupation," Terrill explained. "Most Iraqis consider us
occupiers, not liberators." He describes the religious imagery
common now in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle: "There's talk of
angels and the Prophet Mohammed coming down from heaven
to lead the fighting, talk of martyrs whose bodies are glowing and
emanating wonderful scents."
"I see no exit," said Record. "We've been down that road before.
It's called Vietnamisation. The idea that we're going to have an
Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can't defeat stretches
the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association
with the foreign occupier. In fact, we had more time and money
in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq."
General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't
as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly
went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But
now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse
shape with our allies."
Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the
no-go areas "could become so controversial that members of the
Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign". Thus, an attempted
military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political
legitimacy. "If we leave and there's no civil war, that's a victory."
General Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a
decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in
November. That's the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs
are all there."
He compares any such planned attack to the late Syrian dictator Hafez
al-Asad's razing of the rebel city of Hama. "You could flatten it," said
Hoare. "US military forces would prevail, casualties would be high, there
would be inconclusive results with respect to the bad guys, their
leadership would escape, and civilians would be caught in the middle.
I hate that phrase collateral damage. And they talked about dancing in
the street, a beacon for democracy."
General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration
the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever
seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. "I've never seen
a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose
interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin
Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the
equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by
pouring more in there. Tragic."
·Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is
Washington bureau chief of salon.com
sidney_blumenthal@ yahoo.com
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Two Americans and Briton Are
Kidnapped by Rebels in Baghdad
By EDWARD WONG
BAGHDAD, Iraq
September 16, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/international/middleeast/16CND-IRAQ.html?h
p
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 16 - Insurgents kidnapped two American
and one British contractor in a brazen dawn raid on their home in
one of Baghdad's most upscale neighborhoods, underscoring the
rapidly growing perils confronting foreign nationals in this war zone.
The three men worked for the Gulf Services Company, based in the
United Arab Emirates, and were believed to be involved in construction,
said neighbors and an American embassy official. The company was
operating in Iraq under the name of Al Khalij, said Col. Adnan Abdul-
Rahman, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry. Neighbors said the
men had received prior threats.
The incident took place without a struggle and without shots being
fired, neighbors said. The men were simply dragged from their homes
in the Mansour neighborhood and put into one or two cars. The
insurgents had head scarves swathed around their faces and at least
one wore all black, though it was unclear whether they carried any
guns, neighbors said.
"Come on, get in, get in the car!" one of the kidnappers said,
according to a 32-year-old neighbor who gave her name as
Um Brahim.
The abductions echoed those of two 29-year-old Italian women and
two of their Iraqi co-workers on Sept. 7. In both cases, the hostage
takers had no qualms about staging their raid during daylight hours
in the heart of the capital, when witnesses would likely be roaming
around.
These incidents are quickly forcing changes to the way foreigners
live and work here, with security advisors scrambling to boost the
presence of armed guards at private homes or move residents into
hotels.
In short, the insurgents are succeeding in tightening the circle in
which foreigners think they can safely operate, slowly squeezing in
the edges until a single ice floe remains among turbulent swells.
No group took immediate responsibility for the kidnappings today.
No armed guards worked at the two-story concrete home in which
the three victims lived, according to several neighbors. The three
foreigners were clearly trying to maintain a low profile in the area.
But as was the case with the Italian women, taking a soft approach
to security ultimately left them vulnerable amid the rising hostilities.
"I feel so sorry for what happened to them," said Um Brahim as she
stood in her driveway, right next door to the victims' home. "They
weren't working for a military company. It was a construction company."
The raid unfolded at around 6 a.m., when a blackout prompted two
of the victims to open the black metal gate of their home to turn on
a large generator sitting outside a four-foot front wall surrounding
the house. As the gate swung open, masked men rushed into the front
yard and seized the foreigners, said Bahir Saleem, a student living on
the block who said he spoke with several witnesses.
The insurgents then took a third man from the house.
Several neighbors said that up to two foreign Arabs usually lived
in the house and were responsible for maintaining the generator
and driving the Westerners around, but that they had left just a
day or two earlier.
One neighbor, Suham Moiyed, said a young boy emerged from the
house across the street to help start the generator, since that house
also received electricity from the machine, but that the kidnappers
told the boy's mother to get him back into the house.
The home, in which the Westerners had lived for about a year, is a
drab building in a middle- to upper-class area that had no visible
defenses. The wall around the house functions more as decoration
than protection. Four white plastic chairs surround a circular table
sit on the tiny front lawn.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) UPDATE on Hostages in Iraq
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004
From: "Barbara Deutsch"
Last Friday, Sept. 10, I sent around a Petition
for the Italian anti-war activists kidnapped in
Iraq. I wrote that the kidnappers were "most
likely in the pay of the CIA, and at the very
least are doing the work of the U.S. government
by kidnappings and executions directed against
civilian anti-war activists."
I received two comments from ostensibly radical
professors who criticized my comments for being
inaccurate and harmful to the cause. They
focused blame on Moslem extremists.
Below, I reprint an investigatory article from
today's British "Guardian" newspaper by Naomi
Klein and Jeremy Scahill which buttresses the
claim I made, with specific evidence, such as:
"The attackers were armed with AK-47s, shotguns,
pistols with silencers and stun guns -- hardly
the mujahideen's standard-issue rusty
Kalashnikovs. Strangest of all is this detail:
witnesses said that several attackers wore Iraqi
National Guard uniforms and identified
themselves as working for Ayad Allawi, the
interim prime minister."
There's lots more.
Just about every Islamic group, including the
leaders of the resistance in Iraq, have
condemned this kidnapping of the leaders of the
Italian antiwar movement and their fellow
workers.
I am amazed that some folks, despite their
decades of education at elite universities, or
most likely because of it, are unable to read
through the lines and understand what is really
happening in this world and who is behind the
horror.
Thank you Naomi Klein. Thank you Jeremy Scahill.
And most of all,
FREE SIMONA TORRETTA, SIMONA PARI,
RAAD ALI ABDUL AZZIZ and MAHNOUZ
BASSAM
- Mitchel Cohen
Brooklyn Greens/Green Party of NY
Who seized Simona Torretta?
This Iraqi kidnapping has the mark of
an undercover police operation
Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian
When Simona Torretta returned to Baghdad in
March 2003, in the midst of the "shock and awe"
aerial bombardment, her Iraqi friends greeted
her by telling her she was nuts. "They were just
so surprised to see me. They said, 'Why are you
coming here? Go back to Italy. Are you crazy?'"
But Torretta didn't go back. She stayed
throughout the invasion, continuing the
humanitarian work she began in 1996, when she
first visited Iraq with her anti-sanctions NGO,
A Bridge to Baghdad. When Baghdad fell, Torretta
again opted to stay, this time to bring medicine
and water to Iraqis suffering under occupation.
Even after resistance fighters began targeting
foreigners, and most foreign journalists and aid
workers fled, Torretta again returned. "I cannot
stay in Italy," the 29-year-old told a
documentary film-maker.
Today, Torretta's life is in danger, along with
the lives of her fellow Italian aid worker
Simona Pari, and their Iraqi colleagues Raad Ali
Abdul Azziz and Mahnouz Bassam. Eight days ago,
the four were snatched at gunpoint from their
home/office in Baghdad and have not been heard
from since. In the absence of direct
communication from their abductors, political
controversy swirls round the incident.
Proponents of the war are using it to paint
peaceniks as naive, blithely supporting a
resistance that answers international solidarity
with kidnappings and beheadings. Meanwhile, a
growing number of Islamic leaders are hinting
that the raid on A Bridge to Baghdad was not the
work of mujahideen, but of foreign intelligence
agencies out to discredit the resistance.
Nothing about this kidnapping fits the pattern
of other abductions. Most are opportunistic
attacks on treacherous stretches of road.
Torretta and her colleagues were coldly hunted
down in their home. And while mujahideen in Iraq
scrupulously hide their identities, making sure
to wrap their faces in scarves, these kidnappers
were bare-faced and clean-shaven, some in
business suits. One assailant was addressed by
the others as "sir".
Kidnap victims have overwhelmingly been men, yet
three of these four are women. Witnesses say the
gunmen questioned staff in the building until
the Simonas were identified by name, and that
Mahnouz Bassam, an Iraqi woman, was dragged
screaming by her headscarf, a shocking religious
transgression for an attack supposedly carried
out in the name of Islam.
Most extraordinary was the size of the
operation: rather than the usual three or four
fighters, 20 armed men pulled up to the house in
broad daylight, seemingly unconcerned about
being caught. Only blocks from the heavily
patrolled Green Zone, the whole operation went
off with no interference from Iraqi police or US
military - although Newsweek reported that
"about 15 minutes afterwards, an American Humvee
convoy passed hardly a block away".
And then there were the weapons. The attackers
were armed with AK-47s, shotguns, pistols with
silencers and stun guns - hardly the
mujahideen's standard-issue rusty Kalashnikovs.
Strangest of all is this detail: witnesses said
that several attackers wore Iraqi National Guard
uniforms and identified themselves as working
for Ayad Allawi, the interim prime minister.
An Iraqi government spokesperson denied that
Allawi's office was involved. But Sabah Kadhim,
a spokesperson for the interior ministry,
conceded that the kidnappers "were wearing
military uniforms and flak jackets". So was this
a kidnapping by the resistance or a covert
police operation? Or was it something worse: a
revival of Saddam's mukhabarat disappearances,
when agents would arrest enemies of the regime,
never to be heard from again? Who could have
pulled off such a coordinated operation - and
who stands to benefit from an attack on this
anti-war NGO?
On Monday, the Italian press began reporting on
one possible answer. Sheikh Abdul Salam
al-Kubaisi, from Iraq's leading Sunni cleric
organisation, told reporters in Baghdad that he
received a visit from Torretta and Pari the day
before the kidnap. "They were scared," the
cleric said. "They told me that someone
threatened them." Asked who was behind the
threats, al-Kubaisi replied: "We suspect some
foreign intelligence."
Blaming unpopular resistance attacks on CIA or
Mossad conspiracies is idle chatter in Baghdad,
but coming from Kubaisi, the claim carries
unusual weight; he has ties with a range of
resistance groups and has brokered the release
of several hostages. Kubaisi's allegations have
been widely reported in Arab media, as well as
in Italy, but have been absent from the
English-language press.
Western journalists are loath to talk about
spies for fear of being labelled conspiracy
theorists. But spies and covert operations are
not a conspiracy in Iraq; they are a daily
reality. According to CIA deputy director James
L Pavitt, "Baghdad is home to the largest CIA
station since the Vietnam war", with 500 to 600
agents on the ground. Allawi himself is a
lifelong spook who has worked with MI6, the CIA
and the mukhabarat, specialising in removing
enemies of the regime.
A Bridge to Baghdad has been unapologetic in its
opposition to the occupation regime. During the
siege of Falluja in April, it coordinated risky
humanitarian missions. US forces had sealed the
road to Falluja and banished the press as they
prepared to punish the entire city for the
gruesome killings of four Blackwater
mercenaries. In August, when US marines laid
siege to Najaf, A Bridge to Baghdad again went
where the occupation forces wanted no witnesses.
And the day before their kidnapping, Torretta
and Pari told Kubaisi that they were planning
yet another high-risk mission to Falluja.
In the eight days since their abduction, pleas
for their release have crossed all geographical,
religious and cultural lines. The Palestinian
group Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah, the
International Association of Islamic Scholars
and several Iraqi resistance groups have all
voiced outrage. A resistance group in Falluja
said the kidnap suggests collaboration with
foreign forces. Yet some voices are conspicuous
by their absence: the White House and the office
of Allawi. Neither has said a word.
What we do know is this: if this hostage-taking
ends in bloodshed, Washington, Rome and their
Iraqi surrogates will be quick to use the
tragedy to justify the brutal occupation - an
occupation that Simona Torretta, Simona Pari,
Raad Ali Abdul Azziz and Mahnouz Bassam risked
their lives to oppose. And we will be left
wondering whether that was the plan all along.
· Jeremy Scahill is a reporter for the
independent US radio/TV show Democracy Now;
Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo and Fences
and Windows
jeremy@democracynow.org
www.nologo.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305523,00.html
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) Torture for Profit
Private contractors face legal
action for crimes in Abu Ghraib
by David Phinney , Special to CorpWatch
September 15th, 2004
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11524
Employees of two high-profile defense contractors are accused
of involvement in close to one third of the torture and abuse
incidents cited in a recent Army investigation of Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq. In late August, following release of the report,
Defense department officials turned over the names of six CACI
International Inc. and Titan Corporation employees to the U.S.
Justice department for possible prosecution. But efforts to hold
private contract employees truly accountable may fall short due
to untested laws on contractor accountability and a U.S.
administration that critics say has repeatedly redefined torture
in its 'war on terror' and in the war on Iraq.
The 176-page Army report, produced under the direction of
Maj. Gen. George R. Fay and Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones,
graphically details 44 incidents of abuse taking place at Abu
Ghraib involving military intelligence personnel and contractors.
It confirms prior findings of torture including head blows and
other physical assault, sodomy, rape, stripping prisoners of their
clothing, forcing detainees to masturbate and perform sex acts,
the use of unmuzzled dogs and other atrocities and abusive
practices.
Of the 44 documented incidents, from July 2003 to February 2004,
interrogators employed by CACI International, Inc., of Arlington, Va.,
and translators working for Titan Corp. of San Diego are accused of
being connected to 14.
Army investigators found evidence that these contract employees
violently assaulted prisoners, demanded that prisoners be forced
into unauthorized stress positions and threatened prisoners with
dogs. It also documents allegations of rape by one witness who
told investigators of a civilian, believed to be a translator who was
wearing a military uniform.
The report asserts that 35 percent of the interrogators provided
on contract by CACI "lacked formal military training as interrogators"
for what the Pentagon considers a critical military function that
should not be outsourced only in extreme and pressing situations.
The report also claims that the Army failed to properly investigate
the backgrounds of many of the contract employees.
The day after the Fay/Jones report was made public August 24,
Defense Department officials turned over the names of four CACI
and Titan employees accused of active participation in the abuse.
Also turned over for possible prosecution were two more employees
accused of failing to report torture and abuse that they witnessed.
From a variety of perspectives, "the use of contract interrogators
and linguists at Abu Ghraib was problematic," the report finds.
Leadership at the prison was "unprepared for the arrival of
contract interrogators and had no training to fall back on in
the management, control, and discipline of these personnel."
It also says, "Several people indicated in their statements that
that contractor personnel were 'supervising' government personnel
or vice versa. [One] Sergeant indicated that CACI employees were
in positions of authority, and appeared to be supervising government
personnel." The report concludes. "It would appear that no effort
to familiarize the ultimate user of the contracted services of the
contract's terms and procedures was ever made."
One CACI contractor, accused in the report of dragging a handcuffed
prisoner and drinking alcohol at the prison, is cited as being
belligerent to military command. At one point he is said to have
protested: "I have been doing my job for 20 years and do not
need a 20-year-old to tell me how to do my job."
Both companies have regularly denied such allegations and a
CACI internal investigation this summer found no wrongdoing
on the part of its employees, a source familiar with the review
said. And while the companies intend to aid government
investigations of Abu Ghraib, the spokesmen also said the
recent Army findings are far less damning than what was
originally claimed when the prison scandal originally surfaced
last spring.
In a company statement CEO Jack London said "Nothing in
the Fay report can be construed as CACI employees directing,
participating in or even observing anything close to what we
have all seen in the dozens of horrendous photos." London
stopped short of an unequivocal defense of his employees.
"Nonetheless, we are disappointed and disheartened by the
news that any of our employees or former employees are
alleged to have engaged in any improper or inappropriate
behavior."
Justice
Justice department prosecutors say they are still determining
how to proceed on the cases. But since both Justice and
Defense have rewritten the definition of torture several times
and because the Pentagon has yet to investigate the roles
played by the two companies, actual prosecutions are uncertain.
Meanwhile, private lawyers are waging two separate court
battles claiming that the torture is far more brutal and
widespread than what Pentagon investigators publicly
acknowledge and that the companies involved should
share the blame for the abusive treatment of detainees.
Titan and CACI are named as defendants in a suit filed in
Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. by Australian
lawyer Michael Hourigan. He's suing under the Alien Tort
Claims Act, on behalf of four former Abu Ghraib prisoners
and the widow of one detainee who died in custody. The suit
aims to determine what responsibility the contractors may
have in the events at Abu Ghraib, says Atlanta attorney
Roderick Edmond who is working with the plaintiffs.
"People really were tortured and real people really did die,"
he says. "These corporations need to be held accountable if
they were derelict in their responsibilities of training and
supervision and their employees were involved with directing
interrogation."
CACI rejects and denies the allegations and denounces the
suit as "malicious and farcical recitation of false statements
and intentional distortions."
A second suit, filed by the Center for Constitutional rights,
alleges even wider pattern of torture and is brought under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
the 1970 law often used by prosecutors to go after organized
crime, which imposes both criminal and civil liability. The suit,
filed in Federal Court in San Diego, California alleges violations
of the Geneva Conventions, 8th, 5th, and 14th Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution as well as other U.S. and international
laws.
Prosecutions
The Titan employees will be considered for prosecution under
the still untested Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Passed
in November 2000, the law permits prosecution in U.S. federal
courts of Defense Department contractors who commit crimes
while working with the military outside the United States.
But the law applies only to crimes carrying a minimum one-year
sentence and that may not include incidents of simple assault
says Michael Nardotti Jr., a law partner at Patton Boggs in
Washington in a May 11 interview with American Lawyer.
"Suppose the behavior involves humiliating the detainee, or
stripping him naked," said Nardotti, who served as judge
advocate general of the Army from 1993 to 1997. "What crime
would that constitute? You'd have to look at the whole list of
federal offenses and find one that is punishable by more than
one year."
Alex Ward, a legal fellow for Amnesty International, agrees. "It's
a very foggy area," he says. "But assuming that, at the very least,
the worst of what the contractors did is true, I imagine that would
be punishable."
Interrogators employed by CACI pose a more complex problem
for prosecutors. The company performed its interrogation work
for the Army under a contract originally intended to provide
information technology through the Interior Department. Because
CACI was technically operating through Interior - and not the
Defense Department - wrongdoing by CACI employees may be
outside the jurisdiction of the untested Military Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction Act.
Faced with that dilemma, a Justice Department task force under
the U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia is
considering the U.S. criminal code covering torture for possible
prosecution, says spokesperson, Frank Schultz.
That statute, Title 18, amendment 2340a, defines torture as
inflicting "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" and
requires that "Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture" may be fined or imprisoned for
not more than 20 years.
"That's part of what is being looked at right now," Shultz said.
"It's the prosecutorial process."
Defining torture
That process may not go very far, says Scott Horton, an
attorney who is president of the New York based International
League of Human Rights. The group joined other human rights
organizations in a May 7 letter to President Bush that claims
that the patterns of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib are
widespread at other detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan
and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It requests that the president
rein in those responsible and assure that the treatment of
detainees is consistent with international humanitarian law.
"We are talking about an administration and attorney general
who have issued opinions saying that torture isn't torture, so
it's difficult to believe they seriously intend to prosecute anyone,"
Horton says. "They have established a policy at the highest level
to create an atmosphere of ambiguity."
In August, 2002, Jay Bybee, head of the justice department's
office of legal counsel wrote Alberto R Gonzales, the White House
counsel. "Certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but
still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to
fall within [a legal] proscription against torture."
Elisa Massimino, director of Human Rights First in the Washington,
D.C., office, says these and other memos from the Justice
Department, the White House and the Pentagon seek to bend
the rules on torture. "The laws are clear," she says. "The only
thing that became hazy is the administration."
Calls for wider investigation
On Sept. 8, 2004 eight retired generals and admirals joined
Human Rights First in a call for an independent investigation of
Abu Ghraib and other detention centers, saying that previous
probes fall short in providing a comprehensive assessment of
abuse or meaningful recommendations to address them.
"The use of contractors for what is a military function is a huge
issue," said retired Navy admiral, John Hutson, who served as the
Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000 and joined in
the call for an independent investigation. "It's a problem when
contractors are inserted in the chain of command."
The Fay report also points an accusing finger up the chain of
command, claiming that senior officers in Iraq neglected to
provide needed oversight or and lay out "clear, consistent
guidance" for the treatment of detainees. Another investigation
of Abu Ghraib led by former defense secretary James R. Schlesinger
released Aug. 24 aimed even higher. It blames senior civilian and
military leaders at the Pentagon for fostering confused guidance,
poor planning and plodding response after problems at Abu
Ghraib became known.
While none of the dozen reports dealing with the treatment of
detainees has found direct responsibility by CACI or Titan
management for the events at Abu Ghraib, one investigation
spearheaded by the General Services Administration (GSA) did
review the CACI's interrogation task orders after the prison
abuse began making headlines. Because the Army awarded
these under a contract managed by the Interior Department
for technology services, GSA determined that interrogation
was clearly out of scope of the agreement's intent and could
be possible grounds for debarring or suspending CACI from
future government work. The GSA review also discovered
that a CACI employee, Thomas Howard, took part in writing
for the Army the very guidelines for the work (called in
contract jargon a "statement of work" ) to be performed by
CACI.
After the review, GSA suspension and debarment official
Joseph Neurauter said, in a July 7 letter to the company,
that he would not take formal action against CACI. Still,
Neurauter expressed concern that "CACI's possible role
in preparing statements of work continues to be an open
issue and potential conflict of interest." Neurauter
requested further response from the company.
Following further private discussions with GSA, CACI vowed
to comply with federal acquisition regulations in the future.
The Army then discontinued funneling the contract through
Interior and wrote a new agreement with CACI to continue the
interrogation work. "I do not feel that, at this time, it is
necessary for me to take any formal action to protect the
interests of the federal government," Neurauter concluded.
The new contract, announced by CACI on August 10, is for a
period of four months, worth $15.3 million, and has two
optional extensions worth up to $3.8 million each, for a
total value of $23 million.
Meanwhile, the Fay/Jones report found that it remains unclear
"who, if anyone, in Army contracting or legal channels approved
the use" of the original Interior contract.
Lawsuits may help investigations
The civil suits against CACI and Titan may have more hope
of shedding light on the role of the contractors than the GSA
investigations. Among other things, the Center for Constitutional
Rights lawsuit seeks to prove that CACI and Titan knowingly
collaborated with the Defense Department in the prison abuse.
Detroit attorney, Shereef Akeel, who is working on the lawsuit,
says that he discovered that abuse and torture are widespread
at the 23 U.S. detention facilities in Iraq. During a recent fact-
finding trip, he visited with detainees, former prisoners and
families who said they lost loved ones at the centers.
"It is horrific and devastating," Akeel says, adding that the abuse
begins when the military raids homes at night in search of suspected
insurgents. "Families would be robbed. They are stripped of their
dignity and property. The normal routine is a raid with translators
carrying guns asking where the father is and where the gold is."
Once at the facilities, Akeel says that detainees are subjected to
brutality, rape and other forms of abuse.
"This is torture for profit," he claims. "The government is there is
to promote 'democracy' while companies have two competing
masters - shareholders and the government - and they are there
for profit."
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) Intelligence Proposals Gain in Congress
By PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16panel.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - The momentum behind creation of a new,
powerful job of national intelligence director gained force on
Wednesday with the introduction of a bipartisan Senate bill to
grant sweeping budget authority to such an official and a
simultaneous promise by House leaders to pass a related bill
before going home this fall to campaign for re-election.
The bill, introduced by the Republican and Democratic leaders of
the Governmental Affairs Committee, would establish the post of
national intelligence director and provide the director with control
over most of the government's estimated $40 billion annual
intelligence budget, including virtually complete authority over
spending by the C.I.A., the National Security Agency and the
intelligence programs of the F.B.I. and the Homeland Security
Department.
Creation of such a post was the central recommendation of the
independent Sept. 11 commission, and the idea has been
endorsed by President Bush over the initial objections of some
senior aides.
The Governmental Affairs Committee bill has been designated
by Senate leaders as the chamber's chief legislative vehicle for
responding to the commission's recommendations for overhauling
the executive branch, and the bill's authors say it is has been
packaged for quick adoption in the Senate, possibly as early as
next week.
Although House Republican leaders have been notably cooler than
their Senate colleagues in their response to the commission's
findings and at one time suggested that there would be no time
to take up intelligence legislation before the November elections,
they vowed on Wednesday that they would approve a related
intelligence-overhaul bill before adjourning next month.
"We will vote on a final bill before Congress adjourns in October,"
said the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay,
Republican of Texas.
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said in a statement that the Republican
leadership would introduce a "comprehensive bill early next week"
with the goal of "having the bill on the House floor by late September."
House leaders have been unwilling to discuss many of the details
of their planned legislation, and members of the Sept. 11
commission and some lawmakers have said they fear that the
House may try to water down the commission's main
recommendations, creating a conflict with the Senate bill
and derailing final approval.
John Feehery, a spokesman for Mr. Hastert, said that while
the speaker supported the idea of a national intelligence
director, he was still uncertain how much budgetary and
other power should be granted.
"That's the big issue," Mr. Feehery said, "and it's a matter of
negotiation not only with our committees but also with the
White House."
The Senate bill was introduced by Senators Susan Collins, the
Maine Republican who is chairwoman of the Governmental
Affairs Committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut,
the panel's ranking Democrat. Committee aides said that final
mark-up of the bill was scheduled for next Tuesday and
Wednesday, with the possibility of a final vote on the Senate
floor days later.
"We must transform our intelligence system to meet the threats
of today and the future," Senator Collins said at a news
conference to announce the bill. "We establish a national
intelligence director with strong authority - strong budget
authority, strong personnel authority."
She said that if the intelligence director "did not have strong
budget authority, we really would just be creating another
level of bureaucracy."
Senator Lieberman said the bill would produce "revolutionary
changes" in the way the government gathered and shared
intelligence.
"Under our plan, when somebody asks, 'Who's in charge?' the
question will not be met with blank stares and nonanswers,
which greeted the 9/11 commission every time they asked
somebody that question," Mr. Lieberman said.
While the Senate bill differs in significant ways from some of
the proposals made by the Sept. 11 commission - among other
things, the bill would not have senior officials of the C.I.A., the
F.B.I. and the Pentagon serve as deputies to the intelligence
director - it was still welcomed by the bipartisan commission.
In a joint statement, the commission chairman, Thomas H. Kean,
a former Republican governor of New Jersey, and the vice chairman,
Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic House member from Indiana
and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,
welcomed the Senate bill, describing it as a "significant
breakthrough" that "appears to incorporate some of the
most important structural recommendations contained in our
report."
"We consider this legislation an important first step in moving
our nation in a direction that will greatly increase the safety of
the American people," they said.
Their statement was released by their newly opened educational
foundation, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, which has been
created to continue to lobby the White House and Congress on
behalf of the commission's recommendations.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
By Tabassum Zakaria
Thu Sep 16, 2004 09:44 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6255423&src=eD
ialog/GetContent§ion=news
2) PENTAGON NOT LISTING 17,000 WAR CASUALTIES
United Press International
September 15, 2004
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040915-041621-5455r.htm
3) Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian
Thursday September 16, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5017264-103550,00.html
4) Far graver than Vietnam
Most senior US military officers now believe the war on
Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305360,00.html
5) Two Americans and Briton Are
Kidnapped by Rebels in Baghdad
By EDWARD WONG
BAGHDAD, Iraq
September 16, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/international/middleeast/16CND-IRAQ.html?h
p
6) UPDATE on Hostages in Iraq
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004
From: "Barbara Deutsch"
7) Torture for Profit
Private contractors face legal
action for crimes in Abu Ghraib
by David Phinney , Special to CorpWatch
September 15th, 2004
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11524
8) Intelligence Proposals Gain in Congress
By PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16panel.html
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) U.S. Intelligence Offers Gloomy Outlook for Iraq
By Tabassum Zakaria
Thu Sep 16, 2004 09:44 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6255423&src=eD
ialog/GetContent§ion=news
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. intelligence report prepared for
President Bush in July offered a gloomy outlook for Iraq through
the end of 2005, with the worst scenario being a deterioration
into civil war, a U.S. government official said on Thursday.
The National Intelligence Estimate, which is a compilation
of views from various intelligence agencies, predicted three
possible scenarios from a tenuous stability to political
fragmentation to the most negative assessment of civil war, the
official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
"There doesn't seem to be much optimism," the official said.
The New York Times first reported on the existence of the
50-page classified intelligence report, saying it had not
appeared to alter the more optimistic tenor of the Bush
administration's public statements on Iraq.
Iraq has been gripped by an insurgency involving constant
attacks on U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians and the kidnapping
and beheading of foreigners. More than 1,000 American troops
have died.
The July estimate was initiated under former CIA Director
George Tenet, who stepped down in July. The conclusions were
reached before the recent worsening of Iraq's security situation.
The previous National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in
October 2002 has been highly criticized for its assessments
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, when no large
stockpiles have been found since the U.S. invasion in March
2003.
The 2002 report was a key piece of intelligence used by the
Bush administration in making its case for going to war. It was
later criticized for not taking into account dissenting views
from some intelligence agencies about the status of Iraq's
banned weapons programs.
National Intelligence Estimates are produced by the
National Intelligence Council, which is like a government think
tank that compiles assessments from various intelligence
agencies.
The National Intelligence Council reports to the CIA
director in his dual role of director of central intelligence
in which he has responsibility for overseeing the 15
intelligence agencies.
(c) Copyright Reuters 2004.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) PENTAGON NOT LISTING 17,000 WAR CASUALTIES
United Press International
September 15, 2004
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040915-041621-5455r.htm
Washington, DC -- The Pentagon has
nearly 17,000 service members medically
evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan
not listed on their public casualty
reports.
According to military data reviewed by
United Press International those
evacuees appear to fit the Pentagon's
own definition of war casualties.
The military has evacuated 16,765
individual service members from Iraq and
Afghanistan for injuries and illnesses
not directly related to combat,
according to the U.S. Transportation
Command, which is responsible for the
medical evacuations. Most are from
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
But the Pentagon's public casualty
reports, available at www.defenselink.mil,
list only service members who died or
were wounded in action, even though the
Pentagon's own definition of a war
casualty is: "Any person who is lost to
the organization by having been declared
dead, duty status -- whereabouts
unknown, missing, ill, or injured."
In addition to those evacuations,
32,684 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan
now out of the military sought medical
attention from the Department of
Veterans Affairs by July 22, according
to VA reports obtained by UPI. The
number of those visits to VA
doctors that were related to war is unknown.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian
Thursday September 16, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5017264-103550,00.html
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly
for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security
council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an
interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was
asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in
conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and
from the charter point of view it was illegal."
Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention
at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that
the war was legitimised by security council resolutions.
Mr Annan also questioned whether it will be feasible on security
grounds to go ahead with the first planned election in Iraq
scheduled for January. "You cannot have credible elections if
the security conditions continue as they are now," he said.
His remarks come amid a marked deterioration of the situation
on the ground, an upsurge of violence that has claimed 200 lives
in four days and raised questions over the ability of the interim
Iraqi government and the US-led coalition to maintain control
over the country.
They also come as Mr Blair is trying to put the controversy over
the war behind him in the run-up to the conference season, a
new parliamentary term and next year's probable general election.
The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before
the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate
the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the
damning word "illegal".
Both Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that
Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution
1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling
on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and
other countries claimed these were insufficient.
No immediate comment was available from the White House
late last night, but American officials have defended the war as
an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of
Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass
destruction.
However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of
the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to
a breakdown in international order. Mr Annan last night said that
there should have been a second UN resolution specifically
authorizing war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to
secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to
the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.
Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution
1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its
demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to
determine what those consequences were.
Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Far graver than Vietnam
Most senior US military officers now believe the war on
Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305360,00.html
'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency
in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed
and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day,
in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is
"winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the
National Guard convention on Tuesday.
But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent
retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William
Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush
hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front.
That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too.
It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving
Bin Laden's ends."
Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and
head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going
to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good
options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being
conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so
unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The
priorities are just all wrong."
Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said:
"I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has
become true. There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation
in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in
Germany and Japan."
W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic
studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: "I don't
think that you can kill the insurgency". According to Terrill, the
anti-US insurgency, centred in the Sunni triangle, and holding
several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and
becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.
"We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me.
"We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are
getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are
x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can
get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to
regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the
ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more
hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they
are confirmed in that view."
After the killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, the marines
besieged the city for three weeks in April - the watershed event
for the insurgency. "I think the president ordered the attack on
Fallujah," said General Hoare. "I asked a three-star marine general
who gave the order to go to Fallujah and he wouldn't tell me.
I came to the conclusion that the order came directly from the
White House." Then, just as suddenly, the order was rescinded,
and Islamist radicals gained control, using the city as a base.
"If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by
a non-Islamic power it becomes a religious requirement to resist
that occupation," Terrill explained. "Most Iraqis consider us
occupiers, not liberators." He describes the religious imagery
common now in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle: "There's talk of
angels and the Prophet Mohammed coming down from heaven
to lead the fighting, talk of martyrs whose bodies are glowing and
emanating wonderful scents."
"I see no exit," said Record. "We've been down that road before.
It's called Vietnamisation. The idea that we're going to have an
Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can't defeat stretches
the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association
with the foreign occupier. In fact, we had more time and money
in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq."
General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't
as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly
went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But
now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse
shape with our allies."
Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the
no-go areas "could become so controversial that members of the
Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign". Thus, an attempted
military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political
legitimacy. "If we leave and there's no civil war, that's a victory."
General Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a
decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in
November. That's the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs
are all there."
He compares any such planned attack to the late Syrian dictator Hafez
al-Asad's razing of the rebel city of Hama. "You could flatten it," said
Hoare. "US military forces would prevail, casualties would be high, there
would be inconclusive results with respect to the bad guys, their
leadership would escape, and civilians would be caught in the middle.
I hate that phrase collateral damage. And they talked about dancing in
the street, a beacon for democracy."
General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration
the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever
seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. "I've never seen
a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose
interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin
Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the
equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by
pouring more in there. Tragic."
·Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is
Washington bureau chief of salon.com
sidney_blumenthal@ yahoo.com
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Two Americans and Briton Are
Kidnapped by Rebels in Baghdad
By EDWARD WONG
BAGHDAD, Iraq
September 16, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/international/middleeast/16CND-IRAQ.html?h
p
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 16 - Insurgents kidnapped two American
and one British contractor in a brazen dawn raid on their home in
one of Baghdad's most upscale neighborhoods, underscoring the
rapidly growing perils confronting foreign nationals in this war zone.
The three men worked for the Gulf Services Company, based in the
United Arab Emirates, and were believed to be involved in construction,
said neighbors and an American embassy official. The company was
operating in Iraq under the name of Al Khalij, said Col. Adnan Abdul-
Rahman, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry. Neighbors said the
men had received prior threats.
The incident took place without a struggle and without shots being
fired, neighbors said. The men were simply dragged from their homes
in the Mansour neighborhood and put into one or two cars. The
insurgents had head scarves swathed around their faces and at least
one wore all black, though it was unclear whether they carried any
guns, neighbors said.
"Come on, get in, get in the car!" one of the kidnappers said,
according to a 32-year-old neighbor who gave her name as
Um Brahim.
The abductions echoed those of two 29-year-old Italian women and
two of their Iraqi co-workers on Sept. 7. In both cases, the hostage
takers had no qualms about staging their raid during daylight hours
in the heart of the capital, when witnesses would likely be roaming
around.
These incidents are quickly forcing changes to the way foreigners
live and work here, with security advisors scrambling to boost the
presence of armed guards at private homes or move residents into
hotels.
In short, the insurgents are succeeding in tightening the circle in
which foreigners think they can safely operate, slowly squeezing in
the edges until a single ice floe remains among turbulent swells.
No group took immediate responsibility for the kidnappings today.
No armed guards worked at the two-story concrete home in which
the three victims lived, according to several neighbors. The three
foreigners were clearly trying to maintain a low profile in the area.
But as was the case with the Italian women, taking a soft approach
to security ultimately left them vulnerable amid the rising hostilities.
"I feel so sorry for what happened to them," said Um Brahim as she
stood in her driveway, right next door to the victims' home. "They
weren't working for a military company. It was a construction company."
The raid unfolded at around 6 a.m., when a blackout prompted two
of the victims to open the black metal gate of their home to turn on
a large generator sitting outside a four-foot front wall surrounding
the house. As the gate swung open, masked men rushed into the front
yard and seized the foreigners, said Bahir Saleem, a student living on
the block who said he spoke with several witnesses.
The insurgents then took a third man from the house.
Several neighbors said that up to two foreign Arabs usually lived
in the house and were responsible for maintaining the generator
and driving the Westerners around, but that they had left just a
day or two earlier.
One neighbor, Suham Moiyed, said a young boy emerged from the
house across the street to help start the generator, since that house
also received electricity from the machine, but that the kidnappers
told the boy's mother to get him back into the house.
The home, in which the Westerners had lived for about a year, is a
drab building in a middle- to upper-class area that had no visible
defenses. The wall around the house functions more as decoration
than protection. Four white plastic chairs surround a circular table
sit on the tiny front lawn.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) UPDATE on Hostages in Iraq
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004
From: "Barbara Deutsch"
Last Friday, Sept. 10, I sent around a Petition
for the Italian anti-war activists kidnapped in
Iraq. I wrote that the kidnappers were "most
likely in the pay of the CIA, and at the very
least are doing the work of the U.S. government
by kidnappings and executions directed against
civilian anti-war activists."
I received two comments from ostensibly radical
professors who criticized my comments for being
inaccurate and harmful to the cause. They
focused blame on Moslem extremists.
Below, I reprint an investigatory article from
today's British "Guardian" newspaper by Naomi
Klein and Jeremy Scahill which buttresses the
claim I made, with specific evidence, such as:
"The attackers were armed with AK-47s, shotguns,
pistols with silencers and stun guns -- hardly
the mujahideen's standard-issue rusty
Kalashnikovs. Strangest of all is this detail:
witnesses said that several attackers wore Iraqi
National Guard uniforms and identified
themselves as working for Ayad Allawi, the
interim prime minister."
There's lots more.
Just about every Islamic group, including the
leaders of the resistance in Iraq, have
condemned this kidnapping of the leaders of the
Italian antiwar movement and their fellow
workers.
I am amazed that some folks, despite their
decades of education at elite universities, or
most likely because of it, are unable to read
through the lines and understand what is really
happening in this world and who is behind the
horror.
Thank you Naomi Klein. Thank you Jeremy Scahill.
And most of all,
FREE SIMONA TORRETTA, SIMONA PARI,
RAAD ALI ABDUL AZZIZ and MAHNOUZ
BASSAM
- Mitchel Cohen
Brooklyn Greens/Green Party of NY
Who seized Simona Torretta?
This Iraqi kidnapping has the mark of
an undercover police operation
Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian
When Simona Torretta returned to Baghdad in
March 2003, in the midst of the "shock and awe"
aerial bombardment, her Iraqi friends greeted
her by telling her she was nuts. "They were just
so surprised to see me. They said, 'Why are you
coming here? Go back to Italy. Are you crazy?'"
But Torretta didn't go back. She stayed
throughout the invasion, continuing the
humanitarian work she began in 1996, when she
first visited Iraq with her anti-sanctions NGO,
A Bridge to Baghdad. When Baghdad fell, Torretta
again opted to stay, this time to bring medicine
and water to Iraqis suffering under occupation.
Even after resistance fighters began targeting
foreigners, and most foreign journalists and aid
workers fled, Torretta again returned. "I cannot
stay in Italy," the 29-year-old told a
documentary film-maker.
Today, Torretta's life is in danger, along with
the lives of her fellow Italian aid worker
Simona Pari, and their Iraqi colleagues Raad Ali
Abdul Azziz and Mahnouz Bassam. Eight days ago,
the four were snatched at gunpoint from their
home/office in Baghdad and have not been heard
from since. In the absence of direct
communication from their abductors, political
controversy swirls round the incident.
Proponents of the war are using it to paint
peaceniks as naive, blithely supporting a
resistance that answers international solidarity
with kidnappings and beheadings. Meanwhile, a
growing number of Islamic leaders are hinting
that the raid on A Bridge to Baghdad was not the
work of mujahideen, but of foreign intelligence
agencies out to discredit the resistance.
Nothing about this kidnapping fits the pattern
of other abductions. Most are opportunistic
attacks on treacherous stretches of road.
