Bay Area United Against War

BAUAW NEWSLETTER
Subscribe/Unsubscribe

Friday, January 21, 2005

BAUAW NEWSLETTER - FRIDAY, JANUARY 21, 2005

1) We ain't gonna study war no more!
(Killing and being killed is not a career choice!)
Come to an organizing meeting to get the
military out of our schools!
Saturday, 11:00 a.m., February 5, 2005
Centro del Pueblo, 474 Valencia Street (near 16th St. in S.F.)

Our children are being recruited to military service right out of High
School. They are being offered Junior ROTC for class credit as an
alternative to Physical Education. Junior ROTC advocates the military
as a career choice. Every day we hear of schools and hospitals closing.
Our children have fewer job opportunities available to them with far
fewer benefits. And they are finding it increasingly more difficult to
go to college because of increased college costs and the general
increase in the cost of living. Junior ROTC makes the military attractive
to them. But these are not the job opportunities we want for our
children-or that our children want for themselves!

Meanwhile, due to an ever-increasing war budget, all of our tax
dollars are being spent on a war with no end in sight; and on
overall defense spending that dwarfs even the war budget! And
while corporations are raking in billions, two-thirds of them pay
no taxes at all. This puts a severe strain on the taxes left
over-after military and defense expenditures-for all social
services and human needs-taxes that come from the poor and
all working people. We want our children to have an opportunity
to learn and thrive to the best of their potential not to kill and
be killed. Stop the war. Bring all our troops home now. End all
military recruitment in public schools and institutions of higher
learning. Use our tax dollars for schools, healthcare, housing,
jobs-all human needs not war!

Number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq as of Jan 11: 1,357
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html

Number of U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq: over 10,000
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0104-12.ht

Number of Iraqis killed: est. over 100,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/

Number of Iraqis wounded: Untold.
Not counted but estimated in the millions.

Cost of the war: $149.5 billion spent as of Jan. 12, 2005
http://costofwar.com/index.html

With the money spent so far on the war we could have
hired over 2,600,566 public schoolteachers for one year.
http://costofwar.com/index-public-education.html

Total U.S. Defense spending: nearly $754 billion
as of fiscal year 2004.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1253

The people of San Francisco voted last November 2004
by a 63 percent majority to bring all our troops home now.
We haven't changed our minds!

Bay Area United Against War (www.bauaw.org) (415) 824-8730
P.O. Box 318021, S. F., CA 94131-8021
Labor Donated...BW

2) Let's Hit the Streets
On the 32nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
To Defend Abortion Rights!
Saturday, January 22
* 10 am - Rally at Powell and Market Streets, San Francisco
(Powell Street BART)
* 11 am - March up Market Street, along the Embarcadero
to Aquatic Park
www.indybay.org/womyn .
Driving? Need a ride? Visit
http://drivingvotes.org/rides/sfprochoice.php

3) ITALIAN.QUEER.DANGEROUS
a one-man show featuring Tommi Avicolli Mecca
directed by Francesca Prada, Jan. 14-19, 8:00pm,
JON SIMS CENTER
1519 Mission, Between Van Ness and 11th Sts., SF
[Come to the special antiwar presentation of
ITALIAN.QUEER.DANGEROUS this Friday evening,
Jan. 14th, 8:00 p.m.]
The reviews are in for "Italian. Queer. Dangerous."
Peace activists be there tonight!

4) CRITICAL Hearing Friday January 28, 2005 for
SHEILA DETOY17-Year-Old Girl Shot In Head By
Rogue Cop In 1998 ...

5) Officer who beat boy gets $1.6m
A US policeman who was filmed punching a black youth and
slamming him against a car has been awarded
$1.6m (£890,000) in a race discrimination case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4190965.stm

6) Protesters Target Bush's Inauguration
by Jeannine Aversa
Published on Thursday, January 20, 2005 by the Associated Press
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0120-09.htm

7) Mock Coffins and Jeers as Bush Sworn In
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
Fri Jan 21, 2005 08:29 AM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7394050&src=eD
ialog/
GetContent§ion=news

8) STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Cuba calls on the United States to stop
the torture of prisoners in Guantánamo
Havana, January 19, 2005
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/enero/juev20/05declar.html

9) Manifest Destiny, an introduction
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/dialogues/prelude/manifest/d2aeng.html

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

1) We ain't gonna study war no more!
(Killing and being killed is not a career choice!)
Come to an organizing meeting to get the military out of our schools!
Saturday, 11:00 a.m., February 5, 2005
Centro del Pueblo, 474 Valencia Street (near 16th St. in S.F.)

Our children are being recruited to military service right out of High
School. They are being offered Junior ROTC for class credit as an
alternative to Physical Education. Junior ROTC advocates the military
as a career choice. Every day we hear of schools and hospitals closing.
Our children have fewer job opportunities available to them with far
fewer benefits. And they are finding it increasingly more difficult to
go to college because of increased college costs and the general
increase in the cost of living. Junior ROTC makes the military attractive
to them. But these are not the job opportunities we want for our
children-or that our children want for themselves!

Meanwhile, due to an ever-increasing war budget, all of our tax
dollars are being spent on a war with no end in sight; and on
overall defense spending that dwarfs even the war budget! And
while corporations are raking in billions, two-thirds of them pay
no taxes at all. This puts a severe strain on the taxes left
over-after military and defense expenditures-for all social
services and human needs-taxes that come from the poor and
all working people. We want our children to have an opportunity
to learn and thrive to the best of their potential not to kill and
be killed. Stop the war. Bring all our troops home now. End all
military recruitment in public schools and institutions of higher
learning. Use our tax dollars for schools, healthcare, housing,
jobs-all human needs not war!

Number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq as of Jan 11: 1,357
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html

Number of U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq: over 10,000
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0104-12.ht

Number of Iraqis killed: est. over 100,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/

Number of Iraqis wounded: Untold.
Not counted but estimated in the millions.

Cost of the war: $149.5 billion spent as of Jan. 12, 2005
http://costofwar.com/index.html

With the money spent so far on the war we could have
hired over 2,600,566 public schoolteachers for one year.
http://costofwar.com/index-public-education.html

Total U.S. Defense spending: nearly $754 billion
as of fiscal year 2004.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1253

The people of San Francisco voted last November 2004
by a 63 percent majority to bring all our troops home now.
We haven't changed our minds!

Bay Area United Against War (www.bauaw.org) (415) 824-8730
P.O. Box 318021, S. F., CA 94131-8021
Labor Donated...BW

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

2) Let's Hit the Streets
On the 32nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
To Defend Abortion Rights!
Saturday, January 22
* 10 am - Rally at Powell and Market Streets, San Francisco
(Powell Street BART)
* 11 am - March up Market Street, along the Embarcadero
to Aquatic Park
www.indybay.org/womyn .
Driving? Need a ride? Visit
http://drivingvotes.org/rides/sfprochoice.php

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

3) ITALIAN.QUEER.DANGEROUS
a one-man show featuring Tommi Avicolli Mecca
directed by Francesca Prada, Jan. 14-19, 8:00pm,
JON SIMS CENTER
1519 Mission, Between Van Ness and 11th Sts., SF
[Come to the special antiwar presentation of
ITALIAN.QUEER.DANGEROUS this Friday evening,
Jan. 14th, 8:00 p.m.]

The reviews are in for "Italian. Queer. Dangerous." We got raves
in the Bay Area Reporter and the SF Bay Times today. Both papers
gave the show a solid thumbs up. Even the Examiner's PJ Corkery
told the SF Sentinel online paper that the show was "profound."
Wow.

This weekend's performances are Friday and Saturday night, 8pm,
Jon Sims Center, 1519 Mission/11th, $5-10 (no one turned
away)...for those who need it, there is an elevator, merely come
in and call up the steps to the ticket collector. Any MUNI
bus/train that goes to Van Ness and Market will take you
within a block, and the #14 goes right past and stops at Mission
and 11th. For those who can't make this weekend, the show
runs again next weekend, with Friday Jan. 28 as a benefit for
the AIDS Housing Alliance (a great organization that helps
people with AIDS secure housing). The ticket price that night
is slightly higher, still with no one turned away. It's $5-25.
Closing night is Sat. Jan. 29 though the show may be extended.

Below are some quotes from the critics and for those who want
a sneak preview of the show, there's a link to either a real video
or windows media at
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/id274.htm

BAR
"Every solo show since Spalding Gray swam to Cambodia has
begged the question: "Is this person's life substantial enough
to hold our attention for an hour or more?" In Mecca's case,
the asnwer is yes--and not because of his queer activism. In
fact, gratefully, we were spared the stories of activism, which
after all is but a byproduct of his character, as solid as the
south of Italy where he traces his lineage, the source of his
beloved famiglia."

"Dangerous? Maybe, like Eugene O'Neill, or Tennessee
Williams, or Edward Albee. Mecca confronts us with a mirror
in which we see ourselves, and we're all a little Italian, queer
and dangerous."

BAY TIMES:
"Writer Mecca suffuses intensely personal information in an
economical style, transporting his audience quickly and
completely."

"The oral history in Italian. Queer. Dangerous is the chronicle
of a gay activist who managed to survive inner demons, the
struggle for gay liberation and AIDS as well as ignorance,
prejudice, and homophobia. He lived to tell. Listen."

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

4) CRITICAL Hearing Friday January 28, 2005 for
SHEILA DETOY17-Year-Old Girl Shot In Head By
Rogue Cop In 1998 ...

LAST CHANCE FOR JUSTICE!

The San Francisco Police Department is trying to get away
with MURDER!!!

If the cops get their way, the Superior Court will DISMISS THE
CASE against killer cop GREGORY BRESLIN !!!

With no punishment for Breslin - or anyone - in the 1998
cold-blooded police shooting of Sheila Detoy !!!

Don't let police murder go unpunished !!!

January 28, 2005
9:30 AM
Superior Court
CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE
400 McAllister Street Dept. 301
San Francisco, CA 94102
CASE # CPF04-504029

SIX YEARS - NO JUSTICE FOR SHEILA DETOY

* May 13, 1998: San Francisco police officers shot up a car
full of unarmed teenagers and killed 17-year-old Sheila Detoy.
SFPD then blamed her friends for her death.

* The Office of Citizen Complaints found that Officer Gregory
Breslin is responsible for her death. The OCC also sustained
complaints against the other officers involved in Sheila's killing.

* In 2003 the San Francisco Police Commission decided they
wanted to file charges against the officers, but the Police
Officers Association is trying to get Breslin off on a technicality
but we say: THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT ON PUNISHING KILLER COPS!!!

for more information call (510)428-3939

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

5) Officer who beat boy gets $1.6m
A US policeman who was filmed punching a black youth and
slamming him against a car has been awarded
$1.6m (£890,000) in a race discrimination case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4190965.stm

Jeremy Morse, who was sacked by the Los Angeles police over the
incident, said he had been treated more harshly than a black
officer who was also there.

A second white officer was awarded $811,000 (£450,000)
damages.

Inglewood Police Chief Ronald Banks, who had disciplined the
officers, called the awards "ridiculous".

Mr Morse was caught on camera in July 2002 as he arrested
16-year-old Donovan Jackson at a petrol station in Inglewood.

This is not the first time police officers have been trapped in
race situations where they suffered unfairly
Lawyer for Jeremy Morse

He claimed Mr Jackson had grabbed his testicles - though that
was not visible on the videotape.

The tape was repeatedly played on US TV stations and caused
an uproar.

Mr Morse was sacked and his partner, Bijan Darvish, who
is also white, was suspended for 10 days for filing a police
report that failed to mention his partner's conduct.

Mr Morse was twice tried for assault but the case was
dismissed after juries failed to reach a verdict. Mr Darvish
was acquitted of filing a false report.

'Nationwide impact'

The men filed "reverse discrimination" lawsuits, claiming
a third officer, Willie Crook, who also allegedly hit Mr Jackson
with a torch and failed to report the incident, received only
four days' suspension because he is black.

"This is not the first time police officers have been trapped
in race situations where they suffered unfairly," said
Mr Morse's lawyer, Gregory Smith.

"This will have an impact in police departments across
the country."

Police Chief Banks, who is black, denied race was a factor.

"I based my decision on their actions and what I thought
their responsibility was. It was based purely on the facts,"
he said after hearing news of the award.

"I was shocked at not only the verdict but the size of the
awards. It was somewhat ridiculous."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4190965.stm

Published: 2005/01/20 11:48:22 GMT

(c) BBC MMV

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

6) Protesters Target Bush's Inauguration
by Jeannine Aversa
Published on Thursday, January 20, 2005 by the Associated Press
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0120-09.htm

WASHINGTON - Anti-war protesters, including some who carried
coffin-like cardboard boxes to signify the deaths of U.S. troops in
Iraq , descended on the capital Thursday. Some of their chants
could be heard as President Bush delivered his inaugural address.

Coffins draped with U.S. flags line Malcolm X park in Washington
as part of protest to memorialize the more than 1366 American
soldiers who have died in the war with Iraq before the United States
presidential inauguration January 20, 2005. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

Protesters mocking the administration of U.S. President George W.
Bush cheer during an organized protest at Washington's
Malcolm X Park before the United States presidential inauguration
January 20, 2005. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

Protesters are arrested during the swearing-in ceremony for
President Bush at the US Capitol in Washington, Thursday,
Jan. 20, 2005. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

The chants came toward the end of Bush's speech, and
the president continued his address without interruption
or any sign that he heard them.

On Capitol Hill, some protesters were briefly detained by police,
and then released after Bush finished speaking, said Andrea Buffa,
spokeswoman for CodePink: Women for Peace, a social justice
peace movement.

CodePink member Jodie Evans said she and other protesters
got tickets to the ceremony from members of Congress
representing New York and California.

Michael Lauer, a Capitol Police spokesman, said police had
arrested five people for protesting during Bush's inaugural
speech. He did not know whether they were men or women,
or whether they were the people caught on television trying
to unfurl a protest banner.

Earlier in the day, about 500 people rallied in a park several
miles from the Capitol.

"Worst President Ever" and "Four more years: God HELP America"
were on some of the signs. Protesters covered hundreds of
cardboard boxes with black cloth and American flags to
symbolize U.S. troops and others killed in Iraq.

"It's important to show that when Bush's second inauguration
goes into the record books, there was healthy dissent,"
said Jared Maslin, 19 of Hanover, N.H.

Aidan Delgado, 23, of Sarasota, Fla., returned to the United
States last April after his military service. He said he was
a mechanic at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, which gained
notoriety as a place of torture during Saddam Hussein's rule
and was the scene of alleged prisoner abuse by U.S. troops.

"What I experienced in Iraq fills me with remorse," Delgado
told the crowd of protesters. "If we are going to preserve our
nation at all, we need to criticize what we did wrong and
we have to criticize ourselves."

Several police cars lined the perimeter of the park, but the
event remained mostly peaceful.

At one demonstration, supporters of the president engaged
in a shouting and shoving match with some opponents
of the war.

An anti-war group called the Rhythm Workers Union banged
on steel drums and danced in mud-caked boots.

Elsewhere in the city, more than 300 anti-war protesters -
organized by CodePink - sported beauty pageant style
banners with "resist!" scrawled in black.

"We're against the war mostly," said Shannon Fell, 22, of
Detroit, who wore a bright pink wig and feather boa.

Some protesters carried signs advocating abortion rights.
Others urged people to donate money to tsunami relief efforts.
Some took issue with Bush's environmental and economic policies.

Associated Press writers Genaro Armas and Libby Quaid
contributed to this report.

(c) 2005 The Associated Press

###

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

7) Mock Coffins and Jeers as Bush Sworn In
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
Fri Jan 21, 2005 08:29 AM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7394050&src=eD
ialog/GetContent§ion=news

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Flag-draped coffins and jeering anti-war
protesters competed with pomp and circumstance on Thursday at
the inauguration of President Bush along the snow-dusted,
barricaded streets of central Washington.

As the president's motorcade made its way down Pennsylvania
Avenue from the Capitol to the White House amid the tightest
security in inaugural history, thousands of protesters along
the parade route and nearby downtown streets booed, chanted
slogans and carried placards condemning Bush's policies at home
and abroad.

Some turned their back as the president drove slowly past.
Others yelled, "George Bush, you can't hide. We charge you with
genocide." Among the forest of protest signs, some read "Blood
is on your hands" and "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam." Others
called for electoral reform, gay rights, abortion rights and
the use of renewable energy.

"There are a lot of people dying overseas for nothing and
I'm here to get my voice heard," said Bill Coffelt, 40, an
engineer from Fairfax, Va.

Protesters also traded insults with the more numerous,
cheering Bush supporters, many of whom wore fur coats and paid
for the best viewing spots at the first inaugural parade since
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In one area, police briefly sought to disperse with pepper
spray demonstrators who hurled bottles, trash and snowballs at
officers while trying to break through a security fence holding
them back from the parade.

At least one snowball hit Vice President Dick Cheney's
limousine, and Bush's limousine sped up to get past the
commotion.

One group of protesters carried hundreds of mock coffins
along 16th Street, a downtown thoroughfare leading to the White
House, to remind Americans of the mounting casualties in Iraq.

And an American flag was set alight just outside a security
checkpoint at 13th and Pennsylvania.

"It's beyond comprehension the damage this man has done,"
said Meredith Lair, 32, who just completed a doctorate in
history at Pennsylvania State University. "I think it's
horrifying what we're doing to Iraq," said Lair, who was
carrying a sign that read, "Mr. Bush, under my mittens I'm
giving you the finger."

ISOLATED SCUFFLES

Police said there were at least 13 arrests, two for
assaulting an officer and the rest for disorderly conduct or
other violations. One was a man who embarrassed police four
years ago by sneaking past security to get a handshake from
Bush. He did not get a chance for another grip this inauguration.

Police also scuffled with about 30 protesters two streets
away from the parade route, using pepper spray and batons to
disperse the group of self-styled anarchists, who wore
bandannas to hide their faces.

"He (Bush) says he's bringing freedom to the world, and
we're getting pepper-sprayed for our First Amendment rights.
That's kind of ironic," said 22-year-old Dustin, who works for
the National Institutes of Health and did not want to give his
full name.

Just outside the White House grounds, 17 protesters staged
a "die-in." After shouting a chant of "Stop the killing, stop
the war," they dropped to the pavement one by one as one of
them began reading a list of those killed in Iraq.

One spectator apparently found the act so credible that he
began administering CPR. Others were less sympathetic.

"I hope you don't get up. I hope you freeze your ass off,"
said another, who was among a group heading toward the
parade-viewing grandstands nearest the White House.

Throughout the city, thousands of police and military
troops were on patrol with bomb-sniffing dogs, and spectators
had to pass through metal detectors before attending any
inaugural events or heading to the parade.

Police sealed off 100 blocks around the White House and
parade route, barring all traffic except official security and
police cars.

