---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
STOP THE WAR ON IRAQ! BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!
ALL OUT JANUARY 20TH, 5:00 P.M., CIVIC CENTER, S.F.
NEXT BAY AREA UNITED AGAINST WAR MEETING:
SATURDAY, JANUARY 8, 11AM
CENTRO DEL PUEBLO
474 VALENCIA STREET
(NEAR 16TH STREET IN SAN FRANCISCO)
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you. Then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
THIS ISSUE IS EXTRA LONG DUE TO THE SUMMARY OF THE PATRIOT
ACT II (#10) AND AN ESSAY BY BY ARUNDHATI ROY, "People vs. Empire
Only global resistance from below can counter repressive states."
(#13)
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) DEAD AND BURIED
** Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches **
** http://dahrjamailiraq.com **
The Sunday Herald
12 December 2004
http://www.sundayherald.com/46543
2) U.S. Military Obstructing Medical Care
Inter Press Service
Dahr Jamail
BAGHDAD
** Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches **
** http://dahrjamailiraq.com **
December 13, 2004
3) Pentagon Weighs Use of Deception in a Broad Arena
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON
December 13, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/13/politics/13info.html?oref=login
4) First Inauguration Since 9/11 Spurs Tightest Security
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
WASHINGTON
December 13, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/13/politics/13security.html
5) Suicide Car Bombing Kills 13 in Baghdad
By KATARINA KRATOVAC
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP)
Dec 13, 11:42 AM EST
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=MSCLE&SECTION=HOME
6) Bush Regime Put On Notice - 'Cuba Is No Iraq!'
Several Million Cubans In Defense Exercise
Issue Invasion Warning To Washington.
From: Mart
VSCampaign@yahoogroups.com
http://www.turkishpress.com/world/news.asp?id=041212194641.rbeqjbr4.xml
7) Illness linked to area ZIP codes
SUNY Albany professor's study maps health risks and pollutants.
Corydon Ireland
Staff writer
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041209/NEWS
01/412090334/1002/NEWS
8) EMERGENCY! SPREAD THE WORD: STOP LENNAR'S BULLDOZERS!
NO DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD UNTIL IT'S CLEAN!
ATTEND TUESDAY'S BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING! BRING A CROWD!
9) Army Doctors Scrambling, Report Says
The military medical system has been overwhelmed by the
scope and severity of injuries among troops,
a health expert writes.
By Esther Schrader
Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
December 9, 2004
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-casualties9dec09,1,72875
22.story
10) Subject: Fw: Secret Patriot Act II to give Hitler's
Powers to Bush
This Act will mean that our founding fathers will get
their wish --a constitution without the Bill of Rights!
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:26:08 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: "Bob Nichols"
Details
To: "Bob Nichols"
11) Unicef laments state of world's children
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041209.wunicef1209/BNStory/Int
ernational/
"It said Millennium Development Goals, which aim to improve
the world through human development by 2015 and were
agreed to by the UN's 191 member states in 2000, could be
achieved at an annual cost of $40-billion to $70 billion. In
comparison, world spending on military in 2003 was $956-billion."
12) U.S. Soldiers' Grilling Fields
By Tim Harper
The Toronto Star
More talk heard of desertion, disgruntlement.
`Backdoor draft' adding to worries for some troops.
Sunday 12 December 2004
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121304X.shtml
13) People vs. Empire
Only global resistance from below can counter
repressive states
By Arundhati Roy
December 7, 2004
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/print/1740/
14) Subject: HE COMMITTED SUICIDE? YEAH. RIGHT.
gary hicks
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:08:40 -0800 (PST)
From: gary hicks
To: newmajority announce
THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) DEAD AND BURIED
** Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches **
** http://dahrjamailiraq.com **
The Sunday Herald
12 December 2004
http://www.sundayherald.com/46543
*EYEWITNESS: Iraq's civilian body count may go officially undocumented
but the widows and the orphans know the true extent of the toll
By Dahr Jamail in Sadr City, Baghdad*
The Sadr City area of Baghdad is a sprawling slum of nearly three
million people. Predominantly Shia and the most poverty stricken area of
the capital, most residents here celebrated the fall of Saddam Hussein
and his Sunni dominated Ba'athist regime.
For it was the Shia people of Sadr, perhaps more than any other group in
Baghdad, that suffered the most under his brutal regime.
In a small, one-room house in Sadr City lives Sua'ad, a widow with eight
young children. "I can do nothing but look at my children and cry," she
says, weeping throughout our conversation. "What are children to do
without their father? No matter what I do, things will never be the same
again."
Three months ago Sua'ad's 30-year-old husband, Abdullah Rahman, was
killed after being caught in crossfire between US forces and the Mahdi
Army of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
In Sadr City - renamed from Saddam City - the economy is in ruins.
Electricity supplies are erratic and the water is so dirty that there
are constant outbreaks of cholera, Hepatitis-E and diarrhoea.
Like many neighborhoods across Iraq, Sadr has seen more than its fair
share of suffering. This the sort of place where civilian casualty
figures, while difficult to monitor, are undoubtedly high.
Last month The Lancet, the leading British medical journal, published a
report that estimated there had been some 98,000 civilian casualties in
Iraq as a result of the US-led invasion and occupation.
The report which came in the wake of another assessment carried out by
the non-governmental group Iraq Body Count (IBC) has resulted in calls
to Tony Blair from a number of former diplomats, military men and
academics to hold an inquiry into civilian deaths in Iraq. They say the
UK like the US has a duty enshrined in international law to record the
deaths - a claim Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has refuted.
"This is an estimate relying on media reports, and which we do not
regard as reliable. It includes civilian deaths at the hands of
terrorists as well as of the coalition forces," insisted Straw in a
written statement to the Commons in November.
Whatever the real truth of the figures, they do little to convey the
grief and economic impact on families like that of Sua'ad Rahman who
lose a father, husband or child.
"His last day he worked his job selling used clothing," Sua'ad said
quietly. Abdullah had come home for his break to eat with his family. He
played with his seven-year-old son, then went outside to see what was
happening when fighting broke out.
He returned shortly thereafter to tell Sua'ad he needed to go to close
his small shop. Fighter jets thundered overhead dropping bombs, and
small arms fire was audible across the streets.
"His shop is all we have," explained Sua'ad, "I asked him not to go, but
he said he would be right back."
But her husband never came back. Sua'ad's oldest child, Ahmed, is 14.
Their small house is nearly empty. Aside from infrequent hand-outs from
neighbours, they have no income.
"He was our father, and we are needing him so much," she explains
holding her arms out while a small child sits in her lap, "He was
everything in my life."
She pauses to catch her breath, but never stops weeping.
"We are living alone now. I have four children with asthma. Sometimes
they can't breathe and I can do nothing for them. All I do is stand with
them and cry. He was helping me by taking them to the hospital and
bringing the medicines, but now I am knocking on the doors of the
neighbours."
She looks outside as tears run down her cheeks.
"God will revenge the Americans for me. Now I have eight orphans, and I
am the ninth. As they make us orphans, God is going to kick them out of
our country. My husband did nothing."
Sua'ad lives in the northern section of Sadr City, an area which saw the
fiercest clashes last summer. While the US military does not keep a
count of Iraqi casualties, the office of Muqtada al-Sadr estimates that
800 people were killed in the fighting in this area last summer before a
ceasefire was reached.
The area was frequently bombed by US warplanes and helicopters. People
are still wounded from unexploded cluster bombs found in small alleys
between the cramped houses.
Across the street from Sua'ad, where crowded markets selling used
clothing and shoes on old wooden stalls clutter the sidewalks, is the
home of the Haider family.
Fifty-year-old mother, Um Haider lives with 21 other family members and
relatives in an old, three-room house which does not have a toilet.
Pools of raw sewage stand near the outer walls of the ramshackle building.
Her husband was killed in the Iran war, and her 20-year-old son, Ahmed,
was killed during recent fighting in their area. His widow is pregnant
and expecting a baby in the next month.
"He was so polite and religious, but he was not a fighter," said Um
Haider, crying as she spoke of her dead son.
The day Ahmed was killed a tank had been destroyed by the Mahdi Army.
She went outside with him to see what happened, and he was struck in the
head by shrapnel from a rocket fired at fighters from a US helicopter.
"His blood was all over me while he prayed for God to save us," she said.
While her oldest son, Ali, and his two uncles work as labourers to
support the family, Um Haider goes to her son's grave each day.
Abu Khadim, sitting nearby sipping tea, spoke of his nephew's death.
"The Americans were taking everyone from the hospital in Sadr City if
they were wounded, because they thought they were all Mahdi Army," he said.
"So we took him out of Sadr City. But the next day, he died anyway."
Ali, Ahmed's 22-year-old brother, expressed the rage held by so many
Iraqis who have lost loved ones to coalition forces. "When I grow older
I will buy a Kalashnikov and I'm going to use it to shoot the
Americans," he said.
In another small home in the area, Salam Mussa lives with the six
daughters, two sons and wife left behind by his brother Naim who was killed.
Thirty-two year-old Naim was at the nearby market when fighting broke
out between the Mahdi Army and occupation forces. He was shot by US troops.
"I make $110 per month, but it is not enough," said Salam while telling
of how the family gets by. "When the kids hear tanks outside they say
these are the people who killed their father."
Naim's mother Kussir wept as her husband recalled their dead son.
"This is the third of my kids to be killed. The Americans are savages.
They do nothing but bring injustice."
Rheem, Naim's widow, cannot stop crying either. "My children keep
looking at the pictures and remembering him too much. Zenab is the
worst. Every day she is looking at the pictures and asking me when he'll
come home."
Zenab, a four-year-old girl wearing rumpled clothes, sat nearby close to
tears. "I don't love the Americans because they shot my father. They
frighten me with their helicopters every day. I want my dad to come back
and have lunch with us again. That's all I want."
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.
Or, you can unsubscribe by sending an email to
iraq_dispatches-request@dahrjamailiraq.com and write unsubscribe in the
subject
or the body of the email.
(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
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) U.S. Military Obstructing Medical Care
Inter Press Service
Dahr Jamail
BAGHDAD
** Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches **
** http://dahrjamailiraq.com **
December 13, 2004
BAGHDAD, Dec 13 (IPS) - The U.S. military has been preventing delivery
of medical care in several instances, medical staff say.
Iraqi doctors at many hospitals have reported raids by coalition forces.
Some of the more recent raids have been in Amiriyat al-Fallujah, about
10km to the east of Fallujah, the town to which U.S. forces have laid
bloody siege. Amiriyat al-Fallujah has been the source of several
reported resistance attacks on U.S. forces.
The main hospital in Amiriyat al-Fallujah was raided twice recently by
U.S. soldiers and members of the Iraqi National Guard, doctors say. "The
first time was November 29 at 5:40am, and the second time was the
following day," said a doctor at the hospital who did not want to give
his real name for fear of U.S. reprisals.
In the first raid about 150 U.S. soldiers and at least 40 members of the
Iraqi National Guard stormed the small hospital, he said.
"They were yelling loudly at everyone, both doctors and patients alike,"
the young doctor said. "They divided into groups and were all over the
hospital. They broke the gates outside, they broke the doors of the
garage, and they raided our supply room where our food and supplies are.
They broke all the interior doors of the hospital, as well as every
exterior door."
He was then interrogated about resistance fighters, he said. "The
Americans threatened to do here what they did in Fallujah if I didn't
cooperate with them," he said.
Another doctor, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that all of the
doors of the clinics inside the hospital were kicked in. All of the
doctors, along with the security guard were handcuffed and interrogated
for several hours, he said.
The two doctors pointed to an ambulance with a shattered back window.
"When the Americans raided our hospital again last Tuesday at 7pm, they
smashed one of our ambulances," the first doctor said.
His colleague pointed to other bullet-riddled ambulances. "The Americans
have snipers all along the road between here and Fallujah," he said.
"They are shooting our ambulances if they try to go to Fallujah."
In nearby Saqlawiyah, Dr Abdulla Aziz told IPS that occupation forces
had blocked any medical supplies from entering or leaving the city.
"They won't let any of our ambulances go to help Fallujah," he said. "We
are out of supplies and they won't let anyone bring us more."
The pattern of military interference in medical work has apparently
persisted for many months. During the April siege of Fallujah, doctors
there reported similar difficulties.