Torretta and her colleagues were coldly hunted
down in their home. And while mujahideen in Iraq
scrupulously hide their identities, making sure
to wrap their faces in scarves, these kidnappers
were bare-faced and clean-shaven, some in
business suits. One assailant was addressed by
the others as "sir".
Kidnap victims have overwhelmingly been men, yet
three of these four are women. Witnesses say the
gunmen questioned staff in the building until
the Simonas were identified by name, and that
Mahnouz Bassam, an Iraqi woman, was dragged
screaming by her headscarf, a shocking religious
transgression for an attack supposedly carried
out in the name of Islam.
Most extraordinary was the size of the
operation: rather than the usual three or four
fighters, 20 armed men pulled up to the house in
broad daylight, seemingly unconcerned about
being caught. Only blocks from the heavily
patrolled Green Zone, the whole operation went
off with no interference from Iraqi police or US
military - although Newsweek reported that
"about 15 minutes afterwards, an American Humvee
convoy passed hardly a block away".
And then there were the weapons. The attackers
were armed with AK-47s, shotguns, pistols with
silencers and stun guns - hardly the
mujahideen's standard-issue rusty Kalashnikovs.
Strangest of all is this detail: witnesses said
that several attackers wore Iraqi National Guard
uniforms and identified themselves as working
for Ayad Allawi, the interim prime minister.
An Iraqi government spokesperson denied that
Allawi's office was involved. But Sabah Kadhim,
a spokesperson for the interior ministry,
conceded that the kidnappers "were wearing
military uniforms and flak jackets". So was this
a kidnapping by the resistance or a covert
police operation? Or was it something worse: a
revival of Saddam's mukhabarat disappearances,
when agents would arrest enemies of the regime,
never to be heard from again? Who could have
pulled off such a coordinated operation - and
who stands to benefit from an attack on this
anti-war NGO?
On Monday, the Italian press began reporting on
one possible answer. Sheikh Abdul Salam
al-Kubaisi, from Iraq's leading Sunni cleric
organisation, told reporters in Baghdad that he
received a visit from Torretta and Pari the day
before the kidnap. "They were scared," the
cleric said. "They told me that someone
threatened them." Asked who was behind the
threats, al-Kubaisi replied: "We suspect some
foreign intelligence."
Blaming unpopular resistance attacks on CIA or
Mossad conspiracies is idle chatter in Baghdad,
but coming from Kubaisi, the claim carries
unusual weight; he has ties with a range of
resistance groups and has brokered the release
of several hostages. Kubaisi's allegations have
been widely reported in Arab media, as well as
in Italy, but have been absent from the
English-language press.
Western journalists are loath to talk about
spies for fear of being labelled conspiracy
theorists. But spies and covert operations are
not a conspiracy in Iraq; they are a daily
reality. According to CIA deputy director James
L Pavitt, "Baghdad is home to the largest CIA
station since the Vietnam war", with 500 to 600
agents on the ground. Allawi himself is a
lifelong spook who has worked with MI6, the CIA
and the mukhabarat, specialising in removing
enemies of the regime.
A Bridge to Baghdad has been unapologetic in its
opposition to the occupation regime. During the
siege of Falluja in April, it coordinated risky
humanitarian missions. US forces had sealed the
road to Falluja and banished the press as they
prepared to punish the entire city for the
gruesome killings of four Blackwater
mercenaries. In August, when US marines laid
siege to Najaf, A Bridge to Baghdad again went
where the occupation forces wanted no witnesses.
And the day before their kidnapping, Torretta
and Pari told Kubaisi that they were planning
yet another high-risk mission to Falluja.
In the eight days since their abduction, pleas
for their release have crossed all geographical,
religious and cultural lines. The Palestinian
group Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah, the
International Association of Islamic Scholars
and several Iraqi resistance groups have all
voiced outrage. A resistance group in Falluja
said the kidnap suggests collaboration with
foreign forces. Yet some voices are conspicuous
by their absence: the White House and the office
of Allawi. Neither has said a word.
What we do know is this: if this hostage-taking
ends in bloodshed, Washington, Rome and their
Iraqi surrogates will be quick to use the
tragedy to justify the brutal occupation - an
occupation that Simona Torretta, Simona Pari,
Raad Ali Abdul Azziz and Mahnouz Bassam risked
their lives to oppose. And we will be left
wondering whether that was the plan all along.
· Jeremy Scahill is a reporter for the
independent US radio/TV show Democracy Now;
Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo and Fences
and Windows
jeremy@democracynow.org
www.nologo.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305523,00.html
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) Torture for Profit
Private contractors face legal
action for crimes in Abu Ghraib
by David Phinney , Special to CorpWatch
September 15th, 2004
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11524
Employees of two high-profile defense contractors are accused
of involvement in close to one third of the torture and abuse
incidents cited in a recent Army investigation of Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq. In late August, following release of the report,
Defense department officials turned over the names of six CACI
International Inc. and Titan Corporation employees to the U.S.
Justice department for possible prosecution. But efforts to hold
private contract employees truly accountable may fall short due
to untested laws on contractor accountability and a U.S.
administration that critics say has repeatedly redefined torture
in its 'war on terror' and in the war on Iraq.
The 176-page Army report, produced under the direction of
Maj. Gen. George R. Fay and Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones,
graphically details 44 incidents of abuse taking place at Abu
Ghraib involving military intelligence personnel and contractors.
It confirms prior findings of torture including head blows and
other physical assault, sodomy, rape, stripping prisoners of their
clothing, forcing detainees to masturbate and perform sex acts,
the use of unmuzzled dogs and other atrocities and abusive
practices.
Of the 44 documented incidents, from July 2003 to February 2004,
interrogators employed by CACI International, Inc., of Arlington, Va.,
and translators working for Titan Corp. of San Diego are accused of
being connected to 14.
Army investigators found evidence that these contract employees
violently assaulted prisoners, demanded that prisoners be forced
into unauthorized stress positions and threatened prisoners with
dogs. It also documents allegations of rape by one witness who
told investigators of a civilian, believed to be a translator who was
wearing a military uniform.
The report asserts that 35 percent of the interrogators provided
on contract by CACI "lacked formal military training as interrogators"
for what the Pentagon considers a critical military function that
should not be outsourced only in extreme and pressing situations.
The report also claims that the Army failed to properly investigate
the backgrounds of many of the contract employees.
The day after the Fay/Jones report was made public August 24,
Defense Department officials turned over the names of four CACI
and Titan employees accused of active participation in the abuse.
Also turned over for possible prosecution were two more employees
accused of failing to report torture and abuse that they witnessed.
From a variety of perspectives, "the use of contract interrogators
and linguists at Abu Ghraib was problematic," the report finds.
Leadership at the prison was "unprepared for the arrival of
contract interrogators and had no training to fall back on in
the management, control, and discipline of these personnel."
It also says, "Several people indicated in their statements that
that contractor personnel were 'supervising' government personnel
or vice versa. [One] Sergeant indicated that CACI employees were
in positions of authority, and appeared to be supervising government
personnel." The report concludes. "It would appear that no effort
to familiarize the ultimate user of the contracted services of the
contract's terms and procedures was ever made."
One CACI contractor, accused in the report of dragging a handcuffed
prisoner and drinking alcohol at the prison, is cited as being
belligerent to military command. At one point he is said to have
protested: "I have been doing my job for 20 years and do not
need a 20-year-old to tell me how to do my job."
Both companies have regularly denied such allegations and a
CACI internal investigation this summer found no wrongdoing
on the part of its employees, a source familiar with the review
said. And while the companies intend to aid government
investigations of Abu Ghraib, the spokesmen also said the
recent Army findings are far less damning than what was
originally claimed when the prison scandal originally surfaced
last spring.
In a company statement CEO Jack London said "Nothing in
the Fay report can be construed as CACI employees directing,
participating in or even observing anything close to what we
have all seen in the dozens of horrendous photos." London
stopped short of an unequivocal defense of his employees.
"Nonetheless, we are disappointed and disheartened by the
news that any of our employees or former employees are
alleged to have engaged in any improper or inappropriate
behavior."
Justice
Justice department prosecutors say they are still determining
how to proceed on the cases. But since both Justice and
Defense have rewritten the definition of torture several times
and because the Pentagon has yet to investigate the roles
played by the two companies, actual prosecutions are uncertain.
Meanwhile, private lawyers are waging two separate court
battles claiming that the torture is far more brutal and
widespread than what Pentagon investigators publicly
acknowledge and that the companies involved should
share the blame for the abusive treatment of detainees.
Titan and CACI are named as defendants in a suit filed in
Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. by Australian
lawyer Michael Hourigan. He's suing under the Alien Tort
Claims Act, on behalf of four former Abu Ghraib prisoners
and the widow of one detainee who died in custody. The suit
aims to determine what responsibility the contractors may
have in the events at Abu Ghraib, says Atlanta attorney
Roderick Edmond who is working with the plaintiffs.
"People really were tortured and real people really did die,"
he says. "These corporations need to be held accountable if
they were derelict in their responsibilities of training and
supervision and their employees were involved with directing
interrogation."
CACI rejects and denies the allegations and denounces the
suit as "malicious and farcical recitation of false statements
and intentional distortions."
A second suit, filed by the Center for Constitutional rights,
alleges even wider pattern of torture and is brought under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
the 1970 law often used by prosecutors to go after organized
crime, which imposes both criminal and civil liability. The suit,
filed in Federal Court in San Diego, California alleges violations
of the Geneva Conventions, 8th, 5th, and 14th Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution as well as other U.S. and international
laws.
Prosecutions
The Titan employees will be considered for prosecution under
the still untested Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Passed
in November 2000, the law permits prosecution in U.S. federal
courts of Defense Department contractors who commit crimes
while working with the military outside the United States.
But the law applies only to crimes carrying a minimum one-year
sentence and that may not include incidents of simple assault
says Michael Nardotti Jr., a law partner at Patton Boggs in
Washington in a May 11 interview with American Lawyer.
"Suppose the behavior involves humiliating the detainee, or
stripping him naked," said Nardotti, who served as judge
advocate general of the Army from 1993 to 1997. "What crime
would that constitute? You'd have to look at the whole list of
federal offenses and find one that is punishable by more than
one year."
Alex Ward, a legal fellow for Amnesty International, agrees. "It's
a very foggy area," he says. "But assuming that, at the very least,
the worst of what the contractors did is true, I imagine that would
be punishable."
Interrogators employed by CACI pose a more complex problem
for prosecutors. The company performed its interrogation work
for the Army under a contract originally intended to provide
information technology through the Interior Department. Because
CACI was technically operating through Interior - and not the
Defense Department - wrongdoing by CACI employees may be
outside the jurisdiction of the untested Military Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction Act.
Faced with that dilemma, a Justice Department task force under
the U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia is
considering the U.S. criminal code covering torture for possible
prosecution, says spokesperson, Frank Schultz.
That statute, Title 18, amendment 2340a, defines torture as
inflicting "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" and
requires that "Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture" may be fined or imprisoned for
not more than 20 years.
"That's part of what is being looked at right now," Shultz said.
"It's the prosecutorial process."
Defining torture
That process may not go very far, says Scott Horton, an
attorney who is president of the New York based International
League of Human Rights. The group joined other human rights
organizations in a May 7 letter to President Bush that claims
that the patterns of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib are
widespread at other detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan
and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It requests that the president
rein in those responsible and assure that the treatment of
detainees is consistent with international humanitarian law.
"We are talking about an administration and attorney general
who have issued opinions saying that torture isn't torture, so
it's difficult to believe they seriously intend to prosecute anyone,"
Horton says. "They have established a policy at the highest level
to create an atmosphere of ambiguity."
In August, 2002, Jay Bybee, head of the justice department's
office of legal counsel wrote Alberto R Gonzales, the White House
counsel. "Certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but
still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to
fall within [a legal] proscription against torture."
Elisa Massimino, director of Human Rights First in the Washington,
D.C., office, says these and other memos from the Justice
Department, the White House and the Pentagon seek to bend
the rules on torture. "The laws are clear," she says. "The only
thing that became hazy is the administration."
Calls for wider investigation
On Sept. 8, 2004 eight retired generals and admirals joined
Human Rights First in a call for an independent investigation of
Abu Ghraib and other detention centers, saying that previous
probes fall short in providing a comprehensive assessment of
abuse or meaningful recommendations to address them.
"The use of contractors for what is a military function is a huge
issue," said retired Navy admiral, John Hutson, who served as the
Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000 and joined in
the call for an independent investigation. "It's a problem when
contractors are inserted in the chain of command."
The Fay report also points an accusing finger up the chain of
command, claiming that senior officers in Iraq neglected to
provide needed oversight or and lay out "clear, consistent
guidance" for the treatment of detainees. Another investigation
of Abu Ghraib led by former defense secretary James R. Schlesinger
released Aug. 24 aimed even higher. It blames senior civilian and
military leaders at the Pentagon for fostering confused guidance,
poor planning and plodding response after problems at Abu
Ghraib became known.
While none of the dozen reports dealing with the treatment of
detainees has found direct responsibility by CACI or Titan
management for the events at Abu Ghraib, one investigation
spearheaded by the General Services Administration (GSA) did
review the CACI's interrogation task orders after the prison
abuse began making headlines. Because the Army awarded
these under a contract managed by the Interior Department
for technology services, GSA determined that interrogation
was clearly out of scope of the agreement's intent and could
be possible grounds for debarring or suspending CACI from
future government work. The GSA review also discovered
that a CACI employee, Thomas Howard, took part in writing
for the Army the very guidelines for the work (called in
contract jargon a "statement of work" ) to be performed by
CACI.
After the review, GSA suspension and debarment official
Joseph Neurauter said, in a July 7 letter to the company,
that he would not take formal action against CACI. Still,
Neurauter expressed concern that "CACI's possible role
in preparing statements of work continues to be an open
issue and potential conflict of interest." Neurauter
requested further response from the company.
Following further private discussions with GSA, CACI vowed
to comply with federal acquisition regulations in the future.
The Army then discontinued funneling the contract through
Interior and wrote a new agreement with CACI to continue the
interrogation work. "I do not feel that, at this time, it is
necessary for me to take any formal action to protect the
interests of the federal government," Neurauter concluded.
The new contract, announced by CACI on August 10, is for a
period of four months, worth $15.3 million, and has two
optional extensions worth up to $3.8 million each, for a
total value of $23 million.
Meanwhile, the Fay/Jones report found that it remains unclear
"who, if anyone, in Army contracting or legal channels approved
the use" of the original Interior contract.
Lawsuits may help investigations
The civil suits against CACI and Titan may have more hope
of shedding light on the role of the contractors than the GSA
investigations. Among other things, the Center for Constitutional
Rights lawsuit seeks to prove that CACI and Titan knowingly
collaborated with the Defense Department in the prison abuse.
Detroit attorney, Shereef Akeel, who is working on the lawsuit,
says that he discovered that abuse and torture are widespread
at the 23 U.S. detention facilities in Iraq. During a recent fact-
finding trip, he visited with detainees, former prisoners and
families who said they lost loved ones at the centers.
"It is horrific and devastating," Akeel says, adding that the abuse
begins when the military raids homes at night in search of suspected
insurgents. "Families would be robbed. They are stripped of their
dignity and property. The normal routine is a raid with translators
carrying guns asking where the father is and where the gold is."
Once at the facilities, Akeel says that detainees are subjected to
brutality, rape and other forms of abuse.
"This is torture for profit," he claims. "The government is there is
to promote 'democracy' while companies have two competing
masters - shareholders and the government - and they are there
for profit."
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) Intelligence Proposals Gain in Congress
By PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16panel.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - The momentum behind creation of a new,
powerful job of national intelligence director gained force on
Wednesday with the introduction of a bipartisan Senate bill to
grant sweeping budget authority to such an official and a
simultaneous promise by House leaders to pass a related bill
before going home this fall to campaign for re-election.
The bill, introduced by the Republican and Democratic leaders of
the Governmental Affairs Committee, would establish the post of
national intelligence director and provide the director with control
over most of the government's estimated $40 billion annual
intelligence budget, including virtually complete authority over
spending by the C.I.A., the National Security Agency and the
intelligence programs of the F.B.I. and the Homeland Security
Department.
Creation of such a post was the central recommendation of the
independent Sept. 11 commission, and the idea has been
endorsed by President Bush over the initial objections of some
senior aides.
The Governmental Affairs Committee bill has been designated
by Senate leaders as the chamber's chief legislative vehicle for
responding to the commission's recommendations for overhauling
the executive branch, and the bill's authors say it is has been
packaged for quick adoption in the Senate, possibly as early as
next week.
Although House Republican leaders have been notably cooler than
their Senate colleagues in their response to the commission's
findings and at one time suggested that there would be no time
to take up intelligence legislation before the November elections,
they vowed on Wednesday that they would approve a related
intelligence-overhaul bill before adjourning next month.
"We will vote on a final bill before Congress adjourns in October,"
said the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay,
Republican of Texas.
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said in a statement that the Republican
leadership would introduce a "comprehensive bill early next week"
with the goal of "having the bill on the House floor by late September."
House leaders have been unwilling to discuss many of the details
of their planned legislation, and members of the Sept. 11
commission and some lawmakers have said they fear that the
House may try to water down the commission's main
recommendations, creating a conflict with the Senate bill
and derailing final approval.
John Feehery, a spokesman for Mr. Hastert, said that while
the speaker supported the idea of a national intelligence
director, he was still uncertain how much budgetary and
other power should be granted.
"That's the big issue," Mr. Feehery said, "and it's a matter of
negotiation not only with our committees but also with the
White House."
The Senate bill was introduced by Senators Susan Collins, the
Maine Republican who is chairwoman of the Governmental
Affairs Committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut,
the panel's ranking Democrat. Committee aides said that final
mark-up of the bill was scheduled for next Tuesday and
Wednesday, with the possibility of a final vote on the Senate
floor days later.
"We must transform our intelligence system to meet the threats
of today and the future," Senator Collins said at a news
conference to announce the bill. "We establish a national
intelligence director with strong authority - strong budget
authority, strong personnel authority."
She said that if the intelligence director "did not have strong
budget authority, we really would just be creating another
level of bureaucracy."
Senator Lieberman said the bill would produce "revolutionary
changes" in the way the government gathered and shared
intelligence.
"Under our plan, when somebody asks, 'Who's in charge?' the
question will not be met with blank stares and nonanswers,
which greeted the 9/11 commission every time they asked
somebody that question," Mr. Lieberman said.
While the Senate bill differs in significant ways from some of
the proposals made by the Sept. 11 commission - among other
things, the bill would not have senior officials of the C.I.A., the
F.B.I. and the Pentagon serve as deputies to the intelligence
director - it was still welcomed by the bipartisan commission.
In a joint statement, the commission chairman, Thomas H. Kean,
a former Republican governor of New Jersey, and the vice chairman,
Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic House member from Indiana
and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,
welcomed the Senate bill, describing it as a "significant
breakthrough" that "appears to incorporate some of the
most important structural recommendations contained in our
report."
"We consider this legislation an important first step in moving
our nation in a direction that will greatly increase the safety of
the American people," they said.
Their statement was released by their newly opened educational
foundation, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, which has been
created to continue to lobby the White House and Congress on
behalf of the commission's recommendations.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
BAUAW NEWSLETTER, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2004
1) It's Worse Than You Think
As Americans Debate Vietnam, the U.S.
Death Toll Tops 1,000 in Iraq.
And the Insurgents are Still Getting Stronger
by Scott Johnson and Babak Dehghanpisheh
Published on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 by Newsweek
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0914-25.htm
2) The Dead End of ABB
By Anthony Arnove
From: "Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers"
Subject: CMCR: Politics of Anybody But Bush
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:31:17 -0600
Z Magazine
3) Subject: NOV 19-21 - CLOSE THE SOA -
Llamado a la accion - Call to Action
From: "SOA Watch"
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:57:37 -0400
List-Id: School of the Americas Watch
List-Subscribe:
,
List-Archive:
4) Sharon hints that Arafat may be killed
Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
The Guardian
Wednesday September 15, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5016122-103552,00.html
5) Headwaters Pepper Spray Trial
Come and Witness the Trial
The Federal Building is at 450 Golden Gate Ave.
between Larkin and Polk Streets near the Civic Center
Bart Station
Judge Susan Illston's Courtroom is on the 19TH floor
6) Action Alert! Oil Spill in Russian Far East
from: globalfinance@action.ran.org
Date: September 13, 2004
7) In censoring Al-Jazeera Canada is conceding its
moral high ground
By OMAR ALGHABRA*
Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040915.wjazeera15/
BNStory/Front/?query=Al-Jazeera
8) Canadian Bullets, Dead Iraqis
by Ytzhak
Tuesday September 14, 2004
montfu65@hotmail.com
http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/30644.php
9) Israel intensifies land seizures
By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
Tuesday 14 September 2004
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7A1982B9-EF9F-463E-BEE5-
88209C2078FA.htm
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) It's Worse Than You Think
As Americans Debate Vietnam, the U.S.
Death Toll Tops 1,000 in Iraq.
And the Insurgents are Still Getting Stronger
by Scott Johnson and Babak Dehghanpisheh
Published on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 by Newsweek
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0914-25.htm
BAGHDAD - Iraqis don't shock easily these days, but eyewitnesses
could only blink in disbelief as they recounted last Tuesday's broad-
daylight kidnappings in central Baghdad. At about 5 in the afternoon,
on a quiet side street outside the Ibn Haitham hospital, a gang armed
with pistols, AK-47s and pump-action shotguns raided a small house
used by three Italian aid groups.
The gunmen, none of them wearing masks, took orders from a smooth-
shaven man in a gray suit; they called him "sir." When they drove off,
the gunmen had four hostages: two local NGO employees-one of them
a woman who was dragged out of the house by her headscarf-and two
29-year-old Italians, Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, both members
of the antiwar group A Bridge to Baghdad. The whole job took less than
10 minutes. Not a shot was fired.
About 15 minutes afterward, an American Humvee convoy passed
hardly a block away-headed in the opposite direction.
Sixteen months after the war's supposed end, Iraq's insurgency is
spreading. Each successful demand by kidnappers has spawned more
hostage-takings-to make Philippine troops go home, to stop Turkish
truckers from hauling supplies into Iraq, to extort fat ransom payments
from Kuwaitis.
The few relief groups that remain in Iraq are talking seriously about
leaving. U.S. forces have effectively ceded entire cities to the insurgents,
and much of the country elsewhere is a battleground. Last week the total
number of U.S. war dead in Iraq passed the 1,000 mark, reaching 1,007 by
the end of Saturday. U.S. forces are working frantically to train Iraqis
for
the thankless job of maintaining public order.
The aim is to boost Iraqi security forces from 95,000 to 200,000 by
sometime next year. Then, using a mixture of force and diplomacy,
the Americans plan to retake cities and install credible local forces.
That's the hope, anyway.
But the quality of new recruits is debatable. During recent street
demonstrations in Najaf, police opened fire on crowds, killing and
injuring dozens. The insurgents, meanwhile, are recruiting, too.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once referred to America's foes
in Iraq as "dead-enders," then the Pentagon maintained they probably
numbered 5,000, and now senior military officials talk about "dozens
of regional cells" that could call upon as many as 20,000 fighters.
Yet U.S. officials publicly insist that Iraq will somehow hold national
elections before the end of January. The appointed council currently
acting as Iraq's government under interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi
is to be replaced by an elected constitutional assembly-if the vote
takes place. "I presume the election will be delayed," says the Iraqi
Interior Ministry's chief spokesman, Sabah Kadhim. A senior Iraqi
official sees no chance of January elections: "I'm convinced that it's
not going to happen. It's just not realistic. How is it going to happen?"
Some Iraqis worry that America will stick to its schedule despite all
obstacles. "The Americans have created a series of fictional dates and
events in order to delude themselves," says Ghassan Atiyya, director
of the independent Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy,
who recently met with Allawi and American representatives to discuss
the January agenda. "Badly prepared elections, rather than healing
wounds, will open them."
America has its own Election Day to worry about. For U.S. troops in
Iraq, one especially sore point is the stateside public's obsession with
the candidates' decades-old military service. "Stop talking about
Vietnam," says one U.S. official who has spent time in the Sunni
Triangle. "People should be debating this war, not that one." His
point was not that America ought to walk away from Iraq. Hardly
any U.S. personnel would call that a sane suggestion. But there's
widespread agreement that Washington needs to rethink its objectives,
and quickly. "We're dealing with a population that hovers between
bare tolerance and outright hostility," says a senior U.S. diplomat in
Baghdad. "This idea of a functioning democracy here is crazy. We
thought that there would be a reprieve after sovereignty, but all hell
is breaking loose."
It's not only that U.S. casualty figures keep climbing. American
counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in
those statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per
day on U.S. forces in August-the worst monthly average since Bush's
flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003.
Preliminary analysis of the July and August numbers also suggests
that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider area of Iraq than
ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties apparently took
a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and shrapnel
were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase two"
insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the
recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That's
how things started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents
are standing and fighting-a step up to phase three.
Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S.
troops simply avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them
"no-go areas." "We could go into them any time we wanted," he argues.
The preferred term is "insurgent enclaves." They're spreading.
Counterinsurgency experts call it the "inkblot strategy": take control
of several towns or villages and expand outward until the areas merge.
The first city lost to the insurgents was Fallujah, in April. Now the list
includes the Sunni Triangle cities of Ar Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra,
where power shifted back and forth between the insurgents and
American-backed leaders last week. "There is no security force there
(in Fallujah], no local government," says a senior U.S. military official
in Baghdad. "We would get attacked constantly. Forget about it."
U.S. military planners only wish they could. "What we see is a classic
progression," says Andrew Krepinevich, author of the highly respected
study "The Army and Vietnam." "What we also see is that the U.S.
military is not trained or organized to fight insurgencies. That was
the deliberate choice after Vietnam. Now we look to be paying the
price." Americans aren't safe even on the outskirts of a city like Fallujah.
Early last week a suicide bomber rammed his vehicle into two U.S.
Humvees nine miles north of town on the four-lane concrete bypass
called Highway 10. Seven Americans died. It was one of the deadliest
blows against U.S. forces since June, when Iraqis formally resumed
control of their government.
As much as ordinary Iraqis may hate the insurgents, they blame the
Americans for creating the whole mess. Three months ago Iraqi troops
and U.S.-dominated "multinational forces" pulled out of Samarra, and
insurgents took over the place immediately. "The day the MNF left,
people celebrated in the streets," says Kadhim, the Interior spokesman.
"But that same day, vans arrived in town and started shooting. They
came from Fallujah and other places and they started blowing up
houses." Local elders begged Allawi's government to send help. "The
leaders of the tribes come to see us and they say, 'Really, we are
scared, we don't like these people'," Kadhim continues. "But we just
don't have the forces at the moment to help them." Last week
negotiators reached a tentative peace deal, but it's not likely to
survive long. The Iraqi National Guard is the only homegrown
security force that people respect, and all available ING personnel
are deployed elsewhere.
Will Iraq's troubles get even worse? "The insurgency can certainly
sustain what it's doing for a while," says a senior U.S. military official.
Many educated Iraqis aren't waiting to find out. Applicants mobbed
the courtyard of the Baghdad passport office last week, desperate for
a chance to escape. Police fired shots in the air, trying to control the
crowd. "Every day there is shooting, gunfire, people killed, headaches
for lack of sleep," said Huda Hussein, 34, a Ph.D. in computer science
who has spent the past year and a half looking for work. "I want to go
to a calm place for a while." It's too bad for Iraq-and for America-that
the insurgents don't share that wish.
(c) Newsweek 2004
###
(c) Copyrighted 1997-2004
www.commondreams.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) The Dead End of ABB
By Anthony Arnove
From: "Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers"
Subject: CMCR: Politics of Anybody But Bush
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:31:17 -0600
Z Magazine
ABB -- Anybody But Bush -- is one of the most harmful slogans
progressives have put forward in decades.
The slogan tells John Kerry and the Democrats that they don't need to
do anything to win our vote.
As the satiric Onion newspaper joked, Kerry can safely run on a
"one-point program": that he is not George Bush.
But even that one-point program is in question. Kerry said he
supports Bush's policies on Israel "100 percent," his tax cuts "98
percent," and the Patriot Act (which his aides boast he helped to
write, in addition to having voted for it) "94 percent."
On Iraq, as we now know, Kerry says he would have voted to authorize
the invasion even if he knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass
destruction.
Kerry's real argument with Bush is over how best to have run the
invasion and occupation, not over its logic or morality.
Kerry thinks he can oversee the "war on terror" more effectively,
with more international support, and, as Arundhati Roy has noted in a
recent speech, with "Indian and Pakistani soldiers to do the killing
and dying in Iraq."
As Ali Abunimah argued on Electronic Iraq web site on April 29, "What
Kerry's plan boils down to then is this: he is more charming than
Bush."
ABB tells the Democrats that they can ignore the vibrant antiwar
movement we have built over the past two years; that they can take
workers, trade unionists, women, African Americans, Latinos, Native
Americans, Asian Americans -- and anyone else who rejects Bush's
policies --for granted.
ABB also leads to apologetics for Kerry and the Democrats: the
deliberate downplaying of their role in passing the Patriot Act,
supporting the invasion of Iraq (and before that the brutal sanctions
and the regular bombing of the country), and justifying wars in the
name of humanitarianism.
Perhaps worst of all, ABB creates a false sense of how change
happens: at the ballot box and through the Democratic Party.
In fact, history suggests the opposite: that we have achieved
substantive change only when collectively acting outside "official"
institutions to force politicians, whether Democrat or Republican, to
meet our demands and to make concessions that they otherwise would
not have made.
This is not to say the left should call for a vote for Bush or that
"things must get worse before they get better."
That is a caricature of the argument against ABB.
The truth is, we will have to wage many of the same battles
regardless of who wins November 2: against the occupations of Iraq,
Palestine, and Afghanistan, against the ongoing attack on the basic
rights of workers, immigrants, and the poor in this country, and for
abortion rights, for environmental protection, for civil rights.
If Kerry wins, we can reasonably expect that we will also face some
new challenges: many of the people who marched with us on February 15
and March 22, 2003, and last week in New York will tell us to "give
Kerry a chance" and that we can't do better than what Kerry has on
offer.
Many liberal organizations will accept under Kerry what they
otherwise would have opposed stridently under Bush.
People say "this time will be different than when Clinton is
elected," and that we won't get fooled again, but there's little
reason to think that the dynamic of the Democrats' ability to co-opt
and contain social movements will suddenly change, especially given
the prevalence of ABB arguments that are sowing illusions about the
kind of change a Kerry administration will bring.
In reality, the Democrats are likely to keep shifting the goalposts
to the right, allowing the Republicans to then beat their chests even
harder and expose the Democrats, who have accepted their warmongering
assumptions.
On August 26, Todd Gitlin revealed the real dead end of the ABB position.
In a debate with journalist and global justice activist Naomi Klein
on Democracy Now!, Gitlin argued, "My position is that John Kerry is
the possibility of restarting politics. Right now, we have no
possibility of politics because we have a one-party state."
If we have a one-party state, it is because the Democrats, with Kerry
prominently among them, have not acted remotely as an opposition
party.
So this is hardly an argument for a Kerry vote.
Rather, it suggests the need to support a third (or, more honestly,
"second" party) effort, since the Democrats and Republicans are in
effect two wings of the same corporate party.
More importantly, contra Gitlin, politics did not stop with the
election of George W. Bush, anymore than it stopped with the election
of Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon.
Gitlin's argument is an insult to people who have been building
opposition to racist attacks on immigrants, to the invasion and
occupation of Iraq, to U.S. funding of Israel's apartheid wall and
expansion of its settlements, and to the many social costs of the
"war on terror" on home during the last three years.
Gitlin also ignores the victories we have won under the Republicans
historically and even under Bush: including victories against the
death penalty (notably in Illinois, under Governor George Ryan, a
Republican, and even at the level of the Supreme Court) and in
restricting the scope of civil rights rollback attempted by this
administration.
It was under the Bush onslaught that the largest coordinated protest
in human history took place, on February 15, 2003.
Millions of people -- including military personnel and their
families, and targeted groups such as Arabs, Muslims, and immigrants
-- have stood up against intimidation to oppose war and occupation.
History does not support the thesis that the Democrats are more open
to pressure from below. They resisted the movement against the war in
Vietnam every bit as viciously as the Republicans, escalating the war
after running on a peace platform.
Under Clinton, we saw the end of welfare, a severe rollback in
worker's rights, a major spike in the number of people without any
health insurance or underinsured, declining real wages, and the
indiscriminate bombing of Iraq, Sudan, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan.
Much of the left was satisfied with the illusion of "access" to
Clinton, actively undermining genuine mobilization against his agenda.
And Kerry's program stands even to the right of Clinton.
To those who suggest Kerry is just talking right to get elected, as
many progressives have asserted (in a left version of faith-based
politics), three questions must be asked.
First, when has a politician ever talked right and governed left? The
history of the Democrats is that they talk left, and govern right, a
frightening prospect in Kerry's case.
Second, why should we support a candidate whose election strategy is
to chase Bush's social base, while ignoring the majority of people in
the United States who now say they oppose the invasion of Iraq?
And finally, to whom is Kerry accountable? Us, the antiwar movement,
the social movements, or his backers on Wall Street, many of whom
prefer to have the less provocative Kerry at the helm of U.S.
imperialism than the bridge-burning Bush?
Regardless of who you plan to vote for in November (if anyone at
all), the assumptions behind ABB stand in the way of building
movements that can bring about political change.
We need to chart a course that looks beyond the election to long-term
efforts that will necessarily have to be independent of -- and
oppositional to -- the Democrats, as well as the Republicans.
We can't do that while shilling for the Democrats, and letting them
of the hook.
Anthony Arnove is co-editor with Howard Zinn of Voices of a People's
History of the United States, out October 1 from Seven Stories Press.
--
Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers
Working at the Crossroads of Human & Environmental Rights since 1990
PO Box 7941
Missoula, Montana USA 59807
phone: 406-728-0867
email: cmcr@wildrockies.org
website: http://www.wildrockies.org/cmcr
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Subject: NOV 19-21 - CLOSE THE SOA -
Llamado a la accion - Call to Action
From: "SOA Watch"
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:57:37 -0400
List-Id: School of the Americas Watch
List-Subscribe:
,
List-Archive:
** please forward widely ** please forward widely ** please forward widely
**
(el español sigue)
CALL TO ACTION: SHUT DOWN THE SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS!
NOVEMBER 19-21, 2004, FORT BENNING, GEORGIA
The School of the Americas (SOA), renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute
for Security Cooperation or WHINSEC, is a combat training school for Latin
American security personnel located at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Initially established in Panama in 1946, the SOA was kicked out of that
country in 1984 under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty. Former
Panamanian President Jorge Illueca stated that the School of the Americas
was the "biggest base for destabilization in Latin America." The
SOA/WHINSEC, funded by US taxpayer money, has trained over 60,000 Latin
American soldiers in such courses as counterinsurgency techniques, sniper
training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and
interrogation tactics.
For over a decade, students, religious, labor, veterans, human rights, and
social and global justice groups have been converging every November at the
gates of Fort Benning, Georgia to speak out in solidarity with the people of
the Americas and to engage in nonviolent direct action. We will gather again
this year on November 20 and 21, 2004 to continue together in the struggle
until the School of the Americas is closed and the policies it represents
are changed forever!
This "School of Assassins," in the guise of promoting democracy, has
graduated eleven Latin American dictators, including Manuel Noriega of
Panama, Efrain Rios Montt of Guatemala, and Hugo Banzar Suárez of Bolivia.
Graduates of the school have been consistently linked to human rights
violations and to the suppression of popular movements in Central and South
America of people demanding access to land, safer working conditions and
control of their own natural resources.
For decades, while supporting death squads, propping up dictators and
actually overthrowing democratically elected leaders, the US government
claimed it was bringing democracy to Latin America. We do not believe that
you can bring about positive social change through the use of force. You
cannot spread democracy through the barrel of a gun!
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
** Come to Fort Benning this November! Teach-ins, trainings, and caucuses
will begin on Friday, November 19. On Saturday and Sunday thousands will
gather at the main gate of Fort Benning for rallies, music, speakers and
nonviolent direct action. Check back at www.SOAW.org as plans unfold and
various events are announced in more detail.
** Engage in Nonviolent Direct Action on Sunday, November 21st. Every year
groups of people decide to take their message onto the base, publicly
defying the laws which prevent political speech on military bases and making
a bold call for the closure of the "School of Assassins." This year, we
encourage people to come as individuals and affinity groups to take
nonviolent direct action to help liberate us all from oppressive US foreign
policy in Latin America and to close the SOA/WHINSEC.
** Organize In Your Community: organize nonviolent direct action trainings,
talks about the SOA, video showings or other educational events in your
community in the next two months. Write to your Members of Congress and ask
them to support legislation to close the SOA/WHINSEC. Organize a bus, vans
or car-pool to Georgia, publicize the vigil action in your region and invite
others to join you. Discern together with family and friends and consider
engaging in nonviolent civil resistance in November.
For more information, educational resources, outreach materials such as
fliers and videos, logistics and travel info and to get plugged into the
November organizing, please call 202-234-3440 and visit www.SOAW.org.
Resistance organizing costs money. To help SOA Watch cover the costs of
November organizing click here: http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=546.
SEE YOU AT THE GATES OF FORT BENNING!
* * Por favor difundir al máximo * * Por favor difundir al máximo * *
LLAMADO A LA ACCIÃN:¡CERREMOS LA ESCUELA DE LAS AMÃRICAS!
DEL 19 AL 21 DE NOVIEMBRE, 2004, FORT BENNING, GEORGIA
La Escuela de las Américas (SOA por sus siglas en inglés), rebautizada como
el
Instituto de Cooperación para la Seguridad Hemisférica (WHINSEC, por sus
siglas en inglés), es una escuela para entrenamiento de combate para
personal de seguridad Latinoamericano situada en Fuerte Benning, Georgia.
Establecida inicialmente en Panamá en el 1946, la SOA fue expulsada de dicho
pais en el 1984 por el tratado del Canal de Panama. El anterior presidente
Panameño, Jorge Illueca, declaró que la Escuela de las Americas era la
"mayor base para la desetabilización en Latinoamérica." La SOA/WHINSEC,
mantenida con el dinero de los impuestos del contribuyente estadounidense,
ha entrenado a mas de 60.000 militares Latinoamericanos en cursos de
técnicas de contrainsurgencia, entrenamiento de francotiradores, comandos de
guerra psicológica, inteligencia militar y técnicas de interrogación.
Durante más de una decada, grupos de estudiantes, religiosos, trabajadores,
veteranos de guerra, asà como grupos que luchan por los derechos humanos y
la justicia social se han reunido cada noviembre en las puertas de Fuerte
Benning, Georgia para hablar claro y en solidaridad con los pueblos de las
Américas y comprometerse en la acción directa y no-violenta. Nos reuniremos
de nuevo este año, los 20 y 21 de noviembre de 2004 para continuar juntos
nuestra lucha hasta el cierre de la Escuela de las Américas y hasta que la
polÃtica que representa cambie para siempre!
En "Escuela de Asesinos," con el pretexto de promover la democracia, se han
graduado once dictadores Latinoamericanos, incluyendo a Manuel Noriega, de
Panamá, Efrain Rios Montt, de Guatemala y Hugo Banzar Suaréz, de Bolivia.
Los graduados de la escuela han estado repetidamente relacionados con
violaciones de derechos humanos y la supresión de movimientos populares en
América Central y del Sur, de gente pidiendo acceso a la tierra, condiciones
de trabajo dignas y el control de sus propios recursos naturales.
Durante decadas, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, a la vez que mantenia
escuadrones de la muerte, apoyaba a dictadores y deponia a lideres elegidos
democráticamente, proclamaba estar trayendo la democracia a Latinoamérica.
Nosotros no creemos que se pueda hacer un cambio social positivo con el uso
de la violencia. ¡La democracia no se puede extender a punto de pistola!
¿Y Tà QUà PUEDES HACER?
** ¡Ven a Fuerte Benning este noviembre! Los entrenamientos y charlas
empezarán el viernes 19 de Noviembre. El sábado y domingo nos reuniremos
miles de personas en la entrada principal de Fuerte Benning para mitines,
música, oradores y acción directa y no-violenta. Mira en www.SOAW.org el
desarrollo de los planes y los diferentes eventos que se van anunciando.