Demonstration organizers had complained they were not being
given adequate access to protest, while Bush supporters were
granted prime locations along the parade route. (additional
reporting by Deborah Zabarenko, Randy Fabi, Susan Heavey and
JoAnne Allen)

(c) Reuters 2005

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

8) STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Cuba calls on the United States to stop
the torture of prisoners in Guantánamo
Havana, January 19, 2005
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/enero/juev20/05declar.html

For a comprehensive file of Cuban position papers on
Guantanamo, the Cuban foreign ministry (MINREX) has
created a page with numerous important documents like
the one last year for the UN Human Rights Commission
in Geneva which called on the UN to investigate the
crimes being carried out there. That motion wasn't
adopted due to US pressure, but this year it may be
harder to resist after all of what's been learned
about US torture, which has come out of US sources
as significant at the FBI, the Taguba report, and
so much, much more.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R13251448

GRANMA INTERNATIONAL
Havana. January 20, 2005

STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Cuba calls on the United States to stop
the torture of prisoners in Guantánamo

On January 19, 2005, reflecting the indignation of our
people at the atrocities committed on prisoners held at the
US Naval Base in Guantánamo, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs presented the US governmental authorities in Havana
and Washington with a diplomatic note denouncing the
flagrant violations of human rights that the said
government is daily committing on Cuban territory illegally
occupied by the above-mentioned naval base. This
communication called for an immediate end to that
inhuman and criminal conduct.

The note reminds the US government that the atrocities
being committed on the base and the very fact of utilizing
that illegally occupied Cuban territory as a prison, is in
violation of numerous instruments of international law and
international humanitarian law, and moreover, violates the
Coal and Naval Stations Agreement signed in February 1903
by the government of the United States and the Cuban
government of that period, in conditions of inequality and
disadvantage for our country, whose independence was
circumscribed via the Platt Agreement.

According to Article II of that agreement, the US
government committed itself to doing everything necessary
to ensure that those locations should be exclusively used
as coal or naval stations and for no other objective.

It is also important to recall that when the Cuban
authorities were informed although not consulted of the
US government decision to transfer a group of prisoners
from the war in Afghanistan to this US military enclave in
Guantánamo, the government of the Republic of Cuba informed
national and internal opinion in a statement dated January
11, 2002, that "although the transfer of foreign prisoners
of war on the part of the government of the United States
to one of its military installations located on part of our
national territory over which we have been deprived of the
right to exercise jurisdiction is not in line with the
regulations that gave rise to that installation, we shall
not create any obstacles to the development of the
operation." Moreover, the statement highlighted that our
government had "taken note with satisfaction of public
statements from the US authorities in the context of the
prisoners receiving adequate and humane treatment."

The dramatic reality of the prisoners detained on the
Guantánamo Naval Base, reported by the media to total 550
at the present time, likewise reveals the double standards
of the US government in its hackneyed and manipulative
campaigning on behalf of human rights.

The arbitrary detention of these foreign prisoners without
the mediation of a legal trial, as well as the torture and
degrading treatment to which they are being subjected,
constitute a gross violation of human rights and numerous
international treaties and conventions, in particular, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.

With this hypocritical conduct, the government of the
United States has demonstrated the falsity of its own
public statements and once again has lied to the government
of the Republic of Cuba, to its own people and to the
international community by concealing the horrific acts of
torture, cruelty and humiliating and denigratory treatment
committed on prisoners detained on the Guantánamo Naval
Base, only comparable with the torture inflicted on inmates
in the prison of Abu Ghraib and other penitential
establishments in occupied Iraqi territory.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs adds its voice to the
calls and demands of the international community that the
government of the United States instantly end these
flagrant violations of prisoners that, moreover, are
being committed on illegally occupied Cuban territory.

Cuba has the total moral right afforded by an
irreproachable history in this context and the right
conferred on it to exercise sovereignty over all parts of
Cuban territory to denounce these abuses and violations
that the US government is daily committing on the detainees
on the Guantánamo Naval Base and to demand the end of these
practices that violate international law.

Havana, January 19, 2005
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/enero/juev20/05declar.html

Marxism mailing list
Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism

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

9) Manifest Destiny, an introduction
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/dialogues/prelude/manifest/d2aeng.html

[From: Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director
Western States Legal Foundation
1504 Franklin Street, Suite #202
Oakland, California USA 94612
Tel: (510) 839-5877 Fax: (510) 839-5397
E-mail: wslf@earthlink.net
Web site: www.wslfweb.org
part of the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate
Nuclear Weapons]

I would like to add to Phyllis Bennis' excellent analysis of today's
imperial coronation speech. My candidate for the single most
important line in the speech is: "My most solemn duty it to
protect this nation and its people against further attacks and
emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test American's
resolve, and have found it firm."

Compare this to the September 2002 National Security Strategy
of the United States which states: "America will act against...
emerging threats before they are fully formed. This was
elaborated in the December 2002 National Strategy to Combat
Weapons of Mass Destruction, which states that the U.S.
"reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including
through resort to all of our options - to the use of WMD [weapons
of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad,
and friends and allies." "All of our options" includes both
"conventional and nuclear response and defense capabilities,"
employed in appropriate cases through preemptive measures."
While I was listening to the speech, I had the eerie feeling that
it was written about 150 years ago, and the phrase "manifest
destiny" came to mind. Sure enough, a Google search turned
this up:

Manifest Destiny
an introduction
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/dialogues/prelude/manifest/d2aeng.html

No nation ever existed without some sense of national destiny
or purpose.

Manifest Destiny -- a phrase used by leaders and politicians in
the 1840s to explain continental expansion by the United States
-- revitalized a sense of "mission" or national destiny for Americans.

The people of the United States felt it was their mission to extend
the "boundaries of freedom" to others by imparting their idealism
and belief in democratic institutions to those who were capable of
self-government. It excluded those people who were perceived as
being incapable of self-government, such as Native American
people and those of non-European origin.

But there were other forces and political agendas at work as well.
As the population of the original 13 Colonies grew and the U.S.
economy developed, the desire and attempts to expand into new
land increased. For many colonists, land represented potential
income, wealth, self-sufficiency and freedom. Expansion into the
western frontiers offered opportunities for self-advancement.

To understand Manifest Destiny, it's important to understand
the United States' need and desire to expand. The following points
illustrate some of the economic, social and political pressures
promoting U.S. expansion:

The United States was experiencing a periodic high birth rate and
increases in population due to immigration. And because
agriculture provided the primary economic structure, large
families to work the farms were considered an asset. The U.S.
population grew from more than five millon in 1800 to more
than 23 million by mid-century. Thus, there was a need to expand
into new territories to accommodate this rapid growth. It's estimated
that nearly 4,000,000 Americans moved to westernterritories
between 1820 and 1850.

The United States suffered two economic depressions -- one
in 1818 and a second in 1839. These crises drove some people
to seek their living in frontier areas.

Frontier land was inexpensive or, in some cases, free.

Expansion into frontier areas opened opportunities for new
commerce and individual self-advancement.

Land ownership was associated with wealth and tied to
self-sufficiency, political power and independent "self-rule."

Maritime merchants saw an opportunity to expand and promote
new commerce by building West Coast ports leading to increased
trade with countries in the Pacific.

Sometimes you just hate to be right! -- Jackie Cabasso

"Your imagination is your preview
of life's coming attractions." - Albert Einstein

Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director
Western States Legal Foundation
1504 Franklin Street, Suite #202
Oakland, California USA 94612
Tel: (510) 839-5877 Fax: (510) 839-5397
E-mail: wslf@earthlink.net
Web site: www.wslfweb.org
part of the Abolition 2000 Global Network
to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons

UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE | 212-868-5545

Join our news list by sending a blank email to
ufpj-news-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ufpj-disc/

posted 2:42 PM 0 comments

Thursday, January 20, 2005

BAUAW NEWSLETTER-THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2005

posted 11:23 AM 0 comments

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

BAUAW NEWSLETTER-TUESDAY, JAN. 18, 2005

[Alerts] Fw: Antiwar bleachers at 4th & Pennsylvania Ave.
(north side) for Jan. 20 CounterInaugural
alerts at lists.iww.org alerts at lists.iww.org
Wed Jan 12 16:54:34 PST 2005
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: "VoteNoWar.org" < Action at VoteNoWar.org >
Sent: Jan 12, 2005 4:45 PM
WE HAVE WON THE RIGHT
TO SET UP ANTIWAR BLEACHERS
AND HOLD A RALLY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
4TH ST. & PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW!
http://lists.iww.org/pipermail/alerts/2005-January/001354.html

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

4) Let's Hit the Streets
On the 32nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
To Defend Abortion Rights!
Saturday, January 22
* 10 am - Rally at Powell & Market Streets, San Francisco
(Powell Street BART)
* 11 am - March up Market Street, along the Embarcadero
to Aquatic Park

Jan. 22 is the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court
decision that established the constitutional right to reproductive freedom.
On the same day, anti-choice extremists plan to march in San Francisco
against womens health and rights. The anti-choice minority might be
emboldened by the climate in Washington, DC but they are not
welcome here!

Join the San Francisco Area Pro-Choice Coalition to Stand Up for
Reproductive Freedom and Demonstrate that San Francisco is PRO-CHOICE!

Sponsored by the San Francisco Area Pro-Choice Coalition. For more
information or to get involved, visit www.indybay.org/womyn www.indybay.org/womyn> .
Driving? Need a ride? Visit http://drivingvotes.org/rides/sfprochoice.php

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

5) ITALIAN.QUEER.DANGEROUS
a one-man show featuring Tommi Avicolli Mecca
directed by Francesca Prada, Jan. 14-19, 8:00pm,
JON SIMS CENTER
1519 Mission, Between Van Ness and 11th Sts., SF
JANUARY 14-29 (Friday and Saturday nights
only: 14, 15; 21, 22; 28, 29)
[Come to the special antiwar presentation of
ITALIAN.QUEER.DANGEROUS this coming Friday evening,
Jan. 14th, 8:00 p.m.]

JON SIMS CENTER, 1519 Mission/between Van Ness and 11th
8pm, $5-10 sliding scale (no one turned away)
Seating is limited, for reservations: 415-554-0402
To volunteer to help with the show, call 415-552-6031

Published on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 by the Independent/UK

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

6) The Sister of Mercy: Helen Prejean
To the men she tries to save from execution, Helen Prejean
is nothing short of a saint. But when Katherine Butler
caught up with America's best-known nun in New Orleans,
she found an impatient crusader who's only too aware of
her human frailties
by Katherine Butler

I am running after a nun. In 80-degree heat, through the backstreets
of a Louisiana suburb. She had warned me to lead the way. "Because
when I'm talking," she'd said, "I don't know where I am." But I have led
her astray. She's not happy, she's galloped off in the opposite direction,
leaving me to give chase, feeling as shamed as I did when the nuns at
my convent school would quiver with rage over some sinful
transgression, like being late for assembly.

Sister Helen Prejean moved beyond the petty restrictions of convent
life years ago. As anyone who saw Susan Sarandon's Oscar-winning
portrayal of this nun in the 1995 film of her book Dead Man Walking
knows, she has her mind on a bigger mission. And being late is
not an option.

"It's OK," she forgives me, when I catch up. "I just want to be
there for Manuel."

Ten years after the film shocked US audiences, elevating her
lonely campaign into nationwide debate, Sister Helen's new book
has just been published in the US. This, she hopes, will deliver
another miracle: helping to achieve the abolition of the death
penalty in America altogether. A book-promotion tour will take
her on the chatshow circuit. But, for today, her focus is on the
unglamorous reality of death-row justice in a dingy Louisiana
courtroom. Manuel Ortiz is a condemned prisoner to whom
she has acted as spiritual adviser for five years. Sister Helen
is convinced that he is innocent of the murder for which he
was convicted. Today he has been granted a hearing that
could determine his fate.

I have arrived at 9.30am, on Sister Helen's instructions, outside
Jefferson Parish courthouse, across the Mississippi from New
Orleans. She wants me to see American justice in action.
Sweating para-legals are heaving towers of box-files into
the courthouse, and a long line of mostly young men in
T-shirts and baseball caps are queuing to be screened for
weapons under a large "No Firearms" notice.

I go up to the fourth floor. There's no sign of Sister Helen,
but peering through the open door of Judge Jerome Winsberg's
courtroom, I see a man seated at a table in a bright-orange prison
jumpsuit. His legs are shackled with chains. He looks up
expectantly. This is Manuel.

Deliberations are already under way when two women squeeze
past the armed officers at the door. Here are the nuns. Sister
Helen is dressed in a dark pinafore and cream blouse, a silver
crucifix around her neck. Sister Margaret Maggio, who runs
her office, follows behind. "You, sir, are a gentleman," Sister
Helen whispers loudly to a man who vacates his seat, "but
I want Manuel to be able to see me", and heads purposefully
for the front row, where she takes a notebook out of her bag.

She needs all the ammunition she can get. This is the deep
south, where prosecutors routinely seek the death penalty in
murder cases because it goes down well with the public. The
climate is such that until a story in the national media about
it caused outrage, prosecution attorneys wore ties in court
adorned with motifs of a hangman's noose. Most people
here accept capital punishment, Sister Helen says, "with the
air they breathe and the mosquitoes they swat".

Last night, when I phoned Sister Helen at her New Orleans
apartment she was just off a plane from Texas. She travels
ceaselessly. But hearing the raucous cajun music from the
French quarter outside my hotel, she said brightly: "Sounds
like y'all are having some party!". I got the impression that
even at 65 she might have been up for a night on the town.
At our only previous meeting, she was at a dinner in her
honour in an expensive London restaurant. She soaked up
attention, drinking champagne and telling stories late into
the night.

Now, in court, she leans forward in her chair, listening
intently to every word. I have no idea if the man in the
orange suit is a murderer. But even to my legally untrained
ear the details of his original trial sound far-fetched; the
cast of characters might have come straight out of the
mind of Elmore Leonard or Quentin Tarantino. The chief
prosecutor is now in jail for corruption and bribery. The
star witness for the prosecution (a former member of
a Honduran death squad) had a string of convictions
unknown to the jury at the time.

Every month, Sister Helen drives three hours to the Louisiana
State Penitentiary. In a booth separated by a plastic screen,
she and Manuel talk about the case, or pray, anything to
"give him a little courage" as Sister Margaret says.

Now his attorneys are demanding that the crooked prosecutor
be summoned. The state opposes it. The man will take the
Fifth Amendment and say nothing. As the procedural impasse
continues, the judge takes a call on his mobile phone. My
heart sinks on the prisoner's behalf. At the recess, Sister
Helen rushes forward to greet the prisoner. "Good to see you
Manuel," she beams, showing him a copy of the new book.
He raises his manacled wrists and looks apologetic. Death-
row prisoners are not allowed to have hardback books.

When Dead Man Walking was being adapted by Tim Robbins
for the screen, Sister Helen's order, the Sisters of St Joseph
of Medaille, were worried that Hollywood studio bosses would
add a cheap love interest or cast the nun as a Whoopi Goldberg
type. In many ways such a casting might have been
understandable. I can well imagine her scampering over
a wall, or taking part in a high-speed car chase if she
thought it would help her crusade. It's an image that is
reinforced, later, when she tells of how during a visit to
the Vatican she once performed a most un-nun like change
from trousers into a skirt in an ante room even as the Holy
Father was shuffling down the corridor to grant her a private
audience.

But, make no mistake, Sister Helen may mix with the great
and the good, but her commitment to her cause should never
be underestimated. The first time she witnessed a man being
put to death in the electric chair she had to stop on the drive
home to vomit. After six journeys to the death chamber, she
is resigned to living with the nightmares. "They always come
in the form of I'm being executed. But I can't afford to let it
overcome me.

As her latest book, The Death of Innocents, makes clear, she
considers all of the six state-sponsored killings she has
witnessed to be wrongful, even that of Robert Lee Willie who
tortured a woman in a gravel pit for hours before murdering
her. Written while she was staying at a Cheyenne reservation
in Montana, she returns like a detective to the scenes of the
capital crimes of two men she believes were innocent. Her
aim is to shock Americans into seeing that the US criminal
justice system is so flawed, and the death penalty so
randomly applied to the weakest, that it is unconstitutional.

But Sister Helen also takes the reader on the final journey
into the death chamber with the condemned men, supplying
the kind of detail that is as surreal as it is horrifying. The
polished floors, the secretary typing up forms. The guard
watching Jerry Springer on television in the corner as the
prisoner and the nun have their conversation and a last
bowl of chocolate ice-cream. Then the diapers and the
strap-down teams arrive before the needles are inserted.

On the way, the book excoriates George Bush and his conservative
Catholic ally on the US Supreme Court, Justice Antonino Scalia.
Thirty-eight American states still operate the death penalty, of
which Texas is the crucible. As governor of Texas, Bush signed
more death warrants than any governor in recent history and
systematically denied clemency. His habit was never to devote
more than 30 minutes to a review. Sister Helen regards his
compassionate conservatism as a sham, and thinks people
in Britain should be awake to the dangerous parallels between
his "war on crime" and his "war on terror", both of which
rely on violence and retribution.

"Don't underestimate what is beginning to happen in Britain
where you have suspected terrorists," she warns. "British
people may say 'we are so beyond this', but you watch what
your courts are doing."

The court breaks for lunch and I join the nuns as they rush
out to queue at a branch of Subway for tuna wraps and
Coca-Cola. Sister Helen talks non-stop the entire way there.
Outside on the pavement, it is hot and noisy, but this nun is
as practical as she is spiritual; one moment she is quoting
the prophet Isaiah in her big, resonant voice, the next she's
pushing on the nearest door, which happens to be a bail-
bonds office, and asking for a quiet corner in which to sit.

The receptionist looks puzzled at first, but as soon as her
boss recognises the nun, we are sitting around the kitchen
at the back of the office, eating our sandwiches. Sister Helen,
still in full flight about religion, right-wing politics and how
America is barely a functioning democracy, pauses only to
shout thanks to the bail-bonds man with the unlikely
suggestion: "I'll know where to come if I ever need a bail bond".

She tells me how Christianity in America has been hijacked to
support a right-wing ideology which fights crime with retribution
instead of rehabilitation. "We have so much Christianity-lite in
this country, and George Bush is the embodiment of that.
People are abysmally ignorant about the Bible and about the
gospel of Jesus because all they hear is this stuff they get
at the pulpit."

If those she accuses of "manipulating God" are to be found
running the government and filling the ranks of America's
Christian right, then she is one of the few outspoken voices
on the Christian left. She rejects the label, but in her version
of Christianity, everyone has an inviolable human dignity.
"When you are walking with someone to their death, even
when they have done terrible crimes, and they are saying
'sister, please hold on to my life', there is no dignity in this.
It is cruel and unnecessary. It involves torture. They are
defenseless, and then we kill them."

It is difficult for liberal Europeans to understand the scale of
her task in changing attitudes in the red states of America.
Conservative websites are filled with references to "frying"
convicts and accusing "prissy" campaigners like Sister Helen
of "glorifying" murderers. Her answer is uncompromising.
"What did Jesus say? 'The least of these.' People considered
monsters, throwaways. They deserve full human dignity and
the compassion of Christ."

It is on the way back from the bail-bonds office that we lose
the way and have to break into a run. Somehow we are back
in our seats when a mystery witness takes the stand, an
answer perhaps to the nun's prayers. The woman testifies
that her husband, the chief witness in the original trial,
confessed on his death bed to the murders. It feels like
made-for-TV court drama, but there are gasps from the
public gallery.

Manuel looks around and searches for Sister Helen's face.
She smiles and gives him a thumbs-up. "Poor Manuel,"
Sister Helen whispers to me, "he knows that this day could
decide whether he lives or dies."

She knows that even explosive testimony doesn't always buy
you your life back once the door to America's machinery
of death has closed behind you.