"The marines have said they didn't close the hospital, but essentially
they did," said Dr. Abdul Jabbar, orthopedic surgeon at Fallujah General
Hospital. "They closed the bridge which connects us to the city, and
closed our road. The area in front of our hospital was full of their
soldiers and vehicles."
This prevented medical care reaching countless patients in desperate
need, he said. "Who knows how many of them died that we could have saved."
He too said the military had fired on civilian ambulances. They had also
fired at the clinic he had been working in since April, he said. "Some
days we couldn't leave, or even go near the door because of the snipers.
They were shooting at the front door of the clinic."
Dr. Jabbar said U.S. snipers shot and killed one of the ambulance
drivers of the clinic where he worked during the fighting.
"We were tied up and beaten despite being unarmed and having only our
medical instruments," Asma Khamis al-Muhannadi, a doctor who was present
during the U.S. and Iraqi National Guard raid on Fallujah General
Hospital told reporters later.
She said troops dragged patients from their beds and pushed them against
the wall.. "I was with a woman in labour, the umbilical cord had not yet
been cut," she said. "At that time, a U.S. soldier shouted at one of the
(Iraqi) national guards to arrest me and tie my hands while I was
helping the mother to deliver."
Other doctors spoke of their experience of the raid. "The Americans shot
out the lights in the front of our hospital, they prevented doctors from
reaching the emergency unit at the hospital, and we quickly began to run
out of supplies and much needed medication," said Dr. Ahmed, who gave
only a first name. U.S. troops prevented doctors from entering the
hospital on several occasions, he said.
Targeting hospitals or ambulances is in direct contravention of the
Fourth Geneva Convention, which strictly forbids attacks on emergency
vehicles and the impeding of medical operations during war.
At several places doctors said U.S. troops had demanded information from
medical staff about resistance fighters. "They are always coming here
and asking us if we have injured fighters," a doctor at a hospital said.
A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad told IPS that routine searches of
hospitals are carried out to look for insurgents. He said it has never
been the policy of coalition forces to impede medical services in Iraq.
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.
Or, you can unsubscribe by sending an email to
iraq_dispatches-request@dahrjamailiraq.com and write unsubscribe in the
subject
or the body of the email.
(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
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Pentagon Weighs Use of Deception in a Broad Arena
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON
December 13, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/13/politics/13info.html?oref=login
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 - The Pentagon is engaged in bitter, high-level
debate over how far it can and should go in managing or manipulating
information to influence opinion abroad, senior Defense Department
civilians and military officers say.
Such missions, if approved, could take the deceptive techniques endorsed
for use on the battlefield to confuse an adversary and adopt them for covert
propaganda campaigns aimed at neutral and even allied nations.
Critics of the proposals say such deceptive missions could shatter the
Pentagon's credibility, leaving the American public and a world audience
skeptical of anything the Defense Department and military say -
a repeat of the credibility gap that roiled America during the Vietnam War.
The efforts under consideration risk blurring the traditional lines
between public affairs programs in the Pentagon and military branches
- whose charters call for giving truthful information to the media and
the public - and the world of combat information campaigns or
psychological operations.
The question is whether the Pentagon and military should undertake
an official program that uses disinformation to shape perceptions
abroad. But in a modern world wired by satellite television and the
Internet, any misleading information and falsehoods could easily be
repeated by American news outlets.
The military has faced these tough issues before. Nearly three years
ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, under intense criticism,
closed the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, a short-lived
operation to provide news items, possibly including false ones, to
foreign journalists in an effort to influence overseas opinion.
Now, critics say, some of the proposals of that discredited office
are quietly being resurrected elsewhere in the military and in the
Pentagon.
Pentagon and military officials directly involved in the debate say
that such a secret propaganda program, for example, could include
planting news stories in the foreign press or creating false documents
and Web sites translated into Arabic as an effort to discredit and
undermine the influence of mosques and religious schools that
preach anti-American principles.
Some of those are in the Middle Eastern and South Asian countries
like Pakistan, still considered a haven for operatives of Al Qaeda. But
such a campaign could reach even to allied countries like Germany,
for example, where some mosques have become crucibles for Islamic
militancy and anti-Americanism.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the military's vast electronic-warfare arsenal
was used to single out certain members of Saddam Hussein's inner
circle with e-mail messages and cellphone calls in an effort to sway
them to the American cause. Arguments have been made for similar
efforts to be mounted at leadership circles in other nations where the
United States is not at war.
During the cold war, American intelligence agencies had journalists
on their payrolls or operatives posing as journalists, particularly in
Western Europe, with the aim of producing pro-American articles to
influence the populations of those countries. But officials say that no
one is considering using such tactics now.
Suspicions about disinformation programs also arose in the 1980's
when the White House was accused of using such a campaign to
destabilize Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya.
In the current debate, it is unclear how far along the other programs
are or to what extent they are being carried out because of their
largely classified nature.
Within the Pentagon, some of the military's most powerful figures
have expressed concerns at some of the steps taken that risk blurring
the traditional lines between public affairs and the world of combat
information operations.
These tensions were cast into stark relief this summer in Iraq when
Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, approved the
combining of the command's day-to-day public affairs operations
with combat psychological and information operations into a single
"strategic communications office."
In a rare expression of senior-level questions about such decisions,
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued
a memorandum warning the military's regional combat commanders
about the risks of mingling the military public affairs too closely
with information operations.
"While organizations may be inclined to create physically integrated
P.A./I.O. offices, such organizational constructs have the potential
to compromise the commander's credibility with the media and the
public," it said.
But General Myers's memorandum is not being followed, according
to officers in Iraq, largely because commanders there believe they
are safely separating the two operations and say they need all the
flexibility possible to combat the insurgency.
Indeed, senior military officials in Washington say public affairs
officers in war zones might, by choice or under pressure, issue
statements to world news media that, while having elements of truth,
are clearly devised primarily to provoke a response from the enemy.
Administration officials say they are increasingly troubled that
a nation that can so successfully market its cars and colas around
the world, even to foreigners hostile to American policies, is failing
to sell its democratic ideals, even as the insurgents they are battling
are spreading falsehoods over mass media outlets like the Arab news
satellite channel Al Jazeera.
"In the battle of perception management, where the enemy is clearly
using the media to help manage perceptions of the general public,
our job is not perception management but to counter the enemy's
perception management," said the chief Pentagon spokesman,
Lawrence Di Rita.
The battle lines in this debate have been drawn in a flurry of classified
studies, secret operational guidance statements and internal requests
from Mr. Rumsfeld. Some go to the concepts of information warfare,
and some complain about how the government's communications
are organized.
The fervent debate today is focused most directly on a secret order
signed by Mr. Rumsfeld late last year and called "Information Operations
Roadmap." The 74-page directive, which remains classified but was
described by officials who had read it, accelerated "a plan to advance
the goal of information operations as a core military competency."
Noting the complexities and risks, Mr. Rumsfeld ordered studies to
clarify the appropriate relationship between Pentagon and military
public affairs - whose job is to educate and inform the public with
accurate and timely information - and the practitioners of secret
psychological operations and information campaigns to influence,
deter or confuse adversaries.
In response, one far-reaching study conducted at the request of the
strategic plans and policy branch of the military's Joint Staff recently
produced a proposal to create a "director of central information."
The director would have responsibility for budgeting and
"authoritative control of messages" - whether public or covert -
across all the government operations that deal with national
security and foreign policy.
The study, conducted by the National Defense University, was
presented Oct. 20 to a panel of senior Pentagon officials and
military officers, including Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary
of defense for policy, whose organization set up the original
Office of Strategic Influence.
No senior officer today better represents the debate over
a changing world of military information than Brig. Gen. Mark
Kimmitt, an operational commander chosen to be the military's
senior spokesman in Iraq after major combat operations shifted
to counterinsurgency operations in the spring of 2003.
His role rankled many in the military's public affairs community
who contend that the job should have gone to someone trained
in the doctrine of Army communications and public affairs, rather
than to an officer who had spent his career in combat arms.
"This is tough business," said General Kimmitt, who now serves
as deputy director of plans for the American military command
in the Middle East. "Are we trying to inform? Yes. Do we offer
perspective? Yes. Do we offer military judgment? Yes. Must we
tell the truth to stay credible? Yes. Is there a battlefield value
in deceiving the enemy? Yes. Do we intentionally deceive the
American people? No."
The rub, General Kimmitt said, is operating among those
sometimes conflicting principles.
"There is a gray area," he said. "Tactical and operational deception
are proper and legal on the battlefield." But "in a worldwide media
environment," he asked, "how do you prevent that deception from
spilling out from the battlefield and inadvertently deceiving the
American people?"
Mr. Di Rita said the scope of the issue had changed in recent years.
"We have a unique challenge in this department," he said, "because
four-star military officers are the face of the United States abroad
in ways that are almost unprecedented since the end of World War II."
He added, "Communication is becoming a capability that combatant
commanders have to factor in to the kinds of operations they are
doing."
Much of the Pentagon's work in this new area falls under a relatively
unknown field called Defense Support for Public Diplomacy. This
new phrase is used to describe the Pentagon's work in government-wide
efforts to communicate with foreign audiences but that is separate
from support for generals in the field.
At the Pentagon, that effort is managed by Ryan Henry, Mr. Feith's
principal deputy for policy.
"With the pace of technology and such, and with the nature of the
global war on terrorism, information has become much more a part
of strategic victory, and to a certain extent tactical victory, than it
ever was in the past," Mr. Henry said.
However, a senior military officer said that without clear guidance
from the Pentagon, the military's psychological operations, information
operations and public affairs programs are "coming together on the
battlefield like never before, and as such, the lines are blurred." This
has led to a situation where "proponents of these elements jockey
for position to lead the overall communication effort," the officer said.
Debate also continues over proposed amendments to a classified
Defense Department directive, titled "3600.1: Information Operations,"
which would lay down Pentagon policy in coming years. Previous
versions of the directive allow aggressive information campaigns
to affect enemy leaders, but not those of allies or even neutral states.
The current debate is over proposed revisions that would widen the
target audience for such missions.
Mr. Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman, says that even though the
government is wrestling with these issues, the standard is still to
tell to the truth.
"Our job is to put out information to the public that is accurate,"
he said, "and to put it out as quickly as we can."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) First Inauguration Since 9/11 Spurs Tightest Security
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
WASHINGTON
December 13, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/13/politics/13security.html
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 - For nearly a year, the Secret Service and
other law enforcement agencies have been developing what they
regard as the most comprehensive security plan ever devised for
the inauguration of an American president.
From the swearing-in ceremony for President Bush at the Capitol
on Jan. 20 to the presidential parade review at the White House to
the evening galas, the inaugural events will be the first in decades
to be held in wartime and the first since the terrorist attacks of 2001.
They will take place at buildings that symbolize American democracy,
and hundreds of thousands of people are expected to attend,
including the highest-ranking government officials, other prominent
Americans and dignitaries from around the world. It is hard to
imagine, say security experts, a bigger target for terrorists.
"This is a very, very serious event," said James J. Varey, a retired
Secret Service officer and former chief of the United States Capitol
Police who worked on security plans for every inauguration from
1973 to 2001. "The public has every right to be concerned if we've
done enough and covered all of our bases."
Since President Ronald Reagan's second inauguration, in 1985,
nearly four years after he was shot in an assassination attempt,
security efforts have steadily intensified.
In January 2001, when the country was divided over a disputed
presidential election, the newest development was security
checkpoints along the parade route on Pennsylvania Avenue,
from the Capitol to the White House, to minimize the ability of
protesters to disrupt the procession. None did, although several
people threw eggs and debris at Mr. Bush's limousine as it left
the Capitol grounds.
But Mr. Bush's second inauguration is vastly different from his
first, with many Americans fearful of another terrorist attack.
The atmosphere has prompted officials to devise a detailed
security plan that they are reluctant to discuss. Security personnel
involved with planning the events, in agencies like the Secret
Service, the F.B.I. and the Joint Forces Headquarters for the
National Capital Region, declined to disclose any details.
But all promised that the efforts would surpass those of the past,
building on tactics used at the 2001 inauguration and taking into
account the symbolic importance of the day as well as its potential
as a target for terrorists.