** Participa en la acción directa y no-violenta del domingo, 21 de
noviembre. Cada año grupos de personas, llevan su claro mensaje a la base,
desafiando públicamente las leyes que prohÃben hablar de polÃtica en las
bases militares y pidiendo valientemente el cierre definitivo de la "Escuela
de Asesinos." Este año animamos a la gente a que venga individualmente y en
grupos a participar en la acción directa y no-violenta para librarnos de la
opresiva polÃtica exterior de EEUU en Latinoamérica y cerrar la SOA/WHINSEC.
** Haz algo en tu comunidad. Organiza entrenamientos de acción directa y
no-violenta, charlas acerca de la SOA, videos u otros eventos educativos en
tu comunidad durante los dos meses próximos. Escribe a tus congresistas y
pÃdeles que apoyen las leyes para cerrar la SOA/WHINSEC. Organiza grupos de
gente que compartan autobuses, camiones o coches hacia Georgia. Dá
publicidad a esta vigÃlia en tu zona e invita a otros a unirse contigo.
Discierne con tu familia y tus amigos y considerad el uniros a la
resistencia civil y no-violenta de noviembre.
Para obtener más información y material educativo como folletos, videos,
información sobre logÃstica y viaje y para conectarte con la organización de
este noviembre, ponte en contacto con SOA Watch llamando a 202-234-3440 y
visitando a www.SOAW.org.
Organizar la resistencia cuesta dinero. Para ayudar a cubrir los gastos de
organización del SOA Watch de este noviembre, pulsa aquÃ:
http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=546.
¡NOS VEMOS EN LA ENTRADA DEL FUERTE BENNING!
SOA Watch ~ PO Box 4566 ~ Washington DC 20017 ~ (202)234-3440 ~
www.soaw.org
Search /RENEGADE/ for articles that mention the School of the Americas -
http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?keywords=School+Americas&how=all
Search /RENEGADE/ for articles that mention human rights -
http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?keywords=human+rights&how=phrase
/RENEGADE/ Search - GO TO: http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?
and just type in your topic. For differing results you may uncheck
"article" and search on just "subject," etc. /RENEGADE/ also has
"time-frame" in the search, so you can tailor your results that way, too.
For more information about the School of the Americas and SOA Watch,
see: http://www.soaw.org/
or send email to info@soaw.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Sharon hints that Arafat may be killed
Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
The Guardian
Wednesday September 15, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5016122-103552,00.html
Ariel Sharon has threatened that Yasser Arafat will meet the same fate
as Hamas leaders who were assassinated earlier this year by the Israeli
military.
In ambiguous comments to Israeli newspapers to mark the Jewish new
year, the prime minister said he intends to force the Palestinian leader
into exile. But he also hinted that Mr Arafat might be killed.
Speaking to Ma'ariv newspaper, Mr Sharon made direct reference to the
Hamas spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was assassinated by
a missile in Gaza in March, and his successor as the Islamic resistance
movement's leader, Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, who was killed by the
Israelis the following month.
"We operated against Ahmed Yassin and Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi when
we thought the time was suitable. On the matter of Arafat we'll operate
in the same way, when we find the convenient and suitable time. One
needs to find the time and to do what has to be done," said Mr Sharon.
However, the prime minister told other newspapers that he would send
Mr Arafat into exile. Sheikh Yassin and Mr al-Rantissi were both exiled
from the occupied territories at one time.
A prominent Palestinian minister, Saeb Erekat, said Mr Sharon's comments
show that he intends "to kill President Arafat and to push the Palestinian
people toward chaos".
But the Israeli prime minister's son, Omri, a member of parliament,
said that the possibility of assassination "does not exist" and that Israel
should leave Mr Arafat "stuck" in his battered Ramallah compound.
"If we do this foolishness and hit him, will an [alternative Palestinian
leader] arise? No, he will be seen as your collaborator," Omri Sharon
told members of the ruling Likud's central committee.
In April, Mr Sharon backed away from a personal pledge to President
Bush not to harm the Palestinian leader by saying that whoever kills
Jews or orders their deaths "is a marked man".
However, it is thought unlikely the prime minister intends to move
against Mr Arafat in the near future. The threat may be timed to try
to reassure critics on the far right that the government's plan to pull
7,500 Jews out of the Gaza strip, and a small number from a part of
the West Bank, does not represent a weakening of its resolve to
confront the Palestinian leadership.
Mr Sharon's security cabinet yesterday approved steps to begin the
Gaza pullout, including compensation payments to Jewish settlers
of up to £280,000. The government is offering bonuses to settlers
who agree to leave of their own accord in the hope of defusing
resistance to the pullout.
The government expects to spend £350m compensating settlers
and a similar amount moving military installations and other
infrastructure.
Mr Sharon also rebuffed pressure from his finance minister and chief
political rival, Binyamin Netanyahu, for a referendum on the withdrawal.
Mr Netanyahu argues that a ballot would lend legitimacy to the
"disengagement plan" and weaken claims by the settlers and the
far right that Mr Sharon is acting undemocratically by ignoring a
poll within his Likud party that rejected the pullout.
Mr Netanyahu said that without a vote there could be an "explosion"
of resistance by the settlers and their supporters. But the prime
minister accused him of siding with the settlers.
"The real intention is to delay implementation," said Mr Sharon.
"If a minister thinks that we are facing an explosion, he needs to
act with all his might to make sure that there is no explosion, so
that no one might even contemplate that by means of threats of
explosion a cabinet decision can be changed. Instead of stamping
a seal of approval on those threats and capitulating to them, I would
expect from him and the other ministers to express in the strongest
terms possible their opposition to threats."
The police said they were investigating death threats against Mr Sharon
and officials responsible for implementing disengagement.
Jerusalem's chief of police, Ilan Franco, said: "We have opened an
intensive investigation regarding threats that have been received in
recent days. The threats were to murder the prime minister and
officials in the administration."
The Israeli news service, YNet, quoted officials from the Shin Bet
security service as saying they feared for Mr Sharon's safety and
"would prefer for the prime minister to avoid leaving his office".
· Masked gunmen shot dead an accused rapist on his way to court
in the West Bank city of Ramallah yesterday.
The shooting marked the second fatal attack in less than two months
on detainees in the custody of Palestinian security forces.
Palestinians have faced internal strife recently, stirred by militants
complaining of corruption in the Palestinian security forces. The
gunmen attacked the car in which Ramy Yaghmour and other
detainees were travelling from the Palestinian special forces
headquarters.
Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Headwaters Pepper Spray Trial
Come and Witness the Trial
The Federal Building is at 450 Golden Gate Ave.
between Larkin and Polk Streets near the Civic Center
Bart Station
Judge Susan Illston's Courtroom is on the 19TH floor
A group of non-violent forest defense
activists in Humboldt County who were
tortured with pepper spray by county
sheriff's sued the county, the sheriff and
his chief deputy, and the City of Eureka
for using excessive force. A 1998
trial in San Francisco ended with a
hung jury and then dismissal by the judge.
After five years of appeals, the U. S.
Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals overruled the judge and
ordered a new trial, which the judge then
set for May 12, 2003 in Eureka, California.
The 9th Circuit granted an emergency
writ to remove the judge for apparent
bias and canceled his relocation of the
trial. Although the defendants have
appealed once again to the Supreme Court
to overturn that decision, our new judge
set a new retrial date in San
Francisco.
The trial is going is on right now. We
need you to come and witness the
trial. A courtroom full of people who
want pepper spray torture stopped can make a
huge impact!
Recent global events have illustrated
that abuses spread when authorities
decide certain groups and individuals
don't deserve human rights protection.
Shockingly, state officials have condoned
these practices into guidelines for
dealing with civil disobedience in California.
This case could turn that around.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) Action Alert! Oil Spill in Russian Far East
from: globalfinance@action.ran.org
Date: September 13, 2004
Dear Friend,
On September 8 a ship ran aground on the shores of Sakhalin Island, in the
Russian far east. The ship was operating dredging equipment for an offshore
oil project, and spilled thousands of gallons of oil into the water,
polluting
the beaches of the coastal community of Kholmsk. Experts have warned that a
similar or worse accident could occur in other pristine Sakhalin waters that
are home to the world's last population of 100 Western Gray Whales.
Credit Suisse First Boston is serving as financial advisor to this Shell Oil
project even though it violates the terms of the Equator Principles, which
it
signed many months ago.
"Shell has refused to adopt necessary oil spill prevention measures that
would keep spills like this from happening," said David Gordon,
Executive Director of Pacific Environment, a California-based environmental
organization that is monitoring Sakhalin offshore oil development. "Now that
the oil is in the water, it's too late to clean it up.
The damage has been done. It is a tragedy for Sakhalin Island and especially
for the people of Kholmsk."
Take action today to tell Credit Suisse First Boston to withdraw funding for
this egregious project and to adopt comprehensive environmental standards
immediately to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again.
More Information about Sakhalin Island can be found at:
http://www.pacificenvironment.org
Take Action!
1. Raise your mouse: click the link below to send a fax to John Mack, CEO of
Credit Suisse First Boston:
http://action.ran.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=21290&ms=Sakhalinalert
2. Raise your voice: Call Mr. Mack today at (212) 325-3630. Some suggested
talking points are listed below.
3. Raise awareness: Forward this message to your friends. Ask them to call
or
send a letter online at:
http://action.ran.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=21290&ms=Sakhalinalert
-Demand that Credit Suisse First Boston withdraw financial support
immediately from the Sakhalin II project, which clearly violates the terms
of
the
Equator Principles, to which it is a signatory.
-Demand that Credit Suisse First Boston adopt comprehensive social and
environmental standards for investment that meet or exceed industry best
practices
set by Citigroup and Bank of America earlier this year.
Thanks for your support!
For the Earth and for Justice,
Dan and Ilyse
The RAN Global Finance Team
Sept 13, 2004
Peace, No War
War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate
Not in our Name! And another world is possible!
Information for antiwar movements, news across the World, please visit:
http://www.PeaceNoWar.net
Please Join PeaceNoWar Listserv, send e-mail to:
peacenowar-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
*Peace No War Network is an activist project of ActionLA
Action for World Liberation Everyday!
URL: http://www.ActionLA.org
e-mail: Info@ActionLA.org
Please join our ActionLA Listserv
go to: http://lists.riseup.net/www/subscribe/actionla
or send e-mail to: actionla-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
*To Translate this page to Arabic, please visit ajeeb.com:
http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/ajeeb/default.asp?lang=1
*To Translate this page to French, Spanish, German, Italian or Portuguese,
please visit Systran:
http://www.systransoft.com/
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) In censoring Al-Jazeera Canada is conceding its
moral high ground
By OMAR ALGHABRA*
Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040915.wjazeera15/
BNStory/Front/?query=Al-Jazeera
On July 15, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission issued a conditional approval to the addition of the Arabic-
language news channel Al-Jazeera for distribution by Canadian cable
and satellite companies.
The conditional provisions stipulated that cable carriers could "alter
or curtail" the programming of Al-Jazeera to ensure that no "abusive
comment" is broadcast. But no specific definition of "abusive" was
provided. This has placed the onus on cable companies to act as censors.
Most Canadians were perplexed by the harsh, ambiguous and
unprecedented restrictions put forth by the CRTC decision. The
controversy stirred a great deal of media attention at the time.
Nearly all the editorials, commentaries and columnists agreed that
the decision had amounted to unwarranted censorship.
Cable companies have already declared their refusal to carry Al-Jazeera
under those terms. "Cable companies do not want to be forced into the
position of having to decide what is appropriate for Canadians to watch,"
said Canadian Cable Television Association president Michael Hennessy.
"This sets a frightening precedent and virtually ensures that no distributor
will ever carry this service in Canada."
More than 500,000 Canadian Arabs are affected by the CRTC decision.
They are being denied the right to information and news free of censorship
in
violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right ..... to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
The CRTC is effectively denying Canadian Arabs the opportunity to
seek and receive information and news from and about the Arab world
through Al-Jazeera.
During the 15-month deliberation period before the decision was
announced, some Canadian Jewish organizations argued that Al-Jazeera
could spread hatred against Jews in Canada.
In an attempt to address those concerns, the CRTC decided to give cable
companies the unprecedented right to censor content - a responsibility
usually reserved for federal and provincial regulatory bodies such as the
Ontario Film Review Board. Considering that Al-Jazeera has never been
viewed by most Canadians and regulatory bodies, claims against it have
never been proved.
In their claim, advocates of censoring Al-Jazeera failed to make the
distinction between news reporting and editorial positions. They also
failed to differentiate between politically controversial discussions or
racial/religious hate propaganda.
Al-Jazeera, now one of the most recognizable news organizations in
the world, is arguably the most progressive civic institution in the Arab
world. Its independence, professionalism and content have influenced
the political landscape across the Arab region and around the world.
This year, Al-Jazeera published a code of ethics governing news
gathering and editorial policies, regulations that other equally
professional and credible news organizations lack.
The fact is, Al-Jazeera deals, on a daily basis, with one of the
world's most dynamic and politically diverse regions. Controversial
topics, provocative figures, underdeveloped political institutions
and state-controlled media are elements that make up the reality
of the Middle East.
Al-Jazeera does more than any other institution to deal with complex
issues facing that region by drawing attention to them and challenging
common assumptions. It does more for the relationship among Jews,
Arabs and Muslims than many of the "peace initiatives." It does this
through interviews with officials, pundits and politicians from every
side of the conflict, covering a wide range of opinions and viewpoints,
thereby humanizing all sides.
Israel, which Canadian Jewish organizations say is the recipient of much
of Al-Jazeera criticism, has allowed the broadcast of Al-Jazeera in Israel
with no restrictions.
That being said, Al-Jazeera should be expected to comply with Canadian
laws and norms and should not be given any advantages. The promotion
of hate against any ethnic or religious group should not be tolerated.
Should it be found that Al-Jazeera has contravened Canadian laws,
there are legal processes in place to address such potential violations.
The CRTC may not have intended to block the broadcasting of
Al-Jazeera. But now that it is clear that this decision has led to the
effective veto of its broadcast, the CRTC must reconsider the details
of its ruling.
Instead of expecting the cable companies to act as censors, the CRTC,
as an objective body, should monitor Al-Jazeera programming and
report on its observations to Canadians. If Al-Jazeera fails to meet the
professional and ethical standards of Canadian broadcasting, its licence
can be reviewed or revoked.
Prejudging the leading Arabic-language news channel without due
process has fed into much of the unfortunate stereotyping of Arabs
that anything produced by Arabs is suspicious and questionable, an
unintended consequence that should not be taken lightly.
Canada is arguably one of the most tolerant, open and multicultural
countries in the world. In censoring Al-Jazeera - and, therefore, not
practising what it preaches - Canada is conceding its moral high ground.
* Omar Alghabra is president of the Canadian Arab Federation.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) Canadian Bullets, Dead Iraqis
by Ytzhak
Tuesday September 14, 2004
montfu65@hotmail.com
http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/30644.php
Canadian Bullets, Dead Iraqis
With up to 13,802 Iraqi civilian deaths to date, Canadians will now be
providing one of the most basic necessities for the US occupation forces
in Iraq: bullets. The Canadian company SNC Technologies Inc. (SNC TEC)
is now part of a multinational consortium of small-caliber ammunition
producers whose purpose is to supply between 300 million -500
million more bullets to occupation forces per year, and potentially
for at least five years.
Beyond Canada, General Dynamics, the US defence contractor, also
awarded contracts to several small bullet suppliers - including Winchester,
a unit of Olin Corporation and Israel Military Industries. Their also in
discussion with several other international producers, including General
Dynamics Santa Barbara Sistemas, Madrid, Spain in an effort to try to
meet the ammunitions demand. Michael S. Wilson, president of General
Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, said,"Our goal is to ensure
maximum supply support for the U.S. armed forces in their war against
terror."
The high demand in bullets is in response to a recent U.S. Army
market survey for a "Small-Caliber Ammunition Systems Integrator".
The Financial Times reports that the US occupation forces "will need
300m to 500m more bullets a year for at least five years, or more
than 1.5m a year for combat and training. And because the single
army-owned, small-calibre ammunition factory in Lake City, Missouri,
can produce only 1.2m bullets annually, the army is suddenly
scrambling to get private defence contractors to help fill the gap."
"We're using so much ammunition in Iraq there isn't enough
capacity around," said Eric Hugel, a defence industry analyst at
Sephens Inc. "They have to go internationally."
The Financial Times also reports that the "bullet problem has its
roots in a Pentagon effort to restock its depleted war material reserve.
But it has been exacerbated by the ongoing operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq, where rearguard and supply units have been thinly-stretched
throughout the countryside, occasionally without active duty combat
soldiers to protect them."
Recently rejuvenated after the historic demonstrations in New York,
where half a million people were unified in saying "No to the Bush
agenda", a campaign focusing on these contracts could have a direct
effect on saving the lives of Iraqis, and give traction to an again waking
anti-war movement. For the international anti-war movement, which is
struggling to live up to it's reputation as "the other super power", such
contracts could provide important anti-war campaigns in our own nations,
raising the social costs for the US, and other complicit countries, in
waging war on Iraq. For Canada, long in denial about it's active
participation in the US war on terror, the SNC Technologies contract
should highlight the fact that Canada has not only provided previous
military and diplomatic support for the war on terror, but is now
literally, without doubt, providing the ammunition to kill Iraqis.
As for the general structure of the contracts, General Dynamics reports
that they will serve as the systems integrator responsible for supply chain
management, with Winchester serving as a principal supplier of all
calibers of ammunition, including 5.56mm, 7.62mm and Cal. 50
ammunitions. Israel Military Industries Ltd. currently produces ammunition
to U.S. military specifications for each of the calibers being sought and
will be relied upon to be a significant production partner on the team.
SNC will also be a critical provider of select ammunition across all
calibers
being sought.
For Canadians interested in SNC Technologies Inc., they are a developer
and manufacturer of ammunitions and related defence products.
Headquartered in Le Gardeur, Québec, their web site boasts of annual
revenues of more than $ 266 million(CAD).
SNC TEC is the sole Canadian producer of military ammunition and
produces over 70% of conventional military ammunition used by the
Canadian Department of National Defence. In addition, the company
is also a current supplier to the Department of Defense of the United
States for both small and large caliber products. Internationally, SNC
TEC provides conventional ammunition, or components, to a large
number of other countries across Europe, the Middle East, the Far
East, as well as Australia and New Zealand (according to their web
site, these include Belgium, Denmark, France, Holland, Greece, Italy,
Sweden, the UK, UAE, Oman, Jordan and Kuwait, Hong Kong, Singapore,
Thailand and the Philippines).
The company is wholly owned by the SNC-Lavalin Group. "The SNC
Group, which began as a small engineering consulting firm in 1911,
grew over the years into a leading group of engineering and construction
companies. In 1992, it merged Lavalin engineering firm to form the
SNC-Lavalin Group Inc."
SNC-Lavalin Group has offices across Canada, in 30 other countries
around the world, and are currently working in some 100 countries.
SNC-Lavalin has annual revenues of about $ 3.3 billion (CAD). The
Corporate headquarters are located in Montréal at :
455 René-Lévesque Blvd. West Montreal, Quebec Canada H2Z 1Z3
Telephone : (514) 393-1000 Fax : (514) 866-0795 Email :
info@snclavalin.com
Chris Spannos volunteers for ZNet, Vancouver Co-operative Radio
and the Vancouver Participatory Economics Collective
http://resist.ca/story/2004/9/12/11757/9360
resist.ca/story/2004/9/12/11757/9360
add your comments
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) Israel intensifies land seizures
By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
Tuesday 14 September 2004
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7A1982B9-EF9F-463E-BEE5-
88209C2078FA.htm
Israel has stepped up annexation of Palestinian farms and fields in
various parts of the West Bank, ignoring a landmark ruling by the
International Court of Justice in the Hague.
A decision by Israel's own High Court of Justice had likewise urged
the Israeli Government to put an end to land seizures in the name
of erecting the separation barrier.
Yet on Tuesday Israeli soldiers guarding the bulldozers used to level
Palestinian fields west of Hebron, fired teargas canisters at Palestinian
and international protesters, injuring a number of youths.
Hundreds of farmers and their children from the nearby villages of
Dir Samet and Beit Awwa tried unsuccessfully to protect their olive
groves from the onslaught of the bulldozers.
Israeli soldiers scuffled with the farmers, many of them agitated at
the sight of their life's investments being ground to dust before
their eyes.
Indifference
Peace activists from countries as far as Sweden had turned up at the
site to express solidarity with the Palestinians. One activist carried a
placard that said: "Israeli army: the world is watching."
But the Israeli soldiers on duty were no more responsive to the
protests of the Palestinian farmers and foreign peace activists,
than the rest of Israel has been to international condemnation of
its annexation of Palestinian lands.
One Israeli solder reportedly told a Palestinian farmer distraught
over the destruction of his olive trees, "We do what we want ...
nobody can tell us what we do".
This correspondent saw thousands of mature olive trees either
flattened by Israeli bulldozers or hacked down to prepare the
ground for the construction of the separation barrier.
The wall meanders deep into the West Bank, east of the former
armistice line of 1949 that is considered by the bulk of the
international community as the de facto border between Israel
proper and the Palestinian territories.
At gunpoint
One farmer badly affected by the current wave of land seizures
and orchard destruction is 70-year-old Abdullah Ahmed Salem
Abu Kreifeh.
He told Aljazeera.net, "You see, Sharon tells America and the
world that he wants peace and good neighbourly relations with
the Palestinians.
"But look what he is doing to us. He is seizing our land at
gunpoint, destroying our livelihood and pushing us towards
violence and desperate acts."
Abu Kreifeh said he and his relatives had gone to an Israeli court
in an effort to stop the confiscation of his land but to no avail.
"My son, what can you do when the judge is your enemy. You know
their courts are rubberstamps in the hands of the army."
Nearly two and a half months ago, the Israeli High Court instructed
the state to create a "proportionality" between "security needs" and
"Palestinian rights".
The Sharon government said then it would heed the court's ruling.
But the latest land grab in the western Hebron hills has cast fresh
doubt on the government's sincerity.
In early July, the World Court in Hague, in a non-binding ruling,
underscored the illegality of the separation barrier and urged the
Israeli Government to tear it down and compensate Palestinians
affected by it.
But Israel accused the court of being biased and rejected
the verdict.
Poll distraction
Separately, on Monday an Israeli Government official held talks
in Washington with two Bush administration officials, telling
them that Israel was making efforts to "minimise hardships for
the Palestinians".
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Dov Weisglass, who is
Sharon's chief political adviser, is trying to obtain an "American
understanding" of the Israeli position, namely the annexation of
huge parts of the West Bank.
Many Middle East experts believe the Bush administration's ability
to say "no" to Israeli decisions at this point of time is greatly
restricted by electoral exigencies, with the Republicans seeking
to make a dent in the traditionally pro-Democratic Jewish
constituency.
The experts say Sharon may be taking full advantage of the
situation by implementing his own agenda in the West Bank,
namely annexing large chunks of Palestinian territory and
unilaterally creating future borders between Israel and a truncated,
rump Palestinian entity.
Aljazeera
As Americans Debate Vietnam, the U.S.
Death Toll Tops 1,000 in Iraq.
And the Insurgents are Still Getting Stronger
by Scott Johnson and Babak Dehghanpisheh
Published on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 by Newsweek
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0914-25.htm
2) The Dead End of ABB
By Anthony Arnove
From: "Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers"
Subject: CMCR: Politics of Anybody But Bush
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:31:17 -0600
Z Magazine
3) Subject: NOV 19-21 - CLOSE THE SOA -
Llamado a la accion - Call to Action
From: "SOA Watch"
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:57:37 -0400
List-Id: School of the Americas Watch
List-Subscribe:
List-Archive:
4) Sharon hints that Arafat may be killed
Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
The Guardian
Wednesday September 15, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5016122-103552,00.html
5) Headwaters Pepper Spray Trial
Come and Witness the Trial
The Federal Building is at 450 Golden Gate Ave.
between Larkin and Polk Streets near the Civic Center
Bart Station
Judge Susan Illston's Courtroom is on the 19TH floor
6) Action Alert! Oil Spill in Russian Far East
from: globalfinance@action.ran.org
Date: September 13, 2004
7) In censoring Al-Jazeera Canada is conceding its
moral high ground
By OMAR ALGHABRA*
Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040915.wjazeera15/
BNStory/Front/?query=Al-Jazeera
8) Canadian Bullets, Dead Iraqis
by Ytzhak
Tuesday September 14, 2004
montfu65@hotmail.com
http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/30644.php
9) Israel intensifies land seizures
By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
Tuesday 14 September 2004
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7A1982B9-EF9F-463E-BEE5-
88209C2078FA.htm
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) It's Worse Than You Think
As Americans Debate Vietnam, the U.S.
Death Toll Tops 1,000 in Iraq.
And the Insurgents are Still Getting Stronger
by Scott Johnson and Babak Dehghanpisheh
Published on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 by Newsweek
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0914-25.htm
BAGHDAD - Iraqis don't shock easily these days, but eyewitnesses
could only blink in disbelief as they recounted last Tuesday's broad-
daylight kidnappings in central Baghdad. At about 5 in the afternoon,
on a quiet side street outside the Ibn Haitham hospital, a gang armed
with pistols, AK-47s and pump-action shotguns raided a small house
used by three Italian aid groups.
The gunmen, none of them wearing masks, took orders from a smooth-
shaven man in a gray suit; they called him "sir." When they drove off,
the gunmen had four hostages: two local NGO employees-one of them
a woman who was dragged out of the house by her headscarf-and two
29-year-old Italians, Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, both members
of the antiwar group A Bridge to Baghdad. The whole job took less than
10 minutes. Not a shot was fired.
About 15 minutes afterward, an American Humvee convoy passed
hardly a block away-headed in the opposite direction.
Sixteen months after the war's supposed end, Iraq's insurgency is
spreading. Each successful demand by kidnappers has spawned more
hostage-takings-to make Philippine troops go home, to stop Turkish
truckers from hauling supplies into Iraq, to extort fat ransom payments
from Kuwaitis.
The few relief groups that remain in Iraq are talking seriously about
leaving. U.S. forces have effectively ceded entire cities to the insurgents,
and much of the country elsewhere is a battleground. Last week the total
number of U.S. war dead in Iraq passed the 1,000 mark, reaching 1,007 by
the end of Saturday. U.S. forces are working frantically to train Iraqis
for
the thankless job of maintaining public order.
The aim is to boost Iraqi security forces from 95,000 to 200,000 by
sometime next year. Then, using a mixture of force and diplomacy,
the Americans plan to retake cities and install credible local forces.
That's the hope, anyway.
But the quality of new recruits is debatable. During recent street
demonstrations in Najaf, police opened fire on crowds, killing and
injuring dozens. The insurgents, meanwhile, are recruiting, too.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once referred to America's foes
in Iraq as "dead-enders," then the Pentagon maintained they probably
numbered 5,000, and now senior military officials talk about "dozens
of regional cells" that could call upon as many as 20,000 fighters.
Yet U.S. officials publicly insist that Iraq will somehow hold national
elections before the end of January. The appointed council currently
acting as Iraq's government under interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi
is to be replaced by an elected constitutional assembly-if the vote
takes place. "I presume the election will be delayed," says the Iraqi
Interior Ministry's chief spokesman, Sabah Kadhim. A senior Iraqi
official sees no chance of January elections: "I'm convinced that it's
not going to happen. It's just not realistic. How is it going to happen?"
Some Iraqis worry that America will stick to its schedule despite all
obstacles. "The Americans have created a series of fictional dates and
events in order to delude themselves," says Ghassan Atiyya, director
of the independent Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy,
who recently met with Allawi and American representatives to discuss
the January agenda. "Badly prepared elections, rather than healing
wounds, will open them."
America has its own Election Day to worry about. For U.S. troops in
Iraq, one especially sore point is the stateside public's obsession with
the candidates' decades-old military service. "Stop talking about
Vietnam," says one U.S. official who has spent time in the Sunni
Triangle. "People should be debating this war, not that one." His
point was not that America ought to walk away from Iraq. Hardly
any U.S. personnel would call that a sane suggestion. But there's
widespread agreement that Washington needs to rethink its objectives,
and quickly. "We're dealing with a population that hovers between
bare tolerance and outright hostility," says a senior U.S. diplomat in
Baghdad. "This idea of a functioning democracy here is crazy. We
thought that there would be a reprieve after sovereignty, but all hell
is breaking loose."
It's not only that U.S. casualty figures keep climbing. American
counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in
those statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per
day on U.S. forces in August-the worst monthly average since Bush's
flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003.
Preliminary analysis of the July and August numbers also suggests
that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider area of Iraq than
ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties apparently took
a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and shrapnel
were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase two"
insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the
recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That's
how things started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents
are standing and fighting-a step up to phase three.
Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S.
troops simply avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them
"no-go areas." "We could go into them any time we wanted," he argues.
The preferred term is "insurgent enclaves." They're spreading.
Counterinsurgency experts call it the "inkblot strategy": take control
of several towns or villages and expand outward until the areas merge.
The first city lost to the insurgents was Fallujah, in April. Now the list
includes the Sunni Triangle cities of Ar Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra,
where power shifted back and forth between the insurgents and
American-backed leaders last week. "There is no security force there
(in Fallujah], no local government," says a senior U.S. military official
in Baghdad. "We would get attacked constantly. Forget about it."
U.S. military planners only wish they could. "What we see is a classic
progression," says Andrew Krepinevich, author of the highly respected
study "The Army and Vietnam." "What we also see is that the U.S.
military is not trained or organized to fight insurgencies. That was
the deliberate choice after Vietnam. Now we look to be paying the
price." Americans aren't safe even on the outskirts of a city like Fallujah.
Early last week a suicide bomber rammed his vehicle into two U.S.
Humvees nine miles north of town on the four-lane concrete bypass
called Highway 10. Seven Americans died. It was one of the deadliest
blows against U.S. forces since June, when Iraqis formally resumed
control of their government.
As much as ordinary Iraqis may hate the insurgents, they blame the
Americans for creating the whole mess. Three months ago Iraqi troops
and U.S.-dominated "multinational forces" pulled out of Samarra, and
insurgents took over the place immediately. "The day the MNF left,
people celebrated in the streets," says Kadhim, the Interior spokesman.
"But that same day, vans arrived in town and started shooting. They
came from Fallujah and other places and they started blowing up
houses." Local elders begged Allawi's government to send help. "The
leaders of the tribes come to see us and they say, 'Really, we are
scared, we don't like these people'," Kadhim continues. "But we just
don't have the forces at the moment to help them." Last week
negotiators reached a tentative peace deal, but it's not likely to
survive long. The Iraqi National Guard is the only homegrown
security force that people respect, and all available ING personnel
are deployed elsewhere.
Will Iraq's troubles get even worse? "The insurgency can certainly
sustain what it's doing for a while," says a senior U.S. military official.
Many educated Iraqis aren't waiting to find out. Applicants mobbed
the courtyard of the Baghdad passport office last week, desperate for
a chance to escape. Police fired shots in the air, trying to control the
crowd. "Every day there is shooting, gunfire, people killed, headaches
for lack of sleep," said Huda Hussein, 34, a Ph.D. in computer science
who has spent the past year and a half looking for work. "I want to go
to a calm place for a while." It's too bad for Iraq-and for America-that
the insurgents don't share that wish.
(c) Newsweek 2004
###
(c) Copyrighted 1997-2004
www.commondreams.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) The Dead End of ABB
By Anthony Arnove
From: "Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers"
Subject: CMCR: Politics of Anybody But Bush
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:31:17 -0600
Z Magazine
ABB -- Anybody But Bush -- is one of the most harmful slogans
progressives have put forward in decades.
The slogan tells John Kerry and the Democrats that they don't need to
do anything to win our vote.
As the satiric Onion newspaper joked, Kerry can safely run on a
"one-point program": that he is not George Bush.
But even that one-point program is in question. Kerry said he
supports Bush's policies on Israel "100 percent," his tax cuts "98
percent," and the Patriot Act (which his aides boast he helped to
write, in addition to having voted for it) "94 percent."
On Iraq, as we now know, Kerry says he would have voted to authorize
the invasion even if he knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass
destruction.
Kerry's real argument with Bush is over how best to have run the
invasion and occupation, not over its logic or morality.
Kerry thinks he can oversee the "war on terror" more effectively,
with more international support, and, as Arundhati Roy has noted in a
recent speech, with "Indian and Pakistani soldiers to do the killing
and dying in Iraq."
As Ali Abunimah argued on Electronic Iraq web site on April 29, "What
Kerry's plan boils down to then is this: he is more charming than
Bush."
ABB tells the Democrats that they can ignore the vibrant antiwar
movement we have built over the past two years; that they can take
workers, trade unionists, women, African Americans, Latinos, Native
Americans, Asian Americans -- and anyone else who rejects Bush's
policies --for granted.
ABB also leads to apologetics for Kerry and the Democrats: the
deliberate downplaying of their role in passing the Patriot Act,
supporting the invasion of Iraq (and before that the brutal sanctions
and the regular bombing of the country), and justifying wars in the
name of humanitarianism.
Perhaps worst of all, ABB creates a false sense of how change
happens: at the ballot box and through the Democratic Party.
In fact, history suggests the opposite: that we have achieved
substantive change only when collectively acting outside "official"
institutions to force politicians, whether Democrat or Republican, to
meet our demands and to make concessions that they otherwise would
not have made.
This is not to say the left should call for a vote for Bush or that
"things must get worse before they get better."
That is a caricature of the argument against ABB.
The truth is, we will have to wage many of the same battles
regardless of who wins November 2: against the occupations of Iraq,
Palestine, and Afghanistan, against the ongoing attack on the basic
rights of workers, immigrants, and the poor in this country, and for
abortion rights, for environmental protection, for civil rights.
If Kerry wins, we can reasonably expect that we will also face some
new challenges: many of the people who marched with us on February 15
and March 22, 2003, and last week in New York will tell us to "give
Kerry a chance" and that we can't do better than what Kerry has on
offer.
Many liberal organizations will accept under Kerry what they
otherwise would have opposed stridently under Bush.
People say "this time will be different than when Clinton is
elected," and that we won't get fooled again, but there's little
reason to think that the dynamic of the Democrats' ability to co-opt
and contain social movements will suddenly change, especially given
the prevalence of ABB arguments that are sowing illusions about the
kind of change a Kerry administration will bring.
In reality, the Democrats are likely to keep shifting the goalposts
to the right, allowing the Republicans to then beat their chests even
harder and expose the Democrats, who have accepted their warmongering
assumptions.
On August 26, Todd Gitlin revealed the real dead end of the ABB position.
In a debate with journalist and global justice activist Naomi Klein
on Democracy Now!, Gitlin argued, "My position is that John Kerry is
the possibility of restarting politics. Right now, we have no
possibility of politics because we have a one-party state."
If we have a one-party state, it is because the Democrats, with Kerry
prominently among them, have not acted remotely as an opposition
party.
So this is hardly an argument for a Kerry vote.
Rather, it suggests the need to support a third (or, more honestly,
"second" party) effort, since the Democrats and Republicans are in
effect two wings of the same corporate party.
More importantly, contra Gitlin, politics did not stop with the
election of George W. Bush, anymore than it stopped with the election
of Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon.
Gitlin's argument is an insult to people who have been building
opposition to racist attacks on immigrants, to the invasion and
occupation of Iraq, to U.S. funding of Israel's apartheid wall and
expansion of its settlements, and to the many social costs of the
"war on terror" on home during the last three years.
Gitlin also ignores the victories we have won under the Republicans
historically and even under Bush: including victories against the
death penalty (notably in Illinois, under Governor George Ryan, a
Republican, and even at the level of the Supreme Court) and in
restricting the scope of civil rights rollback attempted by this
administration.
It was under the Bush onslaught that the largest coordinated protest
in human history took place, on February 15, 2003.
Millions of people -- including military personnel and their
families, and targeted groups such as Arabs, Muslims, and immigrants
-- have stood up against intimidation to oppose war and occupation.
History does not support the thesis that the Democrats are more open
to pressure from below. They resisted the movement against the war in
Vietnam every bit as viciously as the Republicans, escalating the war
after running on a peace platform.
Under Clinton, we saw the end of welfare, a severe rollback in
worker's rights, a major spike in the number of people without any
health insurance or underinsured, declining real wages, and the
indiscriminate bombing of Iraq, Sudan, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan.
Much of the left was satisfied with the illusion of "access" to
Clinton, actively undermining genuine mobilization against his agenda.
And Kerry's program stands even to the right of Clinton.
To those who suggest Kerry is just talking right to get elected, as
many progressives have asserted (in a left version of faith-based
politics), three questions must be asked.
First, when has a politician ever talked right and governed left? The
history of the Democrats is that they talk left, and govern right, a
frightening prospect in Kerry's case.
Second, why should we support a candidate whose election strategy is
to chase Bush's social base, while ignoring the majority of people in
the United States who now say they oppose the invasion of Iraq?
And finally, to whom is Kerry accountable? Us, the antiwar movement,
the social movements, or his backers on Wall Street, many of whom
prefer to have the less provocative Kerry at the helm of U.S.
imperialism than the bridge-burning Bush?
Regardless of who you plan to vote for in November (if anyone at
all), the assumptions behind ABB stand in the way of building
movements that can bring about political change.
We need to chart a course that looks beyond the election to long-term
efforts that will necessarily have to be independent of -- and
oppositional to -- the Democrats, as well as the Republicans.
We can't do that while shilling for the Democrats, and letting them
of the hook.
Anthony Arnove is co-editor with Howard Zinn of Voices of a People's
History of the United States, out October 1 from Seven Stories Press.
--
Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers
Working at the Crossroads of Human & Environmental Rights since 1990
PO Box 7941
Missoula, Montana USA 59807
phone: 406-728-0867
email: cmcr@wildrockies.org
website: http://www.wildrockies.org/cmcr
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Subject: NOV 19-21 - CLOSE THE SOA -
Llamado a la accion - Call to Action
From: "SOA Watch"
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:57:37 -0400
List-Id: School of the Americas Watch
List-Subscribe:
List-Archive:
** please forward widely ** please forward widely ** please forward widely
**
(el español sigue)
CALL TO ACTION: SHUT DOWN THE SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS!
NOVEMBER 19-21, 2004, FORT BENNING, GEORGIA
The School of the Americas (SOA), renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute
for Security Cooperation or WHINSEC, is a combat training school for Latin
American security personnel located at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Initially established in Panama in 1946, the SOA was kicked out of that
country in 1984 under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty. Former
Panamanian President Jorge Illueca stated that the School of the Americas
was the "biggest base for destabilization in Latin America." The
SOA/WHINSEC, funded by US taxpayer money, has trained over 60,000 Latin
American soldiers in such courses as counterinsurgency techniques, sniper
training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and
interrogation tactics.
For over a decade, students, religious, labor, veterans, human rights, and
social and global justice groups have been converging every November at the
gates of Fort Benning, Georgia to speak out in solidarity with the people of
the Americas and to engage in nonviolent direct action. We will gather again
this year on November 20 and 21, 2004 to continue together in the struggle
until the School of the Americas is closed and the policies it represents
are changed forever!
This "School of Assassins," in the guise of promoting democracy, has
graduated eleven Latin American dictators, including Manuel Noriega of
Panama, Efrain Rios Montt of Guatemala, and Hugo Banzar Suárez of Bolivia.
Graduates of the school have been consistently linked to human rights
violations and to the suppression of popular movements in Central and South
America of people demanding access to land, safer working conditions and
control of their own natural resources.
For decades, while supporting death squads, propping up dictators and
actually overthrowing democratically elected leaders, the US government
claimed it was bringing democracy to Latin America. We do not believe that
you can bring about positive social change through the use of force. You
cannot spread democracy through the barrel of a gun!
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
** Come to Fort Benning this November! Teach-ins, trainings, and caucuses
will begin on Friday, November 19. On Saturday and Sunday thousands will
gather at the main gate of Fort Benning for rallies, music, speakers and
nonviolent direct action. Check back at www.SOAW.org as plans unfold and
various events are announced in more detail.
** Engage in Nonviolent Direct Action on Sunday, November 21st. Every year
groups of people decide to take their message onto the base, publicly
defying the laws which prevent political speech on military bases and making
a bold call for the closure of the "School of Assassins." This year, we
encourage people to come as individuals and affinity groups to take
nonviolent direct action to help liberate us all from oppressive US foreign
policy in Latin America and to close the SOA/WHINSEC.