As I leave her, Sister Helen is speeding off back to New
Orleans to meet Sean Penn and Jude Law. They, and Kate
Winslet, are in town shooting a new movie. For Sister Helen,
the hope must be that life does not imitate art too closely.
Sean Penn played the prisoner in the orange suit in Dead Man
Walking. And he died strapped to the black padded gurney,
his arms outstretched in the shape of a cross.

'The Death of Innocents' by Sister Helen Prejean is
published by Random House. Available from Amazon for £12.22

(c) 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.

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

7) JUDGES OF DEATH
[Col. Writ. 12/14/04] Copyright 2004 Mumia Abu-Jamal

As the nation ponders the fate of a young

California man being sentenced to death, the case of

another man, one lesser-known, one without wealth

or whiteness, comes back before the nation's highest

court, after having been shunted through a series of

killing courts in Texas.

Thomas Miller-El, 53, was just before the U.S.

Supreme Court about 2 years ago, when 8 of the 9

justices determined that the "Court of Appeals erred

in denying a certificate of appealability" (COA) on

Miller-El's claim of racial discrimination in his jury

selection.

Back before the Texas state and federal courts,

Miller-El expected them to respect the decision

of the U.S. Supreme Court. But, as the saying

goes, he 'had another think coming.' Both the

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (sort of a

Texas Supreme Court for criminal cases), and

the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, promptly

denied Miller-El's claims, by virtually ignoring

what the majority of the Supreme Court said,

and glomming onto what was written by the

lone dissenter in the case, Associate Justice

Clarence Thomas, to support their denials.

In legal circles, this is almost unheard of.

One former chief judge, John J. Gibbons,

who sat on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals

(in Philadelphia), said, "The idea that the system

can tolerate open defiance by an inferior court

just cannot stand" (*The New York Times*,

12/5/04; www.nytimes.com).

We shall see.

A dissenting opinion, in legal opinions, have

some, if limited value. They demonstrate

that courts were split on various issues. They

speak down through the pages of history of

errors made by the present court, that will

hopefully be seen later. But, in a strictly legal

sense, they mean nothing. It is a fundamental

legal principle that majority opinions carry the

deciding weight of which way cases are

decided. Dissenting opinions have,

comparatively speaking, no weight.

So, if that is so, why did a majority of the

Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, and the 5th

Circuit Court of Appeals, essentially ignore

the determination of the majority opinion, and

deign to abide by the dissenting opinion? Why

would learned, experienced judges dare do such

a thing?

The answer (or at least part of it) may lie in

the fact that 80% of the Texas appellate court are

composed of ex-prosecutors, who have learned,

from their former jobs, to give short shrift to

arguments by defendants. Many of them

probably worked their way up onto the bench

by doing the very things that the Supreme Court

has criticized, so they simply don't want to agree

that their own professional actions (like striking

Blacks off juries) were unconstitutional. But,

what of the 5th Circuit, where federal judges,

not state judges, hold sway?

The answer may lie, not in the law, but in

the realm of politics. For judges, though they

wear black robes, are yet political creatures. Even

in the federal system, they are appointed by, and in,

the political system. Senators submit them, and

presidents nominate them. And how do they

come to the attention of national political figures?

By demonstrating their 'conservative' credentials.

Judges, in the Miller-El case, dared to violate

fundamental rules of judicial procedure because

they were *auditioning* for higher seats in the

judicial hierarchy. Mr. Miller-El was nothing

more than a Black, living stepping stone of the

Stairway of Ambition.

Moreover, Texas is infamous for its taste for

death, as amply demonstrated by the bloody reign

of George W. Bush, who presided over the

executions of over 150 men, and several women.

While Texas Governor, Bush undoubtedly appointed

at least some of the judges to the state's appeals

court, and surely (as president) looked kindly to

those nominations to the 5th Circuit federal

bench of jurists who shared his penchant for

cutting judicial corners when it came to the death

penalty.

It is only in that fractured, political light that

their actions begin to make sense.

Another saying: "Law is but politics, by

other means.'

Copyright 2004 Mumia Abu-Jamal

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

8) MALCOLM X'S RAP OF DEMOCRATS
[Col. Writ. 12/17/04] Copyright 2004 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Recently, this writer referenced the little-known and

suppressed speech prepared by then-SNCC (Student

Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) leader, (now U.S.

Congressman) John Lewis. Lewis was urged by civil

rights leaders to 'tone down' his speech, and he did so.

At around the same time, another Black leader,

fiery Black nationalist (and former Nation of Islam

Minister), Malcolm X, was giving his own biting analysis

and commentary on the duplicity of Democrats when

it came to Blacks.

In his historic 1964 "The Ballot or the Bullet" speech,

Malcolm made crystal clear his view of Democratic

betrayal of Black interests:

In the present administration they have in the House

of Representatives 257 Democrats to only 177

Republicans. They control two-thirds of the House

vote ... In the Senate there are 67 Senators who are

of the Democratic Party. Only 33 of them are

Republicans. Why, the Democrats have got the

government sewed up, and you're the one who sewed

it up for them. And what have they given you for it?

Four years in office, and just now getting around to

some civil-rights legislation. Just now, after everything

else is gone, out of the way, they're going to sit down

and play with you all summer long -- the same old giant

con game that they call filibuster.

... They get all the Negro vote, and after they get it,

the Negro gets nothing in return. All they did when

they got to Washington was give a few big Negroes

big jobs. Those big Negroes didn't need big jobs, they

already had jobs. That's camouflage, that's trickery,

that's treachery, window-dressing. I'm not trying to

knock out the Democrats for the Republicans, we'll

get to them in a minute. But it's true -- you put the

Democrats first and the Democrats put you last.

...The Democrats have never kicked the Dixiecrats

out of the party. The Dixiecrats bolted themselves once

[in 1948], but the Democrats didn't get them out.

Imagine, these lowdown Southern segregationists

put the Northern Democrats down... They have got

a con game going on, a political con game, and you and

I are in the middle. It's time for you and me to wake

up and start looking at it like it is.

Malcolm X reminds us all, of the ongoing war at home.

He reminds us that voting is but one (and that a minor)

part of politics. That it is important to speak truth to power.

That is important, indeed vital, to dissent. That it is

necessary, sometimes, to step outside of a thing to see it

clearly. And that political organizations have different

interests from those who vote for them.

It has been exactly 40 years since Malcolm delivered

his powerful speech, and, if it be admitted that -- yes --

things *have* changed, we must also admit that some

things have stood the test of time.

The present Democratic party 'tolerates' Blacks, but

is virtually racing to the right. It tried to out-Bush Bush,

by posing as the 'real war' party. This despite the fact

that, according to polls, Blacks were the most anti-war

segment of the population. It wasn't anti-war because

of any soft, cottony reasons, but knew that young

people would bear the brunt of a war, for a cause that

certainly is questionable.

It's been 40 years. How well have we learned

Malcolm's lessons? Or have we been conned, once

again, into thinking that the ballot box is the doorway to

our true freedom?

How long have we voted for people who have not

voted for us?

In virtually every state of the so-called Union, there

are tens (if not hundreds!) of thousands of folks who

have had their votes disregarded, trashed, uncounted,

'lost', and even stolen! What kind of 'democracy'

tolerates such a thing?

In truth, this isn't a democracy -- it's a kleptocracy:

a government of thieves. For who else profits from

stolen items? In truth, democracy itself has been

stolen by computerized paper-less voting machines;

by ambitious party functionaries; by a political process

that has grown fat by feeding on social discontent.

Let us learn from Malcolm's insights, and build

political power independent of the two, major

corporate parties.

Copyright 2004 Mumia Abu-Jamal

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

9) THE WATER WARS
[Col. Writ. 12/30/04] Copyright 2004 Mumia Abu-Jamal

The recent visions of the tsunami rushing, raging,

tearing through the Asian coasts has given us all some

interesting insights into the truly stunning, and indeed

awesome power of water, and how nature's fury is

virtually boundless when unleashed.

Yet there is another watery war that is being waged,

that may affect the lives of millions, but it garners

neither the concern, nor really the attention of the world's

media. The electronic media, especially, thrives on drama

and conflict, and seeks pictures and stories which reflect

these features.

It also affirms the positions of the privileged, as

opposed to the plight of the poor, and powerless. Yet all

across the globe, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America --

and even here -- in North America-- people are living

under the very real threat of the corporatization of water

and water systems. The waters of the earth, which have

been, since the dawn of human civilization, for the collective

usage of the community, is fast becoming just another

commodity -- something to sell. If you can afford it, cool.

If not, tough.

Michael Stark, a senior executive at US Filter, a

subsidiary of the multinational corporation, Vivendi, put

it this way: "Water is a critical and necessary ingredient to

the daily life of every human being, and it is also an

equally powerful ingredient for powerful manufacturing

companies."*

Veronica Lake, a Michigan-based environmental activist,

has noted that corporations acquire the world's water by three

major methods: a) by "water mining" the underground

aquifers, or deep sources of many of the world's streams

or rivers; b) by leasing state and government water systems

and collecting revenues; and c) by "managing" city water

systems.

In short, there's money in water, and where money is,

there too are corporations, trying to get paid.

That's the dark, unforeseen and treacherous side of the

globalization movement among western governments and

corporations.

That's also what privatization really means -- taking the

common inheritance of nature, and making it into someone else's

private property.

In South Africa, this movement has resulted in more misery

for the poor. Indeed, cholera rates are higher now there, than in

the days of apartheid. It's often the result of tough austerity

measures imposed by the World Bank or the International

Monetary Fund, where governments are privatizing essential

services, and the costs of living now means the right to buy

water, to live.

Nor is this merely a story for the distant Third World.

In Detroit, Michigan, today, some 40,000 people on the

southwest side have had their water shut off for non-payment.

In many older buildings, water isn't just the stuff that's

supposed to run through faucets; it also provides steam heat

through old radiators. So no water means, no heat. In Detroit.

Scholars say that the next world wars will be fought, not for

oil, but for water, for it is infinitely more precious.

Thankfully, people, all over the world, in South Africa, in

Plachimada, India, in Bolivia, in Brazil, in France, Ghana, and

Canada, are fighting both their sell-out governments and the

corporations for the human right of free access to water.

Those of you who have read my earlier pieces may remember

my piece on the Bolivian water wars in a place called Cochabamba.

There, a popular group calling itself La Coordinadora de Defensa

del Agua y la Vida (Defense Committee in Defense of Water

and Life), organized the poor, the homeless, the street walkers,

and everyone they could to oppose the corporatization of their

water. They ran out the Bechtel corporation. It must spread.

Or else water will become as rare as gold; and as expensive.

[Source: *Veronica Lake, "Corporations Corner Market on Life,

Offer Buy-Back: The New World War: Water," *Against

the Current 108* (Jan./Feb. '04), pp. 26-31.]

Copyright 2004 Mumia Abu-Jamal

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

10) GARY WEBB: SUICIDE OR EXAMPLE?
[Col. Writ. 1/2/05] Copyright 2005 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Gary Webb, former investigative reporter for the

*Mercury News* newspaper, and award-winning journalist

who uncovered the nefarious CIA links to the burgeoning

cocaine and crack epidemics of the '90s, was found

dead in his suburban Sacramento home recently,

reportedly of a suicide. Webb, 49, also wrote the

best-selling book, *Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras

and the Crack Cocaine Explosion*, which told the

sordid story of how the U.S. government, through the

CIA, allowed its assets in the Nicaraguan Contras

to smuggle in cocaine to Los Angeles, to fund the

Contra wars against the Sandanista government in

Managua.

Webb's body was found on Friday, Dec. 10th,

2004, about 8:20 a.m., when a moving company arrived

at his home. According to published reports, a note

was posted on the front door reading: "Please do not

enter. Call 911 and ask for an ambulance."

Webb's expose of the CIA-crack connection, which

began as a *Mercury News* exclusive, resulted in a

flood of criticisms from the nation's major papers,

including the *New York Times*, the *L.A. Times*,

and the *Washington Post*. Indeed, after a time,

even the editors of the *Mercury News* critiqued

some parts of the story, but, over time, many, if not

most of the facts brought to light by his earth-

shattering series have been either admitted by the

CIA itself, or supported by other sources.

Webb's resignation from the newspaper about a

year and a half later, marked the power of the press

to discipline one of its own for committing an

unpardonable sin: uncovering the actions of the

powerful, in this case, the nation's intelligence

agencies.

Once again, the media ate its own, to protect

power and privilege.

It may very well be true that Webb committed

suicide: but it seems, at the very least, odd to post

a note on one's door before doing so.

Recently, in a book sharing the contributions

of a wide range of American reporters, Webb

penned an essay sharply critical of what he called,

the "Mighty Wurlitzer", or the media machine that

serves as an accompaniment to those of means

or power. His words give a stark picture of the

so-called 'free press':

Do we have a free press today? Sure we

do. It's free to report all the sex scandals

it wants, all the stock market news we can

handle, every new health fad that comes down

the pike, and every celebrity marriage or

divorce that happens. But when it comes

to the real down and dirty stuff -- stories

like Tailwind, the October Surprise, the

El Mozote massacre, corporate corruption,

or CIA involvement in drug trafficking --

that's where we begin to see the limits of

our freedoms. In today's media

environment, sadly, such stories are

not even open for discussion.

Back in 1938, when fascism was sweeping

Europe, legendary investigative reporter

George Seldes observed (in his book, *The

Lords of the Press*) that "it *is* possible

to fool all the people all the time -- when

government and press cooperate."

Unfortunately, we have reached that point.

[From: Gary Webb, "The Mighty

Wurlitzer Plays On", in Borjesson, Kristina,

ed., *Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists

Expose the Myth of a Free Press* (Amherst,

N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2002), pp. 309-310.]

We haven't the faintest idea whether Webb died

through suicide or intrigue. We don't pretend to know.

What we do know is that the media elites in the nation's

big cities, pointed their big guns at a colleague, and

blew away his career, for what now seems to be little

more than professional jealousy. For years, scholars

have shown how intelligence agencies (especially

the CIA!) have planted people *within* the U.S.

media to protect their agencies. Many an 'editor'

in New York and Washington began his 'career'

in Langley, Virginia, and not at journalism school.

We know that Webb got it mostly right; a) the CIA-

created Contras *had* been selling cocaine to finance

their 'dirty war' against the Sandanistas; b) the

Contras *had* sold coke in L.A. ghettoes, and

they supplied the area's biggest crack dealer;

c) people in the U.S. government knew about it

at the time, and did nothing; d) these sales fueled

and powered the first major crack cocaine market

in the U.S.; and, finally e) this crack explosion

fueled the growth and national expansion of the Crips

and the Bloods, as crews, to push the crack game

across the nation. In Webb's words: "It wasn't

so much a conspiracy that I had outlined as it

was a chain-reaction--bad ideas compounded

by stupid political decisions and rotten historical

timing." [id., 298].

Copyright 2005 Mumia Abu-Jamal

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

11) Pentagon Spurned Plan to Initiate Enemy Homosexuality
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
Mon Jan 17, 2005 07:23 AM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7343855&src=eD
ialog/GetContent§ion=news

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military rejected a 1994
proposal to develop an "aphrodisiac" to spur homosexual
activity among enemy troops but is hard at work on other
less-than-lethal weapons, defense officials said Sunday.

The idea of fostering homosexuality among the enemy figured
in a declassified six-year, $7.5 million request from a
laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio for
funding of non-lethal chemical weapon research.

The proposal, disclosed in response to a Freedom of
Information request, called for developing chemicals affecting
human behavior "so that discipline and morale in enemy units is
adversely affected."

"One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be
strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused
homosexual behavior," said the document, obtained by the
Sunshine Project. The watchdog group posted the partly
blacked-out, three-page document on its Web site.

Lt. Col. Barry Venable of the Army, a Defense Department
spokesman, said: "This suggestion arose essentially from a
brainstorming session, and it was rejected out of hand."

The Air Force Research Laboratory also suggested using
chemicals that could be sprayed on enemy positions to attract
stinging and biting bugs, rodents and larger animals.

Another idea involved creating "severe and lasting
halitosis" to help sniff out fighters trying to blend with
civilians.

The U.S. military remains committed to developing
less-than-lethal weapons that pass stringent legal reviews and
are consistent with international treaties, said Captain Dan
McSweeny of the Marine Corps, a spokesman for the Pentagon unit
spearheading their introduction.

"We feel it's very important to offer our deployed service
members and their commanders a greater range of options in
dealing with increasingly complex operational environments,"
said McSweeny, of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.

(c) Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

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

12) Asia Tsunami Death Toll Tops 175,000 (Link only)
By Simon Gardner
GALLE, Sri Lanka (Reuters)
Mon Jan 17, 2005 07:53 AM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7343999&src=eD
ialog/GetContent§ion=news

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

13) Ain't Gonna Study War No More (Link only)
Sgt. Kevin Benderman, a veteran of a tour in Iraq,
refused to return. Why did a 10-year military man become
a conscientious objector?
By Phillip Babich
Jan. 17, 2005
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/17/objector/print.html

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

14) **On January 11, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors,
in a 9-2 vote,approved a strong resolution supporting
justice for Mumia Abu-Jamal. The resolution proceeded through
a series of technical hurdles, including a formal posting,
a public hearing at which three members of the Mobilization
to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal spoke and finally, a full meeting
of the Board. See text of resolution below...

**THIS Monday, January 17 -- Annual Martin Luther King, Jr. March and Rally
in SF on -- help pass out Mumia fact sheets, carry signs and banners at the
March. Meet at the Train Station at 4th & Townsend at 10:30am on Jan.
17th...followed by indoor rally at Civic Center.

**SF organizing meeting of the Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal:
Saturday, January 29, 2005, 10:30am, Centro del Pueblo, 474 Valencia
Street, at 16th Street, in San Francisco to work on the following:

- The National Task Force for Mumia Abu-Jamal and the International
Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal has set the date of Mumia's
Birthday -- Saturday, April, 23, 2005, for a day of coordinated mass public
events in San Francisco and New York City to demand Justice and Freedom for
Mumia!

If you can't participate in the SF (415-255-1085) and New York actions
(ICFFMAJ: 215-476-8812), organize in your own town!

- Update on the resolutions projects (obtaining resolutions of support for
Justice for Mumia from local governments, unions, community organizations,
etc.), including the SF resolution and those passed by the National Black
Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL), and the NAACP.

!!FREE MUMIA!!

In solidarity,

Jeff Mackler and Laura Herrera, Co-coordinators
The Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
298 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-255-1085
http://www.freemumia.org

JUSTICE FOR MUMIA ABU-JAMAL

Resolution approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
January 11, 2005

Whereas, Mumia Abu-Jamal, an award-winning African-American journalist,
author of nine books and internationally known social critic and opponent
of the death penalty, has been on Pennsylvania's death row for the past 22
years, and,

Whereas, Amnesty International has pointed to serious flaws in the conduct
of his 1982 trial that raise critical constitutional issues that demand a
new trial for Mr. Jamal, and,

Whereas, among the issues that Amnesty International raised are:
suppression of critical evidence pointing to Mr. Jamal's innocence, the
illegal exclusion of African-American jurors, the denial of the right to
self-representation and the intimidation of witnesses, and,

Whereas, prominent organizations including the California Labor Federation,
AFL-CIO, the Episcopal Church of the United States, the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the European
Parliament, the San Francisco Labor Council, the Detroit City Council, the
National Lawyers Guild, the ILWU, AFSCME and SEIU national unions and many
others, have called for justice and a new trial for Mr. Jamal, and,

Whereas, San Francisco's former Mayor Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. declared
August 16, 1997 as "Justice for Mumia Abu-Jamal Day in San Francisco."

