As Americans Debate Vietnam, the U.S.
Death Toll Tops 1,000 in Iraq.
And the Insurgents are Still Getting Stronger
by Scott Johnson and Babak Dehghanpisheh
Published on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 by Newsweek
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0914-25.htm
2) The Dead End of ABB
By Anthony Arnove
From: "Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers"
Subject: CMCR: Politics of Anybody But Bush
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:31:17 -0600
Z Magazine
3) Subject: NOV 19-21 - CLOSE THE SOA -
Llamado a la accion - Call to Action
From: "SOA Watch"
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:57:37 -0400
List-Id: School of the Americas Watch
List-Subscribe:
List-Archive:
4) Sharon hints that Arafat may be killed
Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
The Guardian
Wednesday September 15, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5016122-103552,00.html
5) Headwaters Pepper Spray Trial
Come and Witness the Trial
The Federal Building is at 450 Golden Gate Ave.
between Larkin and Polk Streets near the Civic Center
Bart Station
Judge Susan Illston's Courtroom is on the 19TH floor
6) Action Alert! Oil Spill in Russian Far East
from: globalfinance@action.ran.org
Date: September 13, 2004
7) In censoring Al-Jazeera Canada is conceding its
moral high ground
By OMAR ALGHABRA*
Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040915.wjazeera15/
BNStory/Front/?query=Al-Jazeera
8) Canadian Bullets, Dead Iraqis
by Ytzhak
Tuesday September 14, 2004
montfu65@hotmail.com
http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/30644.php
9) Israel intensifies land seizures
By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
Tuesday 14 September 2004
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7A1982B9-EF9F-463E-BEE5-
88209C2078FA.htm
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) It's Worse Than You Think
As Americans Debate Vietnam, the U.S.
Death Toll Tops 1,000 in Iraq.
And the Insurgents are Still Getting Stronger
by Scott Johnson and Babak Dehghanpisheh
Published on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 by Newsweek
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0914-25.htm
BAGHDAD - Iraqis don't shock easily these days, but eyewitnesses
could only blink in disbelief as they recounted last Tuesday's broad-
daylight kidnappings in central Baghdad. At about 5 in the afternoon,
on a quiet side street outside the Ibn Haitham hospital, a gang armed
with pistols, AK-47s and pump-action shotguns raided a small house
used by three Italian aid groups.
The gunmen, none of them wearing masks, took orders from a smooth-
shaven man in a gray suit; they called him "sir." When they drove off,
the gunmen had four hostages: two local NGO employees-one of them
a woman who was dragged out of the house by her headscarf-and two
29-year-old Italians, Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, both members
of the antiwar group A Bridge to Baghdad. The whole job took less than
10 minutes. Not a shot was fired.
About 15 minutes afterward, an American Humvee convoy passed
hardly a block away-headed in the opposite direction.
Sixteen months after the war's supposed end, Iraq's insurgency is
spreading. Each successful demand by kidnappers has spawned more
hostage-takings-to make Philippine troops go home, to stop Turkish
truckers from hauling supplies into Iraq, to extort fat ransom payments
from Kuwaitis.
The few relief groups that remain in Iraq are talking seriously about
leaving. U.S. forces have effectively ceded entire cities to the insurgents,
and much of the country elsewhere is a battleground. Last week the total
number of U.S. war dead in Iraq passed the 1,000 mark, reaching 1,007 by
the end of Saturday. U.S. forces are working frantically to train Iraqis
for
the thankless job of maintaining public order.
The aim is to boost Iraqi security forces from 95,000 to 200,000 by
sometime next year. Then, using a mixture of force and diplomacy,
the Americans plan to retake cities and install credible local forces.
That's the hope, anyway.
But the quality of new recruits is debatable. During recent street
demonstrations in Najaf, police opened fire on crowds, killing and
injuring dozens. The insurgents, meanwhile, are recruiting, too.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once referred to America's foes
in Iraq as "dead-enders," then the Pentagon maintained they probably
numbered 5,000, and now senior military officials talk about "dozens
of regional cells" that could call upon as many as 20,000 fighters.
Yet U.S. officials publicly insist that Iraq will somehow hold national
elections before the end of January. The appointed council currently
acting as Iraq's government under interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi
is to be replaced by an elected constitutional assembly-if the vote
takes place. "I presume the election will be delayed," says the Iraqi
Interior Ministry's chief spokesman, Sabah Kadhim. A senior Iraqi
official sees no chance of January elections: "I'm convinced that it's
not going to happen. It's just not realistic. How is it going to happen?"
Some Iraqis worry that America will stick to its schedule despite all
obstacles. "The Americans have created a series of fictional dates and
events in order to delude themselves," says Ghassan Atiyya, director
of the independent Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy,
who recently met with Allawi and American representatives to discuss
the January agenda. "Badly prepared elections, rather than healing
wounds, will open them."
America has its own Election Day to worry about. For U.S. troops in
Iraq, one especially sore point is the stateside public's obsession with
the candidates' decades-old military service. "Stop talking about
Vietnam," says one U.S. official who has spent time in the Sunni
Triangle. "People should be debating this war, not that one." His
point was not that America ought to walk away from Iraq. Hardly
any U.S. personnel would call that a sane suggestion. But there's
widespread agreement that Washington needs to rethink its objectives,
and quickly. "We're dealing with a population that hovers between
bare tolerance and outright hostility," says a senior U.S. diplomat in
Baghdad. "This idea of a functioning democracy here is crazy. We
thought that there would be a reprieve after sovereignty, but all hell
is breaking loose."
It's not only that U.S. casualty figures keep climbing. American
counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in
those statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per
day on U.S. forces in August-the worst monthly average since Bush's
flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003.