** Organize In Your Community: organize nonviolent direct action trainings,
talks about the SOA, video showings or other educational events in your
community in the next two months. Write to your Members of Congress and ask
them to support legislation to close the SOA/WHINSEC. Organize a bus, vans
or car-pool to Georgia, publicize the vigil action in your region and invite
others to join you. Discern together with family and friends and consider
engaging in nonviolent civil resistance in November.
For more information, educational resources, outreach materials such as
fliers and videos, logistics and travel info and to get plugged into the
November organizing, please call 202-234-3440 and visit www.SOAW.org.
Resistance organizing costs money. To help SOA Watch cover the costs of
November organizing click here: http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=546.
SEE YOU AT THE GATES OF FORT BENNING!
* * Por favor difundir al máximo * * Por favor difundir al máximo * *
LLAMADO A LA ACCIÃN:¡CERREMOS LA ESCUELA DE LAS AMÃRICAS!
DEL 19 AL 21 DE NOVIEMBRE, 2004, FORT BENNING, GEORGIA
La Escuela de las Américas (SOA por sus siglas en inglés), rebautizada como
el
Instituto de Cooperación para la Seguridad Hemisférica (WHINSEC, por sus
siglas en inglés), es una escuela para entrenamiento de combate para
personal de seguridad Latinoamericano situada en Fuerte Benning, Georgia.
Establecida inicialmente en Panamá en el 1946, la SOA fue expulsada de dicho
pais en el 1984 por el tratado del Canal de Panama. El anterior presidente
Panameño, Jorge Illueca, declaró que la Escuela de las Americas era la
"mayor base para la desetabilización en Latinoamérica." La SOA/WHINSEC,
mantenida con el dinero de los impuestos del contribuyente estadounidense,
ha entrenado a mas de 60.000 militares Latinoamericanos en cursos de
técnicas de contrainsurgencia, entrenamiento de francotiradores, comandos de
guerra psicológica, inteligencia militar y técnicas de interrogación.
Durante más de una decada, grupos de estudiantes, religiosos, trabajadores,
veteranos de guerra, asà como grupos que luchan por los derechos humanos y
la justicia social se han reunido cada noviembre en las puertas de Fuerte
Benning, Georgia para hablar claro y en solidaridad con los pueblos de las
Américas y comprometerse en la acción directa y no-violenta. Nos reuniremos
de nuevo este año, los 20 y 21 de noviembre de 2004 para continuar juntos
nuestra lucha hasta el cierre de la Escuela de las Américas y hasta que la
polÃtica que representa cambie para siempre!
En "Escuela de Asesinos," con el pretexto de promover la democracia, se han
graduado once dictadores Latinoamericanos, incluyendo a Manuel Noriega, de
Panamá, Efrain Rios Montt, de Guatemala y Hugo Banzar Suaréz, de Bolivia.
Los graduados de la escuela han estado repetidamente relacionados con
violaciones de derechos humanos y la supresión de movimientos populares en
América Central y del Sur, de gente pidiendo acceso a la tierra, condiciones
de trabajo dignas y el control de sus propios recursos naturales.
Durante decadas, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, a la vez que mantenia
escuadrones de la muerte, apoyaba a dictadores y deponia a lideres elegidos
democráticamente, proclamaba estar trayendo la democracia a Latinoamérica.
Nosotros no creemos que se pueda hacer un cambio social positivo con el uso
de la violencia. ¡La democracia no se puede extender a punto de pistola!
¿Y Tà QUà PUEDES HACER?
** ¡Ven a Fuerte Benning este noviembre! Los entrenamientos y charlas
empezarán el viernes 19 de Noviembre. El sábado y domingo nos reuniremos
miles de personas en la entrada principal de Fuerte Benning para mitines,
música, oradores y acción directa y no-violenta. Mira en www.SOAW.org el
desarrollo de los planes y los diferentes eventos que se van anunciando.
** Participa en la acción directa y no-violenta del domingo, 21 de
noviembre. Cada año grupos de personas, llevan su claro mensaje a la base,
desafiando públicamente las leyes que prohÃben hablar de polÃtica en las
bases militares y pidiendo valientemente el cierre definitivo de la "Escuela
de Asesinos." Este año animamos a la gente a que venga individualmente y en
grupos a participar en la acción directa y no-violenta para librarnos de la
opresiva polÃtica exterior de EEUU en Latinoamérica y cerrar la SOA/WHINSEC.
** Haz algo en tu comunidad. Organiza entrenamientos de acción directa y
no-violenta, charlas acerca de la SOA, videos u otros eventos educativos en
tu comunidad durante los dos meses próximos. Escribe a tus congresistas y
pÃdeles que apoyen las leyes para cerrar la SOA/WHINSEC. Organiza grupos de
gente que compartan autobuses, camiones o coches hacia Georgia. Dá
publicidad a esta vigÃlia en tu zona e invita a otros a unirse contigo.
Discierne con tu familia y tus amigos y considerad el uniros a la
resistencia civil y no-violenta de noviembre.
Para obtener más información y material educativo como folletos, videos,
información sobre logÃstica y viaje y para conectarte con la organización de
este noviembre, ponte en contacto con SOA Watch llamando a 202-234-3440 y
visitando a www.SOAW.org.
Organizar la resistencia cuesta dinero. Para ayudar a cubrir los gastos de
organización del SOA Watch de este noviembre, pulsa aquÃ:
http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=546.
¡NOS VEMOS EN LA ENTRADA DEL FUERTE BENNING!
SOA Watch ~ PO Box 4566 ~ Washington DC 20017 ~ (202)234-3440 ~
www.soaw.org
Search /RENEGADE/ for articles that mention the School of the Americas -
http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?keywords=School+Americas&how=all
Search /RENEGADE/ for articles that mention human rights -
http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?keywords=human+rights&how=phrase
/RENEGADE/ Search - GO TO: http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?
and just type in your topic. For differing results you may uncheck
"article" and search on just "subject," etc. /RENEGADE/ also has
"time-frame" in the search, so you can tailor your results that way, too.
For more information about the School of the Americas and SOA Watch,
see: http://www.soaw.org/
or send email to info@soaw.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Sharon hints that Arafat may be killed
Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
The Guardian
Wednesday September 15, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5016122-103552,00.html
Ariel Sharon has threatened that Yasser Arafat will meet the same fate
as Hamas leaders who were assassinated earlier this year by the Israeli
military.
In ambiguous comments to Israeli newspapers to mark the Jewish new
year, the prime minister said he intends to force the Palestinian leader
into exile. But he also hinted that Mr Arafat might be killed.
Speaking to Ma'ariv newspaper, Mr Sharon made direct reference to the
Hamas spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was assassinated by
a missile in Gaza in March, and his successor as the Islamic resistance
movement's leader, Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, who was killed by the
Israelis the following month.
"We operated against Ahmed Yassin and Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi when
we thought the time was suitable. On the matter of Arafat we'll operate
in the same way, when we find the convenient and suitable time. One
needs to find the time and to do what has to be done," said Mr Sharon.
However, the prime minister told other newspapers that he would send
Mr Arafat into exile. Sheikh Yassin and Mr al-Rantissi were both exiled
from the occupied territories at one time.
A prominent Palestinian minister, Saeb Erekat, said Mr Sharon's comments
show that he intends "to kill President Arafat and to push the Palestinian
people toward chaos".
But the Israeli prime minister's son, Omri, a member of parliament,
said that the possibility of assassination "does not exist" and that Israel
should leave Mr Arafat "stuck" in his battered Ramallah compound.
"If we do this foolishness and hit him, will an [alternative Palestinian
leader] arise? No, he will be seen as your collaborator," Omri Sharon
told members of the ruling Likud's central committee.
In April, Mr Sharon backed away from a personal pledge to President
Bush not to harm the Palestinian leader by saying that whoever kills
Jews or orders their deaths "is a marked man".
However, it is thought unlikely the prime minister intends to move
against Mr Arafat in the near future. The threat may be timed to try
to reassure critics on the far right that the government's plan to pull
7,500 Jews out of the Gaza strip, and a small number from a part of
the West Bank, does not represent a weakening of its resolve to
confront the Palestinian leadership.
Mr Sharon's security cabinet yesterday approved steps to begin the
Gaza pullout, including compensation payments to Jewish settlers
of up to £280,000. The government is offering bonuses to settlers
who agree to leave of their own accord in the hope of defusing
resistance to the pullout.
The government expects to spend £350m compensating settlers
and a similar amount moving military installations and other
infrastructure.
Mr Sharon also rebuffed pressure from his finance minister and chief
political rival, Binyamin Netanyahu, for a referendum on the withdrawal.
Mr Netanyahu argues that a ballot would lend legitimacy to the
"disengagement plan" and weaken claims by the settlers and the
far right that Mr Sharon is acting undemocratically by ignoring a
poll within his Likud party that rejected the pullout.
Mr Netanyahu said that without a vote there could be an "explosion"
of resistance by the settlers and their supporters. But the prime
minister accused him of siding with the settlers.
"The real intention is to delay implementation," said Mr Sharon.
"If a minister thinks that we are facing an explosion, he needs to
act with all his might to make sure that there is no explosion, so
that no one might even contemplate that by means of threats of
explosion a cabinet decision can be changed. Instead of stamping
a seal of approval on those threats and capitulating to them, I would
expect from him and the other ministers to express in the strongest
terms possible their opposition to threats."
The police said they were investigating death threats against Mr Sharon
and officials responsible for implementing disengagement.
Jerusalem's chief of police, Ilan Franco, said: "We have opened an
intensive investigation regarding threats that have been received in
recent days. The threats were to murder the prime minister and
officials in the administration."
The Israeli news service, YNet, quoted officials from the Shin Bet
security service as saying they feared for Mr Sharon's safety and
"would prefer for the prime minister to avoid leaving his office".
· Masked gunmen shot dead an accused rapist on his way to court
in the West Bank city of Ramallah yesterday.
The shooting marked the second fatal attack in less than two months
on detainees in the custody of Palestinian security forces.
Palestinians have faced internal strife recently, stirred by militants
complaining of corruption in the Palestinian security forces. The
gunmen attacked the car in which Ramy Yaghmour and other
detainees were travelling from the Palestinian special forces
headquarters.
Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Headwaters Pepper Spray Trial
Come and Witness the Trial
The Federal Building is at 450 Golden Gate Ave.
between Larkin and Polk Streets near the Civic Center
Bart Station
Judge Susan Illston's Courtroom is on the 19TH floor
A group of non-violent forest defense
activists in Humboldt County who were
tortured with pepper spray by county
sheriff's sued the county, the sheriff and
his chief deputy, and the City of Eureka
for using excessive force. A 1998
trial in San Francisco ended with a
hung jury and then dismissal by the judge.
After five years of appeals, the U. S.
Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals overruled the judge and
ordered a new trial, which the judge then
set for May 12, 2003 in Eureka, California.
The 9th Circuit granted an emergency
writ to remove the judge for apparent
bias and canceled his relocation of the
trial. Although the defendants have
appealed once again to the Supreme Court
to overturn that decision, our new judge
set a new retrial date in San
Francisco.
The trial is going is on right now. We
need you to come and witness the
trial. A courtroom full of people who
want pepper spray torture stopped can make a
huge impact!
Recent global events have illustrated
that abuses spread when authorities
decide certain groups and individuals
don't deserve human rights protection.
Shockingly, state officials have condoned
these practices into guidelines for
dealing with civil disobedience in California.
This case could turn that around.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) Action Alert! Oil Spill in Russian Far East
from: globalfinance@action.ran.org
Date: September 13, 2004
Dear Friend,
On September 8 a ship ran aground on the shores of Sakhalin Island, in the
Russian far east. The ship was operating dredging equipment for an offshore
oil project, and spilled thousands of gallons of oil into the water,
polluting
the beaches of the coastal community of Kholmsk. Experts have warned that a
similar or worse accident could occur in other pristine Sakhalin waters that
are home to the world's last population of 100 Western Gray Whales.
Credit Suisse First Boston is serving as financial advisor to this Shell Oil
project even though it violates the terms of the Equator Principles, which
it
signed many months ago.
"Shell has refused to adopt necessary oil spill prevention measures that
would keep spills like this from happening," said David Gordon,
Executive Director of Pacific Environment, a California-based environmental
organization that is monitoring Sakhalin offshore oil development. "Now that
the oil is in the water, it's too late to clean it up.
The damage has been done. It is a tragedy for Sakhalin Island and especially
for the people of Kholmsk."
Take action today to tell Credit Suisse First Boston to withdraw funding for
this egregious project and to adopt comprehensive environmental standards
immediately to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again.
More Information about Sakhalin Island can be found at:
http://www.pacificenvironment.org
Take Action!
1. Raise your mouse: click the link below to send a fax to John Mack, CEO of
Credit Suisse First Boston:
http://action.ran.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=21290&ms=Sakhalinalert
2. Raise your voice: Call Mr. Mack today at (212) 325-3630. Some suggested
talking points are listed below.
3. Raise awareness: Forward this message to your friends. Ask them to call
or
send a letter online at:
http://action.ran.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=21290&ms=Sakhalinalert
-Demand that Credit Suisse First Boston withdraw financial support
immediately from the Sakhalin II project, which clearly violates the terms
of
the
Equator Principles, to which it is a signatory.
-Demand that Credit Suisse First Boston adopt comprehensive social and
environmental standards for investment that meet or exceed industry best
practices
set by Citigroup and Bank of America earlier this year.
Thanks for your support!
For the Earth and for Justice,
Dan and Ilyse
The RAN Global Finance Team
Sept 13, 2004
Peace, No War
War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate
Not in our Name! And another world is possible!
Information for antiwar movements, news across the World, please visit:
http://www.PeaceNoWar.net
Please Join PeaceNoWar Listserv, send e-mail to:
peacenowar-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
*Peace No War Network is an activist project of ActionLA
Action for World Liberation Everyday!
URL: http://www.ActionLA.org
e-mail: Info@ActionLA.org
Please join our ActionLA Listserv
go to: http://lists.riseup.net/www/subscribe/actionla
or send e-mail to: actionla-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
*To Translate this page to Arabic, please visit ajeeb.com:
http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/ajeeb/default.asp?lang=1
*To Translate this page to French, Spanish, German, Italian or Portuguese,
please visit Systran:
http://www.systransoft.com/
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) In censoring Al-Jazeera Canada is conceding its
moral high ground
By OMAR ALGHABRA*
Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040915.wjazeera15/
BNStory/Front/?query=Al-Jazeera
On July 15, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission issued a conditional approval to the addition of the Arabic-
language news channel Al-Jazeera for distribution by Canadian cable
and satellite companies.
The conditional provisions stipulated that cable carriers could "alter
or curtail" the programming of Al-Jazeera to ensure that no "abusive
comment" is broadcast. But no specific definition of "abusive" was
provided. This has placed the onus on cable companies to act as censors.
Most Canadians were perplexed by the harsh, ambiguous and
unprecedented restrictions put forth by the CRTC decision. The
controversy stirred a great deal of media attention at the time.
Nearly all the editorials, commentaries and columnists agreed that
the decision had amounted to unwarranted censorship.
Cable companies have already declared their refusal to carry Al-Jazeera
under those terms. "Cable companies do not want to be forced into the
position of having to decide what is appropriate for Canadians to watch,"
said Canadian Cable Television Association president Michael Hennessy.
"This sets a frightening precedent and virtually ensures that no distributor
will ever carry this service in Canada."
More than 500,000 Canadian Arabs are affected by the CRTC decision.
They are being denied the right to information and news free of censorship
in
violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right ..... to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
The CRTC is effectively denying Canadian Arabs the opportunity to
seek and receive information and news from and about the Arab world
through Al-Jazeera.
During the 15-month deliberation period before the decision was
announced, some Canadian Jewish organizations argued that Al-Jazeera
could spread hatred against Jews in Canada.
In an attempt to address those concerns, the CRTC decided to give cable
companies the unprecedented right to censor content - a responsibility
usually reserved for federal and provincial regulatory bodies such as the
Ontario Film Review Board. Considering that Al-Jazeera has never been
viewed by most Canadians and regulatory bodies, claims against it have
never been proved.
In their claim, advocates of censoring Al-Jazeera failed to make the
distinction between news reporting and editorial positions. They also
failed to differentiate between politically controversial discussions or
racial/religious hate propaganda.
Al-Jazeera, now one of the most recognizable news organizations in
the world, is arguably the most progressive civic institution in the Arab
world. Its independence, professionalism and content have influenced
the political landscape across the Arab region and around the world.
This year, Al-Jazeera published a code of ethics governing news
gathering and editorial policies, regulations that other equally
professional and credible news organizations lack.
The fact is, Al-Jazeera deals, on a daily basis, with one of the
world's most dynamic and politically diverse regions. Controversial
topics, provocative figures, underdeveloped political institutions
and state-controlled media are elements that make up the reality
of the Middle East.
Al-Jazeera does more than any other institution to deal with complex
issues facing that region by drawing attention to them and challenging
common assumptions. It does more for the relationship among Jews,
Arabs and Muslims than many of the "peace initiatives." It does this
through interviews with officials, pundits and politicians from every
side of the conflict, covering a wide range of opinions and viewpoints,
thereby humanizing all sides.
Israel, which Canadian Jewish organizations say is the recipient of much
of Al-Jazeera criticism, has allowed the broadcast of Al-Jazeera in Israel
with no restrictions.
That being said, Al-Jazeera should be expected to comply with Canadian
laws and norms and should not be given any advantages. The promotion
of hate against any ethnic or religious group should not be tolerated.
Should it be found that Al-Jazeera has contravened Canadian laws,
there are legal processes in place to address such potential violations.
The CRTC may not have intended to block the broadcasting of
Al-Jazeera. But now that it is clear that this decision has led to the
effective veto of its broadcast, the CRTC must reconsider the details
of its ruling.
Instead of expecting the cable companies to act as censors, the CRTC,
as an objective body, should monitor Al-Jazeera programming and
report on its observations to Canadians. If Al-Jazeera fails to meet the
professional and ethical standards of Canadian broadcasting, its licence
can be reviewed or revoked.
Prejudging the leading Arabic-language news channel without due
process has fed into much of the unfortunate stereotyping of Arabs
that anything produced by Arabs is suspicious and questionable, an
unintended consequence that should not be taken lightly.
Canada is arguably one of the most tolerant, open and multicultural
countries in the world. In censoring Al-Jazeera - and, therefore, not
practising what it preaches - Canada is conceding its moral high ground.
* Omar Alghabra is president of the Canadian Arab Federation.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) Canadian Bullets, Dead Iraqis
by Ytzhak
Tuesday September 14, 2004
montfu65@hotmail.com
http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/30644.php
Canadian Bullets, Dead Iraqis
With up to 13,802 Iraqi civilian deaths to date, Canadians will now be
providing one of the most basic necessities for the US occupation forces
in Iraq: bullets. The Canadian company SNC Technologies Inc. (SNC TEC)
is now part of a multinational consortium of small-caliber ammunition
producers whose purpose is to supply between 300 million -500
million more bullets to occupation forces per year, and potentially
for at least five years.
Beyond Canada, General Dynamics, the US defence contractor, also
awarded contracts to several small bullet suppliers - including Winchester,
a unit of Olin Corporation and Israel Military Industries. Their also in
discussion with several other international producers, including General
Dynamics Santa Barbara Sistemas, Madrid, Spain in an effort to try to
meet the ammunitions demand. Michael S. Wilson, president of General
Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, said,"Our goal is to ensure
maximum supply support for the U.S. armed forces in their war against
terror."
The high demand in bullets is in response to a recent U.S. Army
market survey for a "Small-Caliber Ammunition Systems Integrator".
The Financial Times reports that the US occupation forces "will need
300m to 500m more bullets a year for at least five years, or more
than 1.5m a year for combat and training. And because the single
army-owned, small-calibre ammunition factory in Lake City, Missouri,
can produce only 1.2m bullets annually, the army is suddenly
scrambling to get private defence contractors to help fill the gap."
"We're using so much ammunition in Iraq there isn't enough
capacity around," said Eric Hugel, a defence industry analyst at
Sephens Inc. "They have to go internationally."
The Financial Times also reports that the "bullet problem has its
roots in a Pentagon effort to restock its depleted war material reserve.
But it has been exacerbated by the ongoing operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq, where rearguard and supply units have been thinly-stretched
throughout the countryside, occasionally without active duty combat
soldiers to protect them."
Recently rejuvenated after the historic demonstrations in New York,
where half a million people were unified in saying "No to the Bush
agenda", a campaign focusing on these contracts could have a direct
effect on saving the lives of Iraqis, and give traction to an again waking
anti-war movement. For the international anti-war movement, which is
struggling to live up to it's reputation as "the other super power", such
contracts could provide important anti-war campaigns in our own nations,
raising the social costs for the US, and other complicit countries, in
waging war on Iraq. For Canada, long in denial about it's active
participation in the US war on terror, the SNC Technologies contract
should highlight the fact that Canada has not only provided previous
military and diplomatic support for the war on terror, but is now
literally, without doubt, providing the ammunition to kill Iraqis.
As for the general structure of the contracts, General Dynamics reports
that they will serve as the systems integrator responsible for supply chain
management, with Winchester serving as a principal supplier of all
calibers of ammunition, including 5.56mm, 7.62mm and Cal. 50
ammunitions. Israel Military Industries Ltd. currently produces ammunition
to U.S. military specifications for each of the calibers being sought and
will be relied upon to be a significant production partner on the team.
SNC will also be a critical provider of select ammunition across all
calibers
being sought.
For Canadians interested in SNC Technologies Inc., they are a developer
and manufacturer of ammunitions and related defence products.
Headquartered in Le Gardeur, Québec, their web site boasts of annual
revenues of more than $ 266 million(CAD).
SNC TEC is the sole Canadian producer of military ammunition and
produces over 70% of conventional military ammunition used by the
Canadian Department of National Defence. In addition, the company
is also a current supplier to the Department of Defense of the United
States for both small and large caliber products. Internationally, SNC
TEC provides conventional ammunition, or components, to a large
number of other countries across Europe, the Middle East, the Far
East, as well as Australia and New Zealand (according to their web
site, these include Belgium, Denmark, France, Holland, Greece, Italy,
Sweden, the UK, UAE, Oman, Jordan and Kuwait, Hong Kong, Singapore,
Thailand and the Philippines).
The company is wholly owned by the SNC-Lavalin Group. "The SNC
Group, which began as a small engineering consulting firm in 1911,
grew over the years into a leading group of engineering and construction
companies. In 1992, it merged Lavalin engineering firm to form the
SNC-Lavalin Group Inc."
SNC-Lavalin Group has offices across Canada, in 30 other countries
around the world, and are currently working in some 100 countries.
SNC-Lavalin has annual revenues of about $ 3.3 billion (CAD). The
Corporate headquarters are located in Montréal at :
455 René-Lévesque Blvd. West Montreal, Quebec Canada H2Z 1Z3
Telephone : (514) 393-1000 Fax : (514) 866-0795 Email :
info@snclavalin.com
Chris Spannos volunteers for ZNet, Vancouver Co-operative Radio
and the Vancouver Participatory Economics Collective
http://resist.ca/story/2004/9/12/11757/9360
resist.ca/story/2004/9/12/11757/9360
add your comments
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) Israel intensifies land seizures
By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
Tuesday 14 September 2004
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7A1982B9-EF9F-463E-BEE5-
88209C2078FA.htm
Israel has stepped up annexation of Palestinian farms and fields in
various parts of the West Bank, ignoring a landmark ruling by the
International Court of Justice in the Hague.
A decision by Israel's own High Court of Justice had likewise urged
the Israeli Government to put an end to land seizures in the name
of erecting the separation barrier.
Yet on Tuesday Israeli soldiers guarding the bulldozers used to level
Palestinian fields west of Hebron, fired teargas canisters at Palestinian
and international protesters, injuring a number of youths.
Hundreds of farmers and their children from the nearby villages of
Dir Samet and Beit Awwa tried unsuccessfully to protect their olive
groves from the onslaught of the bulldozers.
Israeli soldiers scuffled with the farmers, many of them agitated at
the sight of their life's investments being ground to dust before
their eyes.
Indifference
Peace activists from countries as far as Sweden had turned up at the
site to express solidarity with the Palestinians. One activist carried a
placard that said: "Israeli army: the world is watching."
But the Israeli soldiers on duty were no more responsive to the
protests of the Palestinian farmers and foreign peace activists,
than the rest of Israel has been to international condemnation of
its annexation of Palestinian lands.
One Israeli solder reportedly told a Palestinian farmer distraught
over the destruction of his olive trees, "We do what we want ...
nobody can tell us what we do".
This correspondent saw thousands of mature olive trees either
flattened by Israeli bulldozers or hacked down to prepare the
ground for the construction of the separation barrier.
The wall meanders deep into the West Bank, east of the former
armistice line of 1949 that is considered by the bulk of the
international community as the de facto border between Israel
proper and the Palestinian territories.
At gunpoint
One farmer badly affected by the current wave of land seizures
and orchard destruction is 70-year-old Abdullah Ahmed Salem
Abu Kreifeh.
He told Aljazeera.net, "You see, Sharon tells America and the
world that he wants peace and good neighbourly relations with
the Palestinians.
"But look what he is doing to us. He is seizing our land at
gunpoint, destroying our livelihood and pushing us towards
violence and desperate acts."
Abu Kreifeh said he and his relatives had gone to an Israeli court
in an effort to stop the confiscation of his land but to no avail.
"My son, what can you do when the judge is your enemy. You know
their courts are rubberstamps in the hands of the army."
Nearly two and a half months ago, the Israeli High Court instructed
the state to create a "proportionality" between "security needs" and
"Palestinian rights".
The Sharon government said then it would heed the court's ruling.
But the latest land grab in the western Hebron hills has cast fresh
doubt on the government's sincerity.
In early July, the World Court in Hague, in a non-binding ruling,
underscored the illegality of the separation barrier and urged the
Israeli Government to tear it down and compensate Palestinians
affected by it.
But Israel accused the court of being biased and rejected
the verdict.
Poll distraction
Separately, on Monday an Israeli Government official held talks
in Washington with two Bush administration officials, telling
them that Israel was making efforts to "minimise hardships for
the Palestinians".
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Dov Weisglass, who is
Sharon's chief political adviser, is trying to obtain an "American
understanding" of the Israeli position, namely the annexation of
huge parts of the West Bank.
Many Middle East experts believe the Bush administration's ability
to say "no" to Israeli decisions at this point of time is greatly
restricted by electoral exigencies, with the Republicans seeking
to make a dent in the traditionally pro-Democratic Jewish
constituency.
The experts say Sharon may be taking full advantage of the
situation by implementing his own agenda in the West Bank,
namely annexing large chunks of Palestinian territory and
unilaterally creating future borders between Israel and a truncated,
rump Palestinian entity.
Aljazeera
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
BAUAW NEWSLETTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
1) Blast in Baghdad Rebel District Kills at Least 47
By Mariam Karouny and Luke Baker
Tue Sep 14, 2004 09:32 AM ET
BAGHDAD (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6231537&src=eDialog/
GetContent§ion=news
2) US missile attack kills 13 civilians in Iraq
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
Independent Home News
13 September 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=561021&host=3&dir=75
3) Voices in the Wilderness is following developments
as closely as possible; background information and brief
biographies w/photographs, and other mementos, of these
extraordinary people affiliated with Bridges to Baghdad -
two of whom were dear friends of Kathy Kelly and other
Voices participants; -- also the petition can be found at
Voices website where updates will be posted as
soon as available.
4) Bush to Shift Iraq Funds to Boost Security
By Adam Entous
Mon Sep 13, 2004 08:44 PM ET
HOLLAND, Mich. (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6224882&src=eDialog/
GetContent§ion=news
5) Tali Fahima, a Jewish peace activist, was sentenced
today to 4 months of "administrative detention" by an
Israeli court. The "emergency hour" legislation upon
which this detention was carried out dates from the
British mandate period - an excellent example of how
Zionist colonialism is directed not aonly against the
native Arab population but also against those Jews
which dare to oppose the Israeli Apartheid regime. For
more information see:
http://oznik.com/news/040907.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1298770,00.html
What follows is the letter sent to Amnesty
International and other civil rights organizations and
media.
6) Excellent flash presentation that seriously questions what
happened at the Pentagon that fateful day 911
http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf
7) Frances Crowe, 2004: You have a Legal Right to be a
Conscientious Objector
http://www.traprockpeace.org/frances_crowe.html
with description and links to audio of interview
(both mp3 and RealAudio)
8) Why Bush May Well Be The Lesser Evil
Elections, Alliances and Empire
by Gabriel Kolko
CounterPunch - Sept 13, 2004
http://www.counterpunch.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) Blast in Baghdad Rebel District Kills at Least 47
By Mariam Karouny and Luke Baker
Tue Sep 14, 2004 09:32 AM ET
BAGHDAD (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6231537&src=eDialog/
GetContent§ion=news
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A huge car bomb blast tore through a
crowded market close to a Baghdad police headquarters building
Tuesday, killing at least 47 people in the deadliest single
attack in the Iraqi capital in six months.
An Internet statement in the name of the Tawhid and Jihad
group led by Jordanian al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
claimed responsibility for the blast, which it said was carried
out by a suicide attacker. Washington says Zarqawi is its top
enemy in Iraq and has put a $25 million price on his head.
"With the grace of God, a lion from our martyrdom brigades
was successful in striking a center for apostate police
volunteers," said the statement, which could not be verified.
The Health Ministry said 47 people were killed and 114
wounded. The Interior Ministry said at least one car bomb was
used in the attack in Haifa street, a flashpoint area notorious
as a stronghold of criminals and guerrillas.
In a separate incident in the restive town of Baquba,
northeast of Baghdad, gunmen opened fire on a police minibus.
The town's police chief said 12 people were killed. Zarqawi's
group also claimed responsibility for that attack.
Guerrillas also blew up oil pipelines in northern Iraq,
cutting northern oil exports and forcing a nearby power station
to be shut down. The attack meant large areas of Iraq were
without electricity from 3 a.m. onward.
"ALL I SAW WAS BLOOD"
The Baghdad blast caused carnage in the crowded market and
streets near the police headquarters building.
"I was standing there talking to my friend when suddenly
all I saw was blood, and my friend lying dead," said an Iraqi
man who gave his name as Zafer, speaking from his hospital bed
with blood and scratches on his face and bandages on his
stomach.
Hospital workers hosed pools of blood from the floor.
At the blast site, rescuers pulled bodies from mangled
market stalls. The area was littered with shoes, clothes and
body parts, as well as fruit and vegetables from the market.
Bloodstained corpses lay on pavements strewn with chairs,
glass and rubble from blown-out shopfronts. Dazed bystanders
vainly checked bodies for signs of life.
Smoke from blazing vehicles in the middle of the street
billowed into the sky as fire crews tried to douse the flames.
A huge crater was punched into the road. Ambulances with sirens
wailing ferried the dead and wounded to hospital as U.S.
helicopters buzzed overhead.
Sunday, guerrillas mounted multiple car bomb and mortar
attacks in central Baghdad, during a day of violence in which
more than 100 people were killed across the country.
Many of Sunday's casualties were also in Haifa Street,
where U.S. troops have repeatedly clashed with guerrillas.
Following Tuesday's bombing, U.S. troops again moved into
Haifa Street and appeared to be readying for an assault. They
told residents by loudspeaker to leave the area.
Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib visited the site to
condemn the perpetrators.
"They are targeting the Iraqi people and they are trying to
destroy Iraq. These powers won't stop the rebuilding of Iraq,"
he said. "There will be no space for the terrorists and the
enemies of Iraq."
SURGE IN VIOLENCE
Near Mosul, gunmen opened fire on a U.S. patrol Tuesday,
killing one soldier and wounding five, the U.S. military said.
Since the invasion to oust Saddam Hussein last year, at
least 762 U.S. troops have been killed in action. The total
Pentagon death toll, including non-hostile deaths, is 1,013.
Fighting has surged in Iraq over the last few days after
U.S.-led forces launched a drive to pacify areas of the country
under guerrilla control ahead of elections due in January.
The American military has mounted several air strikes on
Falluja, a city controlled by insurgents. It says the attacks
have targeted militants loyal to Zarqawi, who they say are
based in the city.
U.S. forces have also launched an offensive in Tal Afar, a
mainly Turkmen town close to the Syrian border in northern Iraq
which it says has become a haven for foreign fighters.
The Health Ministry has said at least 60 people were killed
in fighting in Tal Afar over the past week.
(c) Copyright Reuters 2004.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) US missile attack kills 13 civilians in Iraq
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
Independent Home News
13 September 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=561021&host=3&dir=75
US missile attack kills 13 civilians in Iraq
Andreas Whittam Smith: I know who I won't be voting for at
the general election
"I am a journalist. I'm dying, I'm dying," screamed Mazen
al-Tumeizi, a correspondent for the Arabic television
channel al-Arabiya, after shrapnel from a rocket fired by
an American helicopter interrupted his live broadcast and
slammed into his back.
Twelve others were killed and 61 wounded by rockets from
two US helicopters on Haifa Street in central Baghdad. They
had fired into a crowd milling around a burning Bradley
fighting vehicle that had been hit by a rocket or bomb
hours before.
It comes on one of Iraq's bloodiest days for weeks in which at
least 110 people died in clashes around the country. The Health
Ministry said the worst casualties were in Baghdad and in
Tal Afar near the Syrian border, where 51 people died.
"The helicopter fired on the Bradley to destroy it after it had
been hit earlier and it was on fire," said Major Phil Smith of the
1st Cavalry Division. "It was for the safety of the people around it."
Mr Tumeizi, a Palestinian, was the sixth Arab journalist to be
killed by American troops since Baghdad was captured last year.
The videotape of his last moments shows how Mr Tumeizi was
killed during a live television broadcast, with the Bradley blazing
in the distance and a crowd of young men celebrating its
destruction, but it shows no reason why the helicopters should
open fire.
Many of those hit by the rockets in Haifa Street, in a tough
neighbourhood of tower blocks notorious as a centre of resistance
to the occupation, were on their way to work. "We are just ordinary
workers. We are just trying to live," said Haidar Yahyiah, 23, sobbing
with pain from a broken leg as he lay in bed in nearby Karkh hospital.
He and others described how they had been woken by the sound of
explosions in Haifa Street in the early dawn. They had been sleeping
on the roofs because it is too hot in the Baghdad summer to sleep
inside. They saw a vehicle on fire. But it was several hours later, at
about 8am, that they sallied out.
By then US troops had already removed four lightly wounded soldiers
from the Bradley. Young men and children had swarmed over the
vehicle, cheering triumphantly, waving black flags and setting it ablaze
again. The US military said that a Kiowa, a light reconnaissance and
attack helicopter, fired rockets at the Bradley to destroy weapons and
ammunition on board. But it is evident from the al-Arabiya video that
the rockets landed among people standing or walking far away from
the Bradley.
Hamid Ali Khadum was on his way to work when he was hit. "At first
I thought I had just tripped over dead people but then I realised I was
wounded myself," he said as he lay in Karkh hospital waiting for an
operation on his heavily bandaged left leg. The rest of his body was
peppered with shrapnel. A male nurse standing nearby said: "This
happens not just in Haifa Street but in all Baghdad, and not just in
Baghdad but in all Iraq."
The slaughter in Haifa Street took place only a few hundred yards
from the heavily defended International Zone (what used to be called
the Green Zone) which houses the headquarters of the Iraqi
government and its American ally. It is a measure of the military
failure of the US occupation that it has failed to assume control of
this Sunni Muslim neighbourhood in the heart of the capital.
Early yesterday, insurgents fired more than a dozen rockets and
mortars into the International Zone. The zone contains the US
embassy and Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace.
There was violence elsewhere in Baghdad. Colonel Alaa Bashir, the
police chief of the Yarmouk district in west Baghdad, was killed by a
bomb while on patrol. A suicide bomber blew himself up in a vehicle
packed with explosives at the gates to Abu Ghraib prison _ he was the
only one to die. A US plane attacked a machine-gun team from the
Mehdi Army in their stronghold in Sadr City in east Baghdad.
In Ramadi, a city controlled by insurgents west of Baghdad, 10 people
were killed and 40 wounded in fighting, according to the local hospital.
A US Humvee was also set ablaze, but casualties were unknown.
Also in Middle East
US missile attack kills 13 civilians in Iraq
'Nine killed' as US jets bomb Fallujah
Turkey reacts with fury to massive US assault on northern Iraqi city
US enter Samarrah during new push against insurgents
Despair in Iraq over the forgotten victims of US invasion
(c) 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Voices in the Wilderness is following developments
as closely as possible; background information and brief
biographies w/photographs, and other mementos, of these
extraordinary people affiliated with Bridges to Baghdad -
two of whom were dear friends of Kathy Kelly and other
Voices participants; -- also the petition can be found at
Voices website where updates will be posted as
soon as available.
Large manifestations have taken place in Iraq (including one of women
and children) and in Italy where vigils as well have been conducted that
may yet continue
(Voices does not make accusations, but in many commentaries, one
reads that no one stands to gain from these people's abduction, other
than the US puppet govt. under former CIA assassin Allawi.)
WRL, WRL West and UPJ both in the bay area and nationally are
connected to the people being held hostage who have been
opposing the occupation, as many of us opposed the sanctions,
Gulf War I, and Saddam Hussein and his U.S. support in its day.
Please, let's all do what we can,
Jim Haber
WRL West, San Francisco
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Hany Khalil"
Date: September 13, 2004 11:16:27 PM PDT
To:
Subject: [UFPJ] Petition for Release of Italian/Iraqi Hostages
Reply-To: hanykhalil@igc.org
Dear UFPJ member group:
The Italian and Iraqi hostages abducted on September 7th have not
yet been released. As you may know, all four worked with Bridges
to Baghdad, an Italian aid group that worked against the sanctions
in the 90s and is a core member of the Occupation Watch Center,
along with United for Peace and Justice and UFPJ member group
Code Pink.
It's important that we do what we can to convince their captors that
these people stand against the occupation, not with it, and should
be released. The petition calling for their release has not been
posted at http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/freeourfriends .
You can sign it directly online. We encourage your group to sign it ASAP.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Bush to Shift Iraq Funds to Boost Security
By Adam Entous
Mon Sep 13, 2004 08:44 PM ET
HOLLAND, Mich. (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6224882&src=eDialog/
GetContent§ion=news
HOLLAND, Mich. (Reuters) - Faced with mounting violence in Iraq,
the Bush administration plans on Tuesday to propose shifting $3.46
billion from Iraqi water, power and other reconstruction projects to
improve security, boost oil output and prepare for elections scheduled
for January.
Administration and congressional officials briefed on the plan said it
cleared the way for President Bush, who was campaigning in Michigan,
to forgive 95 percent of Iraq's prewar debts to the United States totaling
about $4 billion.
The changes, which will require congressional approval, reflect a
realization within the administration that without better security,
long-term rebuilding is impossible.
Of the more than $18 billion approved for Iraq's reconstruction, only
about $1 billion has been spent so far.
"This is adjusting a plan in response to changing circumstances," said
a U.S. official who asked not to be named. "One of the changing
circumstances is the need to focus more urgently and more quickly
on developing Iraqi security capability. Another is the need to accelerate
employment of Iraqis."
According to a document outlining the plan, a copy of which was seen
by Reuters, the administration would shift $1.804 billion now earmarked
for water, sewage and electricity projects to expand security forces.
This would include adding 45,000 Iraqi police officers and 16,000
officials for border enforcement.
Another $180 million would help plan for elections and strengthen
local governments.
The number of U.S. troops killed since the March 2003 invasion passed
the 1,000 mark last week, while the number of wounded topped 7,000,
and administration officials say the anti-U.S. insurgency may intensify
in the months ahead.
White House national security advisor Condoleezza Rice told CBS's
"Face the Nation" on Sunday that "there will undoubtedly be violence
up until the elections and probably even during the elections."
Secretary of State Colin Powell added, "This insurgency isn't going
to go away."
In addition to the funds to bolster Iraqi security and election planning,
the administration will shift $450 million from refined oil purchases
to expand Iraq's oil capacity.
The document said the funds would be used for "specifically targeted
oil infrastructure projects that will increase Iraqi oil production by
650,000 barrels per day by mid-2005."
The Bush administration wants to expand oil production and exports
at the Kirkuk oil field, including building a new pipeline and improving
facilities at Rumaylah oil field.
A further $380 million would be used to boost economic development.