Therefore, Be It Resolved that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
affirm its support for justice and a new trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal, and,

Be It Further Resolved that this resolution be communicated to the
Governor's office of the State of Pennsylvania for his information.

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

15) Destroying Babylon (Link only)
Dahr Jamal's Iraq Dispatches
January 17, 2005
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000171.php#more

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

16) Le Monde diplomatique
January 2005
Iran: target zone

Iraq's defence minister accuses Iran and Syria of provoking
violence in Iraq. His complaints echo the claims of the
Bush administration and the neo-conservatives in the United
States, who still plan to remodel the Middle East and to
start by overthrowing the regime in Iran.

By Walid Charara

THE United States occupation of Iraq has turned into a
disaster, but so far this does not seem to have undermined
the determination of the Bush administration to pursue its
grand purpose, which is to remodel the Middle East (1).
With this in mind, the US has called Iran the new threat
and published a series of charges against it - the
manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, support for
terrorism, links with al-Qaida - almost identical to those
made against Saddam Hussein two years ago.

Unlike the former Iraqi regime, Iran has actually developed
a nuclear programme and the US is proclaiming its potential
military use as proof of Iran's warlike intentions. For
some time President Bush's national security adviser and
now secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, has been warning
that the US would do everything necessary to force Iran to
abandon its nuclear ambitions. Israeli officials have
issued similar warnings against the Iranian programme,
which the director of Mossad, Meir Dagan, has described as
"the greatest threat to the existence of Israel since its
creation".

Early in 2003, before the invasion of Iraq, Israel's
military leaders insisted that Iran should be designated a
priority target. In June 2002 Jane's, the British
publication on military issues, announced that Israel had
outlined a plan for a "preventive" strike against Iran's
nuclear research and development facilities, but that the
US had so far refused to allow it to go ahead.

Since then the situation has changed. Although the US's
immediate ambition is still to contain Iran's nuclear
ambitions, the principal long-term goal of its regional
strategy remains the same as it was in 1979, which is to
overthrow the Islamic Republic.

Despite changes in intensity provoked by immediate events,
hostility to Iran has been one of the constants of US
foreign policy for 25 years. A perceptible shift in the
Iranian position has done nothing to change this. Since the
early 1990s Iran has accelerated the normalisation of
relations with its neighbours (in particular Saudi Arabia),
and, as a number of experts have pointed out, has
strengthened political, economic and commercial ties with
the European Union, Russia, China and India. One expert
remarked that Iran, another "obsessional target" of the US,
may be strategically important, but the country has clearly
embarked upon a process of reducing internal and external
tensions (2).

On some policy issues, Iran's desire for an accommodation
with the US has led it to take steps that would once have
been unimaginable. In 2001 it backed the US war against
Afghanistan; and in 2003 it demonstrated its willingness to
cooperate by encouraging some Shia groups in Iraq to
support the US invasion. Unfortunately these overtures did
not significantly soften US hostility. During and after the
invasion of Iraq, leading US neo-conservatives and the
secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, proclaimed that
"democratic contagion" must soon overwhelm Iran and
precipitate the fall of its regime.

The US, convinced that it can hasten this process by
encircling Iran, is currently deploying troops in
neighbouring states. At the same time it is striving to
limit the external influence of the Islamic Republic, to
isolate Iran politically and diplomatically and to conduct
a strategy of direct and indirect destabilisation.

Behind the ideological window-dressing of the new
"democratic messianism", there are two main reasons for the
Bush administration's uncompromising determination. First
there is Iran's geostrategic status. It is an independent
and middle-ranking regional power that has engaged in
military cooperation with Russia and China. With a
population of 70 million, it has enormous human and
economic potential. All this makes it the last bastion
still to be holding out against a permanent US takeover of
the Middle East. The fear in the Pentagon is that future
"equal rivals" to the US -Europe, China, India or Russia -
might actually court a nuclear Iran.

Iran is the last surviving ally in the region of those
states and organisations still opposed to Israel. Without
its backing, Lebanon, Syria, Hizbullah and Palestinian
armed groups, deprived of any alternative regional or
international support, would be left helpless in the face
of Israel's military superiority.

Iran, which is in an increasingly dangerous situation and
determined to preserve the inviolability of its territory
against a possible attack by the US or Israel, has sought
to develop its nuclear capability. Some analysts believe
that this is purely deterrent. According to the US writer
Michael Mann: "These are not offensive weapons. Anyone who
fired off their warheads against the US would invite total
obliteration, so they cannot possibly threaten the US. Nor
can they be used against neighbouring states for most of
the reasons that usually start wars - territorial disputes
or protection of one's co-ethnics abroad - for
radioactivity would also effect [sic] one's own side. But
any country fearing a much stronger neighbour or the US has
a strong incentive to acquire them in self-defence" (3).

The emerging strategic consensus between the US and the
European Union, opposing Iran's admission to the nuclear
club, is strikingly reminiscent of their reaction to Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The object in both cases was to
prevent the emergence of a leading Islamic player involved
in the conflict with Israel and capable of partially
readjusting a regional balance of power strongly weighted
in favour of Israel.

But despite this convergence of opinion, Europe and the US
differ significantly on goals. If Iran gave up its military
nuclear ambitions, Europe would be prepared to normalise
relations. The US believes that such a climbdown should
actually strengthen the determination of the international
community to hasten the fall of the current regime in
Tehran.

Intense diplomatic pressure might be enough to persuade
Iran to renounce its nuclear ambitions. The alternative
would be to destroy them. Israel and the US would have no
qualms about this - just as the Israeli air force bombed
Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. But such a course
would entail serious risks. Technically, the problem is
that Iran has dispersed its installations, reducing the
chances of destroying them in their entirety. Iran would
certainly not hesitate to react militarily to an Israeli or
American attack, either directly, by firing long-range
missiles from its own territory into Israel; or indirectly,
by encouraging its ally Hizbullah to launch an attack from
South Lebanon, thus regionalising the conflict by dragging
in Lebanon and Syria, at the least. Iran might also
persuade its many Shia allies in Iraq and Afghanistan to
attack US troops there.

These risks make political, diplomatic and economic options
look more attractive. But whether Iran is to be made more
vulnerable to pressure or whether brute force is to be
applied, Iran must first be isolated from its regional
allies. To achieve this, the US has developed a strategy
across three fronts.

The first takes in Lebanon and Syria. France has helped the
US to lean on Syria. The pressure was intensified in
September 2004 with UN Security Council resolution 1559,
which demands the withdrawal of the Syrian army from
Lebanon, the disarming of the Lebanese and Palestinian
wings of Hizbullah and the deployment of Lebanon's army
along its border with Israel. The UN resolution sends a
coded message to Syria: that it must renounce its alliance
with Iran and distance itself from Iran's ally, Hizbullah,
without whose support Syria would be forced to pull out of
Lebanon.

The implications of resolution 1559 for the entire region
help explain France's unexpected adoption of a position
that is entirely out of step with its previous Middle
Eastern policy. It is true that France and Syria have
disagreed over trade and on the Lebanese question, and that
the French president, Jacques Chirac, has developed a
special relationship with the former Lebanese prime
minister, Rafiq Hariri, who is now hostile to Syria. But
neither of these is enough to explain the French reversal
of policy. The only possible explanation is a view shared
with the US about the necessity of dismantling the Syrian
alliance with Iran.

The second front against Iranian influence has been opened
in Iraq where, since April 2004, US and British forces have
been fighting supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr. It is not
simply a question of crushing any resistance to the
occupation, but also of neutralising a faction that enjoys
close relations with Iran. The same priority underpins the
US attitude towards two other Iraqi Shia groups, the
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution and the al-Da'wa
party, both members of Ayad Allawi's interim provisional
government. The US has attempted to co-opt specific
elements within these organisations while simultaneously
pressuring other elements that it perceives as irreducibly
pro-Iranian.

There is the question of the apparent rapprochement with
the People's Mujahideen of Iran. Despite classifying this
as a terrorist organisation, the US has granted 4,000 of
its members the status of political refugees in Iraq and
has used the group as a source of intelligence on Iran's
"secret" nuclear programme. It is probable that the US will
use the People's Mujahideen against the Islamic revolution,
rather as it employed Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National
Congress before the invasion of Iraq.

The third front is Afghanistan, where, under the pretext of
restoring the authority of the state over the warlords, the
US has encouraged its ally Hamid Karzai in an attempt to
remove the pro-Iranian Ismael Khan, the historic leader of
the mujahideen in the Herat region. Unfortunately there is
enormous support for Iran among the various political
factions that make up Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, and
the US will find it very difficult to reduce Khan's
influence.

So far, the US has managed to avoid any direct
confrontation with Iran. But the Bush administration's
determination to remodel the Middle East is bound to
conflict with the interests of the region's key states and
must eventually affect Iran. If the US persists in seeking
a confrontation, it will provoke a regional conflict that
will set the entire Middle East ablaze.

(1) See Gilbert Achcar, "Les masques de la politique
américaine", Manière de voir, n° 78, December 2004-January
2005.

(2) Emmanuel Todd, After the Empire: The Breakdown of the
American Order, Columbia University Press, New York, 2003.

(3) Michael Mann, Incoherent Empire, Verso, London/New
York, 2003.

Translated by Donald Hounam

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (c) 1997-2005 Le Monde diplomatique

Marxism mailing list
Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism

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

17) Iran Says It Has Military Might to
Deter Any Attack (Link only)
By Paul Hughes
TEHRAN (Reuters)
Tue Jan 18, 2005 08:39 AM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7355372&src=eD
ialog/GetContent§ion=news

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

18) THE COMING WARS (link only)
By SEYMOUR M. HERSH
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.
Issue of 2005-01-24 and 31
Posted 2005-01-17
January 18, 2005
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

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

19) U.S. Military Resorting To Collective Punishment
** Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches **
** http://dahrjamailiraq.com **
Inter Press Service

Dahr Jamail

*
BAGHDAD, Jan 18 (IPS) - The U.S. military is resorting to collective
punishment tactics in Iraq similar to those used by Israeli troops in
the occupied territories of Palestine, residents say.*

Military bulldozers have mown down palm groves in the rural al-Dora
farming area on the outskirts of Baghdad, residents say. Electricity has
been cut, the local fuel station destroyed and the access road blocked.

The U.S. action comes after resistance fighters attacked soldiers from
this area several weeks back.

"The Americans were attacked from this field, then they returned and
started cutting down all the trees," says Kareem, a local mechanic,
pointing to a pile of burnt date palms in a bulldozed field. "None of us
knows any fighters, we all know they are coming here from other areas to
attack the Americans, but we are the people who suffer from this."

The military action follows a similar round of attacks and retaliation
earlier this month.

U.S. Army Brigadier-General Mark Kimmit told reporters then that the
military had launched 'Operation Iron Grip' in the area to send "a very
clear message to anybody who thinks that they can run around Baghdad
without worrying about the consequences of firing RPGs (rocket propelled
grenades), firing mortars."

Gen. Kimmit said "there is a capability in the air that can quickly
respond against anybody who would want to harm Iraqi citizens or
coalition forces." Then as now, local people denied any knowledge of
harbouring resistance fighters.

And now, as then, they say they have to pay the price.

"They destroyed our fences, and now there are wolves attacking our
animals," said Mohammed, a schoolboy. "They destroyed much of our
farming equipment, and the worst is they cut our electricity. They come
by here every night and fire their weapons to frighten us."

People need electricity to run pumps to irrigate the farms, he said.
"Now we are carrying water in buckets from the river, and this is very
difficult for us," Mohammed said. "They say they are going to make
things better for us, but they are worse."

Going into fields littered with unexploded mortar shells after the U.S.
retaliation has become hazardous now. "We asked them the first time and
they said okay, we'll come take care of it," said a farmer who called
himself Sharkr. "But they never came."

Other residents say soldiers beat them up during random home raids. "I
was beaten by the Americans," said Ihsan, a 17 year-old secondary school
student. "They asked me who attacked them, but I do not know. My home
was raided, our furniture destroyed, and one of my uncles was arrested."

People in Abu Hishma village in the area spoke of similar experiences
earlier. After U.S.. soldiers were attacked, the entire village was
encircled with razor wire. Residents were forced to acquire military
identity badges and enter through a military controlled checkpoint.

The main farm road was blocked by four large concrete slabs after
attacks several weeks ago. Residents used tractors to remove the blocks,
but last week they say the military installed four larger blocks.

"They humiliate us when we talk to them," said Hamoud Abid, a
50-year-old farmer. "They would not tell us when they will remove these
blocks, so we are all walking now."

A military spokesperson in Baghdad declined to comment on the statements
by the people in al-Dora, and declined a request for his name. But he
said there were ongoing security operations in al-Dora.

More writing, photos and commentary at http://dahrjamailiraq.com
Iraq_Dispatches mailing list
http://lists.dahrjamailiraq.com/mailman/listinfo/iraq_dispatches

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

19) Odd Happenings in Fallujah
** Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches **
** http://dahrjamailiraq.com **
January 18, 2005

"The soldiers are doing strange things in Fallujah," said one of my
contacts in Fallujah who just returned. He was in his city checking on
his home and just returned to Baghdad this evening.

Speaking on condition of anonymity he continued, "In the center of the
Julan Quarter they are removing entire homes which have been bombed,
meanwhile most of the homes that were bombed are left as they were. Why
are they doing this?"

According to him, this was also done in the Nazal, Mualmeen, Jubail and
Shuhada'a districts, and the military began to do this after Eid, which
was after November 20th.

He told me he has watched the military use bulldozers to push the soil
into piles and load it onto trucks to carry away. This was done in the
Julan and Jimouriya quarters of the city, which is of course where the
heaviest fighting occurred during the siege, as this was where
resistance was the fiercest.

"At least two kilometers of soil were removed," he explained, "Exactly
as they did at Baghdad Airport after the heavy battles there during the
invasion and the Americans used their special weapons."

He explained that in certain areas where the military used "special
munitions" 200 square meters of soil was being removed from each blast site.

In addition, many of his friends have told him that the military brought
in water tanker trucks to power blast the streets, although he hadn't
seen this himself.

"They went around to every house and have shot the water tanks," he
continued, "As if they are trying to hide the evidence of chemical
weapons in the water, but they only did this in some areas, such as
Julan and in the souk (market) there as well."

He first saw this having been done after December 20th.

Again, this is reflective of stories I've been told by several refugees
from Fallujah.

Just last December, a 35 year-old merchant from Fallujah, Abu Hammad,
told me what he'd experienced when he was still in the city during the
siege.

"The American warplanes came continuously through the night and bombed
everywhere in Fallujah! It did not stop even for a moment! If the
American forces did not find a target to bomb, they used sound bombs
just to terrorize the people and children. The city stayed in fear; I
cannot give a picture of how panicked everyone was."

"In the mornings I found Fallujah empty, as if nobody lives in it," he'd
said, "Even poisonous gases have been used in Fallujah-they used
everything-tanks, artillery, infantry, poison gas. Fallujah has been
bombed to the ground. Nothing is left."

In Amiriyat al-Fallujah, a small city just outside Fallujah where many
doctors from Fallujah have been practicing since they were unable to do
so at Fallujah General Hospital, similar stories are being told.

Last month one refugee who had just arrived at the hospital in the small
city explained that he'd watched the military bring in water tanker
trucks to power blast some of the streets in Fallujah.

"Why are they doing this," explained Ahmed (name changed for his
protection), "To beautify Fallujah? No! They are covering their tracks
from the horrible weapons they used in my city."

Also last November, another Fallujah refugee from the Julan area, Abu
Sabah told me, "They (US military) used these weird bombs that put up
smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces feel from the air with
long tails of smoke behind them."

He explained that pieces of these bombs exploded into large fires that
burnt peoples skin even when water was dumped on their bodies, which is
the effect of phosphorous weapons, as well as napalm. "People suffered
so much from these, both civilians and fighters alike," he said.

My friend Suthir (name changed to protect identity) was a member of one
of the Iraqi Red Crescent relief convoys that was allowed into Fallujah
at the end of November.

"I'm sure the Americans committed bad things there, but who can discover
and say this," she said when speaking of what she saw of the devastated
city, "They didn't allow us to go to the Julan area or any of the others
where there was heavy fighting, and I'm sure that is where the horrible
things took place."

"The Americans didn't let us in the places where everyone said there was
napalm used," she added, "Julan and those places where the heaviest
fighting was, nobody is allowed to go there."

On 30 November the US military prevented an aid convoy from reaching
Fallujah. This aid convoy was sent by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, but
was told by soldiers at a checkpoint to return in "8 or 9 days,"
reported AP.

Dr. Ibrahim al-Kubaisi who was with the relief team told reporters at
that time, "There is a terrible crime going in Fallujah and they do not
want anybody to know."

With the military maintaining strict control over who enters Fallujah,
the truth of what weapons were used remains difficult to find.

Meanwhile, people who lived in different districts of Fallujah continue
to tell the same stories.

More writing, photos and commentary at http://dahrjamailiraq.com
Iraq_Dispatches mailing list
http://lists.dahrjamailiraq.com/mailman/listinfo/iraq_dispatches

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

posted 12:24 PM 0 comments

Sunday, January 16, 2005

BAUAW NEWSLETTER - SUNDAY, JAN. 16, 2005

1) MANHATTAN: JURY DELIBERATES IN TERROR TRIAL (Lynne Stewart)
January 13, 2005
METRO BRIEFING
NEW YORK
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/nyregion/13mbrf.html
(For more information about the case go to: www.lynnestewart.org
Or call: 212-625-9696)

2) NEXT BAUAW MEETING:
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 11:00 a.m.
CENTRO DEL PUEBLO
474 VALENCIA STREET
(NEAR 16TH ST. IN S.F.)
HELP GET THE MILITARY OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS!
KILLING AND BEING KILLED
IS NOT A CAREER CHOICE!

BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW!
MARCH AND RALLY JANUARY 20, 5 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO

3) [Alerts] Fw: Antiwar bleachers at 4th &
Pennsylvania Ave. (north side) for
Jan. 20 CounterInaugural alerts at
lists.iww.org alerts at lists.iww.org
Wed Jan 12 16:54:34 PST 2005
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: "VoteNoWar.org" < Action at VoteNoWar.org >
Sent: Jan 12, 2005 4:45 PM
WE HAVE WON THE RIGHT
TO SET UP ANTIWAR BLEACHERS
AND HOLD A RALLY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
4TH ST. & PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW!
http://lists.iww.org/pipermail/alerts/2005-January/001354.html

4) Let's Hit the Streets
On the 32nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
To Defend Abortion Rights!
Saturday, January 22
* 10 am - Rally at Powell and Market Streets, San Francisco
(Powell Street BART)
* 11 am - March up Market Street, along the Embarcadero
to Aquatic Park
www.indybay.org/womyn .
Driving? Need a ride? Visit
http://drivingvotes.org/rides/sfprochoice.php
ALSO: Join the Womens Rights Contingent in the
San Francisco Counter-Inaugural Protest on January 20th.
Meet at 5 pm at the corner of Grove and Polk in
Civic Center Plaza.