Preliminary analysis of the July and August numbers also suggests
that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider area of Iraq than
ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties apparently took
a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and shrapnel
were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase two"
insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the
recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That's
how things started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents
are standing and fighting-a step up to phase three.
Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S.
troops simply avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them
"no-go areas." "We could go into them any time we wanted," he argues.
The preferred term is "insurgent enclaves." They're spreading.
Counterinsurgency experts call it the "inkblot strategy": take control
of several towns or villages and expand outward until the areas merge.
The first city lost to the insurgents was Fallujah, in April. Now the list
includes the Sunni Triangle cities of Ar Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra,
where power shifted back and forth between the insurgents and
American-backed leaders last week. "There is no security force there
(in Fallujah], no local government," says a senior U.S. military official
in Baghdad. "We would get attacked constantly. Forget about it."
U.S. military planners only wish they could. "What we see is a classic
progression," says Andrew Krepinevich, author of the highly respected
study "The Army and Vietnam." "What we also see is that the U.S.
military is not trained or organized to fight insurgencies. That was
the deliberate choice after Vietnam. Now we look to be paying the
price." Americans aren't safe even on the outskirts of a city like Fallujah.
Early last week a suicide bomber rammed his vehicle into two U.S.
Humvees nine miles north of town on the four-lane concrete bypass
called Highway 10. Seven Americans died. It was one of the deadliest
blows against U.S. forces since June, when Iraqis formally resumed
control of their government.
As much as ordinary Iraqis may hate the insurgents, they blame the
Americans for creating the whole mess. Three months ago Iraqi troops
and U.S.-dominated "multinational forces" pulled out of Samarra, and
insurgents took over the place immediately. "The day the MNF left,
people celebrated in the streets," says Kadhim, the Interior spokesman.
"But that same day, vans arrived in town and started shooting. They
came from Fallujah and other places and they started blowing up
houses." Local elders begged Allawi's government to send help. "The
leaders of the tribes come to see us and they say, 'Really, we are
scared, we don't like these people'," Kadhim continues. "But we just
don't have the forces at the moment to help them." Last week
negotiators reached a tentative peace deal, but it's not likely to
survive long. The Iraqi National Guard is the only homegrown
security force that people respect, and all available ING personnel
are deployed elsewhere.
Will Iraq's troubles get even worse? "The insurgency can certainly
sustain what it's doing for a while," says a senior U.S. military official.
Many educated Iraqis aren't waiting to find out. Applicants mobbed
the courtyard of the Baghdad passport office last week, desperate for
a chance to escape. Police fired shots in the air, trying to control the
crowd. "Every day there is shooting, gunfire, people killed, headaches
for lack of sleep," said Huda Hussein, 34, a Ph.D. in computer science
who has spent the past year and a half looking for work. "I want to go
to a calm place for a while." It's too bad for Iraq-and for America-that
the insurgents don't share that wish.
(c) Newsweek 2004
###
(c) Copyrighted 1997-2004
www.commondreams.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) The Dead End of ABB
By Anthony Arnove
From: "Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers"
Subject: CMCR: Politics of Anybody But Bush
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:31:17 -0600
Z Magazine
ABB -- Anybody But Bush -- is one of the most harmful slogans
progressives have put forward in decades.
The slogan tells John Kerry and the Democrats that they don't need to
do anything to win our vote.
As the satiric Onion newspaper joked, Kerry can safely run on a
"one-point program": that he is not George Bush.
But even that one-point program is in question. Kerry said he
supports Bush's policies on Israel "100 percent," his tax cuts "98
percent," and the Patriot Act (which his aides boast he helped to
write, in addition to having voted for it) "94 percent."
On Iraq, as we now know, Kerry says he would have voted to authorize
the invasion even if he knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass
destruction.
Kerry's real argument with Bush is over how best to have run the
invasion and occupation, not over its logic or morality.
Kerry thinks he can oversee the "war on terror" more effectively,
with more international support, and, as Arundhati Roy has noted in a
recent speech, with "Indian and Pakistani soldiers to do the killing
and dying in Iraq."
As Ali Abunimah argued on Electronic Iraq web site on April 29, "What
Kerry's plan boils down to then is this: he is more charming than
Bush."
ABB tells the Democrats that they can ignore the vibrant antiwar
movement we have built over the past two years; that they can take
workers, trade unionists, women, African Americans, Latinos, Native
Americans, Asian Americans -- and anyone else who rejects Bush's
policies --for granted.
ABB also leads to apologetics for Kerry and the Democrats: the
deliberate downplaying of their role in passing the Patriot Act,
supporting the invasion of Iraq (and before that the brutal sanctions
and the regular bombing of the country), and justifying wars in the
name of humanitarianism.
Perhaps worst of all, ABB creates a false sense of how change
happens: at the ballot box and through the Democratic Party.
In fact, history suggests the opposite: that we have achieved
substantive change only when collectively acting outside "official"
institutions to force politicians, whether Democrat or Republican, to
meet our demands and to make concessions that they otherwise would
not have made.
This is not to say the left should call for a vote for Bush or that
"things must get worse before they get better."
That is a caricature of the argument against ABB.
The truth is, we will have to wage many of the same battles
regardless of who wins November 2: against the occupations of Iraq,
Palestine, and Afghanistan, against the ongoing attack on the basic
rights of workers, immigrants, and the poor in this country, and for
abortion rights, for environmental protection, for civil rights.
If Kerry wins, we can reasonably expect that we will also face some
new challenges: many of the people who marched with us on February 15
and March 22, 2003, and last week in New York will tell us to "give
Kerry a chance" and that we can't do better than what Kerry has on
offer.
Many liberal organizations will accept under Kerry what they
otherwise would have opposed stridently under Bush.