Some of that money would also be handed out in resettlement aid to
300,000 Kurds. A separate $286 million would help expand job
training programs.
The administration would set aside $360 million to cover the
"budget cost" of forgiving 95 percent of Iraqi debt to the United
States. The figure represents the current estimated amount of the
debt, largely run up during the 1980s.
The administration is required to seek congressional approval for
major changes in Iraq's reconstruction package, but congressional
aides said the White House now wants to ease those restrictions.
One aide complained that the administration was effectively seeking
a "blank check" to spend the money with minimal oversight.
Without authorization from Congress, the administration would only
be able to shift $800 million of the requested funds, the document
said. (Additional reporting by Anna Willard and Arshad Mohammed)
(c) Copyright Reuters 2004.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Tali Fahima, a Jewish peace activist, was sentenced
today to 4 months of "administrative detention" by an
Israeli court. The "emergency hour" legislation upon
which this detention was carried out dates from the
British mandate period - an excellent example of how
Zionist colonialism is directed not aonly against the
native Arab population but also against those Jews
which dare to oppose the Israeli Apartheid regime. For
more information see:
http://oznik.com/news/040907.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1298770,00.html
What follows is the letter sent to Amnesty
International and other civil rights organizations and
media.
Call for Urgent Action: Tali Fahima under
Administrative Detention
At Sunday, September 5, 2004, Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli
minister of defence, issued an order based on "secret
evidence" to hold Ms. Tali Fahima (an Israeli peace
activist) under administrative detention for four
months. During the 28 days period before this order
was issued Ms. Fahima had been under arrest without
charges, her detention extended according to "secret
inquiry material" that was not shown to the accused or
to her defense lawyers, and was intensively
interrogated by the GSS (Israeli General Security
Service). This was the second detention of Ms. Fahima
this year. On May 24, 2004 she was arrested and held
for 6 days under GSS interrogation. On May 30 she was
released without any charges, and sent to 4 days of
house arrest.
During the 28 days of interrogation Ms. Fahima was
kept in a small cell without windows for 24 hours a
day. She was forced to sleep on a mattress on the
floor, the electricity light always on, and prevented
from receiving any visit by family members, as well as
writing or reading material. She was interrogated for
15 to 18 hours each day, forced to sit in an uneasy
position with her hands cuffed behind her back. Most
of the time the interrogators are lecturing Tali on
politics in order to Âre-educate her, promising to
convert her into Âa good Jewish girl (sic). Physical
abuse is added to the philippics detailing the
interrogators' racist, primitive and reactionary views
on sex and politics.
Some days before her detention, Tali received a phone
call from a GSS agent that was involved in her
previous detention and interrogation. He requested to
meet her, informally, and mentioned that he knows she
has difficulties finding a job. Following the advice
of her lawyers, she refused to meet him. She was then
told that she is going to pay a heavy price.
Ms. Tali Fahima is a Jewish peace activist from Kiryat
Gat - a peripheral workers' township some 50 km. south
of Tel Aviv. She was brought up with two sisters by a
single hard-working mother, and worked as a secretary
at an advocate's office. Since the beginning of the
Intifada, she had gradually begun to lose her
confidence in the Israeli media. After intensive study
of the political situation and conversations with
Palestinians, she decided to see the facts with her
own eyes, and visited the Jenin refugee camp - the
well known target of past and present Israeli attacks
and devastation. Her stay in the refugee camp shocked
her. Ever since her visit in the Jenin refugee camp
she became active in support of the refugees. She,
together with a group of her friends, collected
contributions in order to reopen a youth club in the
camp, and kept contact with the camp's activists. Her
humanitarian work with Jenin camp's children - trying
to establish human solidarity between people in the
harshest conditions - was highly praised even by the
judge in the Israeli court that released her on May 30
after her first detention.
Ms. Fahima was never engaged in any kind of violent
activity. She is a peace activist, concentrating
mainly in humanitarian work and public acts. At the
end of 2003 Ms. Fahima declared on the Israeli media
that she is ready to serve as a human shield for Mr.
Zakariya Zbeida, a leading Jenin camp activist that
has already escaped several Israeli assassination
attempts. From that moment she, and her family, became
victims of systematic harassment: She was fired from
her job as a secretary and had great difficulties
finding a job. She had to leave her flat and meanwhile
stayed at the homes of relatives and friends. The
Israeli media published information from "reliable"
(and anonymous) sources which claimed that she is
suspected of conspiracy to carry out a terror attack.
A campaign of demonization is being waged through the
media against Tali by the Israeli security services
and politicians. The voice of the international
community is indispensable in order to protect her
freedom and personal security as well as those of her
family, which is also continuously threatened. The
only "crime" Tali is really guilty of is having broken
the unwritten Apartheid laws of Israel, which forbid
any Jew under the harshest penalties to meet the
victims of Zionism in the refugee camps of the
Occupied Territories and beyond.
Personal information:
Ms. Tali Fahima, Israeli ID no. 038292447, date of
birth: 8.2.1976, female, single, secretary in
advocateÂs office hometown: Kiryat Gat town in the
south of Israel.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) RNC Reportbacks
The Ronald Reagan Home for the Criminally Insane
had a great time annoying Republicans and entertaining
New Yorkers and the press during the Republican
National Circus.
We have a bunch of photos and articles posted on our website
that we hope you will enjoy.
www.InsaneReagan.com
www.InsaneReagan.com
We will also be participating in two RNC reportbacks in
San Francisco next weekend.
Friday, September 17th
Dolores Park 8:00- 10:00pm
Indybay and Street Level TV are holding a guerilla film
screening of footage from the RNC shot by Bay Area video
guerillas and live reportbacks from activists.
Sunday, September 19
Cellspace 2050 Bryant St. (between Mariposa+18th)
7:00- 10:00pm
Direct Action to Stop the War (DASW) is throwing a
reportback party that will include video, live music
by David Rovics and Dave Lippman and activist testimonials
on the joys of direct action and tell all tales of what went
on behind the walls of Guantanamo on the Hudson.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) Excellent flash presentation that seriously questions what
happened at the Pentagon that fateful day 911
http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf
Ps, Clark webmaster http://2012AD.com/ http://hempevolution.org/
http://thebikehut.com/ http://viktervz.com/ http://caravida.com/
http://shuttlepro.net/ Remember you're the One!
911 inside job
http://www.wtc7.net - http://www.physics911.org - http://www.911-strike.com
http://www.oilempire.us - http://www.dieoff.org - http://www.peakoil.net
http://bombsinsidewtc.dk - http://www.911review.com
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca -http://www.cooperativeresearch.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) Frances Crowe, 2004: You have a Legal Right to be a
Conscientious Objector
http://www.traprockpeace.org/frances_crowe.html
with description and links to audio of interview
(both mp3 and RealAudio)
Frances Crowe, 2004: You have a Legal Right to be a
Conscientious Objector
Frances Crowe, now 85, is one of the founders of Traprock Peace Center. She
answers questions for young people across the country, when Aaron Ford, a
student at Greenfield Community College and Sunny Miller, Exec. Director of
Traprock, sought out her depth of wisdom for this 2004 interview on
conscientious objection.
With clarity and compassion, Frances lays out the facts, one after another,
informing young men and women today how to establish their human right to
not participate in killing, and their legal right in the United States to
not participate in war. Eighty-three percent of US survey respondents say
they don't want a draft, but last year draft boards were asked to fill
vacancies at the local level. Frances describes immediate steps young
people and supportive friends and family can take. She urges established
conscientious objectors to speak up, bringing news everywhere that:
"Anyone who is conscientiously opposed to participating in any war facing
them, on moral, ethical, philosophical or religious grounds, with the same
degree of intensity as you would hold a religious belief, has a right not to
be drafted."
Frances explains that Dan Seeger helped establish this legal standard by
taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court. Previously, only some with
a religious objection to war were not pressed into military service.
These are the four questions draft boards have traditionally asked. Writing
your answers now helps you to get clear, and talking about your process may
help others clarify their positions.
1. What do you object to about war now? What is the nature of
your belief-- is your objection moral, philosophical, ethical or religous?
2. Where did those beliefs come from? What influenced you?
3. How is that objection showing up in your life?
4. Would you be willing to serve as a military medic? (Many would
not, because the priority of military medicine is not to heal the wounded,
but to get people back to fighting -- and killing -- as quickly as
possible.)
Frances asserts that young people have a duty to get clear about what it is
about war they object to, (war now, not past wars) even as war propaganda is
heavily funded, sweeps to find undocumented workers and threats of
deportation intimidate many into signing up, and promises of money for
college create tremendous pressure to submit to participating. Even though
there is no place provided on draft registration cards, you can write in the
margin, "I am a conscientious objector." Before you mail in your
registration card, make a copy for yourself and date that by sending it to
yourself, signed receipt requested. Leaving it sealed in the envelope helps
create a paper trail of your history as a conscientious objector. Begin now
to build a file where you can add poems, research papers, letters of
recommendation, notes on conversations with family, soldiers, activists and
clergy, or the music, movies, and cultural events that influence you to
object to war. If the draft is instituted, you might have as little as 30
days to prepare to go before your local draft board. Exploring your
conscience now or discussing your process in a group setting can support you
as you develop clarity about your thinking and feeling.
With the influence of Quaker tradition
and feminist thinking, Frances Crowe
began doing group draft counseling in
the basement of her home in
Northampton in groups and circles, in
1967, despite the refusal of a
newspaper to print announcements. With
neighbors she founded the Northampton
Draft Information Center in 1968, which
operated full-time until the draft
ended. Young men, family members,
young women and some active members of the
military attended. In the first year alone,
2000 participated. During four
years of thoughtful group discussions,
no one decided to fake a physical or
mental condition, cut off a finger, or
leave for Canada. All were clear and
empowered by positions and statements
as conscientious objectors, as the
misguided tragedies of the Vietnam war
continued to unfold. Many went on to
fruitful lives in healthcare, teaching or
other public service.
Crowe describes her own progression
from working in a factory during World
War II, to working for peace after the
bombings of civilian populations in
Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now she works to reduce her reliance
on oil - by car-pooling, riding the bus,
walking to downtown and flying only
in emergencies. Frances Crowe says she
cannot pay for killing and has become
a war tax refuser.
The audio interview lasts 38 minutes, 32 seconds.
It is followed by an Afterword (2 minutes) summarized here:
Aaron: Is there anything I can do right away?
Frances; Yes! Write to your draft board
today. You can hand carry your
letter to the post office, make a copy or
two to keep, and mail one to
yourself, return receipt requested.
At the post office you can get the
address of the selective service board,
because draft registration goes on
at every post office.
This interview and the Afterword are
offered to campus organizers and radio
stations, or for use as a personal gift,
as the fall 2004 school year
begins. Please join us in celebrating
25 years of collaboration in a
Neighbors Network to End War since
Traprock Peace Center's founding in 1979.
We appreciate neighborly wisdom,
initiative and mutual support.
This summary is printed and distributed
by Traprock Peace Center 103a Keets
Road, Deerfield, 01342. Tel: 413 773-7427
For more resources on why you object to
war, see and hear about the
unfolding tragedy of uranium weapons, at
http://www.traprockpeace.org
You can find many links to other groups,
check the calendar, or post your
meetings on conscientious objection on
the calendar.
For other resources on conscientious
objection, see http://www.objector.org
and http://www.nisbco.org
For campus organizing see http://www.campusantiwar.net
Sunny Miller
Traprock Peace Center
103A Keets Road
Deerfield, MA 01342
413-773-7427; Fax 413-773-7507
http://traprockpeace.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) Why Bush May Well Be The Lesser Evil
Elections, Alliances and Empire
by Gabriel Kolko
CounterPunch - Sept 13, 2004
http://www.counterpunch.org
Alliances have been a major cause of wars throughout modern history,
removing inhibitions that might otherwise have caused Germany, France
and countless nations to reflect much more cautiously before embarking
on death and destruction. The dissolution of all alliances is a crucial
precondition of a world without wars.
The United States' strength, to an important extent, has rested on its
ability to convince other nations that it was to their vital interests
to see America prevail in its global role. With the loss of that ability
there will be a fundamental change in the international system, a change
whose implications and consequences may ultimately be as far-reaching as
the dissolution of the Soviet bloc. The scope of America's world role is
now far more dangerous and ambitious than when Communism existed, but it
was fear of the USSR that alone gave NATO its raison d'etre and provided
Washington with the justification for its global pretensions. Enemies
have disappeared and new ones--many once former allies and congenial
states--have taken their places. The United States, to a degree to which
it is itself uncertain of, needs alliances. But even friendly nations
are less likely than ever to be bound into complaisant "coalitions of
the willing'.
Nothing in President Bush's extraordinarily vague doctrine, promulgated
on September 19, 2002, of fighting "preemptive" wars, unilaterally if
necessary, was a fundamentally new departure. Since the 1890s,
regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats were in office, the
U.S. has intervened in countless ways--sending in the Marines,
installing and bolstering friendly tyrants--in the western hemisphere to
determine the political destinies of innumerable southern nations. The
Democratic Administration that established the United Nations explicitly
regarded the hemisphere as the U.S. sphere of influence, and at the same
time created the IMF and World Bank to police the world economy.
Indeed, it was the Democratic Party that created most of the pillars of
postwar American foreign policy, from the Truman Doctrine in 1947 and
NATO through the institutionalization of the arms race and the core
illusion that weapons and firepower are a solution to many of the
world's political problems. So the Democrats share, in the name of a
truly "bipartisan" consensus, equal responsibility for both the
character and dilemmas of America's foreign strategy today. President
Jimmy Carter initiated the Afghanistan adventure in July 1979, hoping to
bog down the Soviets there as the Americans had been in Vietnam. And it
was Carter who first encouraged Saddam Hussein to confront Iranian
fundamentalism, a policy President Reagan continued.
In his 2003 book The Roaring Nineties Joseph E. Stiglitz, chairman of
the President's Council of Economic Advisers from 1993 to 1997, argues
that the Clinton Administration intensified the "hegemonic legacy" in
the world economy, and Bush is just following along. The 1990s, Stiglitz
writes, was "A decade of unparalleled American influence over the global
economy" that Democratic financiers and fiscal conservatives in key
posts defined, "in which one economic crisis seemed to follow another."
The U.S. created trade barriers and gave large subsidies to its own
agribusiness but countries in financial straits were advised and often
compelled to cut spending and "adopt policies that were markedly
different from those that we ourselves had adopted." The scale of
domestic and global peculation by the Clinton and Bush administrations
can be debated but they were enormous in both cases. In foreign and
military affairs, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have
suffered from the same procurement fetish, believing that expensive
weapons are superior to realistic political strategies. The same
illusions produced the Vietnam War--and disaster. Elegant strategies
promising technological routes to victory have been with us since the
late 1940s, but they are essentially public relations exercises intended
to encourage more orders for arms manufacturers, justifications for
bigger budgets for the rival military services. During the Clinton years
the Pentagon continued to concoct grandiose strategies, demanding--and
getting--new weapons to implement them. There are many ways to measure
defense expenditures over time but--minor annual fluctuations
notwithstanding--the consensus between the two parties on the Pentagon's
budgets has flourished since 1945. In January 2000 Clinton added $115
billion to the Pentagon's five-year plan, far more than the Republicans
were calling for. When Clinton left office the Pentagon had over a half
trillion dollars in the major weapons procurement pipeline, not counting
the ballistic missile defense systems, a pure boondoggle that cost over
$71 billion by 1999. The dilemma, as both CIA and senior Clinton
officials correctly warned, was that terrorists were more likely to
strike the American homeland than some nation against which the military
could retaliate. This fundamental disparity between hardware and reality
has always existed and September 11, 2001 showed how vulnerable and weak
the U.S. has become, a theme readers can explore in my book, Another
Century of War?
The war in Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 brought to a head the future
of NATO and the alliance, and especially Washington's deepening anxiety
regarding Germany's possible independent role in Europe. Well before
Bush took office, the Clinton Administration resolved never again to
allow its allies to inhibit or define its strategy. Bush's policies,
notwithstanding the brutal way in which they have been expressed or
implemented, follow directly and logically from this crucial decision.
NATO members' refusal to contribute the soldiers and equipment essential
to end warlordism and allow fair elections to be held in Afghanistan (it
sent five times as many troops to Kosovo in 1999), is the logic of
America's bipartisan disdain for the alliance.
But the world today is increasingly dangerous for the U. S. and
communism's demise has called into fundamental question the core
premises of the post-1945 alliance system. More nations have nuclear
weapons and means of delivering them; destructive small arms are much
more abundant (thanks to swelling American arms exports which grew from
32 percent of the world trade in 1987 to 43 percent in 1997); there are
more local and civil wars than ever, especially in regions like Eastern
Europe which had not experienced any for nearly a half-century; and
there is terrorism--the poor and weak man's ultimate weapon--on a scale
that has never existed. The political, economic, and cultural causes of
instability and conflict are growing, and expensive weapons are
irrelevant--save to the balance sheets of those who make them.
So long as the future is to a large degree--to paraphrase Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--"unknowable", it is not in the national
interest of America's traditional allies to perpetuate the relationships
created from 1945 to 1990. Through ineptness and a vague ideology of
American power that acknowledges no limits on its global ambitions, the
Bush Administration has lunged into unilateralist initiatives and
adventurism that discount consultations with its friends, much less the
United Nations. The outcome has been serious erosion of the alliance
system upon which U.S. foreign policy from 1947 onwards was based. With
the proliferation of destructive weaponry and growing political
instability, the world is becoming increasingly dangerous--and so is
membership in alliances.
If Bush is reelected then the international order may be very different
in 2008 than it is today, let alone 1999. Regardless of who is the next
president, there is no reason to believe that objective assessments of
the costs and consequences of its actions will significantly alter
America's foreign policy priorities over the next four years. If the
Democrats win they will attempt, in the name of "progressive
internationalism", to reconstruct the alliance system as it existed
before the Yugoslav war of 1999, when the Clinton Administration turned
against the veto powers built into NATO's structure. There is important
bipartisan support for resurrecting the Atlanticism that Bush is in the
process of smashing, and it was best reflected in the Council on Foreign
Relations' banal March 2004 report on the "transatlantic alliance",
which Henry Kissinger helped direct and which both influential
Republicans and Wall Street leaders endorsed. Traditional elites are
desperate to see NATO and the Atlantic system restored to their old
glory. Their vision, premised on the expansionist assumptions that have
guided American foreign policy since 1945, was best articulated the same
month in a book, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership, by
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Carter's National Security adviser.
Brzezinski rejects the Bush Administration's counterproductive rhetoric
that so alienates former and potential future allies. But he regards
American power as central to stability in every part of world and his
global vision no less ambitious than the Bush Administration's. He is
for the U.S. maintaining "a comprehensive technological edge over all
potential rivals" and calls for the transformation of "America's
prevailing power into a co-optive hegemony--one in which leadership is
exercised more through shared conviction with enduring allies than by
assertive domination". Precisely because it is much more salable to past
and potential allies, this traditional Democratic vision is far more
dangerous than that of the inept, eccentric melange now guiding American
foreign policy.
But vice-president Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the
neoconservatives and eclectic hawks in Bush's administration are
oblivious to the consequences of their recommendations or to the way
they shock America's overseas friends. Many of the President's key
advisers possess aggressive, essentially academic geopolitical visions
that assume overwhelming American military and economic power. Eccentric
interpretations of Holy Scripture inspire yet others, including Bush
himself. Most of these crusaders employ an amorphous nationalist AND
MESSIANIC rhetoric that makes it impossible to predict exactly how Bush
will mediate between very diverse, often quirky influences, though thus
far he has favored advocates of wanton use of American military might
throughout the world. No one close to the President acknowledges the
limits of its power--limits that are political and, as Korea and Vietnam
proved, military too.
Kerry voted for many of Bush's key foreign and domestic measures and he
is, at best, an indifferent candidate. His statements and interviews
over the past months dealing with foreign affairs have mostly been both
vague and incoherent, though he is explicitly and ardently pro-Israel
and explicitly for regime-change in Venezuela. His policies on the
Middle East are identical to Bush's and this alone will prevent the
alliance with Europe from being reconstructed. On Iraq, even as violence
there escalated and Kerry finally had a crucial issue with which to win
the election, his position has been indistinguishable from the
President's. "Until" an Iraqi armed force can replace it, Kerry wrote in
the April 13 Washington Post, the American military has to stay in
Iraq--"preferably helped by NATO." "No matter who is elected president
in November, we will perservere in that mission" to build a stable,
pluralistic Iraq--which, I must add, has never existed and is unlikely
to emerge in the foreseeable future. "It is a matter of national honor
and trust." He has promised to leave American troops in Iraq for his
entire first term if necessary, but he is vague about their subsequent
departure. Not even the scandal over the treatment of Iraqi prisoners
evoked Kerry's criticism despite the fact it has profoundly alienated a
politically decisive segment of the American public.
His statements on domestic policy in favor of fiscal restraint and lower
deficits, much less tax breaks for large corporations, are utterly
lacking in voter appeal. Kerry is packaging himself as an economic
conservative who is also strong on defense spending--a Clinton
clone--because that is precisely how he feels. His advisers are the same
investment bankers who helped Clinton get the nomination in 1992 and
then raised the funds to help him get elected and then defined his
economic policy. The most important of them is Robert Rubin, who became
Treasury secretary, and he and his cronies are running the Kerry
campaign and will also dictate his economic agenda should he win. These
are the same men whom Stiglitz attacks as advocates of the rich and
powerful.
Kerry is, to his core, an ambitious patrician educated in elite schools
and anything but a populist. He is neither articulate nor impressive as
a candidate or as someone who is able to formulate an alternative to
Bush's foreign and defense policies which themselves still have far more
in common with Clinton's than they have differences. To be critical of
Bush is scarcely justification for wishful thinking about Kerry,
although every presidential election produces such illusions. Although
the foreign and military policy goals of the Democrats and Republicans
since 1947 have been essentially consensual, both in terms of objectives
and the varied means--from covert to overt warfare--of attaining them,
there have been significant differences in the way they were expressed.
This was far less the case with Republican presidents and presidential
candidates for most of the twentieth century, and men like Taft, Hoover,
Eisenhower, or Nixon were very sedate by comparison to Reagan or the
present rulers in Washington. But style can be important and
inadvertently, the Bush administration's falsehoods, rudeness, and
preemptory demands have begun to destroy an alliance system that for the
world's peace should have been abolished long ago. In this context, it
is far more likely that the nations allied with the U. S. in the past
will be compelled to stress their own interests and go their own ways.
The Democrats are far less likely to continue that exceedingly desirable
process, a process ultimately much more condusive to peace in the world.
They will perpetuate the same adventurism and opportunism that began
generations ago and that Bush has merely built upon, the same dependence
on military means to solve political crises, the same interference with
every corner of the globe as if America has a divinely ordained mission
to muck around with all the world's problems. The Democrats' greater
finesse in justifying these policies is therefore more dangerous because
they will be made to seem more credible and keep alive alliances that
only reinforce the U.S.' refusal to acknowledge the limits of its power.
In the longer run, Kerry's pursuit of these aggressive goals will lead
eventually to a renewal of the dissolution of alliances, but in the
short-run he will attempt to rebuild them and European leaders will find
it considerably more difficult to refuse his demands than if Bush stays
in power--and that is to be deplored.
The Stakes For The World
Critics of American foreign policy will not rule Washington after this
election regardless of who wins. As dangerous as he is, Bush's
reelection is much more likely to produce the continued destruction of
the alliance system that is so crucial to American power in the long
run. Facts in no way imply moral judgments if we merely identify them.
One does not have to believe that "worse is better" but we have to
consider candidly the foreign policy consequences of a renewal of Bush's
mandate, not the least because it is likely.
Bush's policies have managed to alienate innumerable nations. Even
America's firmest allies--such as Britain, Australia, and Canada--are
compelled to ask themselves if issuance of blank checks to Washington is
in their national interest or if it undermines the tenure of parties in
power. Foreign affairs, as the terrorism in Madrid dramatically showed
in March, are too explosively volatile to permit uncritical endorsement
of American policies and parties in power can pay dearly, as in Spain,
where the people were always overwhelmingly opposed to entering the war
and the ruling party snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. More
important, in terms of cost and price, are the innumerable victims among
the people. The nations that have supported the Iraq war
enthusiastically, particularly Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, and
Australia, have made their populations especially vulnerable to
terrorism. They now have the expensive responsibility of trying to
protect them.
The Washington-based Pew Research Center report on public opinion
released on March 16, 2004 showed that a large and rapidly increasing
majority of the French, Germans, and even British want an independent
European foreign policy, reaching 75 percent in France in March 2004
compared to 60 percent two years earlier. The U.S. "favorability rating"
plunged to 38 percent in France and Germany. But even in Britain it fell
from 75 to 58 percent and the proportion of Britain's population who
supported the decision to go to war in Iraq dropped from 61 percent in
May 2003 to 43 percent in March 2004. Blair's domestic credibility,
after the Labour Party placed third in the June 10 local and European
elections, is at its nadir. Right after the political debacle in Spain
the president of Poland, where a growing majority of the people has
always been opposed to sending troops to Iraq or keeping them there,
complained that Washington "misled" him on Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction and hinted that Poland might withdraw its 2,400 troops from
Iraq earlier than previously scheduled. In Italy, by last May 71 percent
of the people favored withdrawing the 2,700 Italian troops in Iraq no
later than June 30, and leaders of the main opposition have already
declared they will withdraw them if they win the spring 2006
elections--a promise they and other antiwar parties in Britain and Spain
used in the mid-June European Parliament elections to increase
significantly their power. The issue now is whether nations like Poland,
Italy, or The Netherlands can afford to isolate themselves from the
major European powers and their own public opinion to remain a part of
the increasingly quixotic and unilateralist American-led "coalition of
the willing". The political liabilities of remaining staying close to
Washington are obvious, the advantages non-existent.
What has happened in Spain is a harbinger of the future, further
isolating the American government in its adventures. Four more nations
of the 30-some members of the "coalition of the willing" have already
withdrawn their troops, and the Ukraine--with its 1,600 soldiers--will
soon follow suit. The Bush Administration sought to unite nations behind
the Iraq War with a gargantuan lie--that Hussein had "weapons of mass
destruction" --and failed spectacularly. Meanwhile, terrorism is more
robust than ever and its arguments have far more credibility in the
Muslim world. The Iraq War energized Al Qaeda and has tied down America,
dividing its alliances as never before. Conflict in Iraq may escalate,
as it has since March, creating a protracted armed conflict with Shiites
and Sunnis that could last many months, even years. Will the nations
that have sent troops there keep them there indefinitely, as Washington
is increasingly likely to ask them to do? Can the political leaders
afford concession to insatiable American demands?
Elsewhere, Washington opposes the major European nations on Iran, in
part because the neoconservatives and realists within its own ranks are
deeply divided, and the same is true of its relations with Japan, South
Korea, and China on how to deal with North Korea. America's effort to
assert its moral and ideological superiority, crucial elements in its
postwar hegemony, is failing--badly.
America's justification for its attack on Iraq compelled France and
Germany to become far more independent on foreign policy, far earlier,
than they had intended or were prepared to do. In a way that was
inconceivable two years ago NATO's future role is now being questioned.
Europe's future defense arrangements are today an open question but
there will be some sort of European military force independent of NATO
and American control. Germany and France strongly oppose the Bush
doctrine of preemption. Tony Blair, however much he intends to continue
acting as a proxy for the U.S. on military questions, must return
Britain to the European project, and his willingness since late 2003 to
emphasize his nation's role in Europe reflects political necessities. To
do otherwise is to alienate his increasingly powerful neighbors and risk
losing elections.
Even more dangerous, the Bush Administration has managed to turn what
was in the mid-1990s a blossoming cordial friendship with the former
Soviet Union into an increasingly tense relationship. Despite a 1997
non-binding American pledge not to station substantial numbers of combat
troops in the territories of new members, NATO last March incorporated
seven East European nations and is now on Russia's very borders and
Washington is in the process of establishing an undetermined but
significant number of bases in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Russia has
stated repeatedly that U.S. encirclement requires that it remain a
military superpower and modernize its delivery systems so that it will
be more than a match for the increasingly expensive and ambitious
missile defense system and space weapons the Pentagon is now building.
It has 5,286 nuclear warheads and 2,922 intercontinental missiles to
deliver them. We now see a dangerous and costly renewal of the arms race.
Because it regards America's ambitions in the former Soviet bloc as
provocation, Russia threatened in February of this year to pull out of
the crucial Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, which has yet to come
into force. "I would like to remind the representatives of [NATO]",
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told a security conference in Munich last
February, "that with its expansion they are beginning to operate in the
zone of vitally important interests of our country." By dint of its
increasingly unilateral rampages, without U.N. authority, where Russia's
veto power on the Security Council is, in Ivanov's wistful words-- one
of the "major factors for ensuring global stability", the U.S. has made
international relations "very dangerous." (See Wade Boese, "Russia, NATO
at Loggerheads Over Military Bases," Arms Control Today, March 2004; Los
Angeles Times, March 26, 2004. ) The question Washington's allies will
ask themselves is whether their traditional alliances have far more
risks than benefits--and if they are now necessary.
In the case of China, Bush's key advisers publicly assigned the highest
priority to confronting its burgeoning military and geopolitical power
the moment they came to office. But China's military budget is growing
rapidly--12 per cent this coming year--and the European Union wants to
lift its 15-year old arms embargo and get a share of the enticingly
large market. The Bush Administration, of course, is strongly resisting
any relaxation of the export ban. Establishing bases on China's western
borders is the logic of its ambitions.
By installing bases in small or weak Eastern European and Central Asian
nations the United States is not so much engaged in "power projection"
against an amorphously defined terrorism as again confronting Russia and
China in an open-ended context. Such confrontations may have profoundly
serious and protracted consequences neither America's allies nor its own
people have any inclination to support. Even some Pentagon analysts (see
for example, Dr. Stephen J. Blank's "Toward a New U.S. Strategy in
Asia," U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, February 24, 2004) have
warned against this strategy because any American attempt to save failed
states in the Caucasus or Central Asia, implicit in its new obligations,
will risk exhausting what are ultimately its finite military resources.
The political crisis now wracking Uzbekistan makes this fear very real.
There is no way to predict what emergencies will arise or what these
commitments entail, either for the U. S. or its allies, not the least
because--as Iraq proved last year and Vietnam long before it--America's
intelligence on the capabilities and intentions of possible enemies
against which it blares its readiness to "preempt" is so utterly faulty.
Without accurate information a state can believe and do anything, and
this is the predicament the Bush Administration's allies are in. It is
simply not to their national interest, much less to the political
interests of those now in power or the security of their people, to
pursue foreign policies based on a blind, uncritical acceptance of
fictions or flamboyant adventurism premised on false premises and
information. Such acceptance is far too open-ended, both in terms of
potential time and in the political costs involved. If Bush is
reelected, America's allies and friends will have to confront such stark
choices, a process that will redefine and probably shatter existing
alliances. Many nations, including the larger, powerful ones, will
embark on independent, realistic foreign policies, and the dramatic
events in Spain have reinforced this likelihood.
But the United States will be more prudent, and the world will be far
safer, only if it is constrained by a lack of allies and isolated. And
that is happening.
By Mariam Karouny and Luke Baker
Tue Sep 14, 2004 09:32 AM ET
BAGHDAD (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6231537&src=eDialog/
GetContent§ion=news
2) US missile attack kills 13 civilians in Iraq
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
Independent Home News
13 September 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=561021&host=3&dir=75
3) Voices in the Wilderness is following developments
as closely as possible; background information and brief
biographies w/photographs, and other mementos, of these
extraordinary people affiliated with Bridges to Baghdad -
two of whom were dear friends of Kathy Kelly and other
Voices participants; -- also the petition can be found at
Voices website
soon as available.
4) Bush to Shift Iraq Funds to Boost Security
By Adam Entous
Mon Sep 13, 2004 08:44 PM ET
HOLLAND, Mich. (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6224882&src=eDialog/
GetContent§ion=news
5) Tali Fahima, a Jewish peace activist, was sentenced
today to 4 months of "administrative detention" by an
Israeli court. The "emergency hour" legislation upon
which this detention was carried out dates from the
British mandate period - an excellent example of how
Zionist colonialism is directed not aonly against the
native Arab population but also against those Jews
which dare to oppose the Israeli Apartheid regime. For
more information see:
http://oznik.com/news/040907.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1298770,00.html
What follows is the letter sent to Amnesty
International and other civil rights organizations and
media.
6) Excellent flash presentation that seriously questions what
happened at the Pentagon that fateful day 911
http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf
7) Frances Crowe, 2004: You have a Legal Right to be a
Conscientious Objector
http://www.traprockpeace.org/frances_crowe.html
with description and links to audio of interview
(both mp3 and RealAudio)
8) Why Bush May Well Be The Lesser Evil
Elections, Alliances and Empire
by Gabriel Kolko
CounterPunch - Sept 13, 2004
http://www.counterpunch.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) Blast in Baghdad Rebel District Kills at Least 47
By Mariam Karouny and Luke Baker
Tue Sep 14, 2004 09:32 AM ET
BAGHDAD (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6231537&src=eDialog/
GetContent§ion=news
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A huge car bomb blast tore through a
crowded market close to a Baghdad police headquarters building
Tuesday, killing at least 47 people in the deadliest single
attack in the Iraqi capital in six months.
An Internet statement in the name of the Tawhid and Jihad
group led by Jordanian al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
claimed responsibility for the blast, which it said was carried
out by a suicide attacker. Washington says Zarqawi is its top
enemy in Iraq and has put a $25 million price on his head.
"With the grace of God, a lion from our martyrdom brigades
was successful in striking a center for apostate police
volunteers," said the statement, which could not be verified.
The Health Ministry said 47 people were killed and 114
wounded. The Interior Ministry said at least one car bomb was
used in the attack in Haifa street, a flashpoint area notorious
as a stronghold of criminals and guerrillas.
In a separate incident in the restive town of Baquba,
northeast of Baghdad, gunmen opened fire on a police minibus.
The town's police chief said 12 people were killed. Zarqawi's
group also claimed responsibility for that attack.
Guerrillas also blew up oil pipelines in northern Iraq,
cutting northern oil exports and forcing a nearby power station
to be shut down. The attack meant large areas of Iraq were
without electricity from 3 a.m. onward.
"ALL I SAW WAS BLOOD"
The Baghdad blast caused carnage in the crowded market and
streets near the police headquarters building.
"I was standing there talking to my friend when suddenly
all I saw was blood, and my friend lying dead," said an Iraqi
man who gave his name as Zafer, speaking from his hospital bed
with blood and scratches on his face and bandages on his
stomach.
Hospital workers hosed pools of blood from the floor.
At the blast site, rescuers pulled bodies from mangled
market stalls. The area was littered with shoes, clothes and
body parts, as well as fruit and vegetables from the market.
Bloodstained corpses lay on pavements strewn with chairs,
glass and rubble from blown-out shopfronts. Dazed bystanders
vainly checked bodies for signs of life.
Smoke from blazing vehicles in the middle of the street
billowed into the sky as fire crews tried to douse the flames.
A huge crater was punched into the road. Ambulances with sirens
wailing ferried the dead and wounded to hospital as U.S.
helicopters buzzed overhead.
Sunday, guerrillas mounted multiple car bomb and mortar
attacks in central Baghdad, during a day of violence in which
more than 100 people were killed across the country.
Many of Sunday's casualties were also in Haifa Street,
where U.S. troops have repeatedly clashed with guerrillas.
Following Tuesday's bombing, U.S. troops again moved into
Haifa Street and appeared to be readying for an assault. They
told residents by loudspeaker to leave the area.
Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib visited the site to
condemn the perpetrators.
"They are targeting the Iraqi people and they are trying to
destroy Iraq. These powers won't stop the rebuilding of Iraq,"
he said. "There will be no space for the terrorists and the
enemies of Iraq."
SURGE IN VIOLENCE
Near Mosul, gunmen opened fire on a U.S. patrol Tuesday,
killing one soldier and wounding five, the U.S. military said.
Since the invasion to oust Saddam Hussein last year, at
least 762 U.S. troops have been killed in action. The total
Pentagon death toll, including non-hostile deaths, is 1,013.
Fighting has surged in Iraq over the last few days after
U.S.-led forces launched a drive to pacify areas of the country
under guerrilla control ahead of elections due in January.
The American military has mounted several air strikes on
Falluja, a city controlled by insurgents. It says the attacks
have targeted militants loyal to Zarqawi, who they say are
based in the city.
U.S. forces have also launched an offensive in Tal Afar, a
mainly Turkmen town close to the Syrian border in northern Iraq
which it says has become a haven for foreign fighters.
The Health Ministry has said at least 60 people were killed
in fighting in Tal Afar over the past week.
(c) Copyright Reuters 2004.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) US missile attack kills 13 civilians in Iraq
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
Independent Home News
13 September 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=561021&host=3&dir=75
US missile attack kills 13 civilians in Iraq
Andreas Whittam Smith: I know who I won't be voting for at
the general election
"I am a journalist. I'm dying, I'm dying," screamed Mazen
al-Tumeizi, a correspondent for the Arabic television
channel al-Arabiya, after shrapnel from a rocket fired by
an American helicopter interrupted his live broadcast and
slammed into his back.
Twelve others were killed and 61 wounded by rockets from
two US helicopters on Haifa Street in central Baghdad. They
had fired into a crowd milling around a burning Bradley
fighting vehicle that had been hit by a rocket or bomb
hours before.
It comes on one of Iraq's bloodiest days for weeks in which at
least 110 people died in clashes around the country. The Health
Ministry said the worst casualties were in Baghdad and in
Tal Afar near the Syrian border, where 51 people died.
"The helicopter fired on the Bradley to destroy it after it had
been hit earlier and it was on fire," said Major Phil Smith of the
1st Cavalry Division. "It was for the safety of the people around it."
Mr Tumeizi, a Palestinian, was the sixth Arab journalist to be
killed by American troops since Baghdad was captured last year.
The videotape of his last moments shows how Mr Tumeizi was
killed during a live television broadcast, with the Bradley blazing
in the distance and a crowd of young men celebrating its
destruction, but it shows no reason why the helicopters should
open fire.
Many of those hit by the rockets in Haifa Street, in a tough
neighbourhood of tower blocks notorious as a centre of resistance
to the occupation, were on their way to work. "We are just ordinary
workers. We are just trying to live," said Haidar Yahyiah, 23, sobbing
with pain from a broken leg as he lay in bed in nearby Karkh hospital.
He and others described how they had been woken by the sound of
explosions in Haifa Street in the early dawn. They had been sleeping
on the roofs because it is too hot in the Baghdad summer to sleep
inside. They saw a vehicle on fire. But it was several hours later, at
about 8am, that they sallied out.
By then US troops had already removed four lightly wounded soldiers
from the Bradley. Young men and children had swarmed over the
vehicle, cheering triumphantly, waving black flags and setting it ablaze
again. The US military said that a Kiowa, a light reconnaissance and
attack helicopter, fired rockets at the Bradley to destroy weapons and
ammunition on board. But it is evident from the al-Arabiya video that
the rockets landed among people standing or walking far away from
the Bradley.
Hamid Ali Khadum was on his way to work when he was hit. "At first
I thought I had just tripped over dead people but then I realised I was
wounded myself," he said as he lay in Karkh hospital waiting for an
operation on his heavily bandaged left leg. The rest of his body was
peppered with shrapnel. A male nurse standing nearby said: "This
happens not just in Haifa Street but in all Baghdad, and not just in
Baghdad but in all Iraq."
The slaughter in Haifa Street took place only a few hundred yards
from the heavily defended International Zone (what used to be called
the Green Zone) which houses the headquarters of the Iraqi
government and its American ally. It is a measure of the military
failure of the US occupation that it has failed to assume control of
this Sunni Muslim neighbourhood in the heart of the capital.
Early yesterday, insurgents fired more than a dozen rockets and
mortars into the International Zone. The zone contains the US
embassy and Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace.
There was violence elsewhere in Baghdad. Colonel Alaa Bashir, the
police chief of the Yarmouk district in west Baghdad, was killed by a
bomb while on patrol. A suicide bomber blew himself up in a vehicle
packed with explosives at the gates to Abu Ghraib prison _ he was the
only one to die. A US plane attacked a machine-gun team from the
Mehdi Army in their stronghold in Sadr City in east Baghdad.
In Ramadi, a city controlled by insurgents west of Baghdad, 10 people
were killed and 40 wounded in fighting, according to the local hospital.