5) PICTURES OF WAR

6) You are invited To Celebrate and claim victory on
James Yee's case and his Honorable Discharge from
the U.S. Army
Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday
JOIN THOUSANDS in the Freedom March
When: Monday, January 17, 2005
11:30 A.M. TO 12:30 p.m.
Where:J4NA members will meet at
3rd & Mission at 11:30 a.m and join the parade.
The big march will start at the San Francisco
Caltrain Station
(4th St. and Townsend St.,) proceeding to Mission Street @
Third Street, continuing to the Bill Graham
Civic Auditorium

7) ITALIAN.QUEER.DANGEROUS
a one-man show featuring Tommi Avicolli Mecca
directed by Francesca Prada, Jan. 14-19, 8:00pm,
JON SIMS CENTER
1519 Mission, Between Van Ness and 11th Sts., SF
[Come to the special antiwar presentation of
ITALIAN.QUEER.DANGEROUS this Friday evening,
Jan. 21, 8:00 p.m.]

8) Rising Violence and Fear Drive Iraq Campaigners Underground
By DEXTER FILKINS
January 16, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/international/middleeast/
16election.html?hp&ex=1105938000&en=e20aa7a7ce5fec23&ei=5094&partner=ho
mepage

9) Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:33 PM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7337636

10) LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH FROM
16 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
January 12, 2005
The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
"We write to urge you to take immediate steps to begin the
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq."

11) Iraq War May Incite Terror, CIA Study Says
Think tank sees a breeding ground for militants.
It says the risk of a germ attack is rising.
By Bob Drogin
Times Staff Writer
THE WORLD
WASHINGTON
January 14, 2005
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0114-01.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-
intel14jan14,1,6383855,print.story?coll=la-news-a_section

12) US 'should not rule out torture'
The outgoing head of the US Department of Homeland
Security has said torture may be used in certain cases
in order to prevent a major loss of life.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2005/01/15 00:47:27 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4175713.stm

13) Aimée Smith Found Not-Guilty in False Arrest By MIT Police
AIMEE SMITH DEFENSE COMMITTEE
Press Release
For immediate release: Friday, January 14, 2005
Contact: Richard Hugus (508) 540-6034

14) How Red Tape and Poverty Prevented Warnings Going Out
to Battered Shores
A system existed to alert the Indian Ocean countries to
the deadliest tsunami in history, but scientists were
unable to use it. Geoffrey Lean reports from Mauritius
on what is being done to prevent a repeat
16 January 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=601355

15) Join us for a counter-vigil for Global Justice
in response to the racist rhetoric of the
"Rally Against Global Terrorism"
On Monday, January 17th please join the Justice in
Palestine Coalition for a silent counter-vigil from
11:30-3p.m. on the southeast corner of Grove and
Larkin at the Civic Center Plaza in San Francisco.
There will be signs at the counter-vigil with images of
Palestinian children who have been killed.

16) HANDS OFF SOCIAL SECURITY!
March and demonstrate against attacks on Social Security!
Tuesday, Jan. 18, 11:30 a.m.
Pacific Stock Exchange
115 Sansome Street (between Bush and Pine) and march to
the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce office and then to
the office of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstien

17) You're Invited?
By: Joan Lowy
WASHINGTON
Scripps Howard
These are two of the various types of inaugural tickets
to be distributed starting Monday at the Capitol in Washington.
Associated Press photos
Be ready for metal detectors, personal body searches and
the highest security in inauguration history
01/11/2005
http://www.news-herald.com/site/
printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1698&dept_id=21849&newsid=13721845

18) White House Exploring 'Rapture' Contingency Plans
The White House is reportedly exploring contingency
plans in the event that President Bush and other prominent
Christians are 'raptured.' But succession plans are
complicated by Vice President Dick Cheney's poor health
and the fact that Representative Tom DeLay, like President
Bush, will be summoned to heaven along with millions of other
Christians.
Party leaders address presidential succession, security
needs in event that President Bush, other believers are
summoned to heaven.
By Deanna Swift
WASHINGTON, DC
December 28, 2004
http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2004/12/white_house_exp.html

19) Mangroves Can Act as Shield Against Tsunami
By G. Venkataramani
CHENNAI, Dec. 27
Date:28/12/2004 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2004/12/28/stories/
2004122805191300.htm
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2004/12/28/stories/2004122805191300.htm

20) Social Security Agency Is Enlisted to Push Its Own Revision
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON
January 16, 2005
http://nytimes.com/2005/01/16/politics/
16benefit.html?ei=5094&en=8adcb7ce5d74cac7&hp=&ex=1105851600&partner=ho
mepage&pagewanted=print&position=

21) Bush to Return to 'Ownership Society' Theme in
Push for Social Security Changes
"The intent is to change Americans' relationship with
the government to allow (or, critics say, to force) people
to look less to Washington and to take more responsibility
for their finances and their retirement. "
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
WASHINGTON
January 16, 2005
THE ADDRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/politics/16own.html

22) For Inauguration in Wartime,
a Lingering Question of Tone
By JOHN TIERNEY
WASHINGTON
January 16, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/politics/16tone-
top.html?hp&ex=1105938000&en=100fcdafbc85fd33&ei=5094&partner=homepage

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

1) MANHATTAN: JURY DELIBERATES IN TERROR TRIAL(Lynne Stewart)
January 13, 2005
METRO BRIEFING
NEW YORK
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/nyregion/13mbrf.html
(For more information about the case go to: www.lynnestewart.org
Or call: 212-625-9696)

MANHATTAN: JURY DELIBERATES IN TERROR TRIAL
The jurors in the trial of Lynne F. Stewart, a lawyer accused of aiding
terrorism, began to deliberate yesterday [Wednesday, Jan. 12, 2005],
after the judge cautioned that they could not convict on the basis of
her political views. The decisions must be unanimous on 16 questions
concerning Ms. Stewart and two co-defendants, Ahmed Abdel Sattar
and Mohamed Yousry, who are charged with conspiring to lie to the
government and to help terrorists in Egypt. Judge John G. Koeltl, who
read 139 pages of instructions, told them that "expression of opinion
alone, even an opinion advocating violence, is not a crime in this
country." Julia Preston (NYT)

Compiled by Anthony Ramirez

Copyright 2005 The New York Times

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

2) NEXT BAUAW MEETING:
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 11:00 a.m.
CENTRO DEL PUEBLO
474 VALENCIA STREET
(NEAR 16TH ST. IN S.F.)
HELP GET THE MILITARY OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS!
KILLING AND BEING KILLED
IS NOT A CAREER CHOICE!
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW!
MARCH AND RALLY JANUARY 20, 5 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO

Help work on a campaign to get the military off our school
campuses. The recent passing of Proposition N, to Bring our
troops home now, by a 63% majority of San Francisco voters,
mandates that the military should keep their hands off our
kids. Killing and being killed is not the career choice we
want for our kids or anyone's kids. We want them to have an
education so that they can make things better, not training
in the art of killing. We want our tax dollars to go for
schools, housing, healthcare and good jobs instead of war.

Don't forget to protest on Jan. 20th. If you can take a day
off, join Not In Our Name's outreach campaign. We want to
hold banners near freeway on/off ramps, and in other public
locations to encourage everyone to protest in some way that
day-even if you can only wear a button on your job or honk
your horn in solidarity. For more information go to:
http://www.notinourname.net/~bayarea/

Jan. 20th is not a happy day for us. It's a day of protest!

Don't forget to show up at 5 p.m., Jan. 20, at the
Civic Center for a March and rally.

Bay Area United Against War

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

3) [Alerts] Fw: Antiwar bleachers at 4th & Pennsylvania Ave.
(north side) for Jan. 20 CounterInaugural
alerts at lists.iww.org alerts at lists.iww.org
Wed Jan 12 16:54:34 PST 2005
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: "VoteNoWar.org" < Action at VoteNoWar.org >
Sent: Jan 12, 2005 4:45 PM
WE HAVE WON THE RIGHT
TO SET UP ANTIWAR BLEACHERS
AND HOLD A RALLY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
4TH ST. & PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW!
http://lists.iww.org/pipermail/alerts/2005-January/001354.html

*Updated Jan. 20 CounterInaugural
logistics, bus transportation and more*

Dear VoteNoWar member,

VoteNoWar members will be able to join together at antiwar
bleachers and a rally at 4th St. and Pennsylvania Ave. NW (north side)
on January 20. This is the first time in history that people have won
the right to establish antiwar bleachers along the presidential
inaugural parade route.

The National Park Service has acknowledged the right of the
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition to set up antiwar bleachers at 4th St. and
Pennsylvania Avenue NW (north side). Our movement has obtained a
permit to hold this large convergence along the Inaugural route.

George Bush - as he rides in the inaugural motorcade - will be forced
to pass a large bleacher set up filled with signs demanding "U.S. Out
of Iraq Now, End the Occupation - Bring the Troops Home Now," "End
Colonial Domination from Palestine to Haiti, and Everywhere," "Health
Care, Education, Housing, and a Job at a Living Wage Must be a Right!"
and more.

You can bring your own signs or pick up signs, banners and other
materials at this location. Any sign that is made of cardboard,
posterboard or cloth and that is no larger than 3 feet by 20 feet and
1/4 inch in thickness can be brought to the parade route.

To cover the cost of the bleachers, the sound system, stage,
transportation, printing placards and other materials, we will need to
raise $30,000 in the next few days. We can't do it without your help.
Please make a generous donation. You can make a contribution through a
secure server, where you can also find information on how to
contribute by check, by clicking here:

http://www.pephost.org/site/R?i=7R-E-j-EqAi72suC2Mm5YQ..

We want to make it clear to everyone that while we have obtained
permitted space at 4th St. and Pennsylvania Ave. (north side), we are
continuing to fight the government's attempts to prohibit the general
public from gaining access to all the areas along the parade route
while reserving those areas for the exclusive use of Bush
supporters and donors. Pennsylvania Avenue is not the private
property of Corporate America and the ultra-right.

The only way to maintain our right to demonstrate along the route of
the inaugural parade is to come to Pennsylvania Avenue in large
numbers as close to 9 am - 10 am as possible on January 20.

Those organizing bus transportation, vans, car caravans, or planning
individual transportation should do everything in their power to be at
4th St. and Pennsylvania Avenue, and along the Pennsylvania Avenue
parade route, as close to 9 am - 10 am as possible.

Click below for UPDATED DOWNLOADABLE MAPS
of the site of the antiwar bleachers and mass rally

Color PDF http://www.pephost.org/site/R?i=MUzn9TOqkEC72suC2Mm5YQ.. Black &
White PDF http://www.pephost.org/site/R?i=3nyMcihbq-G72suC2Mm5YQ.. * *

FUNDS ARE URGENTLY NEEDED

Funds are urgently needed for the January 20th mobilization. If you
cannot personally attend but would like to help cover the costs of
transportation, printing banners, signs and literature you can make a
contribution through a secure server, where you can also find
information on how to contribute by check, by clicking here:
http://www.pephost.org/site/R?i=RWuhIllZbmC72suC2Mm5YQ..
Click the link below to change your email preferences:
http://www.pephost.org/site/R?i=51Db-MEKhTi72suC2Mm5YQ..
If the method for unsubscribing, above, do not work for you,
then write us at IWantOff at VoteNoWar.org and we'll remove
you manually.

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

4) Let's Hit the Streets
On the 32nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
To Defend Abortion Rights!
Saturday, January 22
* 10 am - Rally at Powell & Market Streets, San Francisco
(Powell Street BART)
* 11 am - March up Market Street, along the Embarcadero
to Aquatic Park

Jan. 22 is the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court
decision that established the constitutional right to reproductive freedom.
On the same day, anti-choice extremists plan to march in San Francisco
against womens health and rights. The anti-choice minority might be
emboldened by the climate in Washington, DC but they are not
welcome here!

Join the San Francisco Area Pro-Choice Coalition to Stand Up for
Reproductive Freedom and Demonstrate that San Francisco is PRO-CHOICE!

Sponsored by the San Francisco Area Pro-Choice Coalition. For more
information or to get involved, visit www.indybay.org/womyn www.indybay.org/womyn> .
Driving? Need a ride? Visit http://drivingvotes.org/rides/sfprochoice.php

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

5) PICTURES OF WAR

PLEASE ACCESS:
** Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches **
** http://dahrjamailiraq.com **

I have obtained the originals of the photos I recently
posted which were taken from inside Fallujah.
These are of much higher quality.

Some of the comments have been updated, and there are
some additional pictures added which I did not have before.

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/
view_album.php?set_albumName=album28&page=1

More writing, photos and commentary at http://dahrjamailiraq.com

You can visit http://dahrjamailiraq.com/email_list/ to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the email list.

(c)2004 Dahr Jamail.
All images and text are protected by United States and
international copyright law. If you would like to reprint Dahr's
Dispatches on the web, you need to include this copyright notice
and a prominent link to the DahrJamailIraq.com website. Any
other use of images and text including, but not limited to,
reproduction, use on another website, copying and printing
requires the permission of Dahr Jamail. Of course, feel free
to forward Dahr's dispatches via email.

Iraq_Dispatches mailing list
http://lists.dahrjamailiraq.com/mailman/listinfo/iraq_dispatches

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/
view_album.php?set_albumName=album28&page=1
view_album.php?set_albumName=album28&page=1>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia/message/26138
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia/message/26138
Virginion Pilot via AP - Photos - click here
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=79598&ran=187050

TSUNAMI PHOTOS:
A Community Labor News E-Zine

http://homepage.mac.com/demark/tsunami/2.html

This one has a BUNCH of different sources. I liked the
CTV site and the maps on the Washington Post site.

ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/asl/guides/indian-ocean-disaster.html

Readers may email your article submissions
or your comments to ListAdmin@CLNews.org

http://www.clnews.org/MailList/subscribtion.htm
"Freedom is always and exclusively
freedom for the one who thinks differently"
--Rosa Luxemburg

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

6) You are invited To Celebrate and claim victory on
James Yee's case and his Honorable Discharge from
the U.S. Army
Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday
JOIN THOUSANDS in the Freedom March
When: Monday, January 17, 2005
11:30 A.M. TO 12:30 p.m.
Where:J4NA members will meet at
3rd & Mission at 11:30 a.m and join the parade.
The big march will start at the San Francisco
Caltrain Station
(4th St. and Townsend St.,) proceeding to Mission Street @
Third Street, continuing to the Bill Graham
Civic Auditorium

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

7) ITALIAN.QUEER.DANGEROUS
a one-man show featuring Tommi Avicolli Mecca
directed by Francesca Prada, Jan. 14-19, 8:00pm,
JON SIMS CENTER
1519 Mission, Between Van Ness and 11th Sts., SF
JANUARY 14-29 (Friday and Saturday nights
only: 14, 15; 21, 22; 28, 29)
[Come to the special antiwar presentation of
ITALIAN.QUEER.DANGEROUS this coming Friday evening,
Jan. 21, 8:00 p.m.]

JON SIMS CENTER, 1519 Mission/between Van Ness and 11th
8pm, $5-10 sliding scale (no one turned away)
Seating is limited, for reservations: 415-554-0402
To volunteer to help with the show, call 415-552-6031

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

8) Rising Violence and Fear Drive Iraq Campaigners Underground
By DEXTER FILKINS
January 16, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/international/middleeast/
16election.html?hp&ex=1105938000&en=e20aa7a7ce5fec23&ei=5094&partner=ho
mepage

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 15 - The threat of death hung so heavily over
the election rally, held this week on the fifth floor of the General
Factory for Vegetable Oil, that the speakers refused to say whether
they were candidates at all.

"Too dangerous," said Hussein Ali, who solicited votes for the
United Iraqi Alliance, a party fielding dozens of candidates for
the elections here. "It's a secret."

And then Mr. Ali and his colleagues left, escorted by men with
guns.

So goes the election campaign unfolding across Iraq, a country
simultaneously set to embark on an American-backed political
experiment while writhing under a guerrilla insurgency dead set
on disrupting the experiment.

With only two weeks to go to before the vote, scheduled for Jan. 30,
guerrillas have stepped up their attacks and driven most candidates
deep indoors, and on Saturday, the authorities said they would
restrict traffic and set up cordons around polling places on election
day.

A result, in large swaths of the country, is a campaign in the
shadows, where candidates are often too terrified to say their
names. Instead of holding rallies, they meet voters in secret, if they
meet them at all. Instead of canvassing for votes, they fend off
death threats.

Public campaigning is still possible in much of southern Iraq and
in the Kurdish areas to the far northeast, where the threat of
violence does not loom so large.

But in much of the center and the northwest, including two of the
country's three largest cities, Baghdad and Mosul, candidates
reveal themselves only at great personal risk.

Of the 7,471 people who have filed to run, only a handful
outside the relatively safe Kurdish areas have publicly identified
themselves. The locations for the 5,776 polling places have
not been announced, lest they become targets for attacks.

The predicament for candidates was spelled out on a flier
passed around town by the United Iraqi Alliance. The flier
listed the names of 37 candidates for the national assembly.
The 188 others, the flier said, could not be published.

"Our apologies for not mentioning the names of all the
candidates," the flier said. "But the security situation is bad,
and we have to keep them alive."

Some political leaders here say they are not much bothered
by the candidates' lack of visibility; they point out that Iraqis
will be voting for political parties, not individual candidates.

Each party has a list of candidates and will be given seats in
proportion to the number of votes it receives. At this
rudimentary stage of democracy, some say, it is remarkable
enough that the Iraqis are voting at all.

"This will be an election of constituencies, not of programs
like you have in America," said Adil Abdul Mahdi, the finance
minister and a candidate in the United Iraqi Alliance. "The
Iraqis know their people. They know who they are voting for."

But the larger issue, for many political leaders, is that the
guerrilla assault to scuttle the elections has truncated political
discourse and, as a result, the heart of the elections itself.
If candidates can't campaign, they can't debate, and if they
can't debate, voters will hardly be in a position to chart their
country's destiny.

"An election is not just putting a piece of a paper in a box; it's
a whole process," said Nasir Chaderji, chairman of the National
Democratic Party, with 48 candidates. "We don't have that
here. Candidates can't campaign because of the security
situation.

"I call it the secret election."

Raja al-Khuzai, a candidate for the assembly who has joined
a slate headed by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, spends nearly
all of her time inside Dr. Allawi's heavily fortified compound,
surrounded by armed guards. Instead of campaigning, she
sends volunteers into the streets to talk to voters on her behalf.

"They come back and tell me the vision of the people,"
Dr. Khuzai said.

Dr. Khuzai knows well the dangers facing Iraqis trying to build
a new democratic order; two of her colleagues on the Iraqi
Governing Council, which has since been disbanded, were
killed. On Dec. 24, American soldiers found the broken and
bullet-riddled body of a relative, Wijdan al-Khuzai, also
a candidate.

Rawaf Abdul Razak, a candidate for the National Democratic
Party, awoke one morning to find a slip of paper tucked into
the front gate of his Baghdad home.

"The game is over," the handwritten note said. "If you do not
go back to your God honestly and stop being a traitor to your
country, then we will send you to hell."

Mr. Razak is still a candidate, but he does not campaign in
public anymore.

The violence makes for an election campaign that seems
curiously removed from the country where it is taking place
- and sometimes literally removed. The wealthier candidates,
like Dr. Allawi, broadcast television advertisements trumpeting
their candidacies. Others hold news conferences inside
compounds fortified by sandbags and blast walls.