"We're mindful of world events, and we adapt as necessary,"
said Lorie Lewis, a spokeswoman for the Secret Service, the
lead agency in developing the security plan. "We are prepared
to handle any potential situation that may arise during this.
We're also prepared to respond tactically to any situation."
Many of the resources that will protect the inauguration have
been in place since the Sept. 11 attacks and the discovery of
anthrax in Congressional offices weeks later. Anti-aircraft
weapons sit atop a federal building near the White House.
Monitors have been installed around the city to measure for
airborne radiological, chemical or biological substances. The
Capitol Police force has grown by several hundred officers to
more than 1,500, a record number, and many of them now
carry M-16 rifles.
But security officials said safeguards for next month's events
would involve more equipment and people than in 2001,
including larger numbers of troops and uniformed and
plainclothes officers. Besides the armed soldiers who will
be deployed around the city, 4,000 others who routinely
serve the capital region will be on call.
"It's not like we're going from zero to full blast," said Chief
Terrance W. Gainer of the Capitol Police. "This reflects
a continual, gradual buildup with substantially more
coordination, more personnel, more technology and
greater sharing of intelligence."
Not all involved with security efforts will have specialized
assignments, like standing on rooftops along the parade
route with binoculars and high-powered rifles. Many will
draw more routine duties, such as operating pedestrian
checkpoints on streets leading to Pennsylvania Avenue
and mingling in crowds to watch for potential disruptions.
Beyond increasing personnel, said Mr. Varey, who was part
of President Reagan's security detail on the day he was shot
in 1981, inauguration planners are also using public
awareness as a tool.
"This time," he said of planners, "they have made an appeal
to the public to be the eyes and ears of security to get the
public involved in security on a greater scale than I've ever seen."
While terrorist activities are the prime concern, protests are
also being addressed in security plans. Several groups say
they intend to stage peaceful demonstrations, but political
protests sometimes grow violent, as they did at world trade
meetings in recent years in Seattle, Miami and Washington.
Brian Becker, national coordinator for the Answer Coalition,
an antiwar and antiracism group, said he expected thousands
of protesters to line the parade route "in a legal, spirited,
peaceful demonstration," carrying signs calling for the
withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq and for
Mr. Bush's impeachment.
Another group is planning a protest in which participants
would turn their backs to Mr. Bush's limousine as his motorcade
passes. Jim McDonald, an organizer, said the action's effectiveness
would depend on how close to the barricades the protesters
could get.
Both organizers worried that security would be so intense and
access so difficult that their groups' messages would be muffled.
The Bush administration, Mr. McDonald said, "is using national
security as a pretext to stifle dissent and to marginalize dissenters."
"They're not dissuading Osama bin Laden," he added. "They're
dissuading protesters from coming out by creating a climate of fear."
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat and the
District of Columbia's delegate to Congress, is working closely
with the agencies planning the inauguration and said she was
satisfied that security would be strong enough to discourage
a terrorist attack. "And terrorists know it," Ms. Norton said.
"Besides, they like the element of surprise."
She said she worried more about the permanent changes on
Capitol Hill and elsewhere, giving the city a militaristic feel that
is amplified by the expanded presence of security personnel at
important events like an inauguration.
"Surveillance cameras are everywhere. You have to do everything
you can, and I am willing to abide a lot of extra security for the
inauguration. But I just don't think President Bush wants the city
to look more like a military show than a celebration."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Suicide Car Bombing Kills 13 in Baghdad
By KATARINA KRATOVAC
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP)
Dec 13, 11:42 AM EST
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=MSCLE&SECTION=HOME
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A suicide car bomber linked to al-Qaida killed
13 people in Baghdad on Monday, the first anniversary of Saddam
Hussein's capture, and clashes resumed in Fallujah, a one-time
insurgent stronghold that American forces believed they had
conquered. Seven Marines died in combat in western Iraq.
The violence underlines the difficulties U.S.-led forces have
encountered in the year and a half since Saddam's ouster in trying
to end a rampant insurgency and bring the country under control.
U.S. military commanders acknowledge they initially underestimated
the strength of the insurgent backlash and admit coalition-trained
Iraqi security forces are not yet up to securing their own country.
The fighting in Anbar, a vast province including Fallujah and
Ramadi, was the deadliest for U.S. forces since eight Marines
were killed by a car bomb outside Fallujah on Oct. 30. The
deaths brought to nearly 1,300 the number of American
troops killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
In Baghdad, a militant in an explosives-laden car waiting in
line to enter the western Harthiyah gate of the heavily fortified
Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and Iraq's interim
government, detonated the vehicle as he drove toward the
checkpoint, police said.
Dr. Mohammed Abdel Satar of Baghdad's Yarmouk Hospital
said 13 people were killed and 15 wounded in the suicide
blast. The U.S. military said there were no injuries to its troops.
Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaida in Iraq
group claimed responsibility for the bombing in a statement
posted on an Islamic web site regularly used by militants.
"On this blessed day, a lion from the (group's) Martyrs' Brigade
has gone out to strike at a gathering of apostates and Americans
in the Green Zone," the group said in a statement, the authenticity
of which could not be immediately verified.
The international zone has been the scene of frequent insurgent
attacks in the past 18 months, killing and wounding dozens of
people in car bombings or mortar barrages.
In Tarmiyah, north of Baghdad, a car bomb exploded and
wrecked two U.S. Humvees, wounding three U.S. soldiers and
an Iraqi civilian, Lt. Col. James Hutton said.
Jubilant Iraqi men were seen holding up pieces of the Humvees
and dancing around their charred hulks, with a large crater
blown into the road.
In Mishahda, 25 miles north of Baghdad, gunmen attacked an
Iraqi National Guard patrol, killing three soldiers and wounding
three others. The attackers fled, witnesses said.
Iraq's interim President Ghazi al-Yawer said in an interview
broadcast Monday that the U.S.-led coalition was wrong to
dismantle the Iraqi security forces after last year's invasion.
"Definitely dissolving the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry
of Interior was a big mistake at that time," al-Yawer told British
Broadcasting Corp. radio.
It would have been more effective to screen out former regime
loyalists than to rebuild from scratch, he added.
"As soon as we have efficient security forces that we can depend
on we can see the beginning of the withdrawal of forces from
our friends and partners and I think it doesn't take years, it will
take months," he said.
U.S. forces retook Fallujah from insurgents in a bloody battle last
month in which hundreds died, including at least 54 Americans.
The city had fallen under the rule of radical clerics and their
mujahedeen fighters after Marines lifted a three-week siege
of the city in April.
After the latest campaign, U.S. commanders claimed they had
broken the back of the insurgency in the mainly Sunni Muslim
areas of western Iraq and that Iraqi security forces would start
being phased in to take over, but fighting in the region has
continued.
"We have come light years from April when they (Iraqi security
forces) refused to even come out to Fallujah," Marine Lt. Col.
Dan Wilson said. "We are in the process of phasing more ISF
into Fallujah ... (and) are better equipped to intuitively know
who belongs in the city, and who does not."
On Sunday, American jets dropped 10 precision-guided missiles
on insurgents' positions in Fallujah after militants fought running
battles with coalition forces. It was unclear if there were any
insurgent casualties.
"We are still running into some of these die-hard insurgents
that have either come back into the city or have been laying
low," spokesman Lt. Lyle Gilbert said. "As we are bringing in
contractors to help with the reconstruction of Fallujah, this
(fighting) slows the process down."
It also was unclear whether the latest Marine deaths were
connected with those clashes. The military said only that seven
Marines died in two incidents while conducting "security and
stabilization operations" in Anbar province.
In nearby Ramadi, 30 miles west of Fallujah, at least 10
explosions were heard early Monday, but no details were
immediately available on their source nor whether there
were any casualties.
Insurgents had shelled U.S. forces in the city on Sunday
resulting in retaliatory artillery fire by American troops.
In the central Iraqi city of Samarra, insurgents attacked patrolling
U.S. soldiers with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.
One missed the troops and detonated near a group of children,
killing a 9-year-old boy and injuring another child, U.S. military
spokesman Maj. Neal O'Brien said.
On Sunday, eight of Saddam's 11 top lieutenants went on a hunger
strike to demand visits in jail from the International Committee
of the Red Cross, military spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said.
The eight had resumed eating by Monday, he said. Saddam
had not joined in the protest and remained in good health,
Johnson said.
(c) 2004 The Associated Press.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) Bush Regime Put On Notice - 'Cuba Is No Iraq!'
Several Million Cubans In Defense Exercise
Issue Invasion Warning To Washington.
From: Mart
VSCampaign@yahoogroups.com
http://www.turkishpress.com/world/news.asp?id=041212194641.rbeqjbr4.xml
Several Million Cubans In
Defense Exercise In Warning
To Washington
Cuba put US on notice with Monday's
massive war games
Adalberto Roque
Agence France-Presse
December 12, 2004
[ "The determination of the US administration
to destroy the (Cuban) revolution however
they can, including militarily, determines
the necessity of conducting these exercises"]
["Raul Castro said last week the exercises
had been planned in part so Washington 'does
not commit the errors it committed in Vietnam
and that it is now committing in Iraq. So that
they (Washington) do not underestimate our
people, who are united and more powerful
than those in Iraq', he added"]
HAVANA - Cuba's armed forces are gearing up
for their biggest military exercises in
almost 20 years, with hundreds of thousands
of troops and millions of civilians expected
to take part, officials here said.
General Leonardo Andollo told reporters on
Sunday that MiG-29 jets, anti-aircraft batteries
were to be deployed during the weeklong
exercises meant to be a warning to Washington
that Cuba would vigorously defend itself against
US aggression.
The mass war games start Monday and are due
to run through to December 19.
Senior military and Communist government
officials here warned that the administration
of US President George W. Bush should take
note of the island's war footing.
"The determination of the US administration
to destroy the (Cuban) revolution however
they can, including militarily, determines
the necessity of conducting these exercises,"
Andollo, the deputy chief of Cuba's Armed
Revolutionary Forces (FAR), said.
His comments come days after President Fidel
Castro's brother, Raul, warned Washington
should closely observe Cuba's military prowess
and civil defenses during the manoeuvres.
Raul Castro is the head of the Caribbean
island's armed forces.
Operation "Bastion 2004" will involve about
100,000 soldiers, sailors and air force
personnel as well as some 400,000 reservists.
Air force MiG-29s, anti-aircraft units and elite
troops will also support the operation, billed as
Cuba's biggest military exercises since 1986.
Officials said the exercises would also involve
several million civilians who will participate
in two days of civil defense exercises, including
a simulated aerial assault.
Raul Castro said last week the exercises had been
planned in part so Washington "does not commit the
errors it committed in Vietnam and that it is now
committing in Iraq.
"So that they (Washington) do not underestimate
our people, who are united and more powerful
than those in Iraq," he added.
=====
Carlos Rovira - "Carlito"
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) Illness linked to area ZIP codes
SUNY Albany professor's study maps health risks and pollutants.
Corydon Ireland
Staff writer
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041209/NEWS
01/412090334/1002/NEWS
New York state residents who live near certain hazardous waste
sites - including some in the Rochester area - are up to 20 percent
more likely to be hospitalized for respiratory diseases than those
who don't.
That's according to a study by researchers at the State University
of New York at Albany, to be published this month in Environmental
Toxicology and Pharmacology .
Researchers blame the higher disease risk on pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other types of persistent
organic pollutants (POPs). Buried in landfills or trapped in polluted
rivers and lakes, these chemicals can be released into the air and
breathed in.
The study, using state and federal health and waste site data,
identifies 213 ZIP codes statewide that are near or contain waste
sites with persistent organic pollutants. Living in these ZIP codes
are more than 2.8 million New Yorkers, or about a sixth of the
state's population.
Included are 13 ZIP codes in the Rochester area, from Brockport,
Spencerport and Greece on the west side to Irondequoit, Webster
and Clyde, Wayne County on the east.
Statewide, 1,382 ZIP codes contained no waste sites, the
researchers said; another 244 ZIP codes had or abutted waste
sites, but none with persistent organic pollutants. New York
City was excluded.
Among the hazardous waste sites used in the study's database
is the Rochester Embayment, a polluted area comprised of the
last six miles of the Genesee River and 35 square miles of Lake
Ontario that the river pollutes. Embayment sediments and water
contain traces of PCBs, pesticides and dioxins, which are all
persistent organic pollutants.