A US Humvee was also set ablaze, but casualties were unknown.
Also in Middle East
US missile attack kills 13 civilians in Iraq
'Nine killed' as US jets bomb Fallujah
Turkey reacts with fury to massive US assault on northern Iraqi city
US enter Samarrah during new push against insurgents
Despair in Iraq over the forgotten victims of US invasion
(c) 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Voices in the Wilderness is following developments
as closely as possible; background information and brief
biographies w/photographs, and other mementos, of these
extraordinary people affiliated with Bridges to Baghdad -
two of whom were dear friends of Kathy Kelly and other
Voices participants; -- also the petition can be found at
Voices website
soon as available.
Large manifestations have taken place in Iraq (including one of women
and children) and in Italy where vigils as well have been conducted that
may yet continue
(Voices does not make accusations, but in many commentaries, one
reads that no one stands to gain from these people's abduction, other
than the US puppet govt. under former CIA assassin Allawi.)
WRL, WRL West and UPJ both in the bay area and nationally are
connected to the people being held hostage who have been
opposing the occupation, as many of us opposed the sanctions,
Gulf War I, and Saddam Hussein and his U.S. support in its day.
Please, let's all do what we can,
Jim Haber
WRL West, San Francisco
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Hany Khalil"
Date: September 13, 2004 11:16:27 PM PDT
To:
Subject: [UFPJ] Petition for Release of Italian/Iraqi Hostages
Reply-To: hanykhalil@igc.org
Dear UFPJ member group:
The Italian and Iraqi hostages abducted on September 7th have not
yet been released. As you may know, all four worked with Bridges
to Baghdad, an Italian aid group that worked against the sanctions
in the 90s and is a core member of the Occupation Watch Center,
along with United for Peace and Justice and UFPJ member group
Code Pink.
It's important that we do what we can to convince their captors that
these people stand against the occupation, not with it, and should
be released. The petition calling for their release has not been
posted at http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/freeourfriends .
You can sign it directly online. We encourage your group to sign it ASAP.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Bush to Shift Iraq Funds to Boost Security
By Adam Entous
Mon Sep 13, 2004 08:44 PM ET
HOLLAND, Mich. (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/
newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6224882&src=eDialog/
GetContent§ion=news
HOLLAND, Mich. (Reuters) - Faced with mounting violence in Iraq,
the Bush administration plans on Tuesday to propose shifting $3.46
billion from Iraqi water, power and other reconstruction projects to
improve security, boost oil output and prepare for elections scheduled
for January.
Administration and congressional officials briefed on the plan said it
cleared the way for President Bush, who was campaigning in Michigan,
to forgive 95 percent of Iraq's prewar debts to the United States totaling
about $4 billion.
The changes, which will require congressional approval, reflect a
realization within the administration that without better security,
long-term rebuilding is impossible.
Of the more than $18 billion approved for Iraq's reconstruction, only
about $1 billion has been spent so far.
"This is adjusting a plan in response to changing circumstances," said
a U.S. official who asked not to be named. "One of the changing
circumstances is the need to focus more urgently and more quickly
on developing Iraqi security capability. Another is the need to accelerate
employment of Iraqis."
According to a document outlining the plan, a copy of which was seen
by Reuters, the administration would shift $1.804 billion now earmarked
for water, sewage and electricity projects to expand security forces.
This would include adding 45,000 Iraqi police officers and 16,000
officials for border enforcement.
Another $180 million would help plan for elections and strengthen
local governments.
The number of U.S. troops killed since the March 2003 invasion passed
the 1,000 mark last week, while the number of wounded topped 7,000,
and administration officials say the anti-U.S. insurgency may intensify
in the months ahead.
White House national security advisor Condoleezza Rice told CBS's
"Face the Nation" on Sunday that "there will undoubtedly be violence
up until the elections and probably even during the elections."
Secretary of State Colin Powell added, "This insurgency isn't going
to go away."
In addition to the funds to bolster Iraqi security and election planning,
the administration will shift $450 million from refined oil purchases
to expand Iraq's oil capacity.
The document said the funds would be used for "specifically targeted
oil infrastructure projects that will increase Iraqi oil production by
650,000 barrels per day by mid-2005."
The Bush administration wants to expand oil production and exports
at the Kirkuk oil field, including building a new pipeline and improving
facilities at Rumaylah oil field.
A further $380 million would be used to boost economic development.
Some of that money would also be handed out in resettlement aid to
300,000 Kurds. A separate $286 million would help expand job
training programs.
The administration would set aside $360 million to cover the
"budget cost" of forgiving 95 percent of Iraqi debt to the United
States. The figure represents the current estimated amount of the
debt, largely run up during the 1980s.
The administration is required to seek congressional approval for
major changes in Iraq's reconstruction package, but congressional
aides said the White House now wants to ease those restrictions.
One aide complained that the administration was effectively seeking
a "blank check" to spend the money with minimal oversight.
Without authorization from Congress, the administration would only
be able to shift $800 million of the requested funds, the document
said. (Additional reporting by Anna Willard and Arshad Mohammed)
(c) Copyright Reuters 2004.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Tali Fahima, a Jewish peace activist, was sentenced
today to 4 months of "administrative detention" by an
Israeli court. The "emergency hour" legislation upon
which this detention was carried out dates from the
British mandate period - an excellent example of how
Zionist colonialism is directed not aonly against the
native Arab population but also against those Jews
which dare to oppose the Israeli Apartheid regime. For
more information see:
http://oznik.com/news/040907.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1298770,00.html
What follows is the letter sent to Amnesty
International and other civil rights organizations and
media.
Call for Urgent Action: Tali Fahima under
Administrative Detention
At Sunday, September 5, 2004, Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli
minister of defence, issued an order based on "secret
evidence" to hold Ms. Tali Fahima (an Israeli peace
activist) under administrative detention for four
months. During the 28 days period before this order
was issued Ms. Fahima had been under arrest without
charges, her detention extended according to "secret
inquiry material" that was not shown to the accused or
to her defense lawyers, and was intensively
interrogated by the GSS (Israeli General Security
Service). This was the second detention of Ms. Fahima
this year. On May 24, 2004 she was arrested and held
for 6 days under GSS interrogation. On May 30 she was
released without any charges, and sent to 4 days of
house arrest.
During the 28 days of interrogation Ms. Fahima was
kept in a small cell without windows for 24 hours a
day. She was forced to sleep on a mattress on the
floor, the electricity light always on, and prevented
from receiving any visit by family members, as well as
writing or reading material. She was interrogated for
15 to 18 hours each day, forced to sit in an uneasy
position with her hands cuffed behind her back. Most
of the time the interrogators are lecturing Tali on
politics in order to Âre-educate her, promising to
convert her into Âa good Jewish girl (sic). Physical
abuse is added to the philippics detailing the
interrogators' racist, primitive and reactionary views
on sex and politics.
Some days before her detention, Tali received a phone
call from a GSS agent that was involved in her
previous detention and interrogation. He requested to
meet her, informally, and mentioned that he knows she
has difficulties finding a job. Following the advice
of her lawyers, she refused to meet him. She was then
told that she is going to pay a heavy price.
Ms. Tali Fahima is a Jewish peace activist from Kiryat
Gat - a peripheral workers' township some 50 km. south
of Tel Aviv. She was brought up with two sisters by a
single hard-working mother, and worked as a secretary
at an advocate's office. Since the beginning of the
Intifada, she had gradually begun to lose her
confidence in the Israeli media. After intensive study
of the political situation and conversations with
Palestinians, she decided to see the facts with her
own eyes, and visited the Jenin refugee camp - the
well known target of past and present Israeli attacks
and devastation. Her stay in the refugee camp shocked
her. Ever since her visit in the Jenin refugee camp
she became active in support of the refugees. She,
together with a group of her friends, collected
contributions in order to reopen a youth club in the
camp, and kept contact with the camp's activists. Her
humanitarian work with Jenin camp's children - trying
to establish human solidarity between people in the
harshest conditions - was highly praised even by the
judge in the Israeli court that released her on May 30
after her first detention.
Ms. Fahima was never engaged in any kind of violent
activity. She is a peace activist, concentrating
mainly in humanitarian work and public acts. At the
end of 2003 Ms. Fahima declared on the Israeli media
that she is ready to serve as a human shield for Mr.
Zakariya Zbeida, a leading Jenin camp activist that
has already escaped several Israeli assassination
attempts. From that moment she, and her family, became
victims of systematic harassment: She was fired from
her job as a secretary and had great difficulties
finding a job. She had to leave her flat and meanwhile
stayed at the homes of relatives and friends. The
Israeli media published information from "reliable"
(and anonymous) sources which claimed that she is
suspected of conspiracy to carry out a terror attack.
A campaign of demonization is being waged through the
media against Tali by the Israeli security services
and politicians. The voice of the international
community is indispensable in order to protect her
freedom and personal security as well as those of her
family, which is also continuously threatened. The
only "crime" Tali is really guilty of is having broken
the unwritten Apartheid laws of Israel, which forbid
any Jew under the harshest penalties to meet the
victims of Zionism in the refugee camps of the
Occupied Territories and beyond.
Personal information:
Ms. Tali Fahima, Israeli ID no. 038292447, date of
birth: 8.2.1976, female, single, secretary in
advocateÂs office hometown: Kiryat Gat town in the
south of Israel.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) RNC Reportbacks
The Ronald Reagan Home for the Criminally Insane
had a great time annoying Republicans and entertaining
New Yorkers and the press during the Republican
National Circus.
We have a bunch of photos and articles posted on our website
that we hope you will enjoy.
www.InsaneReagan.com
www.InsaneReagan.com
We will also be participating in two RNC reportbacks in
San Francisco next weekend.
Friday, September 17th
Dolores Park 8:00- 10:00pm
Indybay and Street Level TV are holding a guerilla film
screening of footage from the RNC shot by Bay Area video
guerillas and live reportbacks from activists.
Sunday, September 19
Cellspace 2050 Bryant St. (between Mariposa+18th)
7:00- 10:00pm
Direct Action to Stop the War (DASW) is throwing a
reportback party that will include video, live music
by David Rovics and Dave Lippman and activist testimonials
on the joys of direct action and tell all tales of what went
on behind the walls of Guantanamo on the Hudson.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) Excellent flash presentation that seriously questions what
happened at the Pentagon that fateful day 911
http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf
Ps, Clark webmaster http://2012AD.com/ http://hempevolution.org/
http://thebikehut.com/ http://viktervz.com/ http://caravida.com/
http://shuttlepro.net/ Remember you're the One!
911 inside job
http://www.wtc7.net - http://www.physics911.org - http://www.911-strike.com
http://www.oilempire.us - http://www.dieoff.org - http://www.peakoil.net
http://bombsinsidewtc.dk - http://www.911review.com
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca -http://www.cooperativeresearch.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) Frances Crowe, 2004: You have a Legal Right to be a
Conscientious Objector
http://www.traprockpeace.org/frances_crowe.html
with description and links to audio of interview
(both mp3 and RealAudio)
Frances Crowe, 2004: You have a Legal Right to be a
Conscientious Objector
Frances Crowe, now 85, is one of the founders of Traprock Peace Center. She
answers questions for young people across the country, when Aaron Ford, a
student at Greenfield Community College and Sunny Miller, Exec. Director of
Traprock, sought out her depth of wisdom for this 2004 interview on
conscientious objection.
With clarity and compassion, Frances lays out the facts, one after another,
informing young men and women today how to establish their human right to
not participate in killing, and their legal right in the United States to
not participate in war. Eighty-three percent of US survey respondents say
they don't want a draft, but last year draft boards were asked to fill
vacancies at the local level. Frances describes immediate steps young
people and supportive friends and family can take. She urges established
conscientious objectors to speak up, bringing news everywhere that:
"Anyone who is conscientiously opposed to participating in any war facing
them, on moral, ethical, philosophical or religious grounds, with the same
degree of intensity as you would hold a religious belief, has a right not to
be drafted."
Frances explains that Dan Seeger helped establish this legal standard by
taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court. Previously, only some with
a religious objection to war were not pressed into military service.
These are the four questions draft boards have traditionally asked. Writing
your answers now helps you to get clear, and talking about your process may
help others clarify their positions.
1. What do you object to about war now? What is the nature of
your belief-- is your objection moral, philosophical, ethical or religous?
2. Where did those beliefs come from? What influenced you?
3. How is that objection showing up in your life?
4. Would you be willing to serve as a military medic? (Many would
not, because the priority of military medicine is not to heal the wounded,
but to get people back to fighting -- and killing -- as quickly as
possible.)
Frances asserts that young people have a duty to get clear about what it is
about war they object to, (war now, not past wars) even as war propaganda is
heavily funded, sweeps to find undocumented workers and threats of
deportation intimidate many into signing up, and promises of money for
college create tremendous pressure to submit to participating. Even though
there is no place provided on draft registration cards, you can write in the
margin, "I am a conscientious objector." Before you mail in your
registration card, make a copy for yourself and date that by sending it to
yourself, signed receipt requested. Leaving it sealed in the envelope helps
create a paper trail of your history as a conscientious objector. Begin now
to build a file where you can add poems, research papers, letters of
recommendation, notes on conversations with family, soldiers, activists and
clergy, or the music, movies, and cultural events that influence you to
object to war. If the draft is instituted, you might have as little as 30
days to prepare to go before your local draft board. Exploring your
conscience now or discussing your process in a group setting can support you
as you develop clarity about your thinking and feeling.
With the influence of Quaker tradition
and feminist thinking, Frances Crowe
began doing group draft counseling in
the basement of her home in
Northampton in groups and circles, in
1967, despite the refusal of a
newspaper to print announcements. With
neighbors she founded the Northampton
Draft Information Center in 1968, which
operated full-time until the draft
ended. Young men, family members,
young women and some active members of the
military attended. In the first year alone,
2000 participated. During four
years of thoughtful group discussions,
no one decided to fake a physical or
mental condition, cut off a finger, or
leave for Canada. All were clear and
empowered by positions and statements
as conscientious objectors, as the
misguided tragedies of the Vietnam war
continued to unfold. Many went on to
fruitful lives in healthcare, teaching or
other public service.
Crowe describes her own progression
from working in a factory during World
War II, to working for peace after the
bombings of civilian populations in
Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now she works to reduce her reliance
on oil - by car-pooling, riding the bus,
walking to downtown and flying only
in emergencies. Frances Crowe says she
cannot pay for killing and has become
a war tax refuser.
The audio interview lasts 38 minutes, 32 seconds.
It is followed by an Afterword (2 minutes) summarized here:
Aaron: Is there anything I can do right away?
Frances; Yes! Write to your draft board
today. You can hand carry your
letter to the post office, make a copy or
two to keep, and mail one to
yourself, return receipt requested.
At the post office you can get the
address of the selective service board,
because draft registration goes on
at every post office.
This interview and the Afterword are
offered to campus organizers and radio
stations, or for use as a personal gift,
as the fall 2004 school year
begins. Please join us in celebrating
25 years of collaboration in a
Neighbors Network to End War since
Traprock Peace Center's founding in 1979.
We appreciate neighborly wisdom,
initiative and mutual support.
This summary is printed and distributed
by Traprock Peace Center 103a Keets
Road, Deerfield, 01342. Tel: 413 773-7427
For more resources on why you object to
war, see and hear about the
unfolding tragedy of uranium weapons, at
http://www.traprockpeace.org
You can find many links to other groups,
check the calendar, or post your
meetings on conscientious objection on
the calendar.
For other resources on conscientious
objection, see http://www.objector.org
and http://www.nisbco.org
For campus organizing see http://www.campusantiwar.net
Sunny Miller
Traprock Peace Center
103A Keets Road
Deerfield, MA 01342
413-773-7427; Fax 413-773-7507
http://traprockpeace.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) Why Bush May Well Be The Lesser Evil
Elections, Alliances and Empire
by Gabriel Kolko
CounterPunch - Sept 13, 2004
http://www.counterpunch.org
Alliances have been a major cause of wars throughout modern history,
removing inhibitions that might otherwise have caused Germany, France
and countless nations to reflect much more cautiously before embarking
on death and destruction. The dissolution of all alliances is a crucial
precondition of a world without wars.
The United States' strength, to an important extent, has rested on its
ability to convince other nations that it was to their vital interests
to see America prevail in its global role. With the loss of that ability
there will be a fundamental change in the international system, a change
whose implications and consequences may ultimately be as far-reaching as
the dissolution of the Soviet bloc. The scope of America's world role is
now far more dangerous and ambitious than when Communism existed, but it
was fear of the USSR that alone gave NATO its raison d'etre and provided
Washington with the justification for its global pretensions. Enemies
have disappeared and new ones--many once former allies and congenial
states--have taken their places. The United States, to a degree to which
it is itself uncertain of, needs alliances. But even friendly nations
are less likely than ever to be bound into complaisant "coalitions of
the willing'.
Nothing in President Bush's extraordinarily vague doctrine, promulgated
on September 19, 2002, of fighting "preemptive" wars, unilaterally if
necessary, was a fundamentally new departure. Since the 1890s,
regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats were in office, the
U.S. has intervened in countless ways--sending in the Marines,
installing and bolstering friendly tyrants--in the western hemisphere to
determine the political destinies of innumerable southern nations. The
Democratic Administration that established the United Nations explicitly
regarded the hemisphere as the U.S. sphere of influence, and at the same
time created the IMF and World Bank to police the world economy.
Indeed, it was the Democratic Party that created most of the pillars of
postwar American foreign policy, from the Truman Doctrine in 1947 and
NATO through the institutionalization of the arms race and the core
illusion that weapons and firepower are a solution to many of the
world's political problems. So the Democrats share, in the name of a
truly "bipartisan" consensus, equal responsibility for both the
character and dilemmas of America's foreign strategy today. President
Jimmy Carter initiated the Afghanistan adventure in July 1979, hoping to
bog down the Soviets there as the Americans had been in Vietnam. And it
was Carter who first encouraged Saddam Hussein to confront Iranian
fundamentalism, a policy President Reagan continued.
In his 2003 book The Roaring Nineties Joseph E. Stiglitz, chairman of
the President's Council of Economic Advisers from 1993 to 1997, argues
that the Clinton Administration intensified the "hegemonic legacy" in
the world economy, and Bush is just following along. The 1990s, Stiglitz
writes, was "A decade of unparalleled American influence over the global
economy" that Democratic financiers and fiscal conservatives in key
posts defined, "in which one economic crisis seemed to follow another."
The U.S. created trade barriers and gave large subsidies to its own
agribusiness but countries in financial straits were advised and often
compelled to cut spending and "adopt policies that were markedly
different from those that we ourselves had adopted." The scale of
domestic and global peculation by the Clinton and Bush administrations
can be debated but they were enormous in both cases. In foreign and
military affairs, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have
suffered from the same procurement fetish, believing that expensive
weapons are superior to realistic political strategies. The same
illusions produced the Vietnam War--and disaster. Elegant strategies
promising technological routes to victory have been with us since the
late 1940s, but they are essentially public relations exercises intended
to encourage more orders for arms manufacturers, justifications for
bigger budgets for the rival military services. During the Clinton years
the Pentagon continued to concoct grandiose strategies, demanding--and
getting--new weapons to implement them. There are many ways to measure
defense expenditures over time but--minor annual fluctuations
notwithstanding--the consensus between the two parties on the Pentagon's
budgets has flourished since 1945. In January 2000 Clinton added $115
billion to the Pentagon's five-year plan, far more than the Republicans
were calling for. When Clinton left office the Pentagon had over a half
trillion dollars in the major weapons procurement pipeline, not counting
the ballistic missile defense systems, a pure boondoggle that cost over
$71 billion by 1999. The dilemma, as both CIA and senior Clinton
officials correctly warned, was that terrorists were more likely to
strike the American homeland than some nation against which the military
could retaliate. This fundamental disparity between hardware and reality
has always existed and September 11, 2001 showed how vulnerable and weak
the U.S. has become, a theme readers can explore in my book, Another
Century of War?
The war in Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 brought to a head the future
of NATO and the alliance, and especially Washington's deepening anxiety
regarding Germany's possible independent role in Europe. Well before
Bush took office, the Clinton Administration resolved never again to
allow its allies to inhibit or define its strategy. Bush's policies,
notwithstanding the brutal way in which they have been expressed or
implemented, follow directly and logically from this crucial decision.
NATO members' refusal to contribute the soldiers and equipment essential
to end warlordism and allow fair elections to be held in Afghanistan (it
sent five times as many troops to Kosovo in 1999), is the logic of
America's bipartisan disdain for the alliance.
But the world today is increasingly dangerous for the U. S. and
communism's demise has called into fundamental question the core
premises of the post-1945 alliance system. More nations have nuclear
weapons and means of delivering them; destructive small arms are much
more abundant (thanks to swelling American arms exports which grew from
32 percent of the world trade in 1987 to 43 percent in 1997); there are
more local and civil wars than ever, especially in regions like Eastern
Europe which had not experienced any for nearly a half-century; and
there is terrorism--the poor and weak man's ultimate weapon--on a scale
that has never existed. The political, economic, and cultural causes of
instability and conflict are growing, and expensive weapons are
irrelevant--save to the balance sheets of those who make them.
So long as the future is to a large degree--to paraphrase Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--"unknowable", it is not in the national
interest of America's traditional allies to perpetuate the relationships
created from 1945 to 1990. Through ineptness and a vague ideology of
American power that acknowledges no limits on its global ambitions, the
Bush Administration has lunged into unilateralist initiatives and
adventurism that discount consultations with its friends, much less the
United Nations. The outcome has been serious erosion of the alliance
system upon which U.S. foreign policy from 1947 onwards was based. With
the proliferation of destructive weaponry and growing political
instability, the world is becoming increasingly dangerous--and so is
membership in alliances.
If Bush is reelected then the international order may be very different
in 2008 than it is today, let alone 1999. Regardless of who is the next
president, there is no reason to believe that objective assessments of
the costs and consequences of its actions will significantly alter
America's foreign policy priorities over the next four years. If the
Democrats win they will attempt, in the name of "progressive
internationalism", to reconstruct the alliance system as it existed
before the Yugoslav war of 1999, when the Clinton Administration turned
against the veto powers built into NATO's structure. There is important
bipartisan support for resurrecting the Atlanticism that Bush is in the
process of smashing, and it was best reflected in the Council on Foreign
Relations' banal March 2004 report on the "transatlantic alliance",
which Henry Kissinger helped direct and which both influential
Republicans and Wall Street leaders endorsed. Traditional elites are
desperate to see NATO and the Atlantic system restored to their old
glory. Their vision, premised on the expansionist assumptions that have
guided American foreign policy since 1945, was best articulated the same
month in a book, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership, by
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Carter's National Security adviser.
Brzezinski rejects the Bush Administration's counterproductive rhetoric
that so alienates former and potential future allies. But he regards
American power as central to stability in every part of world and his
global vision no less ambitious than the Bush Administration's. He is
for the U.S. maintaining "a comprehensive technological edge over all
potential rivals" and calls for the transformation of "America's
prevailing power into a co-optive hegemony--one in which leadership is
exercised more through shared conviction with enduring allies than by
assertive domination". Precisely because it is much more salable to past
and potential allies, this traditional Democratic vision is far more
dangerous than that of the inept, eccentric melange now guiding American
foreign policy.
But vice-president Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the
neoconservatives and eclectic hawks in Bush's administration are
oblivious to the consequences of their recommendations or to the way
they shock America's overseas friends. Many of the President's key
advisers possess aggressive, essentially academic geopolitical visions
that assume overwhelming American military and economic power. Eccentric
interpretations of Holy Scripture inspire yet others, including Bush
himself. Most of these crusaders employ an amorphous nationalist AND
MESSIANIC rhetoric that makes it impossible to predict exactly how Bush
will mediate between very diverse, often quirky influences, though thus
far he has favored advocates of wanton use of American military might
throughout the world. No one close to the President acknowledges the
limits of its power--limits that are political and, as Korea and Vietnam
proved, military too.
Kerry voted for many of Bush's key foreign and domestic measures and he
is, at best, an indifferent candidate. His statements and interviews
over the past months dealing with foreign affairs have mostly been both
vague and incoherent, though he is explicitly and ardently pro-Israel
and explicitly for regime-change in Venezuela. His policies on the
Middle East are identical to Bush's and this alone will prevent the
alliance with Europe from being reconstructed. On Iraq, even as violence
there escalated and Kerry finally had a crucial issue with which to win
the election, his position has been indistinguishable from the
President's. "Until" an Iraqi armed force can replace it, Kerry wrote in
the April 13 Washington Post, the American military has to stay in
Iraq--"preferably helped by NATO." "No matter who is elected president
in November, we will perservere in that mission" to build a stable,
pluralistic Iraq--which, I must add, has never existed and is unlikely
to emerge in the foreseeable future. "It is a matter of national honor
and trust." He has promised to leave American troops in Iraq for his
entire first term if necessary, but he is vague about their subsequent
departure. Not even the scandal over the treatment of Iraqi prisoners
evoked Kerry's criticism despite the fact it has profoundly alienated a
politically decisive segment of the American public.
His statements on domestic policy in favor of fiscal restraint and lower
deficits, much less tax breaks for large corporations, are utterly
lacking in voter appeal. Kerry is packaging himself as an economic
conservative who is also strong on defense spending--a Clinton
clone--because that is precisely how he feels. His advisers are the same
investment bankers who helped Clinton get the nomination in 1992 and
then raised the funds to help him get elected and then defined his
economic policy. The most important of them is Robert Rubin, who became
Treasury secretary, and he and his cronies are running the Kerry
campaign and will also dictate his economic agenda should he win. These
are the same men whom Stiglitz attacks as advocates of the rich and
powerful.
Kerry is, to his core, an ambitious patrician educated in elite schools
and anything but a populist. He is neither articulate nor impressive as
a candidate or as someone who is able to formulate an alternative to
Bush's foreign and defense policies which themselves still have far more
in common with Clinton's than they have differences. To be critical of
Bush is scarcely justification for wishful thinking about Kerry,
although every presidential election produces such illusions. Although
the foreign and military policy goals of the Democrats and Republicans
since 1947 have been essentially consensual, both in terms of objectives
and the varied means--from covert to overt warfare--of attaining them,
there have been significant differences in the way they were expressed.
This was far less the case with Republican presidents and presidential
candidates for most of the twentieth century, and men like Taft, Hoover,
Eisenhower, or Nixon were very sedate by comparison to Reagan or the
present rulers in Washington. But style can be important and
inadvertently, the Bush administration's falsehoods, rudeness, and
preemptory demands have begun to destroy an alliance system that for the
world's peace should have been abolished long ago. In this context, it
is far more likely that the nations allied with the U. S. in the past
will be compelled to stress their own interests and go their own ways.
The Democrats are far less likely to continue that exceedingly desirable
process, a process ultimately much more condusive to peace in the world.
They will perpetuate the same adventurism and opportunism that began
generations ago and that Bush has merely built upon, the same dependence
on military means to solve political crises, the same interference with
every corner of the globe as if America has a divinely ordained mission
to muck around with all the world's problems. The Democrats' greater
finesse in justifying these policies is therefore more dangerous because
they will be made to seem more credible and keep alive alliances that
only reinforce the U.S.' refusal to acknowledge the limits of its power.
In the longer run, Kerry's pursuit of these aggressive goals will lead
eventually to a renewal of the dissolution of alliances, but in the
short-run he will attempt to rebuild them and European leaders will find
it considerably more difficult to refuse his demands than if Bush stays
in power--and that is to be deplored.
The Stakes For The World
Critics of American foreign policy will not rule Washington after this
election regardless of who wins. As dangerous as he is, Bush's
reelection is much more likely to produce the continued destruction of
the alliance system that is so crucial to American power in the long
run. Facts in no way imply moral judgments if we merely identify them.
One does not have to believe that "worse is better" but we have to
consider candidly the foreign policy consequences of a renewal of Bush's
mandate, not the least because it is likely.
Bush's policies have managed to alienate innumerable nations. Even
America's firmest allies--such as Britain, Australia, and Canada--are
compelled to ask themselves if issuance of blank checks to Washington is
in their national interest or if it undermines the tenure of parties in
power. Foreign affairs, as the terrorism in Madrid dramatically showed
in March, are too explosively volatile to permit uncritical endorsement
of American policies and parties in power can pay dearly, as in Spain,
where the people were always overwhelmingly opposed to entering the war
and the ruling party snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. More
important, in terms of cost and price, are the innumerable victims among
the people. The nations that have supported the Iraq war
enthusiastically, particularly Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, and
Australia, have made their populations especially vulnerable to
terrorism. They now have the expensive responsibility of trying to
protect them.
The Washington-based Pew Research Center report on public opinion
released on March 16, 2004 showed that a large and rapidly increasing
majority of the French, Germans, and even British want an independent
European foreign policy, reaching 75 percent in France in March 2004
compared to 60 percent two years earlier. The U.S. "favorability rating"
plunged to 38 percent in France and Germany. But even in Britain it fell
from 75 to 58 percent and the proportion of Britain's population who
supported the decision to go to war in Iraq dropped from 61 percent in
May 2003 to 43 percent in March 2004. Blair's domestic credibility,
after the Labour Party placed third in the June 10 local and European
elections, is at its nadir. Right after the political debacle in Spain
the president of Poland, where a growing majority of the people has
always been opposed to sending troops to Iraq or keeping them there,
complained that Washington "misled" him on Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction and hinted that Poland might withdraw its 2,400 troops from
Iraq earlier than previously scheduled. In Italy, by last May 71 percent
of the people favored withdrawing the 2,700 Italian troops in Iraq no
later than June 30, and leaders of the main opposition have already
declared they will withdraw them if they win the spring 2006
elections--a promise they and other antiwar parties in Britain and Spain
used in the mid-June European Parliament elections to increase
significantly their power. The issue now is whether nations like Poland,
Italy, or The Netherlands can afford to isolate themselves from the
major European powers and their own public opinion to remain a part of
the increasingly quixotic and unilateralist American-led "coalition of
the willing". The political liabilities of remaining staying close to
Washington are obvious, the advantages non-existent.
What has happened in Spain is a harbinger of the future, further
isolating the American government in its adventures. Four more nations
of the 30-some members of the "coalition of the willing" have already
withdrawn their troops, and the Ukraine--with its 1,600 soldiers--will
soon follow suit. The Bush Administration sought to unite nations behind
the Iraq War with a gargantuan lie--that Hussein had "weapons of mass
destruction" --and failed spectacularly. Meanwhile, terrorism is more
robust than ever and its arguments have far more credibility in the
Muslim world. The Iraq War energized Al Qaeda and has tied down America,
dividing its alliances as never before. Conflict in Iraq may escalate,
as it has since March, creating a protracted armed conflict with Shiites
and Sunnis that could last many months, even years. Will the nations
that have sent troops there keep them there indefinitely, as Washington
is increasingly likely to ask them to do? Can the political leaders
afford concession to insatiable American demands?
Elsewhere, Washington opposes the major European nations on Iran, in
part because the neoconservatives and realists within its own ranks are
deeply divided, and the same is true of its relations with Japan, South
Korea, and China on how to deal with North Korea. America's effort to
assert its moral and ideological superiority, crucial elements in its
postwar hegemony, is failing--badly.
America's justification for its attack on Iraq compelled France and
Germany to become far more independent on foreign policy, far earlier,
than they had intended or were prepared to do. In a way that was
inconceivable two years ago NATO's future role is now being questioned.
Europe's future defense arrangements are today an open question but
there will be some sort of European military force independent of NATO
and American control. Germany and France strongly oppose the Bush
doctrine of preemption. Tony Blair, however much he intends to continue
acting as a proxy for the U.S. on military questions, must return
Britain to the European project, and his willingness since late 2003 to
emphasize his nation's role in Europe reflects political necessities. To
do otherwise is to alienate his increasingly powerful neighbors and risk
losing elections.
Even more dangerous, the Bush Administration has managed to turn what
was in the mid-1990s a blossoming cordial friendship with the former
Soviet Union into an increasingly tense relationship. Despite a 1997
non-binding American pledge not to station substantial numbers of combat
troops in the territories of new members, NATO last March incorporated
seven East European nations and is now on Russia's very borders and
Washington is in the process of establishing an undetermined but
significant number of bases in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Russia has
stated repeatedly that U.S. encirclement requires that it remain a
military superpower and modernize its delivery systems so that it will
be more than a match for the increasingly expensive and ambitious
missile defense system and space weapons the Pentagon is now building.
It has 5,286 nuclear warheads and 2,922 intercontinental missiles to
deliver them. We now see a dangerous and costly renewal of the arms race.
Because it regards America's ambitions in the former Soviet bloc as
provocation, Russia threatened in February of this year to pull out of
the crucial Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, which has yet to come
into force. "I would like to remind the representatives of [NATO]",
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told a security conference in Munich last
February, "that with its expansion they are beginning to operate in the
zone of vitally important interests of our country." By dint of its
increasingly unilateral rampages, without U.N. authority, where Russia's
veto power on the Security Council is, in Ivanov's wistful words-- one
of the "major factors for ensuring global stability", the U.S. has made
international relations "very dangerous." (See Wade Boese, "Russia, NATO
at Loggerheads Over Military Bases," Arms Control Today, March 2004; Los
Angeles Times, March 26, 2004. ) The question Washington's allies will
ask themselves is whether their traditional alliances have far more
risks than benefits--and if they are now necessary.
In the case of China, Bush's key advisers publicly assigned the highest
priority to confronting its burgeoning military and geopolitical power
the moment they came to office. But China's military budget is growing
rapidly--12 per cent this coming year--and the European Union wants to
lift its 15-year old arms embargo and get a share of the enticingly
large market. The Bush Administration, of course, is strongly resisting
any relaxation of the export ban. Establishing bases on China's western
borders is the logic of its ambitions.
By installing bases in small or weak Eastern European and Central Asian
nations the United States is not so much engaged in "power projection"
against an amorphously defined terrorism as again confronting Russia and
China in an open-ended context. Such confrontations may have profoundly
serious and protracted consequences neither America's allies nor its own
people have any inclination to support. Even some Pentagon analysts (see
for example, Dr. Stephen J. Blank's "Toward a New U.S. Strategy in
Asia," U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, February 24, 2004) have
warned against this strategy because any American attempt to save failed
states in the Caucasus or Central Asia, implicit in its new obligations,
will risk exhausting what are ultimately its finite military resources.
The political crisis now wracking Uzbekistan makes this fear very real.
There is no way to predict what emergencies will arise or what these
commitments entail, either for the U. S. or its allies, not the least
because--as Iraq proved last year and Vietnam long before it--America's
intelligence on the capabilities and intentions of possible enemies
against which it blares its readiness to "preempt" is so utterly faulty.
Without accurate information a state can believe and do anything, and
this is the predicament the Bush Administration's allies are in. It is
simply not to their national interest, much less to the political
interests of those now in power or the security of their people, to
pursue foreign policies based on a blind, uncritical acceptance of
fictions or flamboyant adventurism premised on false premises and
information. Such acceptance is far too open-ended, both in terms of
potential time and in the political costs involved. If Bush is
reelected, America's allies and friends will have to confront such stark
choices, a process that will redefine and probably shatter existing
alliances. Many nations, including the larger, powerful ones, will
embark on independent, realistic foreign policies, and the dramatic
events in Spain have reinforced this likelihood.
But the United States will be more prudent, and the world will be far
safer, only if it is constrained by a lack of allies and isolated. And
that is happening.
Monday, September 13, 2004
BAUAW NEWSLETTER-MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW!
VOTE YES ON 'N'!
Next BAUAW meeting:
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 7 p.m.
1380 VALENCIA STREET
(BETWEEN 24TH & 25TH STREETS, SF)
CHECK OUR NEWLY DESIGNED WEB SITE: www.bauaw.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) Please come! Please support! Please help spread the word!
ATTENTION S.F. RESIDENTS OUT OF WORK:
Save our youth!
Stop gentrification that's driving Blacks out of S.F.!
Win hundreds of long-term construction jobs!
Come one come all to the Transportation
Authority committee meeting
Tuesday, Sept. 14, 10:30am
Room 263, City Hall
2) The Struggle for Palestine:
4th Anniversary of the Intifada
October 2nd 2004.
Horace Mann Middle School - 3351 23rd Street, San Francisco
*PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY*
3) In this message from A.N.S.W.E.R.:
· The War at Home: Bayview- Hunters Point
· Immigrant Rights March
· March Against Racism & Discrimination
4) 9/11 Pollution 'Could Cause More Deaths Than Attack'
Published on Sunday, September 12, 2004 by the lndependent/UK
By Geoffrey Lean
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0912-01.htm
5) Bush team 'knew of abuse' at Guantánamo
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Monday September 13, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1303105,00.html
6) 25 Reported Killed in U.S. Strike on Rebel Base in Falluja
By TERENCE NEILAN
September 13, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/international/middleeast/13CND-
IRAQ.html?hp
7) Ellsberg urges insiders to leak Iraq info
By KATA KERTESZ
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
WASHINGTON
Thursday, September 9, 2004 · Last updated 9:25 p.m. PT
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/
apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=Ellsberg
8) ALERT: CFL ALERT: ASK YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO STOP
THE INDISCRIMINATE KILLING OF PALESTINIAN YOUTH.
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004
From: Seham Fare
SEND OUR PREWRITTEN LETTER NOW OR, WRITE YOUR OWN:
http://www.cflweb.org/congress_merge_.htm
*********************************
Citizens for Fair Legislation
For Immediate Release
September 12, 2004
********************************
9) Solidarity greetings to The Coalition Against the
Deportation of Palestinian Refugees in Montreal,
From Bay Area United Against War (BAUAW)
www.bauaw.org
We stand in full support of your two demands,
1. To stop the deportations of the Palestinian refugees from
Canada
2. To grant them permanent residency on humanitarian
and compassionate grounds
10) Preventive War: A Failed Doctrine
September 12, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/opinion/12sun1.html?hp
11) Iraq allowed to rearm
Critics say embargo lift may worsen Iraq's security problems
By CLAIRE SCHAEFFER-DUFFY
National Catholic Reporter, September 10, 2004
www.natcath.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) Please come! Please support! Please help spread the word!
ATTENTION S.F. RESIDENTS OUT OF WORK:
Save our youth!
Stop gentrification that's driving Blacks out of S.F.!
Win hundreds of long-term construction jobs!
Come one come all to the Transportation
Authority committee meeting
Tuesday, Sept. 14, 10:30am
Room 263, City Hall
One big Third St. Light Rail project remains to be built -
and we're claiming it!
Muni's $125 million maintenance barn at 26th & Illinois
is our project! If we don't build it, nobody will!
We demand:
1) On-the-job training in all trades
2) Enforcement of all hiring goals:
50% resident, 25.6% minority, 6.9% women
Tell your Supervisors,
NO MONEY FOR MUNI UNTIL THEY COMPLY!
Last Thursday, 300 residents turned out for the
Human Rights Commission meeting -
Let's do it again and more so!
For more information, call:
Louise Williams, Citizens Out of Work, (415) 374-3993
Willie Ratcliff, SF Bay View &
African American Contractors of SF, (415) 671-0789
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) The Struggle for Palestine:
4th Anniversary of the Intifada
October 2nd 2004.
Horace Mann Middle School - 3351 23rd Street, San Francisco
*PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY*
The Justice in Palestine Coalition, a group of progressive organizations wh=
o
have come together to work for a free Palestine, is hosting a day-long
conference to:
1. Educate ourselves and our allies, and deepen our knowledge &
understanding of the struggle in Palestine.
2. Link the work of our individual organizations and strengthen our network=
s
and activism through discussion, debate, and collaborative planning.
3. Organize for future solidarity and develop concrete a concrete plan of
action for the coming months.
4. Support the resistance in Palestine, and make links with others who are
fighting against the US occupation of Iraq, and against US Imperialism
around the world.
The conference will include panels, workshops and cultural performances. A
complete schedule of events is listed below.
Please reply to this email to find out about the next meeting of Justice in=
Palestine and help us build for this important event.
............