Dr. Khuzai recently went door to door looking for supporters
in an Iraqi neighborhood in Amman, Jordan. "I can't do that
in Iraq," she said.

As a result, the most ubiquitous form of political communication
is the campaign poster; there are thousands. In the capital,
they compete for space on nearly every wall.

"The Right Choice for a Bright Future," reads one poster for
the United Iraqi Alliance.

"Islam Is Our Culture, Modernity Is Our Way, Renewal Is Our
Goal," reads one for the Islamic Democratic Party.

Ordinary campaign events here are so rare, and new, Iraqis
often do not know how to react when they see one. When
workers for the Iraqi Communist Party drove a caravan with
loudspeakers into Shoula, a neighborhood in northern
Baghdad, on Friday, many of the residents looked on
dumbfounded, with their mouths agape.

"We will lift up the poor!" the young Communist shouted
into the bullhorn.

Yet when the caravan stopped and the volunteers began
passing out leaflets, a throng of Iraqis crowded around.
They did not exhibit much knowledge of individual
candidates or the parties' platforms, but they well
understood that an election was only two weeks away.

"Of course we know what democracy is," said Nadi
Kareem, a 60-year-old shopkeeper, who had grasped
one of the Communist brochures. "We've been waiting
35 years for it."

The candidates themselves, even the ones too afraid to
go out, sense the stakes as well. The Communists, for
instance, now espousing free elections and religious
tolerance, are among the few Iraqi parties that send
candidates into the streets. Two of its members have
been gunned down in the past month.

"No one is going to hand you democracy on a silver
platter; you have to fight for it," said Jasim al-Helfi,
a Communist candidate for the assembly. "In a democracy,
the candidates have to go into the streets and meet
the people."

The insurgency has not stopped campaigning everywhere.
In much of southern Iraq, where the Shiites dominate and
the insurgency has ebbed, candidates can meet voters
face-to-face, though most do so only with armed guards
at their side.

Earlier this week, a group of five assembly candidates led
by Ahmad Chalabi drove from Baghdad to Mushkhab,
about 100 miles to the south, to meet the leaders of
a local tribe. To get there, Mr. Chalabi and his entourage
traveled with 50 armed guards, who stopped traffic on
highways when it got in the way and even commandeered
a gas station at gunpoint when their vehicles ran low on fuel.

Mr. Chalabi, who is a candidate for the United Iraqi Alliance,
arrived to a warm welcome. He met with the tribal leaders
inside a mudhif, a traditional meeting hall made of dried
reeds plucked from the Euphrates River. He sat cross-legged
with the tribal chiefs, dined on a lunch of lamb and rice, then
rose to give a speech.

"The Americans came and pushed Saddam out, but they did
not liberate the country," Mr. Chalabi said. "The Iraqi people
will liberate the country; they will build the country."

The tribal leaders, in turn, promised their support, as well as
the support of everyone in their tribe, the Fatla. "Our people
will vote the way we tell them to vote," said Imad Faroun,
a Fatla tribal leader.

Many Iraqi Shiites say they will vote for the United Iraqi
Alliance, the coalition of Shiite parties brought together
by the religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. With
Ayatollah Sistani's tacit endorsement - his gaunt, severe
visage adorns the alliance's placards - many Shiites say
they feel a religious obligation to vote for the Shiite alliance.

"If this party has been approved by Sistani, then I will
support it," said Adnan Khazel, a 23-year-old worker
at the vegetable oil factory.

The other emotion that accompanies many of the campaign
events here, along with the fear of violence, is the memory
of hard times, not just of Mr. Hussein, but also of the
uncertainty since the American invasion and the
intensifying guerrilla war.

The rallies in Mushkhab and at the factory in Baghdad were
both accompanied by poetry readings, mournful verse about
travails past.

"Iraq, my soul, my wounds are still not healed," the reader
told his fellow countrymen at the oil factory. "What a pity
that in this land where we were masters, we have now
become the slaves."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times

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

9) Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:33 PM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7337636

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been
conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help
identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The
New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.

The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said
the secret missions have been going on at least since last
summer with the goal of identifying target information for
three dozen or more suspected sites.

Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to
the Pentagon as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to
go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure
as possible."

One former high-level intelligence official told The New
Yorker, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one
campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge
war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."

The White House said Iran is a concern and a threat that
needs to be taken seriously. But it disputed the report by
Hersh, who last year exposed the extent of prisoner abuse at
the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"We obviously have a concern about Iran. The whole world
has a concern about Iran," Dan Bartlett, a top aide to
President Bush, told CNN's "Late Edition."

Of The New Yorker report, he said: "I think it's riddled
with inaccuracies, and I don't believe that some of the
conclusions he's drawing are based on fact."

Bartlett said the administration "will continue to work
through the diplomatic initiatives" to convince Iran -- which
Bush once called part of an "axis of evil" -- not to pursue
nuclear weapons.

"No president, at any juncture in history, has ever taken
military options off the table," Bartlett added. "But what
President Bush has shown is that he believes we can emphasize
the diplomatic initiatives that are underway right now."

COMMANDO TASK FORCE

Bush has warned Iran in recent weeks against meddling in
Iraqi elections.

The former intelligence official told Hersh that an
American commando task force in South Asia is working closely
with a group of Pakistani scientists who had dealt with their
Iranian counterparts.

The New Yorker reports that this task force, aided by
information from Pakistan, has been penetrating into eastern
Iran in a hunt for underground nuclear-weapons installations.

In exchange for this cooperation, the official told Hersh,
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has received assurances
that his government will not have to turn over Abdul Qadeer
Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, to face questioning
about his role in selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and
North Korea.

Hersh reported that Bush has already "signed a series of
top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret
commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct
covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as
many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia."

Defining these as military rather than intelligence
operations, Hersh reported, will enable the Bush administration
to evade legal restrictions imposed on the CIA's covert
activities overseas.

(c) Reuters 2005

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

10) LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH FROM 16 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
January 12, 2005
The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
"We write to urge you to take immediate steps to begin the
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq."

Dear Mr. President,

We write to urge you to take immediate steps to begin the
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Although the initial invasion of Iraq may have occurred with
minimal troop deaths, the subsequent occupation of the
country has been anything but successful. Already more than
1,300 American troops have lost their lives since the war began
on March 19, 2003. At least 10,000 American troops have been
injured as well, and it is impossible to know exactly how many
thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed. Despite
the enormity of the war's casualties, the Iraqi insurgency
continues to grow stronger with every passing day.

Iraq is no closer to becoming a stable democracy today than
it was two years ago, as evidenced in recent weeks by the daily
torrent of insurgent attacks on American forces and Iraqi
civilian leaders. On January 4th, insurgents assassinated
Ali Haidari, the governor of the Iraqi province that includes
Baghdad. Just as devastating to the prospect of democracy,
on December 30th, al-Jazeera satellite channel reported that
all 700 electoral workers in Mosul quit their posts out of fear
of being killed. Two weeks later, on January 10th, the entire
13-member electoral commission in the Anbar province, just
west of Baghdad, resigned after being threatened by insurgents.
If even Iraqi election officials fear for their lives, how can we
possibly expect Iraqi citizens to feel safe going to the polls?
How can we continue to put our own troops in harm's way,
the continued targets for Iraq's thousands of malcontent
insurgents?

It has become clear that the existence of more than 130,000
American troops stationed on Iraqi soil is infuriating to the
Iraqi people - especially because Saddam Hussein did not
possess weapons of mass destruction and did not have
a connection to the tragic events of September 11th, 2001
or to the al Qaeda terrorist organization. Indeed, the very
presence of Americans in Iraq is a rallying point for dissatisfied
people in the Arab world. The events of the last two years
have not only intensified the rage of the extremist Muslim
terrorists, they have also ignited civil hostilities in Iraq that
have made Americans and Iraqis substantially less safe.
Therefore, by removing our troops from the country, we
will remove the main focus of the insurgents rage.

Again, while it may be logistically difficult to immediately
remove every American soldier, we urge you to take
immediate action to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces
from Iraq. This is the only way to truly support our troops.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Representaives
Lynn Woolsey (CA-06) 202-225-5161
Danny Davis (IL-07) 202-225-5006
Lane Evans (IL-17) 202-225-5905
Sam Farr (CA-17) 202-225-2861
Raul Grijalva (AZ-07) 202-225-2435
Alcee Hastings (FL-23) 202-225-1313
Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) 202-225-6335
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02) 202-225-0773
Dennis Kucinich (OH-10) 202-225-5871
Barbara Lee (CA-09) 202-225-2661
John Lewis (GA-05) 202-225-3801
Jim McDermott (WA-07) 202-225-3106
Grace Napolitano (CA-38) 202-225-5256
Major Owens (NY-11) 202-225-6231
Jose Serrano (NY-16) 202-225-4361
Pete Stark (CA-13) 202-225-5065

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

11) Iraq War May Incite Terror, CIA Study Says
Think tank sees a breeding ground for militants.
It says the risk of a germ attack is rising.
By Bob Drogin
Times Staff Writer
THE WORLD
WASHINGTON
January 14, 2005
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0114-01.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-
intel14jan14,1,6383855,print.story?coll=la-news-a_section

WASHINGTON - The war in Iraq is creating a training and
recruitment ground for a new generation of "professionalized"
Islamic terrorists, and the risk of a terrorist attack involving a
germ weapon is steadily growing, an in-house CIA think tank
said in a report released Thursday.

The "dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in
Iraq" to other countries will create a new threat in the coming
15 years, especially as the Al Qaeda network mutates into a
volatile brew of independent extremist groups, cells and
individuals, according to the report by the National Intelligence
Council.

David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational
threats, said those who survived the Iraq war would pose
a threat when they went home, "even under the best of scenarios."

But broader trends are likely to overshadow terrorism on the
world stage.

Most important, India and China increasingly will flex powerful
political and economic muscles as major new global players
by 2020, said the council, which likened the rise of the two
countries to the emergence of the United States as a world
power a century ago.

The two nuclear-armed Asian giants - one a vibrant
democracy, the other a one-party state - will "transform
the geopolitical landscape" because of their robust economic
growth, expanding military capabilities and large populations,
the council predicted.

"The rise of these new powers is a virtual certainty," the
council said in the report, titled "Mapping the Global Future."

Partly as a result, the council expects the world economy
to be about 80% larger than in 2000, and per capita income
50% higher.

The bad news: The United States "will see its relative power
position eroded" and the world will face a "more pervasive
sense of insecurity" from terrorism, the spread of
unconventional weapons and political upheaval that could
reverse recent democratic gains in parts of Central and
Southeast Asia.

"Weak governments, lagging economies, religious extremism
and youth bulges will align to create a perfect storm for internal
conflict in some areas," the authors warned. "Our greatest
concern is that terrorists might acquire biological agents,
or less likely, a nuclear device, either of which could cause
mass casualties."

The 119-page report is intended to help the White House
and other policymakers prepare for probable challenges by
tracing how key trends may develop and influence world
events over the next 15 years.

"It's designed to stimulate thought," Robert L. Hutchings,
chairman of the council, said at a news briefing at CIA
headquarters.

Although few of the forecasts come as surprises, Hutchings
said the authors sought to challenge conventional thinking.

"Linear analysis will get you a much-changed caterpillar," he
said, "but it won't get you a butterfly. For that you need a leap
of imagination. We hope this ... will help us make that leap."

The report, the third in a project launched in the mid-1990s,
is based on the thinking and comments of more than 1,000 U.S.
and foreign experts who participated in more than 30 conferences
and workshops over the last year. The text and a computer
simulation of possible scenarios are available online at
http://www.cia.gov/nic .

The United States will retain enormous advantages and will
continue to play a pivotal role in economic, political and
military affairs, the report concludes. But Washington "may
be increasingly confronted" with managing fast-shifting
international relations and alignments.

Washington probably will face "dramatically altered alliances
and relations with Europe and Asia," for example, with the
European Union increasingly supplanting NATO on the
world stage.

The United Nations and international financial institutions
"risk sliding into obsolescence unless they adjust" to the
changes in the global system, the authors wrote.

"While no single power looks within striking distance of
rivaling U.S. military power by 2020, more countries will be
in a position to make the United States pay a heavy price for
any military action they oppose," they said.

Suspected possession of unconventional weapons by Iran,
North Korea and perhaps others will "also increase the
potential cost of any military action" by U.S. forces.

But the likelihood that a local conflict could escalate into
a total war or nuclear exchange is "lower than at any time
in the past century."

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times

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

12) US 'should not rule out torture'
The outgoing head of the US Department of Homeland
Security has said torture may be used in certain cases
in order to prevent a major loss of life.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2005/01/15 00:47:27 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4175713.stm

Speaking to the BBC, Tom Ridge said the US did not condone the
use of torture to extract information from terrorists.

But he said that under an "extreme set" of hypothetical
circumstances, such as a nuclear threat, "it could happen".

A spokesman for Mr Ridge said his comments were taken out
of context and did not amount to approval of torture.`

Mr Ridge's remarks come a day after the US was accused of
eroding human rights by campaigners.

Prisoners shackled

A report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) criticized the US over
the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal in Iraq and the treatment
of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Shocking pictures last year alerted the world to abuses at
Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, and there have been numerous
allegations of abuse and torture by former Guantanamo
Bay inmates.

You would try to exhaust every means you could to extract
the information to save hundreds and thousands of
people ...Tom Ridge

One FBI agent described in a memo seeing prisoners at
Guantanamo shackled, hand and foot, in a fetal position for
up to 24 hours at a time, and left to defecate on themselves.

The US defense department has announced a new investigation
into the allegations.

It has condemned the abuses in Iraq and says it is prosecuting
those responsible.

Mr. Ridge told BBC News 24's HARDtalk: "By and large, as a matter
of policy we need to state over and over again: we do not condone
the use of torture to extract information from terrorists."

But he said it was "human nature" that torture might be employed
in certain exceptional cases when time was very limited.

In the event of something like a nuclear bomb threat "you would
try to exhaust every means you could to extract the information
to save hundreds and thousands of people", he said.

'When not if'

But he admitted there was "a real question" whether using torture
on terrorists would actually gain the information required "given
the nature of the enemy".

He said the US did not have the luxury of knowing where and when
a terrorist attack might happen.

"I don't think it is 'if'. I think it's a matter of 'when'. We operate
that way," he said.

"On a day-to-day basis, not just the United States but many allies
around the world, do whatever we can to share information about
terrorists, share information about the kind of attacks."

Thursday's HRW report called for the Bush administration to set
up a fully independent commission to investigate allegations of
torture during interrogations at Abu Ghraib.

It said abuses committed by the US had significantly weakened
the world's ability to protect human rights because it had
undermined international laws.

Mr Ridge argued the HRW report reflected a "foreign perception"
that the US was using different methods to those employed
before the 11 September 2001 attacks.

Tom Ridge was speaking on BBC News 24's HARDtalk, broadcast
on Friday, 14 January at 1930 GMT on BBC World and
2330 GMT on BBC News 24.
(c) BBC MMV

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

13) Aimée Smith Found Not-Guilty in False Arrest By MIT Police
AIMEE SMITH DEFENSE COMMITTEE
Press Release
For immediate release: Friday, January 14, 2005
Contact: Richard Hugus (508) 540-6034

Cambridge, Massachusetts-On Thursday, January 13 a judge at the
Middlesex County Courthouse found Dr. Aimée Smith "not guilty" of
charges by MIT police of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The
arrest stemmed from an incident on August 25, 2004 in which MIT
police officer Joseph D'Amelio arrested Dr. Smith for questioning him
about his arresting her in June for passing out leaflets on a public
sidewalk on Memorial Drive. Charges for the earlier arrest were
dropped by MIT. Charges for the second arrest were not dropped,
leaving MIT the embarrassment of backing up an officer who thought
he was within his rights to arrest, handcuff, and take someone to jail
simply because he didn't like what that person was saying. Ironically,
in their second meeting, Dr. Smith was questioning Officer D"Amelio
about whether he understood the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
Officer D'Amelio was backed in court up by two other MIT police, who
agreed on a fabrication that Dr. Smith was "shouting and screaming"
and "flailing her arms" outside the MIT Student Center last August.

The specific charge of disorderly conduct, which MIT police claimed
was a "safety" issue, was not proven, leaving moot the charge of
resisting arrest. Dr. Smith's attorney, Mr. Daniel Beck, called it "a
dream case for a defense attorney" because no evidence was actually
presented to back up the charges. Attorney Beck did little more
during the trial than make brief responses to the prosecutor's
spinning of an empty case, and then ask for it to be thrown out.
To the apparent confusion of the MIT police, the judge did just this.

Nearly thirty supporters from the MIT academic community and
activists and friends from the Boston area filled the courtroom.
According to Noah Cohen, who works with Dr. Smith in the New
England Committee to Defend Palestine, "winning this case means
that MIT has failed in this attempt to silence dissent on campus."
Other supporters of Dr. Smith were in agreement that she was
targeted by MIT police because she is well known on campus
as an outspoken activist for social justice.

###
Read the Defense Committee's earlier announcement of this
trial at: http://lists.topica.com/lists/act-ma@igc.topica.com/read/
message.html?mid=810458992&sort=d&start=7109

See The Bridge, a Cambridge newspaper, for an article on the
background of this case at: http://www.bridgenews.org/index.html

Announce mailing list
Announce@onepalestine.org
http://mail.onepalestine.org/mailman/listinfo/announce_onepalestine.org

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

14) How Red Tape and Poverty Prevented Warnings Going Out
to Battered Shores
A system existed to alert the Indian Ocean countries to
the deadliest tsunami in history, but scientists were
unable to use it. Geoffrey Lean reports from Mauritius
on what is being done to prevent a repeat
16 January 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=601355

Red tape stopped scientists from alerting countries around the
Indian Ocean to the devastating Boxing Day tsunami racing towards
their shores, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

Scientists at the Tsunami Warning Centre in Hawaii - who have
complained about being unable to find telephone numbers to
alert the countries in peril - did not use an existing rapid
telecommunications system set up to get warnings around
the world almost instantly because the bureaucratic
arrangements were not in place.

Senior UN officials attending a conference here of small island
countries - some of them badly hit by the tsunami, now
recognised to have been the deadliest in history - revealed
that the scientists did not use the World Meteorological
Organisation's (WMO) Global Telecommunication System
to contact Indian Ocean countries because the "protocols
were not in place".

The system, which links all the world's national meteorological
services, is designed to get warnings from anywhere in the
world to all other nations within 30 minutes.

It was used to alert Pacific countries to the tsunami, even
though it affected hardly any of them, and could have been
used in the Indian Ocean if the threat had been from a typhoon,
officials said, but it could not be used to warn about a tsunami.

Dr Laura Kong, the director of the International Tsunami
Information Centre which monitors the warning system in
Hawaii, told the IoS: "The WMO's system has been set up but
the protocols are not available for tsunami warnings except
in the Pacific. So it was used on 26 December but only in the
Pacific."

A senior official at Unesco, which runs the information centre
and the warning system, explained that this meant that "we
do not have an agreement for passing the information on"
for tsunamis in the Indian Ocean.

She added that they had got "approved communication
channels" for giving out warnings about tropical cyclones
in the area but that "these would necessarily be different
in the case of a tsunami" and were not available.

Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the WMO, said that the
system had "proved to be highly effective for providing timely
early warnings for a variety of weather, climate and water-related
hazards in many countries". He said it had proved particularly
valuable during last year's hurricanes in the Caribbean and
Pacific, and added: "The system provides tremendous potential
for timely and reliable exchange of tsunami warning messages
and related information."

But the governments around the Indian Ocean rejected
repeated pressure from Unesco and other UN bodies for
a tsunami early-warning system in their area because it
was expensive, they had many calls on their resources and
there had been no tsunamis in the ocean for more than
100 years.

The UN now says that the Boxing Day tsunami was the
deadliest ever. The only one that even begins to rival it
smashed through the Mediterranean around 1400BC after
the destruction of the island of Santorini. On that occasion
100,000 people are estimated to have died.

Tomorrow a flurry of international UN meetings begins in
order to establish tsunami warning systems both in the Indian
Ocean and worldwide over the next two and a half years. They
start with a long-planned UN conference on disasters in Kobe,
Japan. Further meetings are scheduled in India, China and
Thailand during the rest of the month, followed by a major
conference in Bangkok in March.

Unesco wants to have an Indian Ocean warning system up
and running by June 2006 and a global one covering all the
world's oceans a year later. It points out that the Mediterranean,
Atlantic and Caribbean are all vulnerable, as well as the Pacific.

Considerable amounts of money for the Indian Ocean system
- expected to cost $30m (£16m) - have been pledged by Japan,
the US, Australia and other countries. Deep-sea sensors - at
$250,000 each - would be scattered all over the Indian Ocean.

But Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, who was also attending
the conference on Small Island Developing States here, wants
to extend the global system to cover all types of natural disaster.
Salvano Briceno, director of the UN's International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction, said this would also cover earthquakes,
landslides, floods, droughts and hurricanes. But experts
stressed that putting up a technical warning system does
not in itself solve the problem because the messages have to
reach the people living on - or the tourists visiting - the shores,
and evacuations have to be arranged.

This is a hugely demanding task. In the Pacific it works relatively
well as the shores are not generally heavily populated. But the
Indian Ocean has some of the world's most heavily populated
shores and some of its poorest countries. Besides, the deep-
ocean sensors are prone to giving off false alarms and experts
warn that just one of these could damage tourist industries
and destroy public confidence.

"This is a political as well as a scientific issue," said a senior
Unesco official. "There are very high stakes involved: tourism
is very important to some of these countries. Imagine the
effect if a warning went out, the shores were evacuated,
and then nothing happened."

(c) 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

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

15) Join us for a counter-vigil for Global Justice
in response to the racist rhetoric of the
"Rally Against Global Terrorism"
On Monday, January 17th please join the Justice in
Palestine Coalition for a silent counter-vigil from
11:30-3p.m. on the southeast corner of Grove and
Larkin at the Civic Center Plaza in San Francisco.
There will be signs at the counter-vigil with images of
Palestinian children who have been killed.

Background
On January 16th, 2005 the Israel Action Committee of the East Bay and
Christians for Israel are bringing a bus, bombed last January, from
Jerusalem to Berkeley's Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park. The
following day on January 17th, 2005 San Francisco Voice for Israel will be
displaying the bombed bus in San Francisco's Civic Center. Certainly this
bus that was attacked in Jerusalem, carrying civilians, is a powerful and
tragic reminder of the violence that engulfs the region. Eleven people died
in that bombing and this should be remembered and mourned. However, what is
the underlying political agenda? "Christians for Israel" states "We want to
help Americans visualize the terror that Israelis face on a daily basis and
to heighten the public conscience in regards to terror. We hope it brings a
refreshed understanding of the evil that the Jewish people and Israel face."
The mere use of the word "evil" presents a negative image of Palestinians
and Arabs while exonerating Israel from its construction of the apartheid
wall, settlements on Palestinian land, bulldozing of Palestinian homes, and
the killing of innocent Palestinians.

We mourn the loss of all lives in this conflict, especially innocent
civilians. And at this event we intend to put a face on the unseen
Palestinian victims of the Israeli occupation and to support justice, rather
than occupation and war, as a way to lasting peace. In response to
the "Rally Against Global Terrorism", we are encouraging all those who
believe in upholding justice, human rights, and global peace to attend the
counter-vigil for Global Justice.

For detailed analysis of the counter-vigil please visit:
http://tomjoad.org/jan16vigil.htm

For more information on the counter-vigil, please contact:
info@justiceinpalestine.net
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bayareapalestine/
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

16) HANDS OFF SOCIAL SECURITY!
March and demonstrate against attacks on Social Security!
Tuesday, Jan. 18, 11:30 a.m.
Pacific Stock Exchange
115 Sansome Street (between Bush and Pine) and march to
the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce office and then to
the office of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstien

Dear Health Care Activist,

We encourage you to attend a march opposing the proposed attacks
on Social Security.
The central demand of the demonstration is
HANDS OFF SOCIAL SECURITY.

It is on Tuesday, Jan 18, in
San Francisco starting at 11:30am. It begins
at the Pacific Stock Exchange at
115 Sansome St (between Bush and Pine)
and then proceeds the SF Chamber of
Commerce office and then to the office
of US Senator Dianne Feinstein.

The proposed changes by Bush on
Social Security are a direct attack on
the health and welfare of all Americans.

Everyone needs a guaranteed income
when they retire or are disabled.
We do not need a few coins to
gamble with on Wall St.

The Bush attacks come in the
context of a bigger attack on
everyone?s right to work as a
community to solve some of
our most pressing problems.

Unions are under attack, which
would leave working people alone
facing the organized force of corporate lawyers.

Pensioners are under attack leaving
them at the mercy of Wall St.
Our ability to organize for a health
care system is under attack as Bush
works to have us face the organized
insurance and drug industries as lone individuals.

Again we encourage you to show your
support social solutions to social problems
by joining us on Tuesday Jan 18 in San Francisco

We will be having a table at all the locations.
Please let us know if you can help.

We thank the Gray Panthers for calling this
demonstration. To contact the Gray Panthers,
please call 415-215-7575.

___ I plan on coming to the march
___ I can carry a sign
___ I can help at the Health Care for All table
___ I have forwarded this email

Thank you
Don Bechler
Chair
Health Care for All ? San Francisco Chapter
Chair
California Universal Health Care Organizing Project
415-695-7891

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

17) You're Invited?
By: Joan Lowy
WASHINGTON
Scripps Howard
These are two of the various types of inaugural tickets
to be distributed starting Monday at the Capitol in Washington.
Associated Press photos
Be ready for metal detectors, personal body searches and
the highest security in inauguration history
01/11/2005
http://www.news-herald.com/site/
printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1698&dept_id=21849&newsid=13721845

WASHINGTON - The nation's 55th presidential inauguration, the
first to be held since 9/11, will take place this month under perhaps
the heaviest security of any in U.S. history.

Dozens of federal and local law enforcement agencies and military
commands are planning what they describe as the heaviest possible
security. Virtually everyone who gets within eyesight of the president
either during the Jan. 20 inauguration ceremony at the U.S. Capitol
or the inaugural parade down Pennsylvania Avenue later in the day
will first go through a metal detector or receive a body pat-down.

Thousands of police officers and military personnel are being
brought to Washington from around the country for the four-day
event. Sharpshooters will be deployed on roofs, while bomb-sniffing
dogs will work the streets. Electronic sensors will be used to detect
chemical or biological weapons.

Anti-abortion protesters have been warned to leave their crosses at
home. Parade performers will have security escorts to the bathroom,
and they've been ordered not to look directly at President Bush or
make any sudden movements while passing the reviewing stand.

"It's going to be very different from past inaugurals," said Contricia
Sellers-Ford, spokeswoman for the U.S. Capitol Police, which is
responsible for the Capitol and grounds. "A lot of the security
differences will not be detected by the public - there will be a lot
of behind the scenes implementation - but the public will definitely
see more of a police presence."

The Department of Homeland Security has designated the inaugural
a National Special Security Event under a protocol introduced by
President Bill Clinton that calls for especially heavy security during
events of national significance at which large numbers of
government officials and dignitaries are present.

There have been 20 previously designated special security events,
including Bush's first inaugural, last year's Democratic and
Republican conventions, former President Ronald Reagan's
funeral and the 2002 Super Bowl.

Under the protocol, the Secret Service takes the lead in drawing
up the security plan, while the FBI gathers intelligence and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency oversees response
scenarios to possible terror attacks.

The Secret Service also works closely with the Defense Department,
the National Park Service, and local police agencies, especially the
Washington police department and the Capitol police.
About 40 agencies are involved.

The Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region, which was
created two years ago to bring coordination to the many disparate
military units in the Washington area, will provide more than
4,000 troops to help.

Washington, D.C., police chief Charles Ramsey has sent invitations
to police departments across the country inviting them to send
squads of officers to help with inauguration security. The federal
government is paying for officers' hotels, meals and air travel.

Several thousand officers are expected, Ramsey said. That includes
squads from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Seattle,
Minneapolis, Chicago, Bradenton, Fla., Charlotte and Greensboro,
N.C., the North Carolina state highway patrol, several law
enforcement agencies in Texas and other parts of the country.

"This is the first post 9/11 (inauguration) so obviously there are
some more security concerns this time than in past years,"
Ramsey said.

The extra officers from around the country will free up Washington
police officers so that they can form "mobile platoon civil
disturbance units" to prevent protest demonstrations from
getting out of hand, Ramsey said.

Groups planning demonstrations during the inauguration
festivities are already smarting from security restrictions.
Anti-war protesters with the A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition have
complained that large sections of the parade route have been
set aside for Bush's political contributors and supporters and
will be closed to the general public.

The anti-abortion Christian Defense Coalition, which is also
planning a demonstration, has threatened to sue the
government because the Secret Service recently added
crosses to its list of objects that are banned from the
parade route.

"I think it's censorship no matter how you look at it," said
the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the defense coalition.
Besides weapons, other items on the banned list include
coolers, folding chairs, bicycles, pets, papier-mache objects,
displays such as puppets, mock coffins, props and "any
items determined to be a potential safety hazard."

Parade performers said they also have been warned to
expect unprecedented security.

"They've told us right out that it's going to be very, very
tight," said Peter LaFlamme, executive director of the
Spartans Drum and Bugle Corps in Nashua, N.H. LaFlamme
said he has been receiving almost daily phone calls from
inaugural organizers to apprise him of new security procedures.

Thousands of performers - marching bands, color guards,
pompon dancers, hand bell-ringers, drill teams on horseback
and Civil War re-enactors - will be bused early in the morning
to the Pentagon parking lot across the Potomac in Virginia.
While performers disembark and go through metal detectors,
bomb-sniffing dogs will search the buses.
Then everybody will get back on the buses for a trip to the
National Mall, where they will spend most of the day in heavily
guarded warming tents. Participants have been warned that
they will not be allowed to leave the tents except to go to
portable toilets accompanied by a security escort.

Other instructions given performers include a warning not
to look directly at Bush while passing the presidential
reviewing stand, not to look to either side and not to
make any sudden movements.

"They want you to just look straight ahead," said Danielle
Adam, co-director of the Mid American Pompon All Star
Team from Michigan, which also performed in the 2001
inaugural parade.
"Last time we went security was really tight," Adam said.
"This time we got almost like a book of things we needed
to fill out beforehand."

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

18) White House Exploring 'Rapture' Contingency Plans
The White House is reportedly exploring contingency
plans in the event that President Bush and other prominent
Christians are 'raptured.' But succession plans are
complicated by Vice President Dick Cheney's poor health
and the fact that Representative Tom DeLay, like President
Bush, will be summoned to heaven along with millions of other
Christians.
Party leaders address presidential succession, security
needs in event that President Bush, other believers are
summoned to heaven.
By Deanna Swift
WASHINGTON, DC
December 28, 2004
http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2004/12/white_house_exp.html

WASHINGTON, DC-What if the rapture, the much-anticipated event
in which God summons his faithful followers out of this world,
happened on George W. Bush's watch? Until recently this seemingly
far-fetched question was the stuff of Christian message boards .
But with the White House well known for putting faith front and
center, officials are reportedly at work on a contingency plan
spelling out how to run the country in the event that President
Bush and other top-ranking Christians are 'raptured.'

White House officials are said to be concerned by a recent up-tick
in the Rapture Ready Index , a self-proclaimed prophetic
speedometer of end-time activity that monitors such seemingly
disparate factors as the crime rate, unemployment, wild weather
and the "mark of the Beast," evidence of activity related to the
antichrist. The Rapture Ready Index recently reached 157, a high
for 2004, pushed upwards by a new CUNY study showing that the
number of Pagans in the US has skyrocketed of late. The "mark
of the Beast" category was also upgraded as a result of a nation-
wide push to replace bar codes product labels with radio tags.

Who will rule?
For the White House, the possibility that the dramatic events
described in Thessalonians 4:13-18, in which "the dead in Christ
will rise, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up
together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord," presents an
obvious dilemma: if President Bush is summoned to meet his
maker, who among the "left behind" can govern the country?
According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, if the
president is incapacitated, dies, resigns, is for any reason
unable to hold his office, or is removed from office, he is to
be succeeded by his vice president, in this case Dick Cheney.
But top White House officials have expressed concern that
Cheney's health may make such a transition impossible,
especially after the shock of witnessing his boss disappear
through the ceiling of the Oval Office.

Next in the succession chain would be Speaker of the House
Tom DeLay. But the Texas firebrand known as "the Hammer"
is, like President Bush, a born-again Christian, meaning that
he too is likely to be raptured. With DeLay unable to serve,
the honor moves to the president pro tempore of the senate:
81 year-old Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who, at 36 years
and counting, is that august body's longest-serving senator.

Security vs. tribulation
But Republican Party officials are already expressing concern
that Stevens may not be up to the task of seeing the US
through the turbulent years of Tribulation, a seven-year
long period in which the antichrist takes advantage of the
Christians' absence, and makes a treaty with the Jews,
enabling them to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and to
reestablish their ancient liturgical system of animal-sacrifices.
"We're preparing for tough times ahead," said an administration
official. "We don't know what's going to happen or what to
expect." He notes that the White House is being helped in its
efforts to plan for the post-rapture period by Professor Lee
Clarke , a Rutgers University sociologist and the author of
Mission Improbable: Using Fantasy Documents to Tame Disaster .

A number of senators have also expressed misgivings over the
possibility that Senator Stevens may use the confusion of the
Tribulation period to divert excessive discretionary spending,
known as pork, to his home state of Alaska. Since Stevens
became chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 1997,
per capita federal spending in Alaska grew by more than 50
percent, to nearly $12,000 last year, by far the highest in the
country and almost double the national average. "We're talking
about a guy who is basically the King of Pork," said one senator.
"Is this really who you want running the country during a period
of floods, plagues and unprecedented violence? The people of
Alaska may survive the seven years, but what about the rest of us?"

Ready or not, here he comes
Of course there is always the possibility that the rapture won't
happen during President Bush's term, if at all. But millions of
Christians, including many of those who recently voted to give
the president a second term, are convinced that the rapture isn't
just coming, but coming soon.

In a recent poll of Christians conducted on leftbehind.com, the
online counterpart to the popular Left Behind series by Reverend
Tim LeHaye, more than 50 percent of respondents said that they
expected the rapture to happen any day. Nearly 3 in 10 either
had unfinished business or didn't want to end their earthly good
times just yet. Many Republicans are probably feeling the same
way these days.

Deanna Swift can be reached at deannaswift1@yahoo.com

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

19) Mangroves Can Act as Shield Against Tsunami
By G. Venkataramani
CHENNAI, Dec. 27
Date:28/12/2004 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2004/12/28/stories/
2004122805191300.htm
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2004/12/28/stories/2004122805191300.htm

"Tsunami is a rare phenomenon. Though we cannot prevent the
occurrence of such natural calamities, we should certainly prepare
ourselves to mitigate the impact of the natural fury on the
population inhabiting the coastal ecosystems. Our anticipatory
research work to preserve mangrove ecosystems as the first line
of defense against devastating tidal waves on the eastern
coastline has proved very relevant today.

The dense mangrove forests stood like a wall to save coastal
communities living behind them," said M.S. Swaminathan,
Chairman, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF),
Chennai.

The mangroves in Pitchavaram and Muthupet region acted like
a shield and bore the brunt of the tsunami.

The impact was mitigated and lives and property of the
communities inhabiting the region were saved.

"When we started the foundation 14 years ago, we initiated
the anticipatory research program - a two-pronged strategy -
to meet the eventualities of sea level rise due to global warming.
One is to conserve and regenerate coastal mangroves along the
eastern coast of the country, and the second is transfer of salt-
tolerant genes from the mangroves to selected crops grown in
the coastal regions.

It is now found that wherever the mangroves have been regenerated,
especially in the Orissa coast, the damage due to tsunami is
minimal," he said.

Livelihood options

The MSSRF will soon be publishing a scientific document `Tsunami
and mangroves' highlighting the need to conserve and rehabilitate
mangroves as the frontline defense against tidal forces.

The foundation will also prescribe multiple and multi-level
livelihood options for the communities inhabiting the
mangrove ecosystem.

Alternative cropping patterns to provide household economic
and nutrition security for the rural poor will also be developed,
according to Prof. Swaminathan.

The foundation will also press into service public address
systems and communication network with village knowledge
centers to forewarn the coastal population.

All efforts will be made to further strengthen the knowledge
centers and information dissemination strategies.

A core group of experts has been set up to prepare concrete
action plans and coordinate the short-term and long-term
relief measures for the affected communities in the coastal
belts.

A voluntary relief fund is created, and it will be used to meet
the immediate needs of the affected communities, according
to Prof. Swaminathan.

The foundation held a condolence meeting for those who lost
their lives due to the tsunami and resolved to help mitigate
the sufferings.

(c) Copyright 2000 - 2005 The Hindu

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

20) Social Security Agency Is Enlisted to Push Its Own Revision
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON
January 16, 2005
http://nytimes.com/2005/01/16/politics/
16benefit.html?ei=5094&en=8adcb7ce5d74cac7&hp=&ex=1105851600&partner=ho
mepage&pagewanted=print&position=

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - Over the objections of many of its
own employees, the Social Security Administration is gearing
up for a major effort to publicize the financial problems of
Social Security and to convince the public that private accounts
are needed as part of any solution.

The agency's plans are set forth in internal documents, including
a "tactical plan" for communications and marketing of the idea
that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring
immediate action.

Social Security officials say the agency is carrying out its
mission to educate the public, including more than 47 million
beneficiaries, and to support President Bush's agenda.

"The system is broken, and promises are being made that Social
Security cannot keep," Mr. Bush said in his Saturday radio
address. He is expected to address the issue in his Inaugural
Address.

But agency employees have complained to Social Security
officials that they are being conscripted into a political battle
over the future of the program. They question the accuracy
of recent statements by the agency, and they say that money
from the Social Security trust fund should not be used for
such advocacy.

"Trust fund dollars should not be used to promote a political
agenda," said Dana C. Duggins, a vice president of the Social
Security Council of the American Federation of Government
Employees, which represents more than 50,000 of the agency's
64,000 workers and has opposed private accounts.

Deborah C. Fredericksen of Minneapolis, who has worked for
the Social Security Administration for 31 years, said, "Many
employees believe that the president and this agency are
using scare tactics to promote private accounts."