It's one of 46 "areas of concern," or toxic hot spots, in the Great
Lakes region identified by the International Joint Commission,
a binational advisory group. There are six such areas in New York.
Linking real estate to disease "is obviously a politically charged
thing," said chief study investigator David O. Carpenter, professor
of environmental health and toxicology at SUNY Albany. But he
said the paper, based on eight years of hospitalization data, has
"high statistical power."
Looking at it another way, the study "is another reason for citizens
to demand action from their government," said Jeff Jones, spokesman for
Environmental Advocates of New York, an activist group in Albany.
Carpenter's study design was based on studies published in 1999
by Health Canada, which investigated health outcomes for those
living near each of Canada's 17 areas of concern.
Results showed some elevated risk of immune system, metabolic
and thyroid disorders, as well as early or threatened labor. But the
studies were not intended "to show cause and effect" between the
waste sites and disease rates, a Health Canada spokeswoman said.
Carpenter, on the IJC's science advisory board, was asked by the IJC
to do a parallel study in the United States. Among the eight Great
Lakes states, he said, only New York had data complete enough for
investigation.
Researchers looked at diagnoses recorded for 2.5 million
hospitalizations a year between 1993 and 2000. They also mapped
the locations of waste sites in New York. The sites include the six
areas of concern, 89 federal Superfund sites in New York listed by the
Environmental Protection Agency and 864 state Superfund sites
registered by the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
The researchers found that near toxic waste sites with PCBs and
pesticides there were more cases of acute respiratory infections,
pneumonia, bronchitis and influenza.
They used a more intensive study of ZIP codes along PCB-polluted
(and wealthy) areas of the Hudson River, concluding that higher
risk of hospitalization was not likely related to smoking rates,
diet and exercise habits or socioeconomic status.
Carpenter's study also supports an unusual hypothesis: that harm
from PCBs and other persistent toxics is from breathing in affected air.
Traditionally, exposure to these chemicals has been linked to
eating, he said, especially the consumption of fish and other
animal products.
Nationally, there are attempts to explore the potential links
between disease and environmental hazards, an emerging art
that some call "medical geography."
The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
an arm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has
for 14 years been using geographic information system (GIS)
technology and health data to assess potential risk to
populations living near hazardous waste sites, said
spokeswoman Paula Stephens.
The New York state Department of Health has mapped some
adult cancers by ZIP code statewide, but a spokesman said the
department has not yet executed another part of the original
project design: an overlay that would match environmental
hazards such as landfills and waste sites with each ZIP code.
That overlay "is a step that would go far in preventing
cancers," said Dr. Leo Trasande, assistant director of the
Center for Children's Health and the Environment at the
Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Research
that links health outcomes to environmental factors is rare,
he said.
But Carpenter, a nationally known public health researcher
who once studied the link between electromagnetic fields
and childhood cancers, has done his part. In 2000, he
published a study that said children in ZIP code areas with
persistent organic pollutant waste sites had a 30 percent
greater chance of being hospitalized for five infectious
diseases, compared with children in "clean" ZIP codes.
In 2001, a study by Carpenter on ZIP codes in the Niagara
Falls area associated with three areas of concern showed
higher rates of hospitalization for thyroid and genital disease
in women. Last year, a similar study linked persistent organic
pollutant waste sites with low birth weight in newborns.
And a student of Carpenter's this year wrote a paper that
showed increased rates of hypertension in residents living
in ZIP codes within 15 miles of the Rochester Embayment.
The paper, by SUNY Albany graduate student Pamela Kruger,
has not yet been published.
CIRELAND@DemocratandChronicle.com
Copyright 2004 Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) EMERGENCY! SPREAD THE WORD: STOP LENNAR'S BULLDOZERS!
NO DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD UNTIL IT'S CLEAN!
ATTEND TUESDAY'S BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING! BRING A CROWD!
The message below was forwarded to
us. It's an excerpt of an update from
Sophie's office. It shows that this week's
Bay View editorial contains a big
mistake.
We'd been told that the Board of
Supervisors had voted to postpone final
action until January on this package of
legislation that gives the green light to
Shipyard development.
NOT TRUE!!! The final vote is coming at
this Tuesday's meeting of the Board
of Supervisors. And at this point, we have
ONLY TWO VOTES against it, Daly and
Gonzalez.
So it looks like we have two things to do
- in a hurry! Lobby the rest of the
Supes, especially Ammiano 554-5144,
Peskin 554-7450, Sandoval 554-6975 and
McGoldrick 554-7410. And we need bodies
at the meeting. These items are second
on the regular agenda, so people need to
be there shortly after 2:00.
Spread the word for all supporters of
environmental and economic justice to
be there:
- SF Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting
- Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2pm
- Legislative Chamber, 2nd Floor, City Hall
For folks who need more information about
the crisis at the Shipyard, the
12/8 Bay View editorial, despite the error
on the date of the vote, should be a
big help. It's at
http://www.sfbayview.com/120804/lennarbuyssupport120804.shtml
.
Remind the Supes that at least one of the
sponsors of this legislative
package, Mayor Gavin Newsom, should
recuse himself due to egregious conflicts of
interest! That alone should STOP LENNAR'S
BULLDOZERS!
Willie & Mary Ratcliff
SF Bay View
(415) 671-0789
From Supervisor Sophie Maxwell:
LEGISLATION PENDING AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
2. A package of legislation co-sponsored
by Supervisor Maxwell and Mayor
Gavin Newsom that would enable the
first phase of development to proceed at the
Hunters Point Shipyard passed the Board
of Supervisors on Tuesday on a 9-2
vote. The legislation will be heard again
for second reading this coming Tuesday,
December 14, along with a few additional
pieces of companion legislation,
resolutions that require one vote for approval.
Should this package of legislation pass,
we anticipate demolition and
grading activities at the Shipyard, closed
by the Navy in 1974, will begin this
February. Phase I of development will
create 1,600 new units of housing,
including at least 32% (and possibly 44%)
of all units to be affordable based upon a
Bayview-specific income standard. In
addition, other benefits include: 30% of
all development is set aside for community
-based developers (with an additional
6 acres of land set aside for community
development of community facilities),
an estimated $35-40 million in net
revenue from land sales will be reinvested
in the Bayview Hunters Point community,
and 35 acres of new open space and
parks will be provided.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) Army Doctors Scrambling, Report Says
The military medical system has been overwhelmed by the
scope and severity of injuries among troops,
a health expert writes.
By Esther Schrader
Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
December 9, 2004
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-casualties9dec09,1,72875
22.story
WASHINGTON - A shortage of surgeons to treat the wounded in
Iraq has left Army medical teams in the country scrambling to
handle the largest number of military casualties since the Vietnam
War, the New England Journal of Medicine reports today.
The Army has fewer than 50 general surgeons and 15 orthopedic
surgeons in Iraq at any one time to serve more than 138,000 troops.
Despite the numbers, advances in battlefield surgical techniques
and care mean a greater percentage of soldiers wounded in Iraq
are surviving than in any previous American conflict.
The article describes a military medical system that has undergone
fundamental changes since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but that
nonetheless has been overwhelmed by the scope and severity
of injuries occurring among troops in Iraq. It was written by Atul
Gawande, an assistant professor at the Harvard School of Public
Health and a former senior health advisor to the Clinton White
House.
Since March 2003, 1,276 U.S. military personnel have died
in the Iraq war, with an additional 9,765 wounded, according
to Pentagon figures. The number of deaths directly related to
combat passed 1,000 this week, the Pentagon said.
"Just as the rest of the military structure was unprepared for
the length of the war and the evolution in the nature of the war,
so has the military medical establishment been understandably
unprepared for that," Gawande said in an interview.
"What is striking is that they have been able to adapt in ways
that allow them to keep a high rate of survival for the soldiers,"
he said. "But there are costs, and what you see is a potential
problem on the horizon."
Gawande did not specify the number of surgeons he thought
the military should have in Iraq. He said there were several
indications, though, that the current level was insufficient.
With just 120 general surgeons on active duty, the Army has
been forced to use urologists, plastic surgeons and
cardiothoracic surgeons to perform general surgery on
soldiers in Iraq.
Many surgeons have been deployed for more than two years
in the Iraq campaign, and military planners are contemplating
pressing some to return, Gawande writes.
The physicians are working under difficult circumstances. In
many cases, the military has taken over Iraqi hospitals, and
the facilities are flooded with civilian patients whom the
Americans are unable to treat. With no clear directive from
the Pentagon on treating civilians, some physicians refuse
to help even pediatric patients out of fear the children could
be booby-trapped with bombs, Gawande writes.
Dr. Michael Kilpatrick, deputy director of deployment health
support with the Pentagon's Office of Health Affairs,
acknowledged that Army surgeons working in Iraq had
had to improvise in some cases and had been forced to work
outside their specialties in others. But he said the relatively
low number of deaths proved the system was working.
"There are certainly going to be times in any location where
the workload is going to exceed the personnel present,"
Kilpatrick said. "There are going to be some extremely long
hours at times."
But, he added, "the fact that they have responded as well as
they have speaks to the fact that they were well prepared.
You can't anticipate every eventuality. I think the training
and preparation that people had has stood them in good stead."
Detailing the nature of combat injuries and their
complications, Gawande says that blast injuries from
suicide bombs and land mines are up substantially in
recent months and have proved particularly difficult to
treat without risking infection. Eye injuries have caused
blindness among a "dismaying" number of soldiers, he
says.
Soldiers who survive the initial blasts and field treatment
are suffering at high rates from later complications, including
pulmonary embolisms (when a blood clot travels to the lungs)
and deep venous thrombosis (blood clots in the legs). Some
of those soldiers have died of the complications.
Army medical teams are also worried about what Gawande
calls an epidemic of multi-drug resistant bacterial infection
in military hospitals. Among 442 medical evacuees seen at
Walter Reed, 8.4% tested positive, a far higher rate than
previously seen among wounded troops.
Despite the challenges, Gawande credits nurses, anesthetists,
helicopter pilots, other transport staffers and a rethinking of
the combat medicine system for improvements in soldiers'
survival rates.
The system now focuses on damage control, not definitive
repair, Gawande writes. Field doctors carry "mini-hospitals"
in Humvees and field operating kits in backpacks so they
can move with troops and undertake surgery on the spot.
They limit surgery to two hours or less, often leaving temporary
closures and even plastic bags over wounds, and send soldiers
to one of several combat support hospitals in Iraq.
The strategy seems to be working, Gawande finds. Although
at least as many U.S. troops have been wounded in combat in
the Iraq war as in the first five years of Vietnam, 90% are
surviving, compared with 76% in Vietnam.
Other experts also have credited superior body armor and
equipment for improving combat injury survival. But the
survivors often have injuries so severe that their future
prospects are uncertain, Gawande writes.
One airman lost both legs, his right hand and part of his
face. "How he and others like him will be able to live and
function remains an open question," Gawande said.
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
10) Subject: Fw: Secret Patriot Act II to give Hitler's
Powers to Bush
This Act will mean that our founding fathers will get
their wish --a constitution without the Bill of Rights!
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:26:08 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: "Bob Nichols"
Details
To: "Bob Nichols"
Notice this interesting provision of the Intelligence Act they passed
yesterday.
"SECTION 202 allows corporations to keep secret their
activities with toxic biological, chemical or
radiological materials." [Emphasis added.]
in case you are thinking of investigating Halliburton
or Carlyle, here's this jem:
"SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all
their financial dealings secret, and anyone
investigating them can be considered a terrorist. This
should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop anyone
investigating Haliburton."
The act also included the so-called PATRIOT Act II.
Many would say we are now under Martial Law. The old
COINTEL-PRO is alive and well.
Bob
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=192635;article=4719;show_parent=1
Indybay
http://www.indybay.org/
Secret Patriot Act II to give Hitler's Powers to Bush
Wed Dec 8, 2004 2:11pm
Secret Patriot Act II to give Hitler's Powers to Bush
Indybay | November 17, 2004
Secret Patriot Act II to give Hitler's Powers to Bush that even
some Republicans are scared about:
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times
that no member of Congress was allowed to read the
first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on
October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was
universally decried by civil libertarians and
Constitutional SECRET PATscholars from across the
political spectrum. William Safire, while writing for
the New York Times, described the first Patriot Act's
powers by saying that President Bush was seizing
dictatorial control.