People say "this time will be different than when Clinton is
elected," and that we won't get fooled again, but there's little
reason to think that the dynamic of the Democrats' ability to co-opt
and contain social movements will suddenly change, especially given
the prevalence of ABB arguments that are sowing illusions about the
kind of change a Kerry administration will bring.
In reality, the Democrats are likely to keep shifting the goalposts
to the right, allowing the Republicans to then beat their chests even
harder and expose the Democrats, who have accepted their warmongering
assumptions.
On August 26, Todd Gitlin revealed the real dead end of the ABB position.
In a debate with journalist and global justice activist Naomi Klein
on Democracy Now!, Gitlin argued, "My position is that John Kerry is
the possibility of restarting politics. Right now, we have no
possibility of politics because we have a one-party state."
If we have a one-party state, it is because the Democrats, with Kerry
prominently among them, have not acted remotely as an opposition
party.
So this is hardly an argument for a Kerry vote.
Rather, it suggests the need to support a third (or, more honestly,
"second" party) effort, since the Democrats and Republicans are in
effect two wings of the same corporate party.
More importantly, contra Gitlin, politics did not stop with the
election of George W. Bush, anymore than it stopped with the election
of Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon.
Gitlin's argument is an insult to people who have been building
opposition to racist attacks on immigrants, to the invasion and
occupation of Iraq, to U.S. funding of Israel's apartheid wall and
expansion of its settlements, and to the many social costs of the
"war on terror" on home during the last three years.
Gitlin also ignores the victories we have won under the Republicans
historically and even under Bush: including victories against the
death penalty (notably in Illinois, under Governor George Ryan, a
Republican, and even at the level of the Supreme Court) and in
restricting the scope of civil rights rollback attempted by this
administration.
It was under the Bush onslaught that the largest coordinated protest
in human history took place, on February 15, 2003.
Millions of people -- including military personnel and their
families, and targeted groups such as Arabs, Muslims, and immigrants
-- have stood up against intimidation to oppose war and occupation.
History does not support the thesis that the Democrats are more open
to pressure from below. They resisted the movement against the war in
Vietnam every bit as viciously as the Republicans, escalating the war
after running on a peace platform.
Under Clinton, we saw the end of welfare, a severe rollback in
worker's rights, a major spike in the number of people without any
health insurance or underinsured, declining real wages, and the
indiscriminate bombing of Iraq, Sudan, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan.
Much of the left was satisfied with the illusion of "access" to
Clinton, actively undermining genuine mobilization against his agenda.
And Kerry's program stands even to the right of Clinton.
To those who suggest Kerry is just talking right to get elected, as
many progressives have asserted (in a left version of faith-based
politics), three questions must be asked.
First, when has a politician ever talked right and governed left? The
history of the Democrats is that they talk left, and govern right, a
frightening prospect in Kerry's case.
Second, why should we support a candidate whose election strategy is
to chase Bush's social base, while ignoring the majority of people in
the United States who now say they oppose the invasion of Iraq?
And finally, to whom is Kerry accountable? Us, the antiwar movement,
the social movements, or his backers on Wall Street, many of whom
prefer to have the less provocative Kerry at the helm of U.S.
imperialism than the bridge-burning Bush?
Regardless of who you plan to vote for in November (if anyone at
all), the assumptions behind ABB stand in the way of building
movements that can bring about political change.
We need to chart a course that looks beyond the election to long-term
efforts that will necessarily have to be independent of -- and
oppositional to -- the Democrats, as well as the Republicans.
We can't do that while shilling for the Democrats, and letting them
of the hook.
Anthony Arnove is co-editor with Howard Zinn of Voices of a People's
History of the United States, out October 1 from Seven Stories Press.
--
Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers
Working at the Crossroads of Human & Environmental Rights since 1990
PO Box 7941
Missoula, Montana USA 59807
phone: 406-728-0867
email: cmcr@wildrockies.org
website: http://www.wildrockies.org/cmcr
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Subject: NOV 19-21 - CLOSE THE SOA -
Llamado a la accion - Call to Action
From: "SOA Watch"
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:57:37 -0400
List-Id: School of the Americas Watch
List-Subscribe:
List-Archive:
** please forward widely ** please forward widely ** please forward widely
**
(el español sigue)
CALL TO ACTION: SHUT DOWN THE SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS!
NOVEMBER 19-21, 2004, FORT BENNING, GEORGIA
The School of the Americas (SOA), renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute
for Security Cooperation or WHINSEC, is a combat training school for Latin
American security personnel located at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Initially established in Panama in 1946, the SOA was kicked out of that
country in 1984 under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty. Former
Panamanian President Jorge Illueca stated that the School of the Americas
was the "biggest base for destabilization in Latin America." The
SOA/WHINSEC, funded by US taxpayer money, has trained over 60,000 Latin
American soldiers in such courses as counterinsurgency techniques, sniper
training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and
interrogation tactics.
For over a decade, students, religious, labor, veterans, human rights, and
social and global justice groups have been converging every November at the
gates of Fort Benning, Georgia to speak out in solidarity with the people of
the Americas and to engage in nonviolent direct action. We will gather again
this year on November 20 and 21, 2004 to continue together in the struggle
until the School of the Americas is closed and the policies it represents
are changed forever!
This "School of Assassins," in the guise of promoting democracy, has
graduated eleven Latin American dictators, including Manuel Noriega of
Panama, Efrain Rios Montt of Guatemala, and Hugo Banzar Suárez of Bolivia.
Graduates of the school have been consistently linked to human rights
violations and to the suppression of popular movements in Central and South
America of people demanding access to land, safer working conditions and
control of their own natural resources.