** Program **
The Struggle for Palestine: 4th Anniversary of the Intifada
October 2nd, 2004
9:00-9:30: Registration
Morning Plenary Session: The Current Status of Resistance in Palestine
workshops throughout the day include:
-Continuations of Plenary: Status of Resistance
-History of Palestine, The Nekbah and the Right of Return
-Iraq and Palestine: 2 Struggles, One cause
-Zionism
-Women and Resistance
-Direct Action: Skills Development
-The Impact of Palestine on the US Elections
-Political Prisoners, Here and in Palestine
-Globalization in the Arab World
-The Targets of Empire: Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, Iran, Philippines, Africa
-Arab World Solidarity/Resistance
-US Solidarity Groups
-Repression/Occupation in the US (patriot Act, profiling, attacks on civil
liberties)
Report Back From Workshops
Closing Summation and the Future in Palestine
Cultural Performances
for more information:
info@justiceinpalestine.net
or visit
www.justiceinpalestine.net
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) In this message from A.N.S.W.E.R.:
· The War at Home: Bayview- Hunters Point
· Immigrant Rights March
· March Against Racism Discrimination
A.N.S.W.E.R. Educational Forum:
THE WAR AT HOME: BAYVIEW-HUNTERS POINT
Tuesday, Sept. 14, 7pm
San Francisco Women‚s Building
3543 18th St. between Valencia and Guerrero
The Pentagon spends billions of dollars to wreak war and violence
on poor people around the world and here ˆ dollars that are being
taken straight from our communities which need it for housing, jobs,
schools and healthcare. The Bayview-Hunters Point community of
San Francisco is on of the hardest hit by the war at home.
Join us to hear featured speaker Maurice Campbell from the
Community First Coalition and find out about:
· The Navy Shipyard toxic dump and PG power plant that are
poisoning the community
· Racist gentrification being carried out by big real estate developers
· Ongoing police terror against the Bayview-Hunters Point community
· How the community is building alliances and fighting back
$3-$10 donation (no one turned away for lack of funds)
Free childcare available, call to reserve.
For more information, contact 415-821-6545.
----------
Immigrant Rights March
Wednesday, Sept. 15, 5:30pm
Gather at 16th and Mission St., march to 24th and Mission St.
March to reclaim the Mission District for
undocumented immigrants in response to IMF raids.
Call 415-487-9203 for more information.
----------
March Against Racism Discrimination
Save the Date:
Friday, Oct. 1, 5pm
A recent campaign to expose racism and discrimination at the
S.F. Badlands bar in the Castro has resulted in community activism,
widespread media coverage, and action on the part of the city's
Human Rights Commission.
A coalition of organizations - including Black Rap, And Castro
For All, ANSWER, the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, the SF LGBT
Pride Celebration Committee, GAPA, and others - have come
together to plan a protest to raise awareness about racism and
other forms of discrimination within the Lesbian, Gay, Bi Trans
community in San Francisco.
Save the date of Friday, October 1. It will include a march and
rally, as well as a celebration of the potential for inclusion that
we strive for our community to achieve. Details to follow. Please
join in planning and gathering diverse people to this event. For
more information call 415-821-6545 or email answer@actionsf.org.
To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) 9/11 Pollution 'Could Cause More Deaths Than Attack'
Published on Sunday, September 12, 2004 by the lndependent/UK
By Geoffrey Lean
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0912-01.htm
Up to 400,000 New Yorkers breathed in the most toxic polluting
cloud ever recorded after the twin towers were brought down three
years ago, but no proper effort has been made to find out how their
health has been affected, according to an official report.
The US government study provides the latest evidence of a systematic
cover-up of the health toll from pollution after the 9/11 disaster,
which doctors fear will cause more deaths than the attacks themselves.
The Bush administration suppressed evidence of increasing danger
and officially announced that the air around the felled buildings was
"safe to breathe". Another report reveals that it has since failed at
least a dozen times to correct its assurances, even when it became
clear that people were becoming sick.
The official report - sent to Congress last week by the US Government
Accountability Office - says that between 250,000 and 400,000 people
in lower Manhattan were exposed to the pollution on 11 September
2001. But it shows that the government has yet to make a comprehensive
effort to study the effects on their health.
And it reveals that there is no systematic effort to adequately monitor
the well-being of those affected, give them physical examinations or
provide treatment.
Scientific studies have shown that the cloud of pulverized debris from
the skyscrapers was uniquely dangerous. The US government's own
figures show that it contained the highest levels of deadly dioxins
ever recorded - about 1,500 times normal levels. Unprecedented
levels of acids, sulphur, fine particles, heavy metals and other
dangerous materials were also measured.
Asbestos was found at 27 times acceptable levels, and scientists
found about 400 organic alkanes, phthalates and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons - many suspected of causing cancer and other long-
term diseases.
The site at Ground Zero went on smoldering, becoming what
scientists describe as a "chemical factory", creating new dangerous
substances.
(c) 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Bush team 'knew of abuse' at Guantánamo
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Monday September 13, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1303105,00.html
Evidence of prisoner abuse and possible war crimes at Guantánamo
Bay reached the highest levels of the Bush administration as early as
autumn 2002, but Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, chose to
do nothing about it, according to a new investigation published
exclusively in the Guardian today.
The investigation, by the veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, quotes
one former marine at the camp recalling sessions in which guards
would "fuck with [detainees] as much as we could" by inflicting pain
on them.
The Bush administration repeatedly assured critics that inmates
were granted recreation periods, but one Pentagon adviser told
Hersh how, for some prisoners, they consisted of being left in
straitjackets in intense sunlight with hoods over their heads.
Hersh provides details of how President George Bush signed off on
the establishment of a secret unit that was given advance approval to
kill or capture and interrogate "high-value" suspects - considered by
many to be in defiance of international law - an officially "unacknowledged=
"
programme that was eventually transferred wholesale from Guantánamo
to the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Hersh, who broke the story of the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam war,
makes his revelations in a new book, Chain of Command, which leaves
senior figures in the Bush administration far more seriously implicated
in the torture scandal than had been previously apparent.
A CIA analyst visited Guantánamo in summer 2002 and returned
"convinced that we were committing war crimes" and that "more
than half the people there didn't belong there. He found people
lying in their own faeces," a CIA source told Hersh.
The analyst submitted a report to General John Gordon, an aide to
Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser.
Gen Gordon was troubled, and, one former administration official
told Hersh "that if the actions at Guantánamo ever became public,
it'd be damaging to the president".
Ms Rice saw the document by autumn of the same year, and called
a high-level meeting at which she asked Mr Rumsfeld, to deal with
the problem.
But after he vowed to act, "the Pentagon went into a full-court stall",
a former White House official is quoted as saying. "Why didn't Condi
do more? She made the same mistake I made. She got the secretary
of defence to say he's going to take care of it."
The investigation further suggests that CIA and FBI staff had already
witnessed incidents at Guantánamo just as extreme as those that
would subsequently be alleged by freed inmates.
A senior intelligence official told Hersh: "I was told [by FBI agents]
that the military guards were slapping prisoners, stripping them,
pouring cold water over them and making them stand until they got
hypothermia."
The secret "special access programme" facilitating much of the
mistreatment of prisoners, widely held to have contravened the
Geneva convention, was established following a direct order from
the president.
Hersh reports that a secret document signed by Mr Bush in
February 2002 stated: "I determine that none of the provisions of
Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaida in Afghanistan or
elsewhere throughout the world."
Hersh's book reports that an army officer communicated concerns
over abuses at Abu Ghraib both to General John Abizaid, the US
central command (Centcom) chief at the time, and his deputy,
General Lance Smith.
The officer told Hersh: "I said there are systematic abuses going
on in the prisons. Abizaid didn't say a thing. He looked at me -
beyond me, as if to say, 'Move on. I don't want to touch this.'"
Centcom has disputed the allegation.
In an interview with the Guardian, Hersh provided evidence that
the administration sought to evade the issue: he said codenames
of some programmes were changed within hours of his original
story appearing, presumably to maintain their secrecy.
In a statement, the Pentagon said Hersh's investigation "apparently
contains many of the numerous unsubstantiated allegations and
inaccuracies which he has made in the past based upon unnamed
sources ... Thus far ... investigations have determined that no
responsible official of the Department of Defence approved any
programme that could conceivably have authorised or condoned
the abuses seen at Abu Ghraib. If any of Mr Hersh's anonymous
sources wish to come forward and offer evidence to the contrary,
the department welcomes them to do so."
Pressure has been building on the Pentagon over its detention
policies after it emerged at a Congressional hearing last week
that the administration is being accused of concealing up to 100
"ghost detainees" from the Red Cross, which must be granted
access to prisoners of war and other detainees under the Geneva
convention.
Mr Rumsfeld told reporters on Friday he had approved the use
of harsh interrogation measures, but that they had only been
meant for Guantánamo. He said the measures ought to be
contrasted with those of terrorists. "Does it rank up there with
chopping someone's head off on television?" he asked. "It doesn't."
Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) 25 Reported Killed in U.S. Strike on Rebel Base in Falluja
By TERENCE NEILAN
September 13, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/international/middleeast/13CND-
IRAQ.html?hp
American warplanes made what the military called a precision
strike on a meeting place of terrorists believed linked to Al Qaeda
in the Sunni stronghold of Falluja today, killing an estimated 25
militants.
The military said in a statement that the attack was on a base
intelligence officers had confirmed was used by rebels loyal to
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant believed by American
officials to be Al Qaeda's most senior leader in Iraq. Americans have
blamed Mr. Zarqawi for many of the suicide bombings in Baghdad
and in other Iraqi cities.
News agency reports from Falluja that the air strikes killed at least
16 civilians, including women and children, and that an ambulance
was hit by a shell, killing the driver and six other occupants, were
denied by a coalition press officer by telephone from Baghdad.
"The U.S. military is confirming that we did not hit an ambulance
and we did not hit a marketplace," the press officer, Sharon Walker,
said, referring to news agency accounts.
Ms. Walker said that the 25 deaths "of Zarqawi operatives or
anti-Iraqi forces" were an "initial estimate," leaving open the
possibility of more casualties.
Today's attack was the latest in almost a week of American strikes
against rebel positions in Falluja, located 35 miles west of Falluja.
Despite the military's denial, witnesses said the bombing targeted
the city's residential al-Shurta neighborhood, damaging buildings
and raising clouds of black smoke, The Associated Press reported.
Dr. Adel Khamis of the Falluja General Hospital told the news agency
that at least 16 people were killed and 12 others wounded. The
ambulance was hit by a shell, killing the driver, a paramedic and
five patients inside the vehicle, another hospital official, Hamid
Salaman, told The A.P.
"The conditions here are miserable - an ambulance was bombed,
three houses destroyed and men and women killed," the hospital's
director, Rafayi Hayad al-Esawi, told Al-Jazeera television by telephone
in a report posted on the satellite station's Web site. "The American
Army has no morals."
He added, "Shame on our government that cannot protect the people."
Witnesses told The A.P. that American warplanes repeatedly swooped
low over the city and that artillery units deployed on the outskirts of
the city also opened fire. The explosions started at sunrise and
continued for several hours.
The military statement said the attack occurred at 6:07 this morning.
One explosion went off in a marketplace in Falluja as the first vendors
began to set up their stalls, wounding several people and shattering
windows, witnesses told the news agency.
American forces pulled out of Falluja in April after a three-week
siege that left hundreds dead. The United States Marines have not
patrolled inside Falluja since then, and Sunni insurgents have
strengthened their hold on the city.
In other violence today, three members of the Iraqi National Guard
were killed, three were wounded and one was missing in action
when their joint patrol with American forces from the First Brigade
Combat Team was attacked by a vehicle containing an improvised
explosive device, the military said.
The attack took place on the road to Al Amashru, about 18 miles
northeast of Al Hilla City.
Today's attacks came a day after a surge in violence across Iraq.
The A.P. reported that 78 people were killed Sunday, citing the
Health Ministry and local authorities.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) Ellsberg urges insiders to leak Iraq info
By KATA KERTESZ
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
WASHINGTON
Thursday, September 9, 2004 · Last updated 9:25 p.m. PT
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/
apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=Ellsberg
WASHINGTON -- Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department
official who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war,
is urging government insiders to provide similar classified documents
about the invasion of Iraq.
Joined by other whistle-blowers and former government employees,
Ellsberg said at a news conference Thursday that claims of government
deception and lies have "little credibility" unless supported by
documentary evidence, which often is available only in classified
materials.
In a memo to current government employees, Ellsberg and other
former government officials said federal insiders owe a "higher
allegiance" to the Constitution, the public and American soldiers
in Iraq than to their government bosses.
"A hundred forty-thousand Americans are risking their lives every
day in Iraq for dubious purpose," the memo said. "Our country has
urgent need of comparable moral courage from its public officials.
Truth-telling is a patriotic and effective way to serve the nation.
The time for speaking out is now."
The memo acknowledged that whistle-blowers risk personal
setbacks, such as losing their jobs, but urged them to act
nonetheless. "You may save many Americans from being lied
to death," it said.
Sibel Edmonds, who was fired by the FBI after she alleged security
lapses in the agency's translator program, said the government
frequently over-classifies documents, including the investigation
into her own case.
Among the documents claimed to be wrongly classified are sections
of reports from Army investigations into prisoner abuse in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and supporting material for then-Army Gen. Eric
Shinseki's February 2003 estimate that several hundred thousand
troops would have to stay in Iraq after the war.
Ellsberg was a special assistant to the assistant secretary of
defense during the Vietnam War. He released the 7,000 page
classified study to the Senate and 19 newspapers in 1971 and
now leads the Truth Telling Project.
On the Net:
Truth Telling Project: www.truthtellingproject.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) ALERT: CFL ALERT: ASK YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO STOP
THE INDISCRIMINATE KILLING OF PALESTINIAN YOUTH.
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004
From: Seham Fare
SEND OUR PREWRITTEN LETTER NOW OR, WRITE YOUR OWN:
http://www.cflweb.org/congress_merge_.htm
*********************************
Citizens for Fair Legislation
For Immediate Release
September 12, 2004
********************************
CFL ALERT: ASK YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO STOP THE INDISCRIMINATE
KILLING OF PALESTINIAN YOUTH.
TALKING POINTS
*On 9/11/04 Israelis slaughtered 18-year-old Muhammad al-Haq as he was
walking home. An Israeli soldier manning a jeep ran over him
repeatedly until he died. The vehicle then fled from the scene after
killing Muhammed. Last year American citizens were horrified when our
government refused to censure Israel after a soldier killed Rachel
Corrie, a U.S. citizen in a manner that was eerily reminiscent of the
way Muhammed al-Haq was killed. In that incident the soldier ran over
and continued to back up over her body repeatedly with a CAT
bulldozer. If our government had properly censured Israel over the
death of Rachel Corrie, perhaps Muhammed would be alive today. In the
past few months the Israelis have killed over 50 children between the
ages of 2 months and 18 years without a single reprimand by this
country. Contact your representatives, both Republicans and Democrats
and urge them to stop looking the other way as Israel continues to
murder and victimize Palestinian children daily.
TALKING POINTS
*Over 600 Palestinian children between the ages of two months and 18
years have been killed by the Israeli Defense Forces in the past three
and a half years. Ask your representatives why they have remained
silent while this slaughter has occurred.
*Hundreds of Palestinian children are languishing in the territories
because the Israeli government refuses to let them out of the country
and into Jordan or Egypt to seek medical care. No other country in
the world would be allowed to deliberately treat children in such an
abusive manner, ask your representatives why they feel this is
appropriate.
*Israel will not allow the UN to move freely within the territories,
as a result the UN has issued an emergency report earlier in the year
stating that Palestinians living in the Israeli-occupied territories
of Gaza and the West Bank are on the verge of a humanitarian
catastrophe. The report also stated that 9 percent of Palestinian
children under age 5 suffer from brain defects caused by malnutrition
because of the occupation.
*Tell your representatives that you feel Israeli action against
Palestinian children is deplorable and that you feel that this
government shares responsibility for the murder of over 600
Palestinian children, the starvation of an entire generation of
Palestinian children and all other Israeli crimes that specifically
target Palestinian children. None of these crimes against children
could happen were it not for the tacit approval by the president of
the United States and the U.S. Congress and Senate.
Please choose the appropriate letter to send! (YOU MUST PICK A SUBJECT
FROM THE DROP DOWN BAR) [After you enter your contact info the
appropriate addresses are provided. Simply type, or send our
prewritten letter and click send. Be sure to bookmark this page so you
can send ONE LETTER EVERY DAY. We have prewritten letters for your
convenience.]
EMAIL AND OR CALL THE WHITE HOUSE
WHITE HOUSE COMMENTS LINE: 202-456-1111
WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
WHITE HOUSE FAX: 202-456-2461
Citizens for Fair Legislation is a grassroots organization committed
to encouraging a fair domestic and foreign policy with an emphasis on
the US/Arab world.
www.cflweb.org
To learn more about John Kerry and his anti-human rights position on
Palestinians, click here: http://cflweb.org/kerryonisrael.htm.htm
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) Solidarity greetings to The Coalition Against the
Deportation of Palestinian Refugees in Montreal,
From Bay Area United Against War (BAUAW)
www.bauaw.org
We stand in full support of your two demands,
1. To stop the deportations of the Palestinian refugees from Canada
2. To grant them permanent residency on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds
Please add us to your list of endorsers. We have forwarded your
appeal to our list-serve. We join in solidarity with your struggle to
resist illegal, racially and religiously motivated persecution of
Palestinians in your country and ours. Especially those who stand
up for their rights as free citizens of the world and as Palestinians
being forced off their land by U.S.-funded Israeli Apartheid.
We are working to end all U.S. aid to Israel! Tear down the Apartheid
Wall! Demand the right of return of all Palestinians to their land! Stop
the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Bring all U.S. and allied troops and
corporations home now.
Yours for peace and solidarity,
Bonnie Weinstein,
Bay Area United Against War
---------- Forwarded message- please pass along ----------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Palestinian Refugees - Montreal
STATELESS & DEPORTED!
A Popular Mobilization Against Deportation of Palestinians from Canada
=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>
SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 18th, 2004
Gathering Point: 2PM Corner Atwater & St. Catherine
{metro Atwater}
=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>
From the Refugee Camps of Lebanon & Palestine to the Streets of Montreal!
For more than one year Palestinian refugees in Montreal and throughout
Canada have been struggling against deportation and fighting for their
status. On September 18th, the Coalition Against the Deportation of
Palestinian Refugees and their supporters are calling for your
participation in a large-scale demonstration on the streets of Montreal.
It is a critical time to show your solidarity with the Palestinian
refugees, as many of the deportations are set to take place in the coming
weeks and months. In Montreal, Palestinian refugees have already been
forced by Immigration Canada to live underground or take sanctuary, such
as Khalil Ayoub, 67 Nabih Ayoub, 69 and Therese Boulos Haddad, 62 who have
been refugees all their lives, fleeing Palestine in 1948 to the refugee
camps of Lebanon, and ultimately to Canada. The Ayoub family, confined to
the basement of Notre-Dame de Grace Church, were forced to take sanctuary
over 7 months ago to escape deportation.
The September 18th demonstration in Montreal will also commemorate the
thousands of Palestinian refugees who lost their lives in the 1982
massacre of Sabra and Chatila, during the Israeli invasion of Beirut. The
Palestinian refugees facing deportation are the sons and daughters of the
very same refugee camps, which suffered throughout the 15-year long
Lebanese civil-war. They are the sons and daughters of Sabra & Chatila,
Tel El Zaatar and Bourj El Barajneh, stateless refugees representing a
history of displacement, which began in 1948. As we remember the massacre
of Sabra & Chatila - one of the deepest wounds in the Palestinian
consciousness - we will demonstrate in solidarity with the struggle of
Palestinians here in Canada!
We will march on the streets of Montreal within the context of a political
campaign that has been waged throughout Canada during the past year in
support of the Palestinian refugees facing deportation. Thousands of
people throughout the country have participated in street demonstrations,
and thousands more have pressured Citizenship & Immigration Canada in
support of the refugees. Wide sections of society are standing in
solidarity with the struggle against Palestinian deportations, including
the Arab and Muslim community, self-organized immigrants and refugees,
major labour unions, countless community groups, major political parties,
faith based organizations and thousands of individuals from throughout the
world. With this strong backing, we intend to intensify the struggle
against Palestinian deportations this September.
We must stand united in the struggle against the deportation of
Palestinian refugees! Join us on the streets of Montreal on September 18th
and throughout the month of September for a popular mobilization against
the deportation of Palestinian refugees.
Your support, solidarity and action is needed now!
For more information or to get involved contact:
The Coalition Against the Deportation of Palestinian Refugees in Montreal
Phone: 514 591 3171
Email: refugees@riseup.net
Web: http://refugees.resist.ca
-> Below is the list of supporting organizations for the two demands of
the Coalition Against the Deportation of Palestinian Refugees:
1. To stop the deportations of the Palestinian refugees from Canada
2. To grant them permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate
grounds
QUÃBEC:
Action Committee of Pakistani Refugees Against Racial Profiling, *
Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale(AQOCI)
* Alsuna Mosque * Alternatives, Montreal * Alternative Perspective Media,
* AnNahda, Montreal * The Anti-Capitalist Convergence of Montreal (CLAC) *
Association Générale Ãtudiante du Cégep du Vieux Montréal (AGECVM), *
Association for the Taxation of Financial Transaction for the Aid of
Citizens (ATTAC-Montreal), Montreal * Bête Noire (NEFAC), * Bloque
Quebecois * Block the Empire/Bloquez l'Empire, * Comité d'action des
sans-status Algériens (CASS), * Canadian Palestinian Foundation of Quebec
(CPF-Q), * Canadian Federation of Students Quebec (CFS-Q), * Canadian
Muslim Forum (CMF), * Canadian Muslims for Jerusalem (CMJ), * Center
Femmes Verdun, Quebec * CKUT Radio, 90.3fm Montreal, * La Centrale des
syndicats du Québec (CSQ), * Coalition justice pour Adil Charkaoui, *
Collective Opposed to Police Brutality (COBP), * Comité Justice sociale
des Soeurs Auxiliatrices, * Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain
(CSN), * Conseil paroissial de pastorale, Communauté chrétienne
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, * Comité régional d'éducation pour le développement
international de Lanaudière (CREDIL) * Council of Canadians * Dar Al-Arqam
Mosque * Dragon Root Center for Gender Advocacy, * L'Entraide
missionnaire, * Durzi Community of Quebec * El-Hedaya Lebanese Association
* Fire Women & Trans of Colour Collective, * Forum des femmes de
Montréal,* Freedom School, * ICQ Mosque * Indigenous Peoples Solidarity
Movement (IPSM), * Iranian Women's Association of Montreal, * Iranian
Women's Association of Montreal, * International Solidarity Movement
(ISM), Montreal * Iraq Solidarity Project (ISP), * Jewish Alliance Against
the Occupation, * Lebanese Islamic Center of Montreal (CIL), * Lebanese
Communist Party in Montreal, * Lebanese Union of Montreal, * Libertas
Legal Collective, * Ligue des droits et libertés, * McGill Radical Law
Community, Medical Aid for Palestine (MAP), * MRAP-Québec (Mouvement
contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme et pour la paix) * Muslim Council of
Montreal (MCM) * L'Opération SalAMI * Palestinian & Jewish Unity (PAJU), *
Parole Arabe, * Parti Marxist-Leninst Quebec * Quebec Public Interest
Research Group (QPIRG) at Concordia, * Quebec Public Interest Research
Group (QPIRG) at McGill * Rebel Desis * Regroupement des Organismes du
Montréal Ethnique pour le Logement (ROMEL) * Solidairty for Palestinian
Human Rights (SPHR) * South Asian Women's Community Center * Solidarité
Union Coopération (SUCO) * Union des forces progressistes (UFP) * United
Muslim Students Association * Voices of Conscience (OCVC) * Women in Black
Montreal
CANADA:
Association of Palestinian Arab Canadians, Ottawa * Al-Awda - the
Palestinian Right of Return Coalition, North America, * Anti-Capitalist
Community Action Ottawa (ACA), Ottawa * Arab-Palestine Association-BC,
Vancouver * Arab Palestine Association of Ontario, Toronto * Arab Student
Collective (ASC) at the University of Toronto * Bloque Quebecois *
Canadian Council for Refugees, Le Conseil canadien pour les réfugiés
(CCR), * Canadian Friends of Sabeel, Ottawa * Canadian Arab Federation
(CAF), * Canadian Palestinian Center, Ottawa * Canaanite Canadian
Knowledge Center, Ottawa * Canadians for Equality and Peace for
Palestinians (CEPPal), Edmonton * Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) Local 199,
St Catharines and District * Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), *
Canadian Palestinian Congress, Toronto * Calgary Coalition for Peace &
Anti-Racism * Canadian Council of Muslim Women * Direct Action Casework
Ottawa (DACO), Ottawa * The Free Press, of Kitchener, Ontario * Human
Concern International, Ottawa * International Socialists, Canada *
International Solidarity Movement (ISM), Toronto * International ANSWER
Coalition, NYC * International Action Center (IAC), * The Islamic Society
of York Region * Kingston for Palestinian Human Rights, * Manitoba Islamic
Association, * McMaster Students Against the Occupation, Hamilton * Muslim
Student Association of the University of Alberta, Edmonton * Muslim
Student Association at the University of Waterloo * New Democratic Party
of Canada (NDP) * New Socialist Group, Toronto * The Near East Cultural
and Educational Foundation, Toronto * Niagara Coalition for Peace, Niagara
Region * Niagara Palestinian Association, Niagara * No One Is Illegal,
Vancouver * No One is Illegal, Toronto * No One is Illegal, Montreal *
NOWAR-PAIX, Ottawa * Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), Toronto *
Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), Toronto * Ontario Public
Interest Research Group (OPIRG) at Carleton, Ottawa * Palestine Solidairty
Group, Vancouver * Project Threadbare Campaign, Toronto * STATUS
Coalition, Toronto * Solidarity with Iraqi & Palestinian Children at
Carleton, Ottawa * The Spot, Kitchener-Waterloo Youth Resource Center *
Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, Toronto * Toronto Jewish Youth Against
the Occupation, Toronto * United Holy Land Fund, Toronto * Women Against
the Occupation, Canada
INTERNATIONAL:
Aidoun Group, Lebanon * Akka Charitable Association, Lebanon * Al-Awda
Egypt, Cairo, Egypt * Al-Awda Club, Lebanon * Al-Awda - the Palestinian
Right of Return Coalition, North America, * Al-Nadeem Center for the
Rehabilitation of the Victims of Violence, Cairo, Egypt * Arab American
Association, New York, * Arraby Charitable Association, Lebanon * Center
for Women Activities, Lebanon * Coalition for the Human Rights of
Immigrants (CHRI), New York * Committee for Charitable Works, Lebanon *
The Coordination Forum of the NGO's Working Among the Palestinian
Community, Lebanon * Deir Yassin Society of New York, * Desis Rising Up &
Moving (DRUM) New York, * Direct Action Palestine, New York, * The East
Jerusalem YMCA, Palestine * The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights,
Egypt * The General Union of Palestinian Women, Lebanon * The General
Union of Palestinian Workers, Lebanon * Immigrant Justice Solidarity
Project (IJSP), New York, * International Solidarity Movement, Berkeley, *
Islamic Association for Palestine in North America, * Jews Against The
Occupation, New York, * A Jewish Voice for Peace, Oakland, * Justice for
Palestinians, San Jose, * Khalsa Social Association, Lebanon * The March
For Justice, International * Multi-Lingual Translators & Interpreters
Group, Egypt * New England Committee to Defend Palestine, Boston * New
York Committee to Defend Palestine, * New Jersey Solidarity - Activists
for the Liberation of Palestine * Office of Palestinian Students Aid,
Lebanon * The Organization of Palestinian Democratic Women, Lebanon * The
Organization of Palestinian Democratic Youth, Lebanon * The Organization
of Palestinian Human Rights, Lebanon * Palestinian Women Union, Egypt *
Palestinian Students Committee, University of Wollongong, UAE *
Palestinian Cultural Club, American University in Dubai, UAE * Reach
Organization, Dubai, UAE Roots Association (Judhoor), Lebanon * School of
Oriental & African Studies (SOAS) Palestine Society, London, UK * Students
for Justice at San Jose State University, San Jose, USA * Tulkarem Club,
Lebanon * Union of Palestinian Youth, Gaza, Palestine * Youth & Children
Center, Chatila, Lebanon
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
10) Preventive War: A Failed Doctrine
September 12, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/opinion/12sun1.html?hp
If facts mattered in American politics, the Bush-Cheney ticket would
not be basing its re-election campaign on the fear-mongering
contention that the surest defense against future terrorist attacks
lies in the badly discredited doctrine of preventive war. Vice President
Dick Cheney took this argument to a disgraceful low last week when
he implied that electing John Kerry and returning to traditional
American foreign policy values would invite a devastating new strike.
So far, the preventive war doctrine has had one real test: the invasion
of Iraq. Mr. Bush terrified millions of Americans into believing that
forcibly changing the regime in Baghdad was the only way to keep
Iraq's supposed stockpiles of unconventional weapons out of the
hands of Al Qaeda. Then it turned out that there were no stockpiles
and no operational links between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al
Qaeda's anti-American terrorism. Meanwhile, America's longstanding
defensive alliances were weakened and the bulk of America's ground
combat troops tied down in Iraq for what now appears to be many
years to come. If that is making this country safer, it is hard to see
how. The real lesson is that America dangerously erodes its military
and diplomatic defenses when it charges off unwisely after
hypothetical enemies.
Before the Iraq fiasco, American leaders rightly viewed war as a last
resort, appropriate only when the nation's vital interests were
actively threatened and reasonable diplomatic efforts had been
exhausted. That view always left room for pre-emptive attacks;
America is under no obligation to sit and wait, if it is clear that
some enemy is actually preparing to strike first. But it correctly
drew the line at preventive wars against potential foes who might,
or might not, be thinking about doing something dangerous. As
the administration's disastrous experience in Iraq amply demonstrates,
that is still the wisest course and the one that keeps America most
secure in an increasingly dangerous era.
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, plainly ushered in a new era
of catastrophic threats to the American homeland. If these are to be
met effectively, major changes in national security policy will be
required. But a shift toward preventive wars is not one of them. As
the 9/11 commission report clearly established, international
terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are highly mobile, self-financing
and largely independent of traditional states. Governments that
grant them sanctuary and facilities, like Afghanistan under the
Taliban or Sudan, must face strong international pressure,
including American military attack. Any attempt by the president
and his surrogates to lump the invasion of Afghanistan into the
category of preventive wars is plain wrong. In fact, the war in Iraq
has undermined the important work that American forces are
doing in Afghanistan by diverting soldiers, supplies and money.
Al Qaeda has already declared war on the United States, and
America needs to fight back relentlessly - in Afghanistan and
through international efforts to capture terrorist leaders who
function with forged passports and visas, safe houses and sleeper
cells. That is why Mr. Cheney is also wrong to disparage law-
enforcement cooperation with allies as an important weapon
in this war.
Instead, he promises more preventive, offensive wars against
hypothetical dangers like Iraq. Besides estranging America from
its main European and Asian allies, and leaving Washington looking
like an aggressor to much of the Arab and Muslim world, these policies
kill American soldiers and civilians in the countries attacked, and they
threaten to tie down the Army and Marine divisions America needs to
have available for responding to real threats in the dangerous decades
ahead.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
11) Iraq allowed to rearm
Critics say embargo lift may worsen Iraq's security problems
By CLAIRE SCHAEFFER-DUFFY
National Catholic Reporter, September 10, 2004
www.natcath.org
Iraq, once restrained by some of the severest military sanctions, can
now buy its own weapons thanks to a little-publicized provision of
the United Nations Security Council that lifted a 14-year arms
embargo on the country. The provision is included in a U.N.
resolution, unanimously passed last June, legitimizing the new
Iraqi interim government.
The removal of the arms embargo, instituted to enable Iraq to
refurbish its arsenal and take responsibility for its security needs,
has turned the formerly weapons-deprived country into a seller's
market for defense contractors. It has also drawn criticism from
some analysts who question the wisdom of rearming a politically
unstable country still occupied by the world's largest military power.
"How much of this is a photo op? A way to whitewash the occupation
by showing the world that we are allowing Iraq to rebuild its army?
Any new [Iraqi] security force would still remain under U.S. control,"
said Frida Berrigan, a senior research associate with the Arms Trade
Resource Center, a project of the World Policy Institute.
The new U.N. provision is a formality. Iraq has technically been open
to the arms trade since May 2003 when the country came under the
governance of the Coalition Provisional Authority. According to the
Asia Times, over the past year Iraq has purchased 50,000 handguns
from the Austrian company Glock, 421 UAZ Hunter jeeps from Russia,
"millions of dollars worth of armored cars from Brazil and Ukraine,
along with AK-47 assault rifles, 9 mm pistols, military vehicles, fire
control equipment and night vision devices."
Asia Times also reported that the Coalition Provisional Authority,
shortly before its transfer of power to the Iraqi interim government,
negotiated contracts for six C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft,
16 Iroquois helicopters and a squadron of 16 low-flying, light
reconnaissance aircraft, to be delivered by April 2005.
Lockheed Martin, the world's largest arms exporter, manufactures
the C-130. An ironic detail of the Iraq purchase is that Lockheed
Martin products were used during U.S. bombing campaigns of the
first Gulf War, which destroyed much of Iraq's air force. Cynical
though it may be for a company to sell military aircraft to a country
after it made a profit building the weapons that destroyed its aircraft,
the practice is commonplace, according to Chatap Pratterjee, an
investigative journalist for the online publication CorpWatch.
"Weapons manufacturers will sell to anybody unless there is an
arms embargo," he said.
Free to buy, Iraq is unable to pay for its military hardware and
currently relies on U.S. military aid. Congress has appropriated a
little less than $3 billion for Iraq's security needs, $2 billion of
which are earmarked for developing the country's new army,
according to the report in the The National Interest.
Chris Toensig, editor of the quarterly Middle East Report, said
American funding of Iraqi weaponry is a continuation of U.S.
policy in the Middle East. "The U.S. has been a large arms supplier
in the region. This is one of the linchpins of strategic relationships -- =
a way of trying to make sure the Iraq government remains dependent
on the U.S.," he said.
Several analysts pointed out that Iraq's lack of independent purchasing
power has translated into a bias towards American companies for arms
deals.
"U.S. defense contractors consider the Iraqi military contracts their
domain. The Glock deal was an anomaly and some people were
upset by it. The sentiment expressed by some members of the
American Congress was, 'How could an American company not
get it?' " said Berrigan.
"Obviously countries and defense industries are excited about
lifting an arms embargo," said Rachel Stohl, a researcher with the
Center for Defense Information. "But the policy is problematic
because there has been no thorough inventory of Iraq's arsenals."
Iraq is "awash in light weaponry," Stohl said. She believes importing
arms will only exacerbate the security problems posed by the
country's already overstocked and unregulated arsenal of small
arms -- revolvers, rifles, pistols and the like.
After Saddam Hussein's defeat, the Iraqi people found themselves
in possession of at least 7 to 8 million small arms previously kept
by security forces, according to the Small Arms Survey of 2004, a
publication of the Graduate Institute of International Studies in
Geneva. The publication described Iraq as a country that "has
become synonymous with gun violence."
In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Stohl estimated that small
arms have killed "more than one third" of the U.S. soldiers who
have died in Iraq since the end of major combat operations in May
2003, wounded thousands more, and wreaked havoc on the Iraqi
population. "Uncounted Iraqi civilians have been killed, wounded,
hreatened or terrorized by small arms," she wrote.
With regard to replenishing Iraq's heavy conventional weaponry,
Stohl asked, "Do they need to be spending a significant amount of
money on new weapons? The threats they are facing are not going
to be solved with tanks alone. What are the greatest needs of
reconstruction? Is it military goods and services or is it roads
and services?"
But for Anthony Cordesman, national security analyst with the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, lifting the arms
embargo is the natural outcome of Iraq's sovereignty and should
not be questioned, especially given the severity of the current
nsurgency. Cordesman, who has sharply criticized the United
States for not attending to the development of Iraq's security
forces, admitted there are practical obstacles to Iraq's rearmament,
including lack of money and the lack of a stable security force to
absorb the arms. But he said the current insurgency necessitates
that the new government have access to weapons.
"If you cannot create effective security, you have no chance of
creating a national government. For an Iraqi government to
succeed it has to take this mission [of security] over. There is
no question the insurgents are able to draw from a large cache
of weapons left over from Hussein's regime. Suggesting Iraq should
remain under an arms embargo is about as relevant as suggesting
an arms embargo for the Spanish government when they were
fighting the fascists during the Spanish Civil War," he said.
Critics of the new U.N. provision disagree. They say Iraq's sovereignty
is limited, if not superficial, overshadowed by the formidable
presence of the U.S. military.
"You are dealing with a country that is about to get seven large
U.S. military bases," said George Lopez, director of Policy Studies
and senior fellow at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International
Peace Studies. "The only way to make this appear to be a not so
visible occupation is to allow the Iraqis their own arsenal. It's like
NATO basing in Germany at the height of the Cold War. They
armed NATO and they armed Germany, and that's what you
have here."
Iraq has five major security forces: the Iraqi Police Service, the
Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, the army, the border patrol and the
Facilities Protection Services. Although the Pentagon has been
successful in recruiting members of these forces (working security
in Iraq is one of the few jobs that offers a regular paycheck),
cultivating their allegiance to a central government has been
more difficult.
"In some instances, private contractors are training Iraqi military
and police," Berrigan said. "Who's vetting these people? The
security environment is so precarious that introducing a whole
new set of armed individuals is adding a new layer of volatility
to an already volatile region. At the same time water isn't clean."
Berrigan said she is familiar with the argument that security
must precede reconstruction but she sees Iraq's dilemma as a
"chicken and egg kind of thing. The fact that there isn't
electricity or plumbing fuels the resistance. It seems to me
these projects come first. Security flows from basic needs
being met," she said.
Claire Schaeffer-Duffy is a freelance writer living in Worcester,
Mass.
National Catholic Reporter, September 10, 2004
www.natcath.org
Since 1923 the War Resisters League has affirmed that war is
a crime against humanity. We therefore are determined not to
support any kind of war, international or civil, and to strive
nonviolently for the removal of all the causes of war.
VOTE YES ON 'N'!
Next BAUAW meeting:
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 7 p.m.
1380 VALENCIA STREET
(BETWEEN 24TH & 25TH STREETS, SF)
CHECK OUR NEWLY DESIGNED WEB SITE: www.bauaw.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) Please come! Please support! Please help spread the word!
ATTENTION S.F. RESIDENTS OUT OF WORK:
Save our youth!
Stop gentrification that's driving Blacks out of S.F.!
Win hundreds of long-term construction jobs!
Come one come all to the Transportation
Authority committee meeting
Tuesday, Sept. 14, 10:30am
Room 263, City Hall
2) The Struggle for Palestine:
4th Anniversary of the Intifada
October 2nd 2004.
Horace Mann Middle School - 3351 23rd Street, San Francisco
*PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY*
3) In this message from A.N.S.W.E.R.:
· The War at Home: Bayview- Hunters Point
· Immigrant Rights March
· March Against Racism & Discrimination
4) 9/11 Pollution 'Could Cause More Deaths Than Attack'
Published on Sunday, September 12, 2004 by the lndependent/UK
By Geoffrey Lean
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0912-01.htm
5) Bush team 'knew of abuse' at Guantánamo
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Monday September 13, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1303105,00.html
6) 25 Reported Killed in U.S. Strike on Rebel Base in Falluja
By TERENCE NEILAN
September 13, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/international/middleeast/13CND-
IRAQ.html?hp
7) Ellsberg urges insiders to leak Iraq info
By KATA KERTESZ
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
WASHINGTON
Thursday, September 9, 2004 · Last updated 9:25 p.m. PT
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/
apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=Ellsberg
8) ALERT: CFL ALERT: ASK YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO STOP
THE INDISCRIMINATE KILLING OF PALESTINIAN YOUTH.
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004
From: Seham Fare
SEND OUR PREWRITTEN LETTER NOW OR, WRITE YOUR OWN:
http://www.cflweb.org/congress_merge_.htm
*********************************
Citizens for Fair Legislation
For Immediate Release
September 12, 2004
********************************
9) Solidarity greetings to The Coalition Against the
Deportation of Palestinian Refugees in Montreal,
From Bay Area United Against War (BAUAW)
www.bauaw.org
We stand in full support of your two demands,
1. To stop the deportations of the Palestinian refugees from
Canada
2. To grant them permanent residency on humanitarian
and compassionate grounds
10) Preventive War: A Failed Doctrine
September 12, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/opinion/12sun1.html?hp
11) Iraq allowed to rearm
Critics say embargo lift may worsen Iraq's security problems
By CLAIRE SCHAEFFER-DUFFY
National Catholic Reporter, September 10, 2004
www.natcath.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) Please come! Please support! Please help spread the word!