On February 7, 2003 the Center for Public Integrity, a
non-partisan public interest think-tank in DC,
revealed the full text of the Domestic Security
Enhancement Act of 2003. The classified document had
been leaked to them by an unnamed source inside the
Federal government. The document consisted of a
33-page section by section analysis of the
accompanying 87-page bill.
The Patriot Act II bill itself is stamped
"Confidential -Not for Distribution." Upon reading the
analysis and bill, I was stunned by the scientifically
crafted tyranny contained in the legislation. The
Justice Department Office of Legislative Affairs
admits that they had indeed covertly transmitted a
copy of the legislation to Speaker of the House Dennis
Hastert, (R-Il) and the Vice President of the United
States, Dick Cheney as well as the executive heads of
federal law enforcement agencies.
It is important to note that no member of Congress was
allowed to see the first Patriot Act before its
passage, and that no debate was tolerated by the House
and Senate leadership. The intentions of the White
House and Speaker Hastert concerning Patriot Act II
appear to be a carbon copy replay of the events that
led to the unprecedented passage of the first Patriot
Act.
There are two glaring areas that need to be looked at
concerning this new legislation:
1. The secretive tactics being used by the White House
and Speaker Hastert to keep even the existence of this
legislation secret would be more at home in Communist
China than in the United States. The fact that Dick
Cheney publicly managed the steamroller passage of the
first Patriot Act, insuring that no one was allowed to
read it and publicly threatening members of Congress
that if they didn?t vote in favor of it that they
would be blamed for the next terrorist attack, is by
the White House?' own definition terrorism. The move
to clandestinely craft and then bully passage of any
legislation by the Executive Branch is clearly an
impeachable offence.
2. The second Patriot Act is a mirror image of powers
that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves.
Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First,
Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously
damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot
Act reorganizes the entire Federal government as well
as many areas of state government under the
dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the
Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM
military command. The Domestic Security Enhancement
Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by
its very structure the definition of dictatorship.
I challenge all Americans to study the new Patriot Act
and to compare it to the Constitution, Bill of Rights
and Declaration of Independence. Ninety percent of the
act has nothing to do with terrorism and is instead a
giant Federal power-grab with tentacles reaching into
every facet of our society. It strips American
citizens of all of their rights and grants the
government and its private agents total immunity.
Here is a quick thumbnail sketch of just some of the
draconian measures encapsulated within this tyrannical
legislation:
SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the
Bush administration'?s enemy combatant definition to
all American citizens who may have violated any
provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act.
(Section 802 is the new definition of domestic
terrorism, and the definition is any action that
endangers human life that is a violation of any
Federal or State law. ) Section 501 of the second
Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the
same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that
the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA
Patriot Act isn?t broad enough and that a new,
unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.
Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful
activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown
into a van never to be seen again. The Justice
Department states that they can do this because the
person had inferred from conduct that they were not a
US citizen. Remember Section 802 of the First USA
Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or
State law can result in the enemy combatant terrorist
designation.
SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a
criminal act for any member of the government or any
citizen to release any information concerning the
incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also
states that law enforcement does not even have to tell
the press who they have arrested and they never have
to release the names.
SECTION 301 and 306 (Terrorist Identification
Database) set up a national database of suspected
terrorists and radically expand the database to
include anyone associated with suspected terrorist
groups and anyone involved in crimes or having
supported any group designated as terrorist. These
sections also set up a national DNA database for
anyone on probation or who has been on probation for
any crime, and orders State governments to collect the
DNA for the Federal government.
SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging
in spying operations against the American people and
would place substantial restrictions on court
injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights
across the board.
SECTION 101 will designate individual terrorists as
foreign powers and again strip them of all rights
under the enemy combatant designation.
SECTION 102 states clearly that any information
gathering, regardless of whether or not those
activities are illegal, can be considered to be
clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign
power. This makes news gathering illegal.
SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use
wartime martial law powers domestically and
internationally without Congress declaring that a
state of war exists.
SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its
straightforwardness. It states that broad general
warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret
judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes
in an undisclosed location) granted under the first
Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that
government agents must be given immunity for carrying
out searches with no prior court approval. This
section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
SECTION 109 allows secret star chamber courts to issue
contempt charges against any individual or corporation
who refuses to incriminate themselves or others. This
sections annihilate the last vestiges of the Fifth
Amendment.
SECTION 110 restates that key police state clauses in
the first Patriot Act were not sunsetted and removes
the five year sunset clause from other subsections of
the first Patriot Act. After all, the media has told
us: this is the New America. Get used to it. This is
forever.
SECTION 111 expands the definition of the enemy
combatant designation.
SECTION 122 restates the government?s newly announced
power of surveillance without a court order.
SECTION 123 restates that the government no longer
needs warrants and that the investigations can be a
giant dragnet-style sweep described in press reports
about the Total Information Awareness Network. One
passage reads, thus the focus of domestic surveillance
may be less precise than that directed against more
conventional types of crime.
SECTION 126 grants the government the right to mine
the entire spectrum of public and private sector
information from bank records to educational and
medical records. This is the enacting law to allow
ECHELON and the Total Information Awareness Network to
totally break down any and all walls of privacy.
The government states that they must look at
everything to determine if individuals or groups might
have a connection to terrorist groups. As you can now
see, you are guilty until proven innocent.
SECTION 127 allows the government to takeover
coroners? and medical examiners operations whenever
they see fit.
SECTION 128 allows the Federal government to place gag
orders on Federal and State Grand Juries and to take
over the proceedings. It also disallows individuals or
organizations to even try to quash a Federal subpoena.
So now defending yourself will be a terrorist action.
SECTION 129 destroys any remaining whistleblower
protection for Federal agents.
SECTION 202 allows corporations to keep secret their
activities with toxic biological, chemical or
radiological materials.
SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all
their financial dealings secret, and anyone
investigating them can be considered a terrorist. This
should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop anyone
investigating Haliburton.
SECTION 303 sets up national DNA database of suspected
terrorists. The database will also be used to stop
other unlawful activities. It will share the
information with state, local and foreign agencies for
the same purposes.
SECTION 311 federalizes your local police department
in the area of information sharing.
SECTION 313 provides liability protection for
businesses, especially big businesses that spy on
their customers for Homeland Security, violating their
privacy agreements. It goes on to say that these are
all preventative measures â?? has anyone seen Minority
Report? This is the access hub for the Total
Information Awareness Network.
SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on
the American people and to share information with
foreign governments.
SECTION 322 removes Congress from the extradition
process and allows officers of the Homeland Security
complex to extradite American citizens anywhere they
wish. It also allows Homeland Security to secretly
take individuals out of foreign countries.
SECTION 402 is titled Providing Material Support to
Terrorism. The section reads that there is no
requirement to show that the individual even had the
intent to aid terrorists.
SECTION 403 expands the definition of weapons of mass
destruction to include any activity that affects
interstate or foreign commerce.
SECTION 404 makes it a crime for a terrorist or other
criminals to use encryption in the commission of a
crime.
SECTION 408 creates lifetime parole (basically,
slavery) for a whole host of crimes.
SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for
anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports
terrorists. Remember: any crime is now considered
terrorism under the first Patriot Act.
SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by
death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first
Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or
support of terrorist act can result in the death
penalty.
SECTION 421 increases penalties for terrorist
financing. This section states that any type of
financial activity connected to terrorism will result
to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.
SECTIONS 427 sets up asset forfeiture provisions for
anyone engaging in terrorist activities.
There are many other sections that I did not cover in
the interest of time. The American people were shocked
by the despotic nature of the first Patriot Act. The
second Patriot Act dwarfs all police state legislation
in modern world history.
Usually, corrupt governments allow their citizens lots
of wonderful rights on paper, while carrying out their
jackbooted oppression covertly. From snatch and grab
operations to warantless searches, Patriot Act II is
an Adolf Hitler wish list.
You can understand why President Bush, Dick Cheney and
Dennis Hastert want to keep this legislation secret
not just from Congress, but the American people as
well. Bill Allison, Managing Editor of the Center for
Public Integrity, the group that broke this story,
stated on my radio show that it was obvious that they
were just waiting for another terrorist attack to
opportunistically get this new bill through. He then
shocked me with an insightful comment about how the
Federal government was crafting this so that they
could go after the American people in general. He also
agreed that the FBI has been quietly demonizing
patriots and Christians and those who carry around
pocket Constitutions.
I have produced two documentary films and written a
book about what really happened on September 11th. The
bottom line is this: the military-industrial complex
carried the attacks out as a pretext for control.
Anyone who doubts this just hasn?t looked at the
mountains of hard evidence.
Of course, the current group of white collar criminals
in the White House might not care that we?'re finding
out the details of their next phase. Because, after
all, when smallpox gets released, or more buildings
start blowing up, the President can stand up there at
his lectern suppressing a smirk, squeeze out a tear or
two, and tell us that See I was right. I had to take
away your rights to keep you safe. And now it?s your
fault that all of these children are dead. From that
point on, anyone who criticizes tyranny will be
shouted down by the paid talking head government
mouthpieces in the mainstream media.
You have to admit, it?s a beautiful script.
Unfortunately, it?s being played out in the real
world. If we don?t get the word out that government is
using terror to control our lives while doing nothing
to stop the terrorists, we will deserve what we get -
tyranny. But our children won?t deserve it.
HOW THE PATRIOT ACT COMPARES TO HITLER?S
ERMÄCHTIGUNGSGESETZ (ENABLING ACT):
At http://www.furnitureforthepeople.com/actpat.htm
you can read the following 4 Articles:
1) How the Patriot Act Compares to Hitler's
Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act)
2) A 21st Century Comparison of The Enabling Act and
The Patriot Act
3) Ten Key Dangers of The Patriot Act that Every
American Should Know
4) Bill Moyers' NOW Comments on the Patriot Act
~~Please tell your congress and senators to repeal the
Patriot Act and to throw out current legislation
advocating a second act.
Thank You, for your support!~~
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
11) Unicef laments state of world's children
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041209.wunicef1209/BNStory/Int
ernational/
"It said Millennium Development Goals, which aim to improve
the world through human development by 2015 and were
agreed to by the UN's 191 member states in 2000, could be
achieved at an annual cost of $40-billion to $70 billion. In
comparison, world spending on military in 2003 was $956-billion."
One can judge a society on how it treats its children. More wealth
is created today, than at any time in history, and yet half of the world
children live in poverty. How can anybody defend the capitalist system
with its wars upon humanity? The following poem was written during
the capitalism's "rise" during the "industrial revolution" in England.
"The golf links lie so near the mill
that almost every day
The laboring children can look out
And watch the men at play."
-- Sarah Norcliffe Cleghorn
In the present world starving children watch the rich eat.
Or as the Beatles Sang:
" You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon."
During this Christmas Season there wtll be no peace for
the world's masses.
Associated Press
POSTED AT 8:35 AM EST Thursday, Dec 9, 2004
London - More than half the world's children are suffering the
effects of poverty, war and HIV/AIDS, denying them a healthy
and safe childhood, Unicef's annual report said Thursday.
The United Nations children's fund report on The State of the
World's Children found more than one billion children are
growing up hungry and unhealthy, schools have become targets
for warring parties and whole villages are being killed off by AIDS.
A failure by governments around the world to live up to standards
outlined in 1989's Convention on the Rights of the Child caused
permanent damage to children and blocked progress toward
human rights and economic advancement, the report said.
"Too many governments are making informed, deliberate choices
that actually hurt childhood," Unicef executive director Carol
Bellamy said.
A day before the report's release, an editorial published in The
Lancet, the respected British medical journal, accused Ms. Bellamy
of neglecting issues of child survival while emphasizing the rights
of children.
"A preoccupation with rights ignores the fact that children will have
no opportunity for development at all unless they survive," said the
journal's editor, Richard Horton. "Child survival must sit at the core
of Unicef's advocacy and country work. Currently, and shamefully,
it does not."
Unicef spokesman Alfred Ironside said Mr. Horton ignored progress
made on child survival rates.
"Globally child deaths have fallen by 18 per cent since 1990," Ironside
said in London.
In his foreword to the report, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said
poverty denied children dignity and endangered their lives, conflict
robbed them of a secure family life and HIV/AIDS killed parents,
teachers, doctors and children themselves.