For decades, while supporting death squads, propping up dictators and
actually overthrowing democratically elected leaders, the US government
claimed it was bringing democracy to Latin America. We do not believe that
you can bring about positive social change through the use of force. You
cannot spread democracy through the barrel of a gun!
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
** Come to Fort Benning this November! Teach-ins, trainings, and caucuses
will begin on Friday, November 19. On Saturday and Sunday thousands will
gather at the main gate of Fort Benning for rallies, music, speakers and
nonviolent direct action. Check back at www.SOAW.org as plans unfold and
various events are announced in more detail.
** Engage in Nonviolent Direct Action on Sunday, November 21st. Every year
groups of people decide to take their message onto the base, publicly
defying the laws which prevent political speech on military bases and making
a bold call for the closure of the "School of Assassins." This year, we
encourage people to come as individuals and affinity groups to take
nonviolent direct action to help liberate us all from oppressive US foreign
policy in Latin America and to close the SOA/WHINSEC.
** Organize In Your Community: organize nonviolent direct action trainings,
talks about the SOA, video showings or other educational events in your
community in the next two months. Write to your Members of Congress and ask
them to support legislation to close the SOA/WHINSEC. Organize a bus, vans
or car-pool to Georgia, publicize the vigil action in your region and invite
others to join you. Discern together with family and friends and consider
engaging in nonviolent civil resistance in November.
For more information, educational resources, outreach materials such as
fliers and videos, logistics and travel info and to get plugged into the
November organizing, please call 202-234-3440 and visit www.SOAW.org.
Resistance organizing costs money. To help SOA Watch cover the costs of
November organizing click here: http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=546.
SEE YOU AT THE GATES OF FORT BENNING!
* * Por favor difundir al máximo * * Por favor difundir al máximo * *
LLAMADO A LA ACCIÓN:¡CERREMOS LA ESCUELA DE LAS AMÉRICAS!
DEL 19 AL 21 DE NOVIEMBRE, 2004, FORT BENNING, GEORGIA
La Escuela de las Américas (SOA por sus siglas en inglés), rebautizada como
el
Instituto de Cooperación para la Seguridad Hemisférica (WHINSEC, por sus
siglas en inglés), es una escuela para entrenamiento de combate para
personal de seguridad Latinoamericano situada en Fuerte Benning, Georgia.
Establecida inicialmente en Panamá en el 1946, la SOA fue expulsada de dicho
pais en el 1984 por el tratado del Canal de Panama. El anterior presidente
Panameño, Jorge Illueca, declaró que la Escuela de las Americas era la
"mayor base para la desetabilización en Latinoamérica." La SOA/WHINSEC,
mantenida con el dinero de los impuestos del contribuyente estadounidense,
ha entrenado a mas de 60.000 militares Latinoamericanos en cursos de
técnicas de contrainsurgencia, entrenamiento de francotiradores, comandos de
guerra psicológica, inteligencia militar y técnicas de interrogación.
Durante más de una decada, grupos de estudiantes, religiosos, trabajadores,
veteranos de guerra, asà como grupos que luchan por los derechos humanos y
la justicia social se han reunido cada noviembre en las puertas de Fuerte
Benning, Georgia para hablar claro y en solidaridad con los pueblos de las
Américas y comprometerse en la acción directa y no-violenta. Nos reuniremos
de nuevo este año, los 20 y 21 de noviembre de 2004 para continuar juntos
nuestra lucha hasta el cierre de la Escuela de las Américas y hasta que la
polÃtica que representa cambie para siempre!
En "Escuela de Asesinos," con el pretexto de promover la democracia, se han
graduado once dictadores Latinoamericanos, incluyendo a Manuel Noriega, de
Panamá, Efrain Rios Montt, de Guatemala y Hugo Banzar Suaréz, de Bolivia.
Los graduados de la escuela han estado repetidamente relacionados con
violaciones de derechos humanos y la supresión de movimientos populares en
América Central y del Sur, de gente pidiendo acceso a la tierra, condiciones
de trabajo dignas y el control de sus propios recursos naturales.
Durante decadas, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, a la vez que mantenia
escuadrones de la muerte, apoyaba a dictadores y deponia a lideres elegidos
democráticamente, proclamaba estar trayendo la democracia a Latinoamérica.
Nosotros no creemos que se pueda hacer un cambio social positivo con el uso
de la violencia. ¡La democracia no se puede extender a punto de pistola!
¿Y TÚ QUÉ PUEDES HACER?
** ¡Ven a Fuerte Benning este noviembre! Los entrenamientos y charlas
empezarán el viernes 19 de Noviembre. El sábado y domingo nos reuniremos
miles de personas en la entrada principal de Fuerte Benning para mitines,
música, oradores y acción directa y no-violenta. Mira en www.SOAW.org el
desarrollo de los planes y los diferentes eventos que se van anunciando.
** Participa en la acción directa y no-violenta del domingo, 21 de
noviembre. Cada año grupos de personas, llevan su claro mensaje a la base,
desafiando públicamente las leyes que prohÃben hablar de polÃtica en las
bases militares y pidiendo valientemente el cierre definitivo de la "Escuela
de Asesinos." Este año animamos a la gente a que venga individualmente y en
grupos a participar en la acción directa y no-violenta para librarnos de la
opresiva polÃtica exterior de EEUU en Latinoamérica y cerrar la SOA/WHINSEC.
** Haz algo en tu comunidad. Organiza entrenamientos de acción directa y
no-violenta, charlas acerca de la SOA, videos u otros eventos educativos en
tu comunidad durante los dos meses próximos. Escribe a tus congresistas y
pÃdeles que apoyen las leyes para cerrar la SOA/WHINSEC. Organiza grupos de
gente que compartan autobuses, camiones o coches hacia Georgia. Dá
publicidad a esta vigÃlia en tu zona e invita a otros a unirse contigo.