Social Security trustees say the program's financial problems
will grow as baby boomers retire. The program will pay out
more in benefits than it collects in revenue in 2018, they say.
By 2042, they say, the trust fund will be exhausted, and tax
income will be sufficient to pay only 73 percent of scheduled
benefits.

In campaign-style speeches, Mr. Bush and other officials have
said that Social Security is headed for bankruptcy, and that
workers should be allowed to divert some of their payroll
taxes into private accounts, as a way to build wealth for
themselves and their heirs.

Such comments have prompted inquiries from the public
to Social Security offices. Agency managers said they expected
a torrent of calls after Mr. Bush's Inaugural Address on
Thursday and his State of the Union speech two weeks later.

Mark R. Lassiter, a spokesman for the Social Security
Administration, said he could not discuss the agency's
communications plans because they were "internal
documents." The agency, he said, has a duty "to educate
the public about the financial challenges facing Social Security,"
but has not prepared a script for employees to use in
answering questions from the public.

The Bush administration ran afoul of a ban on "covert
propaganda" when it used tax money to promote the
new Medicare drug benefit and to publicize the dangers
of drug abuse by young people. The administration
acknowledged paying a conservative commentator,
Armstrong Williams, to promote its No Child Left Behind
education policy. But on Social Security, unlike those
issues, the government has not concealed its role.

The agency's strategic communications plan says the
following message is to be disseminated to "all audiences"
through speeches, seminars, public events, radio, television
and newspapers: "Social Security's long-term financing
problems are serious and need to be addressed soon," or
else the program may not "be there for future generations."

The plan says that Social Security managers should "discuss
solvency issues at staff meetings," "insert solvency messages
in all Social Security publications" and spread the word at
nontraditional sites like farmers' markets and "big box
retail stores."

Also, the document says, agency managers should observe
and measure how much their employees know about the
solvency of the program.

Mr. Bush has created a sense of urgency by declaring
that "the crisis is now."

A slide show, presented to various audiences by James B.
Lockhart III, deputy commissioner of Social Security, says
that "benefit cuts would be drastic" after 2042 if the Social
Security law and payroll tax rates continue unchanged.

A policy brief prepared by the agency says those benefit cuts
"would double the poverty rate of Social Security beneficiaries
aged 64 to 78," increasing the number of indigent people in
that age bracket to 1.8 million, from 875,000.

Witold R. Skwierczynski, president of the Social Security Council
of the federation of government employees, said: "Some of the
information being imparted by agency officials is not factual,
not accurate. There is no immediate crisis."

In interviews, other Social Security employees expressed similar
views. But council members were more willing to allow use of
their names because a federal law generally protects them
against "penalty or reprisal" when they speak publicly or
testify before Congress.

Social Security employees denied that their concerns were
motivated by a bureaucratic mentality, a fear of change or
a desire to protect their jobs.

"There's a lot more to it than that," said Colleen M. Kelley,
president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which
represents lawyers and paralegals at the Social Security
Administration. "There's a genuine concern about how
people will live when they retire, a real fear that Social
Security benefits could be eroded by private accounts."

The official policy brief, analyzing the consequences of
inaction, was written by Andrew G. Biggs, the associate
commissioner of Social Security for retirement policy.
Mr. Biggs, 37, joined President Bush in making the case
for private accounts at a White House forum this week.

When he was an analyst at the Cato Institute, Mr. Biggs
championed private accounts, saying they "would pay
substantially higher retirement benefits than the current
Social Security program" because some payroll taxes could
be invested in stocks and corporate bonds rather than in
government securities.

In 2003, just before he became associate commissioner,
Mr. Biggs said that AARP, the lobby for older Americans,
was "spreading disinformation" about the risks of private
accounts. Mr. Biggs, who has a doctorate from the London
School of Economics, said critics were wrong to suggest
that personal accounts meant large cuts in benefits. In
fact, he said, Social Security cannot pay the benefits it
has promised.

The combination of benefits from traditional Social Security
and a private account would substantially exceed what the
current program can actually pay, Mr. Biggs said.

Other analysts, including the Congressional Budget Office,
have reached a different conclusion. They say the
combination of benefits from the trust fund and individual
accounts is likely to be less than actual benefits under the
current system.

In a document sent each year to millions of workers, the
government emphasizes the looming financial problems.
The document shows a worker's earnings history and
estimated future benefits. But it says the scheduled benefits
could be cut because "without changes, by 2042 the Social
Security trust fund will be exhausted."

Agency employees raised their concerns with Reginald F.
Wells, a deputy commissioner of Social Security, and two
associate commissioners, David L. Feder and Roger McDonnell.
Mr. McDonnell confirmed that employee representatives had
shared their concerns with him, but he declined to say how
he replied.

Robert M. Ball, who worked at the Social Security Administration
for three decades and was commissioner under Democratic and
Republican presidents from 1962 to 1973, said: "It's fine for the
agency to answer factual questions, but it's unusual to use the
Civil Service organization to push a political agenda, especially
because what they're saying is not true. The program is not
going bankrupt."

When asked about the outlook for Social Security, several agency
officials pointed to a White House "fact sheet" that says, "By 2042,
when workers in their mid-20's begin to retire, the system will
be bankrupt - unless we act now to save it."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times

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

21) Bush to Return to 'Ownership Society' Theme in
Push for Social Security Changes
"The intent is to change Americans' relationship with
the government to allow (or, critics say, to force) people
to look less to Washington and to take more responsibility
for their finances and their retirement. "
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
WASHINGTON
January 16, 2005
THE ADDRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/politics/16own.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - The unifying theme on domestic policy in
President Bush's Inaugural Address on Thursday will be the
president's vision of an "ownership society" as he tries to
galvanize support for fundamental changes he wants in Social
Security, tax policy and other areas, administration officials say.

"When people have a stake in something," Treasury Secretary
John W. Snow said in an interview on Friday, explaining the
president's rationale, "it makes the whole social system work
better."

"The president," Mr. Snow added, "wants to pursue policies
that encourage ownership."

The boldest example of this approach is the intensifying
campaign by the Bush administration to radically alter
Social Security, the most popular and expensive government
program ever, so that workers can put a portion of their
payroll taxes into their own investment accounts.

But the ownership society encompasses other initiatives
as well, including those that make temporary tax cuts
permanent, minimize taxes on income from investments,
revamp workers' health insurance and encourage low-
income people to own their homes.

The intent is to change Americans' relationship with the
government to allow (or, critics say, to force) people to
look less to Washington and to take more responsibility for
their finances and their retirement.

Politicians and economists disagree on whether Mr. Bush's
proposals would actually accomplish this.

In a speech on Thursday at Catholic University here, Vice
President Dick Cheney offered what may turn out to be
a preview of this portion of the president's Inaugural
Address. He said: "One of the great goals of our administration
is to help more Americans find the opportunity to own a home,
a small business, a health care plan or a retirement plan. In all
of these areas, ownership is a path to greater opportunity,
more freedom and more control over your own life, and this
is a goal worthy of a great nation. Everyone deserves a chance
to live the American dream, to build up savings and wealth and
to have a nest egg for retirement that no one can ever take away."

Grover Norquist, an influential conservative tactician, said the
ownership society could solidify the Republican Party just as
Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson's
Great Society were the foundation of a Democratic Party
majority for generations.

"If this is successful, this will define the Bush administration
for the next 100 years," Mr. Norquist said. "People who are
more independent and don't feel dependent on the government
are more likely to be available to the Republican Party."

Mr. Bush's political opponents say the ownership society is
simply one more effort by the president to take government
benefits away from the needy and put more money in the
pockets of the well-to-do.

"It's an appealing label," said Robert D. Reischauer, an
economist who directed the Congressional Budget Office
when Democrats controlled Congress and is now president
of the Urban Institute, a research center. "But with ownership
comes responsibility and risk, and that's the down side. We buy
insurance and collectivize pension benefits and health care to
reduce the risk."

Robert B. Reich, who was secretary of labor in the Clinton
administration, said he worried that "people will, through
bad luck or poor decision-making, find themselves in dire
straits."

"The whole purpose of social insurance," he continued, "is
so you won't find yourself in old age without any assets or find
yourself poor and sick and without access to health care."

Others question whether most Americans have the ability or
the inclination to make complicated financial decisions involving
their retirement and their health care.

In their book "Coming Up Short," Alicia H. Munnell and Annika
Sundén, economists at Boston College, examined the record of
401(k) plans, the retirement accounts in which workers control
their investments and employers often contribute money.
Only 25 percent of eligible workers participate in the plans,
they found, and 9 of 10 invest less than the maximum, even
when that means they are forgoing contributions from their
employers. About 60 percent have dangerously undiversified
portfolios, and most cash out their accumulations when they
change jobs, rather than saving the money for retirement.

"With 401(k)'s, we've had an experiment in handing over to
families the responsibility of saving and planning for retirement,
and what we have found is that they make mistakes at each step
along the way," Ms. Munnell, an economic policy official in the
Clinton administration, said in an interview.

"It's not because they're stupid," she added. "It's because people
live very busy, very complicated lives. They're working. They're
getting their kids educated. They really do not have time to
become financial experts."

Mr. Snow said he thought such views were unnecessarily
paternalistic. "I think choice is a good thing," he said.

In a speech this month to the American Economic Association,
Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economics professor and Bush
supporter, made the economic argument for reducing the
influence of the government in people's lives.

"Existing programs," he said, "have substantial undesirable
effects on incentives and therefore on economic performance.
Unemployment insurance programs raise unemployment.
Retirement pensions induce earlier retirement and depress
saving. And health insurance programs increase medical costs."

This underscores a fundamental difference between the
Republican and Democratic philosophies.

Republicans mostly believe that the role of government is
to foster greater individual economic achievement, even if
it leads to more economic inequality. The Democratic
philosophy is that the government should provide a safety
net, even if it leads to economic inefficiency.

In the case of Social Security, Mr. Snow suggested that it
would be weeks, if not months, before the details of the
proposal were revealed. First, he said, the administration
was concentrating on persuading Americans that basic
changes were needed in the program.

But when those details are known, experts on Social
Security say, they may not include as much private
ownership as officials have suggested when they are
advocating the principles.

If workers are allowed to invest $1,000 a year in the private
accounts, the most allowed under many plans, the accounts
would accumulate only about $140,000 after a 44-year
working life, a nice sum, perhaps, but hardly a fortune.

The types of investments permitted are sure to be strictly
limited. Workers will probably not be able to withdraw the
money before retirement, even if they are having financial
difficulties. And when they retire, they will almost certainly
be required to buy a financial instrument called an annuity,
which will pay them a few hundred dollars a month for the
rest of their lives but which they cannot leave to their heirs.

On taxes, Mr. Bush is likely in his speech on Thursday to call
for making the tax code fairer and simpler and for making
permanent the tax cuts enacted in his first term, which will
expire before the end of the decade. Those measures, which
the administration says would contribute to ownership by
giving the government less of people's money, are not
expected to be acted on this year.

For this year, the president is pressing for two tax-protected
savings accounts. One, meant to generate retirement savings,
would allow individuals to contribute $7,500 a year and withdraw
the money tax-free after they turn 58. The other would also allow
a $7,500 annual contribution and would permit the money to
be withdrawn tax-free for any purpose at any time.

Since few people are able to invest more than $15,000 a year,
these accounts would mean that for most, investment income
would go completely untaxed.

In the case of health insurance, the administration is promoting
an arrangement called health savings accounts that were
authorized by the 2003 Medicare law. Under the arrangement,
employers buy health insurance for their workers with a high
deductible. Sometimes workers have to pay as much as $5,000
a year for medical care before the insurance kicks in. But
theoretically some of the money the employer had been paying
for more expensive health insurance with lower deductibles is
placed into the workers' health savings account, and it
accumulates tax-free if it is not withdrawn.

The notion is that these plans will lower health costs because
workers will assume the responsibility of shopping for alternative
or less expensive treatment. Critics say it would lead sick people
to forgo needed treatment.

So far, neither employers nor workers have been enthusiastic
about participating in the program, and only a few are doing
so. It has been impossible to prove whether these accounts
lower costs and whether the workers are satisfied with their
ownership.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times

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

22) For Inauguration in Wartime,
a Lingering Question of Tone
By JOHN TIERNEY
WASHINGTON
January 16, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/politics/16tone-
top.html?hp&ex=1105938000&en=100fcdafbc85fd33&ei=5094&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - Inaugurations are always balancing
acts: part coronation, part celebration of democracy, part
touchdown dance in the end zone. But they become even
trickier during times of war, particularly when television
images of dancers in black tie can be instantly juxtaposed
with soldiers in body armor.

President Bush, like most of his wartime predecessors, is not
halting the inaugural partying, but this year's planners are
striving for a solemn mood. The inaugural events, with the
theme of "Celebrating Freedom and Honoring Service," will
begin Tuesday with a tribute to the military. After Mr. Bush
takes the oath on Thursday, there will be a "Commander-in-
Chief Ball" that evening for 2,000 troops who have either
served in Iraq or Afghanistan or are headed there. Separate
gestures are being made by corporate sponsors like Amgen,
a biotechnology firm, which is assigning all its inaugural tickets
to employees serving in the National Guard.

"Our tone throughout the inaugural events will show gratitude
toward those who protect the ideals that make our nation so
great," said Jeanne L. Phillips, the chairwoman of the inaugural
committee, which seeks to raise $30 million to $40 million
through ticket sales and private donations to pay for the events.

The organizers expect 55,000 people at the nine inaugural
balls on Thursday evening and 500,000 spectators at the
parade that afternoon from the Capitol to the White House.
There will also be a rock concert on Tuesday, candlelit dinners
on Wednesday and a concluding prayer service on Friday morning.

Some critics say spending so much on these parties seems
ill-timed both because of the Iraq war and the tsunami
catastrophe in Asia. Anthony D. Weiner, a Democratic
congressman preparing to run for mayor of New York, sent
President Bush a letter on Tuesday suggesting that the millions
in inaugural funds be sent to the troops in Iraq.

"Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted
- if not canceled - in wartime," Mr. Weiner wrote, noting that
in 1945 Franklin D. Roosevelt limited the celebration to a cold
luncheon at the White House.

But that subdued inauguration was partly due to Roosevelt's
failing health and was not the norm during other wars, said
Paul F. Boller Jr., a historian at Texas Christian University and
the author of "Presidential Inaugurations." From the War of
1812 through Vietnam, presidents have generally let the
parties go on while also acknowledging the soldiers' hardships.

James Madison, who held the first inaugural ball in 1809,
held another during the War of 1812 after giving an angry
Inaugural Address denouncing the British. In 1865, after Lincoln
gave his famous address promising to bind the nation's wounds
and care for Civil War soldiers' orphans and widows, he shook
hands with 6,000 people at a White House reception that turned
so rowdy the police were summoned to stop people from
carrying off silverware, china and pieces of the curtains.

Dwight D. Eisenhower originally requested a simple inaugural
in 1953, during the Korean War, but it turned into "the biggest,
flashiest, most expensive and impressive Inauguration party
of them all," according to a description in The New York Times.
The parade featured an Alaskan dog team, three elephants and
a float depicting Mr. Eisenhower playing golf. The new president
smiled in the reviewing stand when he was lassoed by a California
cowboy, but was later said to be irritated.

In 1969, when Richard M. Nixon was inaugurated during the
Vietnam War, there were six inaugural balls along with what
The Times called the tightest security in history and the first
large protest ever held at an inauguration. Mr. Nixon impressed
many Democrats with his conciliatory speech promising
bipartisanship at home and peace abroad, but during the
parade some protesters chanted pro-Vietcong slogans and
hurled rocks and beer cans at Mr. Nixon's limousine.

In retrospect, the "hundreds of long-haired young people"
protesting the Nixon inauguration sound like a small,
disorganized force compared with the antiwar groups
expected for the "counterinauguration" events this week.
These groups are organizing rallies, marches, a "die-in"
and boycotts of workplaces and stores on Thursday to
protest the Iraq war and the cost of the inauguration.

Michael K. Deaver, an aide to Ronald Reagan who was
chairman of the 1985 inauguration, said the complaints
about this year's extravaganza sounded familiar.

"You're always criticized for spending money, because
every inaugural is more expensive than the last one,"
Mr. Deaver said. "There are a lot of people who worked
hard on the campaign and want to celebrate, and they
should be allowed to. At the same time, tone is very
important - the tone of what's going on in the world,
what sacrifices Americans are making. I would hope the
president's message is going to reflect the mood of the
country."

If past speeches are any guide, Mr. Bush can be expected
to give a somber speech that will praise America and ask
for God's help while offering few if any specific policies
and absolutely no jokes. Professor Boller, who has forced
himself to read every inaugural speech ("I deserve a medal,"
he said), cannot point to a single instance of humor, or at
least not intentional humor.

"Martin Van Buren got a big laugh inadvertently," Professor
Boller said, alluding to an awkward sentence in his 1837
address. After noting that "the Revolution that gave us
existence as one people was achieved at the period of
my birth," Van Buren said that he contemplated with
"grateful reverence that memorable event," meaning
the Revolution but sounding to the crowd as if he
revered his own birth.

David Frum, a speechwriter for Mr. Bush during his first
term, said that he expected Thursday's speech to be
simpler than the one four years ago. "Second inaugurals
tend to be shorter and more businesslike: here's what
we've done, here's where we are, here's what remains to
be done," Mr. Frum said. "The country wants some
indication of how much sacrifice in international affairs
he's going to be asking. Does the war continue? Does
he broaden it or find a way to wind it down?"

Mr. Frum said that the war and the tsunami catastrophe
were not reasons to scale back the inaugural, and noted
that Bill Clinton's inaugurals were held while conflict was
raging in Bosnia and hundreds of thousands of Rwandan
refugees were suffering. One of Mr. Clinton's former aides,
Paul Begala, also defended next week's festivities.

"Eight weeks ago, I participated in an enormous celebration
of the Clinton presidency," Mr. Begala said, referring to the
opening of the Clinton library in Arkansas. "There were
30,000 people, rock stars, movie stars. Nobody said it was
unseemly to do that during wartime. Why? Because people
understood that we weren't just celebrating one man's
presidency. We were celebrating the American presidency,
and it's the same thing with the inauguration."

To some extent, the criticism of inaugural extravagance
reflects the longstanding concern about turning the president
into royalty. Complaints that George Washington had
"monarchical" pretensions prompted him to consider
beginning his second term of office with a private
swearing-in ceremony at home. He ultimately took the oath
in the Senate chamber, but limited his second inaugural
address to four sentences.

Some of his successors also tried scaling back the ceremonies.
There were no inaugural balls for Woodrow Wilson in 1913
and 1917, and none for succeeding presidents until 1933,
when one was held at the depths of the Depression for
Roosevelt. But there were no balls to start his later terms,
and in 1945 he dispensed with the swearing-in ceremony
at the Capitol as well as the parade.

"Roosevelt was the only one who ever took the oath at the
White House," Professor Boller said. "His health had something
to do with it, but so did his concern that you shouldn't be
having gaiety in Washington when there was wartime austerity
in the rest of the country."

Roosevelt proposed a buffet luncheon with chicken à la king,
and then the White House's famously frugal housekeeper,
Henrietta Nesbitt, decided even that was too lavish. She served
cold chicken salad, rolls without butter, poundcake and coffee.
Roosevelt, who was not feeling well, got through the occasion
by sending his son James to his room to smuggle him a tumbler
of bourbon.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times

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

posted 5:20 PM 0 comments