Compiled by Unicef and researchers at the London School of
Economics and Bristol University, the report found more than
half the children in developing countries lived in poverty without
access to basic goods and services.
It also said:
- One in six children was severely hungry.
- One in seven had no access to health care.
- One in five had no safe water.
- One in three had no toilet or sanitation facilities at home.
The report found 640 million children did not have adequate
shelter; 300 million had no access to information such as TV,
radio or newspapers and 140 million children, the majority of
them girls, had never been to school.
Poverty was not confined to developing countries, the report
said, as the proportion of children living in low-income
households in 11 of 15 industrialized nations rose in the
past decade.
More than 10 million child deaths were recorded in 2003,
with an estimated 29,158 children under 5 dying from
mostly preventable causes everyday.
Unicef reported that conflict round the world has seriously
injured or permanently disabled millions of children, while
millions more endure sexual violence, trauma, hunger and
disease caused by wars.
Nearly half of the 3.6 million people killed in conflict during
the 1990s were children and around 20 million children were
forced from their homes and communities by fighting.
Unicef said almost half a million children under 15 died of
AIDS in 2003, while another 630,000 children are infected
with HIV.
By 2003 some 2.1 million children under 15 were living with
HIV/AIDS, most of whom were infected during pregnancy, birth
or through breast-feeding.
From 2001 to 2003, the number of children who had lost one or
both parents to AIDS rose to 15 million from 11.5 million, and
about 80 per cent of those were living in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Unicef report said the world had the capacity to reduce
poverty, conflict and HIV/AIDS and improve the plight of the
world's children.
It said Millennium Development Goals, which aim to improve
the world through human development by 2015 and were
agreed to by the UN's 191 member states in 2000, could be
achieved at an annual cost of $40-billion to $70 billion. In
comparison, world spending on military in 2003 was $956-billion.
Ms. Bellamy said the quality of a child's life depends on decisions
made by the global community and the world's governments.
"We must make those decisions wisely and with children's best
interests in mind. If we fail to secure childhood, we fail to reach
our larger, global goals for human rights and economic
development," she said.
(c) 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.marxist.com/Globalisation/unicef_report_billion.htm
One billion children in extreme poverty: a holocaust on a world-scale
By Maarten Vanheuverswyn
UNICEF has just released its annual report, which reveals most
shocking figures. Almost one billion children all over the world
are denied at least one of seven commodities deemed essential:
shelter, water, sanitation, schooling, information, healthcare and
food. At least 640 million children lack adequate shelter, while
140 million have never been to school. Safe water is something
that 400 million children are denied while 500 million live without
basic sanitation. No less than 90 million starved.
As pointed out by UNICEF itself, these conditions in effect deny
them a childhood. More than one in six children are severely
hungry. One in seven has no access to healthcare at all.
"Too many governments are making informed, deliberate
choices that actually hurt childhood," said Carol Bellamy,
UNICEF director at the report launch in London. "When half
the world's children are growing up hungry and unhealthy,
when schools have become targets and whole villages are
being emptied by Aids, we've failed to deliver on the promise
of childhood."
War on the people
From the heart of Africa, where sectarian conflicts are raging
through one nation after another, to Latin America, where
hurricanes have ruined countless families, and Asia, where
floods and landslides have swept whole towns away, it is clear
that one group of people pays more than any other - the young
and the weak. Half a million children under 15 died of Aids last
year and 2.1 million children across the world live with HIV.
Fifteen million children have lost a parent to Aids - no less than
80 per cent of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa.
Perhaps the most shocking figure in the whole report is not on
the terrible conditions half of the world's children have to suffer.
It is the simple solution to this horror. Goals set by the UN in
2000 to lift poverty across the globe could be achieved at a cost
of just £52 billion. That may seem a big amount of money but it
could be raised in a matter of minutes. Last year, globally £712
billion was spent on weapons. Precisely these guns, mortars, mines
and shells are maintaining the present catastrophe, with dirty wars
all over the globe.
Indeed, the major factor that keeps more than a billion children in
a state of poverty is war. And as usual in our "best of possible
worlds", these wars are fought over material interests, i.e. natural
resources such as diamonds, oil and coltan. Ever heard of coltan?
It is a mineral used in mobile phones, mined in Africa and exported
to the West. According to the UNICEF report, about half of the 3.6
million people killed in wars since 1990 were children. Millions
more have been displaced by wars and forced to become child
soldiers.
Incidentally, today it was also reported that six years of conflict
in the Congo have claimed 3.8 million lives - half of them children
- with most victims killed by disease and famine. More than 31,000
civilians die each month as a result of the conflict, the International
Rescue Committee reported, citing mortality surveys prepared with
the aid of on-site medical teams.
As Carol Bellamy from UNICEF pointed out, "Poverty doesn't come
from nowhere; war doesn't emerge from nothing; Aids doesn't
spread by its own choice. These are our choices... What we are
saying in this report is that choices made by political leaders in
many cases are very often negative when it comes to children."
The report further stated that, "bridging the gap between the 'ideal
childhood' and 'reality' experienced by half the world's children is
possible by adopting a human rights based-approach to social and
economic development with special emphasis on reaching out to
the most vulnerable." The questions remains, of course, what the
vague "human rights based-approach" is supposed to mean. What
is certain is that it won't be the approach of the Bushes and Blairs
of this world. They were caught in a scandal involving torture in Iraq
and Guantanamo Bay. They are the ones who hypocritically talk about
combating Aids while squeezing the African continent and the Middle
East with their divide and rule policies. Darfur is only one of the latest
examples of this game.
As a side note, "The State of the World's Children 2005" also stated
that even children in better off countries were victims of rising poverty
rates. In 11 of 15 industrialized nations, the proportion of children
living in low-income households over the last decade has risen.
This list includes Austria, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and
Poland, where children living in poverty rose to 16.6 percent of all
children in the late 1990s and early 2000s from the 14.0 percent
it had been a decade earlier. The crisis does not only affect the ex
-colonial world - it is a global problem.
Charity or structural solutions?
Today's Independent reports that 21,297 pounds were raised by
its readers to help the sick and the poor in the Third World. Similar
campaigns are being held all over the world, raising considerable
amounts of money. This shows that a great lot of people do care
about the current state of affairs in the world. It proves that all the
talk about "inherently evil human beings" is nonsense. Human
beings don't live in a vacuum but are social beings. They are
embedded in a social context and will act accordingly. Workers
may go on strike in solidarity with a sacked workmate; people
appalled by the news they see on their TV screens every day
may give something to a charity; and most of the people will
simply try to survive and "get on with life" thinking it is not in
their power to do anything.
On the other hand, terrible living conditions will create atrocious
reactions. That is why next to generous donations on the part of
well-meaning people (apart from those like Bill Gates who give
a tiny fraction of their wealth to brush up their image) and solidarity
in general, we see the other side of the coin, i.e. that humans in
certain conditions are indeed capable of committing horrible
atrocities, not in the least in the proxy wars in the so-called
Third World. There we see the ugly face of barbarism that is
threatening the whole of the planet.
In that sense, giving money to a particular cause should be seen
as a will to change society. Having said that, we must point out
that while charity may temporarily alleviate some suffering, in
reality this relief is nothing compared to the big needs of the sick
and the poor on this planet. It is not enough to do something
"concretely here and now". For every child that is put into a charity
programme, many others are dying at the same time from starvation.
The tasks are far bigger. For example, can charity prevent the
butchery in the Congo? No, it cannot. At most it can alleviate
a small part of the mess that has been created after the damage
has been done. Rwanda, where a million people were killed in
1994, is a tragic case in point.
Capitalism is the name of the game
First of all we need to start from a clear analysis of the situation.
Why is it that 1.2 billion people are living on 1 dollar a day and
3 billion on 2 dollars a day? (World Bank figures) Utter reactionaries
claim African people are inherently incapable of developing their
countries. This racist argument is just not serious. Other people
claim that the poor in the world should be patient and simply
need to follow the example of the West. In the West itself, the
argument goes, it also took a hundred years to achieve
reasonable wages, social security and the welfare state in general.
What they don't explain is that in the last century for each of
these achievements a bitter struggle had to be waged. These
reforms were achieved only through class struggle. It was also
achieved in a period of world economic boom. The pressure of
the revolutionary waves that followed the First and Second World
War were decisive factors in this progress. After the First World
War there were revolutions in Russia, Germany and other countries,
which terrified the capitalists. They were afraid of a general revolt
against their oppressive regimes, in which they risked losing
everything. With their backs against the wall, they were forced
to give concessions to the working class in the industrialised
countries.
However, that was not the end of the story. As a compensation
for these reforms, the exploitation of the colonies was intensified.
After the Second World War this trend was pushed through even
more in order to avoid revolution in the West. The capitalist
system can only survive by maintaining exploitation, oppression
and inequality in a great part of the world. Within the so-called
"free market" system Africa cannot reach the living standards
of the West. It is clear that the way forward is not the capitalist
road. We need to look further than the narrow perspective
offered by most Third World organisations.
The tactics of most NGOs and charity organisations won't ever
solve the fundamental contradictions in society. For example,
while in Latin America one revolution after another sweeps the
continent, most NGOs propose to create yet another small
cooperative or install an extra well. While the people try to
overthrow the present regimes, they propose to set up Western
style trade unions or to "democratise" their governments.
They forget that these governments only serve the rich and survive
thanks to the big landowners and American imperialism in particular.
They forget that most Western trade unions have long abandoned
the struggle for a better world and only adopt policies of softening
serious conflicts with the bosses or government. Thereby they
neglect the fact that bourgeois democracies and the state are
not neutral but are there to serve capital.
The bleak picture in the whole ex-colonial world contrasts
sharply with the promises on children's rights about a healthy
and protected life, as laid out in the 1989 UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child. This latest report on these terrible
conditions is only one more condemnation of the present system.
It shows how futile the empty words of all bourgeois politicians
are. In spite of their hollow promises (Kyoto, Aids, world poverty),
they are not interested in solving these burning questions.
Instead they continue their imperialist wars under the fig leaf
of democracy and the "war on terror". But what about this war
on the people? In a world with an abundance of resources,
tens of thousands of people are dying on a daily basis. What
else is this than a new, permanent holocaust?
It is important to understand that there is a method in the
madness. These kinds of problems won't simply go away by
adding another drop in the ocean. Structural problems demand
structural solutions. They require a radical change in the present
economic system.
We cannot solve these fundamental problems by adopting
temporary, superficial remedies. We can have a charitable
approach, but then a new war breaks out. More people are
killed, more basic infrastructure is destroyed. The work of a
hundred charities can be undone by one small war.
Wars take place under capitalism because they are terribly
profitable. To put an end to this nightmare it is necessary to
destroy the very system that causes the wars, the hunger, the
poverty. That system is called capitalism. It must be overthrown.
That is what Marxists fight for systematically in every corner of
the labour movement nationally and internationally.
Join us!
December 10, 2004.
used to be a fact'ry hand
when things were movin' slow
When children worked in cotton mills;
each mornin' had to go.
Ev'ry mornin' just at five
the whistle blew on time
To get those babies out of bed
at the age of eight or nine.
Get out of bed little sleepy head and get
your bite to eat.
The fact'ry whistle's callin' you;
There's no more time to sleep.
The children all grew up unlearned;
they never went to school.
They never learned to read or write;
they learned to spin and spool.
Every time I close my eyes
I see before me still.
What textile work was carried out
by Babies in the Mill.
-Lyrics to "Babies in the Mill"
by Dorsey Dixon
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
12) U.S. Soldiers' Grilling Fields
By Tim Harper
The Toronto Star
More talk heard of desertion, disgruntlement.
`Backdoor draft' adding to worries for some troops.
Sunday 12 December 2004
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121304X.shtml
WASHINGTON - David Qualls reluctantly
returned to Iraq yesterday, but not
before he made a louder statement
about the state of U.S. troop morale than
any of the pointed questions from
soldiers to Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld this week.
Qualls, an army specialist from Morrilton,
Ark., and seven other soldiers who
have remained nameless, have sued the
Pentagon, claiming they are improperly
being kept in Iraq beyond their agreed tour of duty.