Discierne con tu familia y tus amigos y considerad el uniros a la
resistencia civil y no-violenta de noviembre.
Para obtener más información y material educativo como folletos, videos,
información sobre logÃstica y viaje y para conectarte con la organización de
este noviembre, ponte en contacto con SOA Watch llamando a 202-234-3440 y
visitando a www.SOAW.org.
Organizar la resistencia cuesta dinero. Para ayudar a cubrir los gastos de
organización del SOA Watch de este noviembre, pulsa aquÃ:
http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=546.
¡NOS VEMOS EN LA ENTRADA DEL FUERTE BENNING!
SOA Watch ~ PO Box 4566 ~ Washington DC 20017 ~ (202)234-3440 ~
www.soaw.org
Search /RENEGADE/ for articles that mention the School of the Americas -
http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?keywords=School+Americas&how=all
Search /RENEGADE/ for articles that mention human rights -
http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?keywords=human+rights&how=phrase
/RENEGADE/ Search - GO TO: http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?
and just type in your topic. For differing results you may uncheck
"article" and search on just "subject," etc. /RENEGADE/ also has
"time-frame" in the search, so you can tailor your results that way, too.
For more information about the School of the Americas and SOA Watch,
see: http://www.soaw.org/
or send email to info@soaw.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Sharon hints that Arafat may be killed
Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
The Guardian
Wednesday September 15, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5016122-103552,00.html
Ariel Sharon has threatened that Yasser Arafat will meet the same fate
as Hamas leaders who were assassinated earlier this year by the Israeli
military.
In ambiguous comments to Israeli newspapers to mark the Jewish new
year, the prime minister said he intends to force the Palestinian leader
into exile. But he also hinted that Mr Arafat might be killed.
Speaking to Ma'ariv newspaper, Mr Sharon made direct reference to the
Hamas spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was assassinated by
a missile in Gaza in March, and his successor as the Islamic resistance
movement's leader, Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, who was killed by the
Israelis the following month.
"We operated against Ahmed Yassin and Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi when
we thought the time was suitable. On the matter of Arafat we'll operate
in the same way, when we find the convenient and suitable time. One
needs to find the time and to do what has to be done," said Mr Sharon.
However, the prime minister told other newspapers that he would send
Mr Arafat into exile. Sheikh Yassin and Mr al-Rantissi were both exiled
from the occupied territories at one time.
A prominent Palestinian minister, Saeb Erekat, said Mr Sharon's comments
show that he intends "to kill President Arafat and to push the Palestinian
people toward chaos".
But the Israeli prime minister's son, Omri, a member of parliament,
said that the possibility of assassination "does not exist" and that Israel
should leave Mr Arafat "stuck" in his battered Ramallah compound.
"If we do this foolishness and hit him, will an [alternative Palestinian
leader] arise? No, he will be seen as your collaborator," Omri Sharon
told members of the ruling Likud's central committee.
In April, Mr Sharon backed away from a personal pledge to President
Bush not to harm the Palestinian leader by saying that whoever kills
Jews or orders their deaths "is a marked man".
However, it is thought unlikely the prime minister intends to move
against Mr Arafat in the near future. The threat may be timed to try
to reassure critics on the far right that the government's plan to pull
7,500 Jews out of the Gaza strip, and a small number from a part of
the West Bank, does not represent a weakening of its resolve to
confront the Palestinian leadership.
Mr Sharon's security cabinet yesterday approved steps to begin the
Gaza pullout, including compensation payments to Jewish settlers
of up to £280,000. The government is offering bonuses to settlers
who agree to leave of their own accord in the hope of defusing
resistance to the pullout.
The government expects to spend £350m compensating settlers
and a similar amount moving military installations and other
infrastructure.
Mr Sharon also rebuffed pressure from his finance minister and chief
political rival, Binyamin Netanyahu, for a referendum on the withdrawal.
Mr Netanyahu argues that a ballot would lend legitimacy to the
"disengagement plan" and weaken claims by the settlers and the
far right that Mr Sharon is acting undemocratically by ignoring a
poll within his Likud party that rejected the pullout.
Mr Netanyahu said that without a vote there could be an "explosion"
of resistance by the settlers and their supporters. But the prime
minister accused him of siding with the settlers.
"The real intention is to delay implementation," said Mr Sharon.
"If a minister thinks that we are facing an explosion, he needs to
act with all his might to make sure that there is no explosion, so
that no one might even contemplate that by means of threats of
explosion a cabinet decision can be changed. Instead of stamping
a seal of approval on those threats and capitulating to them, I would
expect from him and the other ministers to express in the strongest
terms possible their opposition to threats."
The police said they were investigating death threats against Mr Sharon
and officials responsible for implementing disengagement.
Jerusalem's chief of police, Ilan Franco, said: "We have opened an
intensive investigation regarding threats that have been received in
recent days. The threats were to murder the prime minister and
officials in the administration."
The Israeli news service, YNet, quoted officials from the Shin Bet
security service as saying they feared for Mr Sharon's safety and
"would prefer for the prime minister to avoid leaving his office".
· Masked gunmen shot dead an accused rapist on his way to court
in the West Bank city of Ramallah yesterday.
The shooting marked the second fatal attack in less than two months
on detainees in the custody of Palestinian security forces.
Palestinians have faced internal strife recently, stirred by militants
complaining of corruption in the Palestinian security forces. The
gunmen attacked the car in which Ramy Yaghmour and other
detainees were travelling from the Palestinian special forces
headquarters.
Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Headwaters Pepper Spray Trial
Come and Witness the Trial
The Federal Building is at 450 Golden Gate Ave.
between Larkin and Polk Streets near the Civic Center
Bart Station
Judge Susan Illston's Courtroom is on the 19TH floor
A group of non-violent forest defense
activists in Humboldt County who were
tortured with pepper spray by county
sheriff's sued the county, the sheriff and
his chief deputy, and the City of Eureka
for using excessive force. A 1998
trial in San Francisco ended with a
hung jury and then dismissal by the judge.
After five years of appeals, the U. S.
Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals overruled the judge and
ordered a new trial, which the judge then
set for May 12, 2003 in Eureka, California.
The 9th Circuit granted an emergency
writ to remove the judge for apparent
bias and canceled his relocation of the
trial. Although the defendants have
appealed once again to the Supreme Court
to overturn that decision, our new judge
set a new retrial date in San
Francisco.
The trial is going is on right now. We
need you to come and witness the
trial. A courtroom full of people who
want pepper spray torture stopped can make a
huge impact!
Recent global events have illustrated
that abuses spread when authorities
decide certain groups and individuals
don't deserve human rights protection.
Shockingly, state officials have condoned
these practices into guidelines for
dealing with civil disobedience in California.
This case could turn that around.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) Action Alert! Oil Spill in Russian Far East
from: globalfinance@action.ran.org
Date: September 13, 2004
Dear Friend,
On September 8 a ship ran aground on the shores of Sakhalin Island, in the
Russian far east. The ship was operating dredging equipment for an offshore
oil project, and spilled thousands of gallons of oil into the water,
polluting
the beaches of the coastal community of Kholmsk. Experts have warned that a
similar or worse accident could occur in other pristine Sakhalin waters that
are home to the world's last population of 100 Western Gray Whales.
Credit Suisse First Boston is serving as financial advisor to this Shell Oil
project even though it violates the terms of the Equator Principles, which
it
signed many months ago.
"Shell has refused to adopt necessary oil spill prevention measures that
would keep spills like this from happening," said David Gordon,
Executive Director of Pacific Environment, a California-based environmental
organization that is monitoring Sakhalin offshore oil development. "Now that
the oil is in the water, it's too late to clean it up.
The damage has been done. It is a tragedy for Sakhalin Island and especially
for the people of Kholmsk."
Take action today to tell Credit Suisse First Boston to withdraw funding for
this egregious project and to adopt comprehensive environmental standards
immediately to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again.
More Information about Sakhalin Island can be found at:
http://www.pacificenvironment.org
Take Action!
1. Raise your mouse: click the link below to send a fax to John Mack, CEO of
Credit Suisse First Boston:
http://action.ran.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=21290&ms=Sakhalinalert
2. Raise your voice: Call Mr. Mack today at (212) 325-3630. Some suggested
talking points are listed below.
3. Raise awareness: Forward this message to your friends. Ask them to call
or
send a letter online at:
http://action.ran.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=21290&ms=Sakhalinalert
-Demand that Credit Suisse First Boston withdraw financial support
immediately from the Sakhalin II project, which clearly violates the terms
of
the
Equator Principles, to which it is a signatory.
-Demand that Credit Suisse First Boston adopt comprehensive social and
environmental standards for investment that meet or exceed industry best
practices
set by Citigroup and Bank of America earlier this year.
Thanks for your support!
For the Earth and for Justice,
Dan and Ilyse
The RAN Global Finance Team
Sept 13, 2004
Peace, No War
War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate
Not in our Name! And another world is possible!
Information for antiwar movements, news across the World, please visit:
http://www.PeaceNoWar.net
Please Join PeaceNoWar Listserv, send e-mail to:
peacenowar-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
*Peace No War Network is an activist project of ActionLA
Action for World Liberation Everyday!
URL: http://www.ActionLA.org
e-mail: Info@ActionLA.org
Please join our ActionLA Listserv
go to: http://lists.riseup.net/www/subscribe/actionla
or send e-mail to: actionla-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
*To Translate this page to Arabic, please visit ajeeb.com:
http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/ajeeb/default.asp?lang=1
*To Translate this page to French, Spanish, German, Italian or Portuguese,
please visit Systran:
http://www.systransoft.com/
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) In censoring Al-Jazeera Canada is conceding its
moral high ground
By OMAR ALGHABRA*
Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040915.wjazeera15/
BNStory/Front/?query=Al-Jazeera
On July 15, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission issued a conditional approval to the addition of the Arabic-
language news channel Al-Jazeera for distribution by Canadian cable
and satellite companies.
The conditional provisions stipulated that cable carriers could "alter
or curtail" the programming of Al-Jazeera to ensure that no "abusive
comment" is broadcast. But no specific definition of "abusive" was
provided. This has placed the onus on cable companies to act as censors.
Most Canadians were perplexed by the harsh, ambiguous and
unprecedented restrictions put forth by the CRTC decision. The
controversy stirred a great deal of media attention at the time.
Nearly all the editorials, commentaries and columnists agreed that
the decision had amounted to unwarranted censorship.
Cable companies have already declared their refusal to carry Al-Jazeera
under those terms. "Cable companies do not want to be forced into the
position of having to decide what is appropriate for Canadians to watch,"
said Canadian Cable Television Association president Michael Hennessy.
"This sets a frightening precedent and virtually ensures that no distributor
will ever carry this service in Canada."
More than 500,000 Canadian Arabs are affected by the CRTC decision.
They are being denied the right to information and news free of censorship
in
violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right ..... to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
The CRTC is effectively denying Canadian Arabs the opportunity to
seek and receive information and news from and about the Arab world
through Al-Jazeera.
During the 15-month deliberation period before the decision was
announced, some Canadian Jewish organizations argued that Al-Jazeera
could spread hatred against Jews in Canada.