ATTENTION S.F. RESIDENTS OUT OF WORK:
Save our youth!
Stop gentrification that's driving Blacks out of S.F.!
Win hundreds of long-term construction jobs!
Come one come all to the Transportation
Authority committee meeting
Tuesday, Sept. 14, 10:30am
Room 263, City Hall
One big Third St. Light Rail project remains to be built -
and we're claiming it!
Muni's $125 million maintenance barn at 26th & Illinois
is our project! If we don't build it, nobody will!
We demand:
1) On-the-job training in all trades
2) Enforcement of all hiring goals:
50% resident, 25.6% minority, 6.9% women
Tell your Supervisors,
NO MONEY FOR MUNI UNTIL THEY COMPLY!
Last Thursday, 300 residents turned out for the
Human Rights Commission meeting -
Let's do it again and more so!
For more information, call:
Louise Williams, Citizens Out of Work, (415) 374-3993
Willie Ratcliff, SF Bay View &
African American Contractors of SF, (415) 671-0789
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) The Struggle for Palestine:
4th Anniversary of the Intifada
October 2nd 2004.
Horace Mann Middle School - 3351 23rd Street, San Francisco
*PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY*
The Justice in Palestine Coalition, a group of progressive organizations wh=
o
have come together to work for a free Palestine, is hosting a day-long
conference to:
1. Educate ourselves and our allies, and deepen our knowledge &
understanding of the struggle in Palestine.
2. Link the work of our individual organizations and strengthen our network=
s
and activism through discussion, debate, and collaborative planning.
3. Organize for future solidarity and develop concrete a concrete plan of
action for the coming months.
4. Support the resistance in Palestine, and make links with others who are
fighting against the US occupation of Iraq, and against US Imperialism
around the world.
The conference will include panels, workshops and cultural performances. A
complete schedule of events is listed below.
Please reply to this email to find out about the next meeting of Justice in=
Palestine and help us build for this important event.
............
** Program **
The Struggle for Palestine: 4th Anniversary of the Intifada
October 2nd, 2004
9:00-9:30: Registration
Morning Plenary Session: The Current Status of Resistance in Palestine
workshops throughout the day include:
-Continuations of Plenary: Status of Resistance
-History of Palestine, The Nekbah and the Right of Return
-Iraq and Palestine: 2 Struggles, One cause
-Zionism
-Women and Resistance
-Direct Action: Skills Development
-The Impact of Palestine on the US Elections
-Political Prisoners, Here and in Palestine
-Globalization in the Arab World
-The Targets of Empire: Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, Iran, Philippines, Africa
-Arab World Solidarity/Resistance
-US Solidarity Groups
-Repression/Occupation in the US (patriot Act, profiling, attacks on civil
liberties)
Report Back From Workshops
Closing Summation and the Future in Palestine
Cultural Performances
for more information:
info@justiceinpalestine.net
or visit
www.justiceinpalestine.net
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) In this message from A.N.S.W.E.R.:
· The War at Home: Bayview- Hunters Point
· Immigrant Rights March
· March Against Racism Discrimination
A.N.S.W.E.R. Educational Forum:
THE WAR AT HOME: BAYVIEW-HUNTERS POINT
Tuesday, Sept. 14, 7pm
San Francisco Women‚s Building
3543 18th St. between Valencia and Guerrero
The Pentagon spends billions of dollars to wreak war and violence
on poor people around the world and here ˆ dollars that are being
taken straight from our communities which need it for housing, jobs,
schools and healthcare. The Bayview-Hunters Point community of
San Francisco is on of the hardest hit by the war at home.
Join us to hear featured speaker Maurice Campbell from the
Community First Coalition and find out about:
· The Navy Shipyard toxic dump and PG power plant that are
poisoning the community
· Racist gentrification being carried out by big real estate developers
· Ongoing police terror against the Bayview-Hunters Point community
· How the community is building alliances and fighting back
$3-$10 donation (no one turned away for lack of funds)
Free childcare available, call to reserve.
For more information, contact 415-821-6545.
----------
Immigrant Rights March
Wednesday, Sept. 15, 5:30pm
Gather at 16th and Mission St., march to 24th and Mission St.
March to reclaim the Mission District for
undocumented immigrants in response to IMF raids.
Call 415-487-9203 for more information.
----------
March Against Racism Discrimination
Save the Date:
Friday, Oct. 1, 5pm
A recent campaign to expose racism and discrimination at the
S.F. Badlands bar in the Castro has resulted in community activism,
widespread media coverage, and action on the part of the city's
Human Rights Commission.
A coalition of organizations - including Black Rap, And Castro
For All, ANSWER, the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, the SF LGBT
Pride Celebration Committee, GAPA, and others - have come
together to plan a protest to raise awareness about racism and
other forms of discrimination within the Lesbian, Gay, Bi Trans
community in San Francisco.
Save the date of Friday, October 1. It will include a march and
rally, as well as a celebration of the potential for inclusion that
we strive for our community to achieve. Details to follow. Please
join in planning and gathering diverse people to this event. For
more information call 415-821-6545 or email answer@actionsf.org.
To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) 9/11 Pollution 'Could Cause More Deaths Than Attack'
Published on Sunday, September 12, 2004 by the lndependent/UK
By Geoffrey Lean
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0912-01.htm
Up to 400,000 New Yorkers breathed in the most toxic polluting
cloud ever recorded after the twin towers were brought down three
years ago, but no proper effort has been made to find out how their
health has been affected, according to an official report.
The US government study provides the latest evidence of a systematic
cover-up of the health toll from pollution after the 9/11 disaster,
which doctors fear will cause more deaths than the attacks themselves.
The Bush administration suppressed evidence of increasing danger
and officially announced that the air around the felled buildings was
"safe to breathe". Another report reveals that it has since failed at
least a dozen times to correct its assurances, even when it became
clear that people were becoming sick.
The official report - sent to Congress last week by the US Government
Accountability Office - says that between 250,000 and 400,000 people
in lower Manhattan were exposed to the pollution on 11 September
2001. But it shows that the government has yet to make a comprehensive
effort to study the effects on their health.
And it reveals that there is no systematic effort to adequately monitor
the well-being of those affected, give them physical examinations or
provide treatment.
Scientific studies have shown that the cloud of pulverized debris from
the skyscrapers was uniquely dangerous. The US government's own
figures show that it contained the highest levels of deadly dioxins
ever recorded - about 1,500 times normal levels. Unprecedented
levels of acids, sulphur, fine particles, heavy metals and other
dangerous materials were also measured.
Asbestos was found at 27 times acceptable levels, and scientists
found about 400 organic alkanes, phthalates and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons - many suspected of causing cancer and other long-
term diseases.
The site at Ground Zero went on smoldering, becoming what
scientists describe as a "chemical factory", creating new dangerous
substances.
(c) 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Bush team 'knew of abuse' at Guantánamo
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Monday September 13, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1303105,00.html
Evidence of prisoner abuse and possible war crimes at Guantánamo
Bay reached the highest levels of the Bush administration as early as
autumn 2002, but Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, chose to
do nothing about it, according to a new investigation published
exclusively in the Guardian today.
The investigation, by the veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, quotes
one former marine at the camp recalling sessions in which guards
would "fuck with [detainees] as much as we could" by inflicting pain
on them.
The Bush administration repeatedly assured critics that inmates
were granted recreation periods, but one Pentagon adviser told
Hersh how, for some prisoners, they consisted of being left in
straitjackets in intense sunlight with hoods over their heads.
Hersh provides details of how President George Bush signed off on
the establishment of a secret unit that was given advance approval to
kill or capture and interrogate "high-value" suspects - considered by
many to be in defiance of international law - an officially "unacknowledged=
"
programme that was eventually transferred wholesale from Guantánamo
to the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Hersh, who broke the story of the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam war,
makes his revelations in a new book, Chain of Command, which leaves
senior figures in the Bush administration far more seriously implicated
in the torture scandal than had been previously apparent.
A CIA analyst visited Guantánamo in summer 2002 and returned
"convinced that we were committing war crimes" and that "more
than half the people there didn't belong there. He found people
lying in their own faeces," a CIA source told Hersh.
The analyst submitted a report to General John Gordon, an aide to
Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser.
Gen Gordon was troubled, and, one former administration official
told Hersh "that if the actions at Guantánamo ever became public,
it'd be damaging to the president".
Ms Rice saw the document by autumn of the same year, and called
a high-level meeting at which she asked Mr Rumsfeld, to deal with
the problem.
But after he vowed to act, "the Pentagon went into a full-court stall",
a former White House official is quoted as saying. "Why didn't Condi
do more? She made the same mistake I made. She got the secretary
of defence to say he's going to take care of it."
The investigation further suggests that CIA and FBI staff had already
witnessed incidents at Guantánamo just as extreme as those that
would subsequently be alleged by freed inmates.
A senior intelligence official told Hersh: "I was told [by FBI agents]
that the military guards were slapping prisoners, stripping them,
pouring cold water over them and making them stand until they got
hypothermia."
The secret "special access programme" facilitating much of the
mistreatment of prisoners, widely held to have contravened the
Geneva convention, was established following a direct order from
the president.
Hersh reports that a secret document signed by Mr Bush in
February 2002 stated: "I determine that none of the provisions of
Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaida in Afghanistan or
elsewhere throughout the world."
Hersh's book reports that an army officer communicated concerns
over abuses at Abu Ghraib both to General John Abizaid, the US
central command (Centcom) chief at the time, and his deputy,
General Lance Smith.
The officer told Hersh: "I said there are systematic abuses going
on in the prisons. Abizaid didn't say a thing. He looked at me -
beyond me, as if to say, 'Move on. I don't want to touch this.'"
Centcom has disputed the allegation.
In an interview with the Guardian, Hersh provided evidence that
the administration sought to evade the issue: he said codenames
of some programmes were changed within hours of his original
story appearing, presumably to maintain their secrecy.
In a statement, the Pentagon said Hersh's investigation "apparently
contains many of the numerous unsubstantiated allegations and
inaccuracies which he has made in the past based upon unnamed
sources ... Thus far ... investigations have determined that no
responsible official of the Department of Defence approved any
programme that could conceivably have authorised or condoned
the abuses seen at Abu Ghraib. If any of Mr Hersh's anonymous
sources wish to come forward and offer evidence to the contrary,
the department welcomes them to do so."
Pressure has been building on the Pentagon over its detention
policies after it emerged at a Congressional hearing last week
that the administration is being accused of concealing up to 100
"ghost detainees" from the Red Cross, which must be granted
access to prisoners of war and other detainees under the Geneva
convention.
Mr Rumsfeld told reporters on Friday he had approved the use
of harsh interrogation measures, but that they had only been
meant for Guantánamo. He said the measures ought to be
contrasted with those of terrorists. "Does it rank up there with
chopping someone's head off on television?" he asked. "It doesn't."
Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) 25 Reported Killed in U.S. Strike on Rebel Base in Falluja
By TERENCE NEILAN
September 13, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/international/middleeast/13CND-
IRAQ.html?hp
American warplanes made what the military called a precision
strike on a meeting place of terrorists believed linked to Al Qaeda
in the Sunni stronghold of Falluja today, killing an estimated 25
militants.
The military said in a statement that the attack was on a base
intelligence officers had confirmed was used by rebels loyal to
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant believed by American
officials to be Al Qaeda's most senior leader in Iraq. Americans have
blamed Mr. Zarqawi for many of the suicide bombings in Baghdad
and in other Iraqi cities.
News agency reports from Falluja that the air strikes killed at least
16 civilians, including women and children, and that an ambulance
was hit by a shell, killing the driver and six other occupants, were
denied by a coalition press officer by telephone from Baghdad.
"The U.S. military is confirming that we did not hit an ambulance
and we did not hit a marketplace," the press officer, Sharon Walker,
said, referring to news agency accounts.
Ms. Walker said that the 25 deaths "of Zarqawi operatives or
anti-Iraqi forces" were an "initial estimate," leaving open the
possibility of more casualties.
Today's attack was the latest in almost a week of American strikes
against rebel positions in Falluja, located 35 miles west of Falluja.
Despite the military's denial, witnesses said the bombing targeted
the city's residential al-Shurta neighborhood, damaging buildings
and raising clouds of black smoke, The Associated Press reported.
Dr. Adel Khamis of the Falluja General Hospital told the news agency
that at least 16 people were killed and 12 others wounded. The
ambulance was hit by a shell, killing the driver, a paramedic and
five patients inside the vehicle, another hospital official, Hamid
Salaman, told The A.P.
"The conditions here are miserable - an ambulance was bombed,
three houses destroyed and men and women killed," the hospital's
director, Rafayi Hayad al-Esawi, told Al-Jazeera television by telephone
in a report posted on the satellite station's Web site. "The American
Army has no morals."
He added, "Shame on our government that cannot protect the people."
Witnesses told The A.P. that American warplanes repeatedly swooped
low over the city and that artillery units deployed on the outskirts of
the city also opened fire. The explosions started at sunrise and
continued for several hours.
The military statement said the attack occurred at 6:07 this morning.
One explosion went off in a marketplace in Falluja as the first vendors
began to set up their stalls, wounding several people and shattering
windows, witnesses told the news agency.
American forces pulled out of Falluja in April after a three-week
siege that left hundreds dead. The United States Marines have not
patrolled inside Falluja since then, and Sunni insurgents have
strengthened their hold on the city.
In other violence today, three members of the Iraqi National Guard
were killed, three were wounded and one was missing in action
when their joint patrol with American forces from the First Brigade
Combat Team was attacked by a vehicle containing an improvised
explosive device, the military said.
The attack took place on the road to Al Amashru, about 18 miles
northeast of Al Hilla City.
Today's attacks came a day after a surge in violence across Iraq.
The A.P. reported that 78 people were killed Sunday, citing the
Health Ministry and local authorities.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) Ellsberg urges insiders to leak Iraq info
By KATA KERTESZ
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
WASHINGTON
Thursday, September 9, 2004 · Last updated 9:25 p.m. PT
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/
apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=Ellsberg
WASHINGTON -- Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department
official who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war,
is urging government insiders to provide similar classified documents
about the invasion of Iraq.
Joined by other whistle-blowers and former government employees,
Ellsberg said at a news conference Thursday that claims of government
deception and lies have "little credibility" unless supported by
documentary evidence, which often is available only in classified
materials.
In a memo to current government employees, Ellsberg and other
former government officials said federal insiders owe a "higher
allegiance" to the Constitution, the public and American soldiers
in Iraq than to their government bosses.
"A hundred forty-thousand Americans are risking their lives every
day in Iraq for dubious purpose," the memo said. "Our country has
urgent need of comparable moral courage from its public officials.
Truth-telling is a patriotic and effective way to serve the nation.
The time for speaking out is now."
The memo acknowledged that whistle-blowers risk personal
setbacks, such as losing their jobs, but urged them to act
nonetheless. "You may save many Americans from being lied
to death," it said.
Sibel Edmonds, who was fired by the FBI after she alleged security
lapses in the agency's translator program, said the government
frequently over-classifies documents, including the investigation
into her own case.
Among the documents claimed to be wrongly classified are sections
of reports from Army investigations into prisoner abuse in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and supporting material for then-Army Gen. Eric
Shinseki's February 2003 estimate that several hundred thousand
troops would have to stay in Iraq after the war.
Ellsberg was a special assistant to the assistant secretary of
defense during the Vietnam War. He released the 7,000 page
classified study to the Senate and 19 newspapers in 1971 and
now leads the Truth Telling Project.
On the Net:
Truth Telling Project: www.truthtellingproject.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) ALERT: CFL ALERT: ASK YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO STOP
THE INDISCRIMINATE KILLING OF PALESTINIAN YOUTH.
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004
From: Seham Fare
SEND OUR PREWRITTEN LETTER NOW OR, WRITE YOUR OWN:
http://www.cflweb.org/congress_merge_.htm
*********************************
Citizens for Fair Legislation
For Immediate Release
September 12, 2004
********************************
CFL ALERT: ASK YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO STOP THE INDISCRIMINATE
KILLING OF PALESTINIAN YOUTH.
TALKING POINTS
*On 9/11/04 Israelis slaughtered 18-year-old Muhammad al-Haq as he was
walking home. An Israeli soldier manning a jeep ran over him
repeatedly until he died. The vehicle then fled from the scene after
killing Muhammed. Last year American citizens were horrified when our
government refused to censure Israel after a soldier killed Rachel
Corrie, a U.S. citizen in a manner that was eerily reminiscent of the
way Muhammed al-Haq was killed. In that incident the soldier ran over
and continued to back up over her body repeatedly with a CAT
bulldozer. If our government had properly censured Israel over the
death of Rachel Corrie, perhaps Muhammed would be alive today. In the
past few months the Israelis have killed over 50 children between the
ages of 2 months and 18 years without a single reprimand by this
country. Contact your representatives, both Republicans and Democrats
and urge them to stop looking the other way as Israel continues to
murder and victimize Palestinian children daily.
TALKING POINTS
*Over 600 Palestinian children between the ages of two months and 18
years have been killed by the Israeli Defense Forces in the past three
and a half years. Ask your representatives why they have remained
silent while this slaughter has occurred.
*Hundreds of Palestinian children are languishing in the territories
because the Israeli government refuses to let them out of the country
and into Jordan or Egypt to seek medical care. No other country in
the world would be allowed to deliberately treat children in such an
abusive manner, ask your representatives why they feel this is
appropriate.
*Israel will not allow the UN to move freely within the territories,
as a result the UN has issued an emergency report earlier in the year
stating that Palestinians living in the Israeli-occupied territories
of Gaza and the West Bank are on the verge of a humanitarian
catastrophe. The report also stated that 9 percent of Palestinian
children under age 5 suffer from brain defects caused by malnutrition
because of the occupation.
*Tell your representatives that you feel Israeli action against
Palestinian children is deplorable and that you feel that this
government shares responsibility for the murder of over 600
Palestinian children, the starvation of an entire generation of
Palestinian children and all other Israeli crimes that specifically
target Palestinian children. None of these crimes against children
could happen were it not for the tacit approval by the president of
the United States and the U.S. Congress and Senate.
Please choose the appropriate letter to send! (YOU MUST PICK A SUBJECT
FROM THE DROP DOWN BAR) [After you enter your contact info the
appropriate addresses are provided. Simply type, or send our
prewritten letter and click send. Be sure to bookmark this page so you
can send ONE LETTER EVERY DAY. We have prewritten letters for your
convenience.]
EMAIL AND OR CALL THE WHITE HOUSE
WHITE HOUSE COMMENTS LINE: 202-456-1111
WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
WHITE HOUSE FAX: 202-456-2461
Citizens for Fair Legislation is a grassroots organization committed
to encouraging a fair domestic and foreign policy with an emphasis on
the US/Arab world.
www.cflweb.org
To learn more about John Kerry and his anti-human rights position on
Palestinians, click here: http://cflweb.org/kerryonisrael.htm.htm
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) Solidarity greetings to The Coalition Against the
Deportation of Palestinian Refugees in Montreal,
From Bay Area United Against War (BAUAW)
www.bauaw.org
We stand in full support of your two demands,
1. To stop the deportations of the Palestinian refugees from Canada
2. To grant them permanent residency on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds
Please add us to your list of endorsers. We have forwarded your
appeal to our list-serve. We join in solidarity with your struggle to
resist illegal, racially and religiously motivated persecution of
Palestinians in your country and ours. Especially those who stand
up for their rights as free citizens of the world and as Palestinians
being forced off their land by U.S.-funded Israeli Apartheid.
We are working to end all U.S. aid to Israel! Tear down the Apartheid
Wall! Demand the right of return of all Palestinians to their land! Stop
the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Bring all U.S. and allied troops and
corporations home now.
Yours for peace and solidarity,
Bonnie Weinstein,
Bay Area United Against War
---------- Forwarded message- please pass along ----------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Palestinian Refugees - Montreal
STATELESS & DEPORTED!
A Popular Mobilization Against Deportation of Palestinians from Canada
=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>
SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 18th, 2004
Gathering Point: 2PM Corner Atwater & St. Catherine
{metro Atwater}
=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>
From the Refugee Camps of Lebanon & Palestine to the Streets of Montreal!
For more than one year Palestinian refugees in Montreal and throughout
Canada have been struggling against deportation and fighting for their
status. On September 18th, the Coalition Against the Deportation of
Palestinian Refugees and their supporters are calling for your
participation in a large-scale demonstration on the streets of Montreal.
It is a critical time to show your solidarity with the Palestinian
refugees, as many of the deportations are set to take place in the coming
weeks and months. In Montreal, Palestinian refugees have already been
forced by Immigration Canada to live underground or take sanctuary, such
as Khalil Ayoub, 67 Nabih Ayoub, 69 and Therese Boulos Haddad, 62 who have
been refugees all their lives, fleeing Palestine in 1948 to the refugee
camps of Lebanon, and ultimately to Canada. The Ayoub family, confined to
the basement of Notre-Dame de Grace Church, were forced to take sanctuary
over 7 months ago to escape deportation.
The September 18th demonstration in Montreal will also commemorate the
thousands of Palestinian refugees who lost their lives in the 1982
massacre of Sabra and Chatila, during the Israeli invasion of Beirut. The
Palestinian refugees facing deportation are the sons and daughters of the
very same refugee camps, which suffered throughout the 15-year long
Lebanese civil-war. They are the sons and daughters of Sabra & Chatila,
Tel El Zaatar and Bourj El Barajneh, stateless refugees representing a
history of displacement, which began in 1948. As we remember the massacre
of Sabra & Chatila - one of the deepest wounds in the Palestinian
consciousness - we will demonstrate in solidarity with the struggle of
Palestinians here in Canada!
We will march on the streets of Montreal within the context of a political
campaign that has been waged throughout Canada during the past year in
support of the Palestinian refugees facing deportation. Thousands of
people throughout the country have participated in street demonstrations,
and thousands more have pressured Citizenship & Immigration Canada in
support of the refugees. Wide sections of society are standing in
solidarity with the struggle against Palestinian deportations, including
the Arab and Muslim community, self-organized immigrants and refugees,
major labour unions, countless community groups, major political parties,
faith based organizations and thousands of individuals from throughout the
world. With this strong backing, we intend to intensify the struggle
against Palestinian deportations this September.
We must stand united in the struggle against the deportation of
Palestinian refugees! Join us on the streets of Montreal on September 18th
and throughout the month of September for a popular mobilization against
the deportation of Palestinian refugees.
Your support, solidarity and action is needed now!
For more information or to get involved contact:
The Coalition Against the Deportation of Palestinian Refugees in Montreal
Phone: 514 591 3171
Email: refugees@riseup.net
Web: http://refugees.resist.ca
-> Below is the list of supporting organizations for the two demands of
the Coalition Against the Deportation of Palestinian Refugees:
1. To stop the deportations of the Palestinian refugees from Canada
2. To grant them permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate
grounds
QUÃBEC:
Action Committee of Pakistani Refugees Against Racial Profiling, *
Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale(AQOCI)
* Alsuna Mosque * Alternatives, Montreal * Alternative Perspective Media,
* AnNahda, Montreal * The Anti-Capitalist Convergence of Montreal (CLAC) *
Association Générale Ãtudiante du Cégep du Vieux Montréal (AGECVM), *
Association for the Taxation of Financial Transaction for the Aid of
Citizens (ATTAC-Montreal), Montreal * Bête Noire (NEFAC), * Bloque
Quebecois * Block the Empire/Bloquez l'Empire, * Comité d'action des
sans-status Algériens (CASS), * Canadian Palestinian Foundation of Quebec
(CPF-Q), * Canadian Federation of Students Quebec (CFS-Q), * Canadian
Muslim Forum (CMF), * Canadian Muslims for Jerusalem (CMJ), * Center
Femmes Verdun, Quebec * CKUT Radio, 90.3fm Montreal, * La Centrale des
syndicats du Québec (CSQ), * Coalition justice pour Adil Charkaoui, *
Collective Opposed to Police Brutality (COBP), * Comité Justice sociale
des Soeurs Auxiliatrices, * Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain
(CSN), * Conseil paroissial de pastorale, Communauté chrétienne
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, * Comité régional d'éducation pour le développement
international de Lanaudière (CREDIL) * Council of Canadians * Dar Al-Arqam
Mosque * Dragon Root Center for Gender Advocacy, * L'Entraide
missionnaire, * Durzi Community of Quebec * El-Hedaya Lebanese Association
* Fire Women & Trans of Colour Collective, * Forum des femmes de
Montréal,* Freedom School, * ICQ Mosque * Indigenous Peoples Solidarity
Movement (IPSM), * Iranian Women's Association of Montreal, * Iranian
Women's Association of Montreal, * International Solidarity Movement
(ISM), Montreal * Iraq Solidarity Project (ISP), * Jewish Alliance Against
the Occupation, * Lebanese Islamic Center of Montreal (CIL), * Lebanese
Communist Party in Montreal, * Lebanese Union of Montreal, * Libertas
Legal Collective, * Ligue des droits et libertés, * McGill Radical Law
Community, Medical Aid for Palestine (MAP), * MRAP-Québec (Mouvement
contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme et pour la paix) * Muslim Council of
Montreal (MCM) * L'Opération SalAMI * Palestinian & Jewish Unity (PAJU), *
Parole Arabe, * Parti Marxist-Leninst Quebec * Quebec Public Interest
Research Group (QPIRG) at Concordia, * Quebec Public Interest Research
Group (QPIRG) at McGill * Rebel Desis * Regroupement des Organismes du
Montréal Ethnique pour le Logement (ROMEL) * Solidairty for Palestinian
Human Rights (SPHR) * South Asian Women's Community Center * Solidarité
Union Coopération (SUCO) * Union des forces progressistes (UFP) * United
Muslim Students Association * Voices of Conscience (OCVC) * Women in Black
Montreal
CANADA:
Association of Palestinian Arab Canadians, Ottawa * Al-Awda - the
Palestinian Right of Return Coalition, North America, * Anti-Capitalist
Community Action Ottawa (ACA), Ottawa * Arab-Palestine Association-BC,
Vancouver * Arab Palestine Association of Ontario, Toronto * Arab Student
Collective (ASC) at the University of Toronto * Bloque Quebecois *
Canadian Council for Refugees, Le Conseil canadien pour les réfugiés
(CCR), * Canadian Friends of Sabeel, Ottawa * Canadian Arab Federation
(CAF), * Canadian Palestinian Center, Ottawa * Canaanite Canadian
Knowledge Center, Ottawa * Canadians for Equality and Peace for
Palestinians (CEPPal), Edmonton * Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) Local 199,
St Catharines and District * Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), *
Canadian Palestinian Congress, Toronto * Calgary Coalition for Peace &
Anti-Racism * Canadian Council of Muslim Women * Direct Action Casework
Ottawa (DACO), Ottawa * The Free Press, of Kitchener, Ontario * Human
Concern International, Ottawa * International Socialists, Canada *
International Solidarity Movement (ISM), Toronto * International ANSWER
Coalition, NYC * International Action Center (IAC), * The Islamic Society
of York Region * Kingston for Palestinian Human Rights, * Manitoba Islamic
Association, * McMaster Students Against the Occupation, Hamilton * Muslim
Student Association of the University of Alberta, Edmonton * Muslim
Student Association at the University of Waterloo * New Democratic Party
of Canada (NDP) * New Socialist Group, Toronto * The Near East Cultural
and Educational Foundation, Toronto * Niagara Coalition for Peace, Niagara
Region * Niagara Palestinian Association, Niagara * No One Is Illegal,
Vancouver * No One is Illegal, Toronto * No One is Illegal, Montreal *
NOWAR-PAIX, Ottawa * Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), Toronto *
Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), Toronto * Ontario Public
Interest Research Group (OPIRG) at Carleton, Ottawa * Palestine Solidairty
Group, Vancouver * Project Threadbare Campaign, Toronto * STATUS
Coalition, Toronto * Solidarity with Iraqi & Palestinian Children at
Carleton, Ottawa * The Spot, Kitchener-Waterloo Youth Resource Center *
Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, Toronto * Toronto Jewish Youth Against
the Occupation, Toronto * United Holy Land Fund, Toronto * Women Against
the Occupation, Canada
INTERNATIONAL:
Aidoun Group, Lebanon * Akka Charitable Association, Lebanon * Al-Awda
Egypt, Cairo, Egypt * Al-Awda Club, Lebanon * Al-Awda - the Palestinian
Right of Return Coalition, North America, * Al-Nadeem Center for the
Rehabilitation of the Victims of Violence, Cairo, Egypt * Arab American
Association, New York, * Arraby Charitable Association, Lebanon * Center
for Women Activities, Lebanon * Coalition for the Human Rights of
Immigrants (CHRI), New York * Committee for Charitable Works, Lebanon *
The Coordination Forum of the NGO's Working Among the Palestinian
Community, Lebanon * Deir Yassin Society of New York, * Desis Rising Up &
Moving (DRUM) New York, * Direct Action Palestine, New York, * The East
Jerusalem YMCA, Palestine * The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights,
Egypt * The General Union of Palestinian Women, Lebanon * The General
Union of Palestinian Workers, Lebanon * Immigrant Justice Solidarity
Project (IJSP), New York, * International Solidarity Movement, Berkeley, *
Islamic Association for Palestine in North America, * Jews Against The
Occupation, New York, * A Jewish Voice for Peace, Oakland, * Justice for
Palestinians, San Jose, * Khalsa Social Association, Lebanon * The March
For Justice, International * Multi-Lingual Translators & Interpreters
Group, Egypt * New England Committee to Defend Palestine, Boston * New
York Committee to Defend Palestine, * New Jersey Solidarity - Activists
for the Liberation of Palestine * Office of Palestinian Students Aid,
Lebanon * The Organization of Palestinian Democratic Women, Lebanon * The
Organization of Palestinian Democratic Youth, Lebanon * The Organization
of Palestinian Human Rights, Lebanon * Palestinian Women Union, Egypt *
Palestinian Students Committee, University of Wollongong, UAE *
Palestinian Cultural Club, American University in Dubai, UAE * Reach
Organization, Dubai, UAE Roots Association (Judhoor), Lebanon * School of
Oriental & African Studies (SOAS) Palestine Society, London, UK * Students
for Justice at San Jose State University, San Jose, USA * Tulkarem Club,
Lebanon * Union of Palestinian Youth, Gaza, Palestine * Youth & Children
Center, Chatila, Lebanon
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
10) Preventive War: A Failed Doctrine
September 12, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/opinion/12sun1.html?hp
If facts mattered in American politics, the Bush-Cheney ticket would
not be basing its re-election campaign on the fear-mongering
contention that the surest defense against future terrorist attacks
lies in the badly discredited doctrine of preventive war. Vice President
Dick Cheney took this argument to a disgraceful low last week when
he implied that electing John Kerry and returning to traditional
American foreign policy values would invite a devastating new strike.
So far, the preventive war doctrine has had one real test: the invasion
of Iraq. Mr. Bush terrified millions of Americans into believing that
forcibly changing the regime in Baghdad was the only way to keep
Iraq's supposed stockpiles of unconventional weapons out of the
hands of Al Qaeda. Then it turned out that there were no stockpiles
and no operational links between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al
Qaeda's anti-American terrorism. Meanwhile, America's longstanding
defensive alliances were weakened and the bulk of America's ground
combat troops tied down in Iraq for what now appears to be many
years to come. If that is making this country safer, it is hard to see
how. The real lesson is that America dangerously erodes its military
and diplomatic defenses when it charges off unwisely after
hypothetical enemies.
Before the Iraq fiasco, American leaders rightly viewed war as a last
resort, appropriate only when the nation's vital interests were
actively threatened and reasonable diplomatic efforts had been
exhausted. That view always left room for pre-emptive attacks;
America is under no obligation to sit and wait, if it is clear that
some enemy is actually preparing to strike first. But it correctly
drew the line at preventive wars against potential foes who might,
or might not, be thinking about doing something dangerous. As
the administration's disastrous experience in Iraq amply demonstrates,
that is still the wisest course and the one that keeps America most
secure in an increasingly dangerous era.
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, plainly ushered in a new era
of catastrophic threats to the American homeland. If these are to be
met effectively, major changes in national security policy will be
required. But a shift toward preventive wars is not one of them. As
the 9/11 commission report clearly established, international
terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are highly mobile, self-financing
and largely independent of traditional states. Governments that
grant them sanctuary and facilities, like Afghanistan under the
Taliban or Sudan, must face strong international pressure,
including American military attack. Any attempt by the president
and his surrogates to lump the invasion of Afghanistan into the
category of preventive wars is plain wrong. In fact, the war in Iraq
has undermined the important work that American forces are
doing in Afghanistan by diverting soldiers, supplies and money.
Al Qaeda has already declared war on the United States, and
America needs to fight back relentlessly - in Afghanistan and
through international efforts to capture terrorist leaders who
function with forged passports and visas, safe houses and sleeper
cells. That is why Mr. Cheney is also wrong to disparage law-
enforcement cooperation with allies as an important weapon
in this war.
Instead, he promises more preventive, offensive wars against
hypothetical dangers like Iraq. Besides estranging America from
its main European and Asian allies, and leaving Washington looking
like an aggressor to much of the Arab and Muslim world, these policies
kill American soldiers and civilians in the countries attacked, and they
threaten to tie down the Army and Marine divisions America needs to
have available for responding to real threats in the dangerous decades
ahead.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
11) Iraq allowed to rearm
Critics say embargo lift may worsen Iraq's security problems
By CLAIRE SCHAEFFER-DUFFY
National Catholic Reporter, September 10, 2004
www.natcath.org
Iraq, once restrained by some of the severest military sanctions, can
now buy its own weapons thanks to a little-publicized provision of
the United Nations Security Council that lifted a 14-year arms
embargo on the country. The provision is included in a U.N.
resolution, unanimously passed last June, legitimizing the new
Iraqi interim government.
The removal of the arms embargo, instituted to enable Iraq to
refurbish its arsenal and take responsibility for its security needs,
has turned the formerly weapons-deprived country into a seller's
market for defense contractors. It has also drawn criticism from
some analysts who question the wisdom of rearming a politically
unstable country still occupied by the world's largest military power.
"How much of this is a photo op? A way to whitewash the occupation
by showing the world that we are allowing Iraq to rebuild its army?
Any new [Iraqi] security force would still remain under U.S. control,"
said Frida Berrigan, a senior research associate with the Arms Trade
Resource Center, a project of the World Policy Institute.
The new U.N. provision is a formality. Iraq has technically been open
to the arms trade since May 2003 when the country came under the
governance of the Coalition Provisional Authority. According to the
Asia Times, over the past year Iraq has purchased 50,000 handguns
from the Austrian company Glock, 421 UAZ Hunter jeeps from Russia,
"millions of dollars worth of armored cars from Brazil and Ukraine,
along with AK-47 assault rifles, 9 mm pistols, military vehicles, fire
control equipment and night vision devices."
Asia Times also reported that the Coalition Provisional Authority,
shortly before its transfer of power to the Iraqi interim government,
negotiated contracts for six C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft,
16 Iroquois helicopters and a squadron of 16 low-flying, light
reconnaissance aircraft, to be delivered by April 2005.
Lockheed Martin, the world's largest arms exporter, manufactures
the C-130. An ironic detail of the Iraq purchase is that Lockheed
Martin products were used during U.S. bombing campaigns of the
first Gulf War, which destroyed much of Iraq's air force. Cynical
though it may be for a company to sell military aircraft to a country
after it made a profit building the weapons that destroyed its aircraft,
the practice is commonplace, according to Chatap Pratterjee, an
investigative journalist for the online publication CorpWatch.
"Weapons manufacturers will sell to anybody unless there is an
arms embargo," he said.
Free to buy, Iraq is unable to pay for its military hardware and
currently relies on U.S. military aid. Congress has appropriated a
little less than $3 billion for Iraq's security needs, $2 billion of
which are earmarked for developing the country's new army,
according to the report in the The National Interest.
Chris Toensig, editor of the quarterly Middle East Report, said
American funding of Iraqi weaponry is a continuation of U.S.
policy in the Middle East. "The U.S. has been a large arms supplier
in the region. This is one of the linchpins of strategic relationships -- =
a way of trying to make sure the Iraq government remains dependent
on the U.S.," he said.
Several analysts pointed out that Iraq's lack of independent purchasing
power has translated into a bias towards American companies for arms
deals.
"U.S. defense contractors consider the Iraqi military contracts their
domain. The Glock deal was an anomaly and some people were
upset by it. The sentiment expressed by some members of the
American Congress was, 'How could an American company not
get it?' " said Berrigan.
"Obviously countries and defense industries are excited about
lifting an arms embargo," said Rachel Stohl, a researcher with the
Center for Defense Information. "But the policy is problematic
because there has been no thorough inventory of Iraq's arsenals."
Iraq is "awash in light weaponry," Stohl said. She believes importing
arms will only exacerbate the security problems posed by the
country's already overstocked and unregulated arsenal of small
arms -- revolvers, rifles, pistols and the like.
After Saddam Hussein's defeat, the Iraqi people found themselves
in possession of at least 7 to 8 million small arms previously kept
by security forces, according to the Small Arms Survey of 2004, a
publication of the Graduate Institute of International Studies in
Geneva. The publication described Iraq as a country that "has
become synonymous with gun violence."
In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Stohl estimated that small
arms have killed "more than one third" of the U.S. soldiers who
have died in Iraq since the end of major combat operations in May
2003, wounded thousands more, and wreaked havoc on the Iraqi
population. "Uncounted Iraqi civilians have been killed, wounded,
hreatened or terrorized by small arms," she wrote.
With regard to replenishing Iraq's heavy conventional weaponry,
Stohl asked, "Do they need to be spending a significant amount of
money on new weapons? The threats they are facing are not going
to be solved with tanks alone. What are the greatest needs of
reconstruction? Is it military goods and services or is it roads
and services?"
But for Anthony Cordesman, national security analyst with the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, lifting the arms
embargo is the natural outcome of Iraq's sovereignty and should
not be questioned, especially given the severity of the current
nsurgency. Cordesman, who has sharply criticized the United
States for not attending to the development of Iraq's security
forces, admitted there are practical obstacles to Iraq's rearmament,
including lack of money and the lack of a stable security force to
absorb the arms. But he said the current insurgency necessitates
that the new government have access to weapons.
"If you cannot create effective security, you have no chance of
creating a national government. For an Iraqi government to
succeed it has to take this mission [of security] over. There is
no question the insurgents are able to draw from a large cache
of weapons left over from Hussein's regime. Suggesting Iraq should
remain under an arms embargo is about as relevant as suggesting
an arms embargo for the Spanish government when they were
fighting the fascists during the Spanish Civil War," he said.
Critics of the new U.N. provision disagree. They say Iraq's sovereignty
is limited, if not superficial, overshadowed by the formidable
presence of the U.S. military.
"You are dealing with a country that is about to get seven large
U.S. military bases," said George Lopez, director of Policy Studies
and senior fellow at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International
Peace Studies. "The only way to make this appear to be a not so
visible occupation is to allow the Iraqis their own arsenal. It's like
NATO basing in Germany at the height of the Cold War. They
armed NATO and they armed Germany, and that's what you
have here."
Iraq has five major security forces: the Iraqi Police Service, the
Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, the army, the border patrol and the
Facilities Protection Services. Although the Pentagon has been
successful in recruiting members of these forces (working security
in Iraq is one of the few jobs that offers a regular paycheck),
cultivating their allegiance to a central government has been
more difficult.
"In some instances, private contractors are training Iraqi military
and police," Berrigan said. "Who's vetting these people? The
security environment is so precarious that introducing a whole
new set of armed individuals is adding a new layer of volatility
to an already volatile region. At the same time water isn't clean."
Berrigan said she is familiar with the argument that security
must precede reconstruction but she sees Iraq's dilemma as a
"chicken and egg kind of thing. The fact that there isn't
electricity or plumbing fuels the resistance. It seems to me
these projects come first. Security flows from basic needs
being met," she said.
Claire Schaeffer-Duffy is a freelance writer living in Worcester,
Mass.
National Catholic Reporter, September 10, 2004
www.natcath.org
Since 1923 the War Resisters League has affirmed that war is
a crime against humanity. We therefore are determined not to
support any kind of war, international or civil, and to strive
nonviolently for the removal of all the causes of war.