It is a burgeoning problem for Rumsfeld
and the Bush administration because
more and more soldiers in Iraq are
questioning the rationale for their mission,
the way in which they have been equipped
and how long they've been deployed.
In so doing, they are shining new light on
the price being paid for what is
widely seen as inadequate war planning
and piecemeal responses as U.S. troops
battle an insurgency better armed and
more determined than any scenario drawn
up.
As the U.S. death toll in Iraq tops 1,270
and the looming Christmas season
only magnifies the frustration of families
at home, stories of desertions and
disgruntled troops began dominating the airwaves.
There was the now-famous grilling of
Rumsfeld by troops stationed in Kuwait,
who challenged him on a lack of armoured
vehicles, lengthened deployments, antiquated
equipment and unpaid benefits.
The Toronto case of Jeremy Hinzman,
a 26-year-old South Dakotan who said he
fled to Canada instead of deploying to Iraq
after realizing he could not kill
another human being, was given
prominence in many U.S. media outlets.
A navy petty officer is at large and been
declared a deserter after refusing
to board a troop transport ship in
San Diego, bound for Iraq.
"I just couldn't sleep at night knowing
that I took 3,000 people to a
place where 100 of them might die,"
23-year-old Pablo Paredes told National
Public Radio.
The U.S. Army wants to prosecute First
Lt. Julian P. Goodrum of Knoxville,
Tenn., for being away without leave
(AWOL) after the 34-year-old, 16-year military
veteran checked himself into a civilian
psychiatric hospital, claiming he was
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
The mysterious case of Cpl. Wassef Ali
Hassoun, a 24-year-old Lebanese-born
U.S. Marine who disappeared from his
camp near Falluja last summer, led to a
charge of desertion this week.
Dan Felushko, a 24-year-old marine,
told the CBS program 60 Minutes this week
that he left Camp Pendleton, Calif., and came
to Canada rather than Kuwait,
because he felt it would have been
wrong to fight.
"I didn't want, you know, `died
deluded in Iraq' over my gravestone,"
he said.
According to the CBS program, some
5,000 American men and women have deserted
the military since the war began. They are largely accused of
cowardice back home, but they say they are acting
out of conscience.
Some say they saw no link between the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the Iraq
war, others lost faith when it became
clear there were no weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq.
Many who remain are clearly becoming disillusioned.
Erik Leaver, of the liberal Institute
for Policy Studies, said this week's
confrontation in Kuwait show many
soldiers believe Washington is not
being straight with them.
"This is not a well-articulated mission,"
Leaver said. "More
and more we are hearing from military
families that their sons or daughters
are coming home on leave and saying,
`Mom, I don't know what I'm doing over
there.' The soldiers on the front lines there
understand U.S. policy is not
working."
Leaver said the shortage of armoured
vehicles, coming on the heels of last
year's controversy over a lack of body
armour, is particularly distressing because
this a war of choice for the Bush administration,
which determined its timing
and still did not prepare properly.
The Qualls case focused attention again
on a program known officially as
"stop-loss,"but is more popularly
known on the home front as a "backdoor
draft."
Many believe the program, which
allows the Pentagon to extend
voluntary deployments in time
of war or national emergency, is
the single most morale-damaging
program in place.
The Pentagon is not forthcoming on
how many soldiers will have their stays
extended, but many estimate it could
affect 40,000 to 47,000 soldiers, both
regular service and reservists - about
a third of the 150,000 Americans
who will be in Iraq for the run-up
to scheduled Jan. 30 elections.
Republican Senator John McCain of
Arizona, who appears to be mulling another
presidential run in 2008, this week
called the stop-loss program the single
most damaging morale issue for the
military and pointed the finger of blame
at an ill-prepared Pentagon.
"It just adds another layer of stress to
families left at home who are
not able to plan moves, or enrol kids
in school," says Michelle Joyner
of the National Military Families
Association, a support group for those with
loved ones in Iraq.
Joyner, whose brother, Adam Smith,
is serving in Iraq, said her group has fielded
calls from families who lost college tuition
deposits or are having difficulty
getting straight answers from units as to
when their family members could be
expected to return.
"It forces some families to live day to
day without being able to plan
for the future," she said. "If you
can't get clear answers,
it just feeds gossip and increases
stress. So when we get some calls from families,
we simply have to tell them there are some
questions for which we have no answer."
Many of those raising questions, like
Qualls, are older and more experienced.
About 45 per cent of the 138,000 troops
now on the ground in Iraq are drawn
from the U.S. Reserve and National Guard
and tend to be less deferential to
authority than younger active duty troops.
The 35-year-old Qualls failed in his
attempt to win a court injunction keeping
him in the U.S. until his lawsuit could be heard.
He left Camp Taji about 24 kilometres
north of Baghdad last month and returned
to Arkansas for U.S. Thanksgiving.
He first enlisted in the army in 1986.
He was on active duty until 1990 and
then was a member of the Individual Ready
Reserves before leaving the military in 1994.
In July 2003, Qualls entered the service
again, under an Army National Guard
policy known as Try One, which allows
veterans to serve for only one year on
a trial basis before committing to a full
enlistment, according to the lawsuit.
Qualls was deployed to Iraq in March but
has been told his stay will be extended.
The news for those who have come home
is equally bleak.
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans
reported this week that Iraqi war veterans
are beginning to show up at shelters in California,
raising fears of a repeat of the generation of homeless Vietnam vets.
And another study released in the New
England Journal of Medicine this week
showed medical advances have saved the
lives of many soldiers in Iraq who would
have died in previous wars. However, many
of the 10,300 soldiers wounded so
far are attempting to re-integrate into
their country with much more horrific
and debilitating injuries than veterans of
any other previous war.
Meanwhile, the death toll mounts. Death
dropped in this reporter's in-box three
times during the writing of this story.
The Pentagon confirmed the deaths of
Sgt. Arthur C. Williams, IV, 31, of Edgewater,
Fla.; Capt. Mark N. Stubenhofer, 30, of
Springfield, Va.; and Sgt. 1st Class
Todd C. Gibbs, 37, of Angelina, Texas.
They came by way of separate e-mails
that drop with such numbing regularity,
they are often treated as spam - unless
you remind yourself that three
more families have paid the ultimate price.
(c) Copyright 2004 by TruthOut.org
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
13) People vs. Empire
Only global resistance from below can counter
repressive states
By Arundhati Roy
December 7, 2004
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/print/1740/
In India, the word public is now a Hindi word. It means people.
In Hindi, we have sarkar and public , the government and the
people. Inherent in this use is the underlying assumption that
the government is quite separate from "the people." However,
as you make your way up India's complex social ladder, the
distinction between sarkar and public gets blurred. The Indian
elite, like the elite anywhere in the world, finds it hard to
separate itself from the state.
In the United States, on the other hand, the blurring of this
distinction between sarkar and public has penetrated far
deeper into society. This could be a sign of robust democracy,
but unfortunately it's a little more complicated and less pretty
than that. Among other things, it has to do with the elaborate
web of paranoia generated by the U.S. sarkar and spun out by
the corporate media and Hollywood. Ordinary people in the
United States have been manipulated into imagining they are
a people under siege whose sole refuge and protector is their
government. If it isn't the Communists, it's al Qaeda. If it isn't
Cuba, it's Nicaragua. As a result, the most powerful nation in
the world is peopled by a terrified citizenry jumping at shadows.
A people bonded to the state not by social services, or public
health care, or employment guarantees, but by fear.
This synthetically manufactured fear is used to gain public
sanction for further acts of aggression. And so it goes,
building into a spiral of self-fulfilling hysteria, now formally
calibrated by the U.S government's Amazing Technicolored
Terror Alerts: fuchsia, turquoise, salmon pink.
To outside observers, this merging of sarkar and public in
the United States sometimes makes it hard to separate the
actions of the government from the people. Such confusion
fuels anti-Americanism in the world-anti-Americanism that
is seized upon and amplified by the U.S. government and its
faithful media outlets. You know the routine: "Why do they
hate us? They hate our freedoms," et cetera. This enhances
the U.S. people's sense of isolation, making the embrace
between sarkar and public even more intimate.
Over the last few years, the "war on terrorism" has mutated into
the more generic "war on terror." Using the threat of an external
enemy to rally people behind you is a tired old horse that politicians
have ridden into power for centuries. But could it be that ordinary
people, fed up with that poor old horse, are looking for something
different? Before Washington's illegal invasion of Iraq, a Gallup
International poll showed that in no European country was support
for a unilateral war higher than 11 percent. On February 15, 2003,
weeks before the invasion, more than 10 million people marched
against the war on different continents, including North America.
And yet the governments of many supposedly democratic
countries still went to war.
We must question then: Is "democracy" still democratic? Are
democratic governments accountable to the people who elected
them? And, critically, is the public in democratic countries
responsible for the actions of its sarkar?
If you think about it, the logic that underlies the war on terror
and the logic that underlies terrorism are exactly the same. Both
make ordinary citizens pay for the actions of their government.
Al Qaeda made the people of the United States pay with their lives
for the actions of their government in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq
and Afghanistan. The U.S. government has made the people of
Afghanistan pay in the thousands for the actions of the Taliban
and the people of Iraq pay in the hundreds of thousands for the
actions of Saddam Hussein. Whose God decides which is a "just
war" and which isn't? George Bush senior once said: "I will never
apologize for the United States. I don't care what the facts are."
When the president of the most powerful country in the world
doesn't need to care what the facts are, then we can be sure we
have entered the Age of Empire.
Real choices
So what does public power mean in the Age of Empire? Does it
mean anything at all? Does it actually exist? In these allegedly
democratic times, conventional political thought holds that public
power is exercised through the ballot. People in scores of countries
around the world will go to the polls this year. Most (not all) of
them will get the governments they vote for. But will they get
the governments they want?
In India this year, we voted the Hindu nationalists of the BJP out
of office. But even as we celebrated, we knew that on nuclear bombs,
neoliberalism, privatization, censorship, big dams-on every major
issue other than overt Hindu nationalism-the Congress and the BJP
have no major ideological differences. We know that it is the 50-year
legacy of the Congress Party that prepared the ground culturally
and politically for the far right.
And what of the U.S. elections? Did U.S. voters have a real choice?
The U.S. political system has been carefully crafted to ensure that
no one who questions the natural goodness of the military-industrial
corporate structure will be allowed through the portals of power.
Given this, it's no surprise that in this election you had two Yale
University graduates, both members of Skull and Bones, the same
secret society, both millionaires, both playing at soldier-solider,
both talking up war, and arguing almost childishly about who would
lead the war on terror more effectively. It's not a real choice. It's an
apparent choice. Like choosing a brand of detergent. Whether you
buy Ivory Snow or Tide, they're both owned by Procter & Gamble.
The fact is that electoral democracy has become a process of
cynical manipulation. It offers us a very reduced political space
today. To believe that this space constitutes real choice would be
naive. The crisis of modern democracy is a profound one. Free
elections, a free press and an independent judiciary mean little
when the free market has reduced them to commodities available
on sale to the highest bidder.
On the global stage, beyond the jurisdiction of sovereign governments,
international instruments of trade and finance oversee a complex web
of multilateral laws and agreements that have entrenched a system
of appropriation that puts colonialism to shame. This system allows
the unrestricted entry and exit of massive amounts of speculative
capital into and out of Third World countries, which then effectively
dictates their economic policy. Using the threat of capital flight as
a lever, international capital insinuates itself deeper and deeper into
these economies. Giant transnational corporations are taking control
of their essential infrastructure and natural resources, their minerals,
their water, their electricity. The World Trade Organization, the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other financial institutions,
like the Asian Development Bank, virtually write economic policy and
parliamentary legislation. With a deadly combination of arrogance and
ruthlessness, they take their sledgehammers to fragile, interdependent,
historically complex societies, and devastate them, all under the
fluttering banner of "reform." As a consequence of such reform,
thousands of small enterprises and industries have closed; millions
of workers and farmers have lost their jobs and land.
Once the free market controls the economies of the Third World they
become enmeshed in an elaborate, carefully calibrated system of
economic inequality. Western countries flood the markets of poorer
nations with their subsidized agricultural goods and other products
with which local producers cannot possibly compete. Countries that
have been plundered by colonizing regimes are steeped in debt to
these same powers, and have to repay them at the rate of about
$382 billion a year. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer-
not accidentally, but by design .