In an attempt to address those concerns, the CRTC decided to give cable
companies the unprecedented right to censor content - a responsibility
usually reserved for federal and provincial regulatory bodies such as the
Ontario Film Review Board. Considering that Al-Jazeera has never been
viewed by most Canadians and regulatory bodies, claims against it have
never been proved.
In their claim, advocates of censoring Al-Jazeera failed to make the
distinction between news reporting and editorial positions. They also
failed to differentiate between politically controversial discussions or
racial/religious hate propaganda.
Al-Jazeera, now one of the most recognizable news organizations in
the world, is arguably the most progressive civic institution in the Arab
world. Its independence, professionalism and content have influenced
the political landscape across the Arab region and around the world.
This year, Al-Jazeera published a code of ethics governing news
gathering and editorial policies, regulations that other equally
professional and credible news organizations lack.
The fact is, Al-Jazeera deals, on a daily basis, with one of the
world's most dynamic and politically diverse regions. Controversial
topics, provocative figures, underdeveloped political institutions
and state-controlled media are elements that make up the reality
of the Middle East.
Al-Jazeera does more than any other institution to deal with complex
issues facing that region by drawing attention to them and challenging
common assumptions. It does more for the relationship among Jews,
Arabs and Muslims than many of the "peace initiatives." It does this
through interviews with officials, pundits and politicians from every
side of the conflict, covering a wide range of opinions and viewpoints,
thereby humanizing all sides.
Israel, which Canadian Jewish organizations say is the recipient of much
of Al-Jazeera criticism, has allowed the broadcast of Al-Jazeera in Israel
with no restrictions.
That being said, Al-Jazeera should be expected to comply with Canadian
laws and norms and should not be given any advantages. The promotion
of hate against any ethnic or religious group should not be tolerated.
Should it be found that Al-Jazeera has contravened Canadian laws,
there are legal processes in place to address such potential violations.
The CRTC may not have intended to block the broadcasting of
Al-Jazeera. But now that it is clear that this decision has led to the
effective veto of its broadcast, the CRTC must reconsider the details
of its ruling.
Instead of expecting the cable companies to act as censors, the CRTC,
as an objective body, should monitor Al-Jazeera programming and
report on its observations to Canadians. If Al-Jazeera fails to meet the
professional and ethical standards of Canadian broadcasting, its licence
can be reviewed or revoked.
Prejudging the leading Arabic-language news channel without due
process has fed into much of the unfortunate stereotyping of Arabs
that anything produced by Arabs is suspicious and questionable, an
unintended consequence that should not be taken lightly.
Canada is arguably one of the most tolerant, open and multicultural
countries in the world. In censoring Al-Jazeera - and, therefore, not
practising what it preaches - Canada is conceding its moral high ground.
* Omar Alghabra is president of the Canadian Arab Federation.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) Canadian Bullets, Dead Iraqis
by Ytzhak
Tuesday September 14, 2004
montfu65@hotmail.com
http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/30644.php
Canadian Bullets, Dead Iraqis
With up to 13,802 Iraqi civilian deaths to date, Canadians will now be
providing one of the most basic necessities for the US occupation forces
in Iraq: bullets. The Canadian company SNC Technologies Inc. (SNC TEC)
is now part of a multinational consortium of small-caliber ammunition
producers whose purpose is to supply between 300 million -500
million more bullets to occupation forces per year, and potentially
for at least five years.
Beyond Canada, General Dynamics, the US defence contractor, also
awarded contracts to several small bullet suppliers - including Winchester,
a unit of Olin Corporation and Israel Military Industries. Their also in
discussion with several other international producers, including General
Dynamics Santa Barbara Sistemas, Madrid, Spain in an effort to try to
meet the ammunitions demand. Michael S. Wilson, president of General
Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, said,"Our goal is to ensure
maximum supply support for the U.S. armed forces in their war against
terror."
The high demand in bullets is in response to a recent U.S. Army
market survey for a "Small-Caliber Ammunition Systems Integrator".
The Financial Times reports that the US occupation forces "will need
300m to 500m more bullets a year for at least five years, or more
than 1.5m a year for combat and training. And because the single
army-owned, small-calibre ammunition factory in Lake City, Missouri,
can produce only 1.2m bullets annually, the army is suddenly
scrambling to get private defence contractors to help fill the gap."
"We're using so much ammunition in Iraq there isn't enough
capacity around," said Eric Hugel, a defence industry analyst at
Sephens Inc. "They have to go internationally."
The Financial Times also reports that the "bullet problem has its
roots in a Pentagon effort to restock its depleted war material reserve.
But it has been exacerbated by the ongoing operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq, where rearguard and supply units have been thinly-stretched
throughout the countryside, occasionally without active duty combat
soldiers to protect them."
Recently rejuvenated after the historic demonstrations in New York,
where half a million people were unified in saying "No to the Bush
agenda", a campaign focusing on these contracts could have a direct
effect on saving the lives of Iraqis, and give traction to an again waking
anti-war movement. For the international anti-war movement, which is
struggling to live up to it's reputation as "the other super power", such
contracts could provide important anti-war campaigns in our own nations,
raising the social costs for the US, and other complicit countries, in
waging war on Iraq. For Canada, long in denial about it's active
participation in the US war on terror, the SNC Technologies contract
should highlight the fact that Canada has not only provided previous
military and diplomatic support for the war on terror, but is now
literally, without doubt, providing the ammunition to kill Iraqis.
As for the general structure of the contracts, General Dynamics reports
that they will serve as the systems integrator responsible for supply chain
management, with Winchester serving as a principal supplier of all
calibers of ammunition, including 5.56mm, 7.62mm and Cal. 50
ammunitions. Israel Military Industries Ltd. currently produces ammunition
to U.S. military specifications for each of the calibers being sought and
will be relied upon to be a significant production partner on the team.
SNC will also be a critical provider of select ammunition across all
calibers
being sought.
For Canadians interested in SNC Technologies Inc., they are a developer
and manufacturer of ammunitions and related defence products.
Headquartered in Le Gardeur, Québec, their web site boasts of annual
revenues of more than $ 266 million(CAD).
SNC TEC is the sole Canadian producer of military ammunition and
produces over 70% of conventional military ammunition used by the
Canadian Department of National Defence. In addition, the company
is also a current supplier to the Department of Defense of the United
States for both small and large caliber products. Internationally, SNC
TEC provides conventional ammunition, or components, to a large
number of other countries across Europe, the Middle East, the Far
East, as well as Australia and New Zealand (according to their web
site, these include Belgium, Denmark, France, Holland, Greece, Italy,
Sweden, the UK, UAE, Oman, Jordan and Kuwait, Hong Kong, Singapore,
Thailand and the Philippines).
The company is wholly owned by the SNC-Lavalin Group. "The SNC
Group, which began as a small engineering consulting firm in 1911,
grew over the years into a leading group of engineering and construction
companies. In 1992, it merged Lavalin engineering firm to form the
SNC-Lavalin Group Inc."
SNC-Lavalin Group has offices across Canada, in 30 other countries
around the world, and are currently working in some 100 countries.
SNC-Lavalin has annual revenues of about $ 3.3 billion (CAD). The
Corporate headquarters are located in Montréal at :
455 René-Lévesque Blvd. West Montreal, Quebec Canada H2Z 1Z3
Telephone : (514) 393-1000 Fax : (514) 866-0795 Email :
info@snclavalin.com
Chris Spannos volunteers for ZNet, Vancouver Co-operative Radio
and the Vancouver Participatory Economics Collective
http://resist.ca/story/2004/9/12/11757/9360
resist.ca/story/2004/9/12/11757/9360
add your comments
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) Israel intensifies land seizures
By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
Tuesday 14 September 2004
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7A1982B9-EF9F-463E-BEE5-
88209C2078FA.htm
Israel has stepped up annexation of Palestinian farms and fields in
various parts of the West Bank, ignoring a landmark ruling by the
International Court of Justice in the Hague.
A decision by Israel's own High Court of Justice had likewise urged
the Israeli Government to put an end to land seizures in the name
of erecting the separation barrier.
Yet on Tuesday Israeli soldiers guarding the bulldozers used to level
Palestinian fields west of Hebron, fired teargas canisters at Palestinian
and international protesters, injuring a number of youths.
Hundreds of farmers and their children from the nearby villages of
Dir Samet and Beit Awwa tried unsuccessfully to protect their olive
groves from the onslaught of the bulldozers.
Israeli soldiers scuffled with the farmers, many of them agitated at
the sight of their life's investments being ground to dust before
their eyes.
Indifference
Peace activists from countries as far as Sweden had turned up at the
site to express solidarity with the Palestinians. One activist carried a
placard that said: "Israeli army: the world is watching."
But the Israeli soldiers on duty were no more responsive to the
protests of the Palestinian farmers and foreign peace activists,
than the rest of Israel has been to international condemnation of
its annexation of Palestinian lands.
One Israeli solder reportedly told a Palestinian farmer distraught
over the destruction of his olive trees, "We do what we want ...
nobody can tell us what we do".
This correspondent saw thousands of mature olive trees either
flattened by Israeli bulldozers or hacked down to prepare the
ground for the construction of the separation barrier.
The wall meanders deep into the West Bank, east of the former
armistice line of 1949 that is considered by the bulk of the
international community as the de facto border between Israel
proper and the Palestinian territories.
At gunpoint
One farmer badly affected by the current wave of land seizures
and orchard destruction is 70-year-old Abdullah Ahmed Salem
Abu Kreifeh.
He told Aljazeera.net, "You see, Sharon tells America and the
world that he wants peace and good neighbourly relations with
the Palestinians.
"But look what he is doing to us. He is seizing our land at
gunpoint, destroying our livelihood and pushing us towards
violence and desperate acts."
Abu Kreifeh said he and his relatives had gone to an Israeli court
in an effort to stop the confiscation of his land but to no avail.
"My son, what can you do when the judge is your enemy. You know
their courts are rubberstamps in the hands of the army."
Nearly two and a half months ago, the Israeli High Court instructed
the state to create a "proportionality" between "security needs" and
"Palestinian rights".
The Sharon government said then it would heed the court's ruling.
But the latest land grab in the western Hebron hills has cast fresh
doubt on the government's sincerity.
In early July, the World Court in Hague, in a non-binding ruling,
underscored the illegality of the separation barrier and urged the
Israeli Government to tear it down and compensate Palestinians
affected by it.
But Israel accused the court of being biased and rejected
the verdict.
Poll distraction
Separately, on Monday an Israeli Government official held talks
in Washington with two Bush administration officials, telling
them that Israel was making efforts to "minimise hardships for
the Palestinians".
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Dov Weisglass, who is
Sharon's chief political adviser, is trying to obtain an "American
understanding" of the Israeli position, namely the annexation of
huge parts of the West Bank.
Many Middle East experts believe the Bush administration's ability
to say "no" to Israeli decisions at this point of time is greatly
restricted by electoral exigencies, with the Republicans seeking
to make a dent in the traditionally pro-Democratic Jewish
constituency.
The experts say Sharon may be taking full advantage of the
situation by implementing his own agenda in the West Bank,
namely annexing large chunks of Palestinian territory and
unilaterally creating future borders between Israel and a truncated,
rump Palestinian entity.
Aljazeera
No comments:
Post a Comment