To put a vulgar point on all of this, the combined wealth of the
world's billionaires in 2004 (587 "individuals and family units"),
according to Forbes magazine, is $1.9 trillion-more than the
gross domestic product of the world's 135 poorest countries
combined. The good news is that there are 111 more billionaires
this year than there were in 2003.
Modern democracy is safely premised on an almost religious
acceptance of the nation state. But corporate globalization is not.
Liquid capital is not. So even though capital needs the coercive
powers of the nation state to put down revolts in the servants'
quarters, this setup ensures that no individual nation can oppose
corporate globalization on its own.
Public power
Radical change cannot and will not be negotiated by governments;
it can only be enforced by people. By the public . A public that can
link hands across national borders. A public that disagrees with the
very concept of empire. A public that has set itself against the
governments and institutions that support and service Empire.
Empire has a range of calling cards. It uses different weapons to
break open different markets. There's no country on God's earth
that isn't caught in the crosshairs of the U.S. cruise missile and the
IMF checkbook. For poor people in many countries, Empire does
not always appear in the form of cruise missiles and tanks, as it
has in Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam. It appears in their lives in
very local avatars-losing their jobs, being sent unpayable electricity
bills, having their water supply cut, being evicted from their homes
and uprooted from their land. It is a process of relentless
impoverishment with which the poor are historically familiar.
What Empire does is further entrench and exacerbate already
existing inequalities.
Until quite recently, it was sometimes difficult for people to see
themselves as victims of Empire. But now, local struggles have
begun to see their role with increasing clarity. However grand it
might sound, the fact is, they are confronting Empire in their
own, very different ways. Differently in Iraq, in South Africa, in
India, in Argentina, and differently, for that matter, on the
streets of Europe and the United States.
Mass resistance movements, individual activists, journalists,
artists and film makers have come together to strip Empire of its
sheen. They have connected the dots, turned cash-flow charts
and boardroom speeches into real stories about real people and
real despair. They have shown how the neoliberal project has cost
people their homes, their land, their jobs, their liberty, their
dignity. they have made the intangible tangible. The once
seemingly incorporeal enemy is now corporeal.
This is a huge victory. It was forged by the coming together of
disparate political groups, with a variety of stratigies. But they
all recognized that the target of their anger, their activism and
their doggedness is the same. This was the beginning of real
globalization. The globalization of dissent.
Meanwhile, the rift between rich and poor is being driven deeper
and the battle to control the world's resources intensifies.
Economic colonialism through formal military aggression is
staging a comeback.
Iraq today is a tragic illustration of this process. The illegal
invasion. The brutal occupation in the name of liberation. The
rewriting of laws to allow the shameless appropriation of the
country's wealth and resources by corporations allied to the
occupation. And now the charade of a sovereign "Iraqi government."
The Iraqi resistance is fighting on the frontlines of the battle against
Empire. And therefore that battle is our battle. Before we prescribe
how a pristine Iraqi resistance must conduct a secular, feminist,
democratic, non-violent battle, we should shore up our end
of the resistance by forcing the U.S. government and its allies
to withdraw from Iraq.
Resistance across borders
The first militant confrontation in the United States between
the global justice movement and the neoliberal junta took place
at the WTO conference in Seattle in December 1999. To many
mass movements in developing countries that had long been
fighting lonely, isolated battles, Seattle was the first delightful
sign that people in imperialist countries shared their anger and
their vision of another kind of world. As resistance movements
have begun to reach out across national borders and pose a real
threat, governments have developed their own strategies for
dealing with them, ranging from co-optation to repression.
Three contemporary dangers confront resistance movements:
the difficult meeting point between mass movements and the
mass media, the hazards of the NGO-ization of resistance, and
the confrontation between resistance movements and increasingly
repressive states.
The place in which the mass media meets mass movements is
a complicated one. Governments have learned that a crisis-driven
media cannot afford to hang about in the same place for too long.
Just as a business needs cash turnover, the media need crisis
turnover. Whole countries become old news, and cease to exist,
and the darkness becomes deeper than before the light was
briefly shone on them.
While governments hone the art of waiting out crises, resistance
movements are increasingly ensnared in a vortex of crisis
production that seeks to find ways of manufacturing them in
easily consumable, spectator-friendly formats. For this reason,
starvation deaths are more effective at publicizing impoverishment
than malnourished people in the millions.
The disturbing thing nowadays is that resistance as spectacle has
cut loose from its origins in genuine civil disobedience and is
becoming more symbolic than real. Colorful demonstrations and
weekend marches are fun and vital, but alone they are not powerful
enough to stop wars. Wars will be stopped only when soldiers refuse
to fight, when workers refuse to load weapons onto ships and aircraft,
when people boycott the economic outposts of Empire that are
strung across the globe.
If we want to reclaim the space for civil disobedience, we must
liberate ourselves from the tyranny of crisis reportage and its fear
of the mundane. We must use our experience, our imagination and
our art to interrogate those instruments of state that ensure
"normality" remains what it is: cruel, unjust, unacceptable. We
must expose the policies and processes that make ordinary
things-food, water, shelter and dignity-such a distant dream for
ordinary people. The real preemptive strike is to understand that
wars are the end result of a flawed and unjust peace.
For mass resistance movements, no amount of media coverage
can make up for strength on the ground. There is no alternative,
really, to old-fashioned, back-breaking political mobilization.
NGO-ization
A second hazard facing mass movements is the NGO-ization
of resistance. Some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) of
course do valuable work, but it's important to consider the NGO
phenomenon in a broader political context.
Most large, well-funded NGOs are financed and patronized by
aid and development agencies, which are in turn funded by Western
governments, the World Bank, the United Nations and some
multinational corporations. Though they may not be the very same
agencies, they are certainly part of the same loose political
formation that oversees the neoliberal project and demands
the slash in government spending in the first place.
Why should these agencies fund NGOs? Could it be just old-
fashioned missionary zeal? NGOs give the impression that they
are filling the vacuum created by a retreating state. And they are,
but in a materially inconsequential way. Their real contribution is
that they defuse political anger and dole out as aid or benevolence
what people ought to have by right. They alter the public psyche,
they turn people into dependent victims and they blunt the edges
of political resistance. NGOs form a sort of buffer between the
sarkar and public . Between Empire and its subjects. They have
become the arbitrators, the interpreters, the facilitators of the
discourse-the secular missionaries of the modern world.
Eventually-on a smaller scale, but more insidiously-the capital
available to NGOs plays the same role in alternative politics as
the speculative capital that flows in and out of the economies
of poor countries. It begins to dictate the agenda, turning
confrontation into negotiation and depoliticizing resistance.
The cost of violence
This brings us to a third danger: the deadly nature of the actual
confrontation between resistance movements and increasingly
repressive states. Between public power and the agents of Empire.
Whenever civil resistance has shown the slightest signs of
evolving from symbolic action into anything remotely threatening,
the crackdown is merciless. We've seen what happened to the
demonstrators in Seattle, in Miami, in Gothenburg, in Genoa.
In the United States, you have the USA PATRIOT Act, which has
become a blueprint for antiterrorism laws passed by governments
around the world. Freedoms are being curbed in the name of
protecting freedom. And once we surrender our freedoms, to
win them back will take a revolution.
One does not endorse the violence of militant groups. Neither
morally nor strategically. But to condemn it without first
denouncing the much greater violence perpetrated by the state
would be to deny the people of these regions not just their basic
human rights, but even the right to a fair hearing. People who
have lived in situations of conflict know that militancy and armed
struggle provokes a massive escalation of violence from the state.
But living as they do, in situations of unbearable injustice, can they
remain silent forever?
No discussion taking place in the world today is more crucial than
the debate about strategies of resistance. And the choice of strategy
is not entirely in the hands of the public . It is also in the hands of
sarkar .
In this restive, despairing time, if governments do not do all they
can to honor nonviolent resistance, then by default they privilege
those who turn to violence. No government's condemnation of
terrorism is credible if it cannot show itself to be open to change
by nonviolent dissent. Instead, today, nonviolent resistance
movements are being crushed, bought off or simply ignored.
Meanwhile, governments and the corporate media (and let's
not forget the film industry) lavish their time, attention, funds,
technology and research on war and terrorism. Violence has
been deified. The message this sends is disturbing and dangerous:
If you seek to air a public grievance, violence is more effective
than nonviolence.
The U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq-mostly volunteers in a poverty
draft from small towns and poor urban neighborhoods-are victims,
just as much as the Iraqis, of the same horrendous process that
asks them to die for a victory that will never be theirs.
The mandarins of the corporate world, the CEOs, the bankers,
the politicians, the judges and generals look down on us from
on high and shake their heads sternly. "There's no alternative,"
they say, and let slip the dogs of war.
Then, from the ruins of Afghanistan, from the rubble of Iraq and
Chechnya, from the streets of occupied Palestine and the
mountains of Kashmir, from the hills and plains of Colombia,
and the forests of Andhra Pradesh and Assam, comes the chilling
reply: "There's no alternative but terrorism." Terrorism. Armed
struggle. Insurgency. Call it what you want.
Terrorism is vicious, ugly and dehumanizing for its perpetrators
as well as its victims. But so is war. You could say that terrorism
is the privatization of war. Terrorists are the free marketers of war.
They are people who don't believe that the state has a monopoly
on the legitimate use of violence.
Of course, there is an alternative to terrorism. It's called justice.
It's time to recognize that no amount of nuclear weapons, or
full-spectrum dominance, or "daisy cutters" or spurious governing
councils and loya girgas can buy peace at the cost of justice.
The urge for hegemony and preponderance by some will be
matched with greater intensity by the longing for dignity and
justice by others. Exactly what form that battle takes, whether
it's beautiful or bloodthirsty, depends on us.
Arundhati Roy is the author of The God of Small Things, a novel
for which she won the Booker Prize in 1997.
IN THESE TIMES
Please consider subscribing to the print edition and supporting
independent media: http://www.inthesetimes.com/subscribe/
This article is permanently archived at:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1740/
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
14) Subject: HE COMMITTED SUICIDE? YEAH. RIGHT.
gary hicks
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:08:40 -0800 (PST)
From: gary hicks
To: newmajority announce
THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Gary Webb, at 49; wrote series linking CIA to cocaine sales
By Nita Lelyveld and Steve Hymon, Los Angeles Times | December 13, 2004
LOS ANGELES -- Gary Webb, an investigative reporter who wrote
a widely criticized series linking the CIA to the explosion of crack
cocaine in Los Angeles, was found dead in his northern California
home Friday. He apparently killed himself, authorities said.
According to the Sacramento County coroner's office, Mr. Webb, 49,
had a gunshot wound to the head.
His 1996 San Jose Mercury News series contended that Nicaraguan
drug traffickers had sold tons of crack cocaine from Colombian
cartels in Los Angeles's black neighborhoods and funneled millions
in profits back to the CIA-supported Nicaraguan Contras.
Three months after the series was published, the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department said it conducted an exhaustive investigation
and found no evidence of a connection between the CIA and
southern California drug traffickers.
Major newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, The New
York Times, and the Washington Post, wrote reports discrediting
elements of Webb's reporting. The Los Angeles Times report looked
into Mr. Webb's charges ''that a CIA-related drug ring sent 'millions'
of dollars to the Contras; that it launched an epidemic of cocaine use
in South-Central Los Angeles and America's other inner cities; and
that the agency either approved the scheme or deliberately turned
a blind eye."
''But the available evidence, based on an extensive review of court
documents and more than 100 interviews in San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Washington and Managua, fails to support any of those allegations,"
the Los Angeles Times reported.
Months later, the Mercury News also backed away from the
series, publishing an open letter to its readers, admitting to flaws.
''We oversimplified the complex issue of how the crack epidemic
in America grew," wrote the paper's executive editor, Jerry Ceppos,
adding, ''I believe that we fell short at every step of our process
-- in the writing, editing and production of our work."
The paper reassigned Mr. Webb to a suburban bureau. In December
1997, he quit.
''All he ever wanted to do was write," said Mr. Webb's former
wife, Susan Bell, who met him when they were high school students
in Indiana. ''He never really recovered from it."
Mr. Webb was born in Corona to a military family and moved around
the country throughout his youth. He dropped out of journalism
School just before graduating to accept his first newspaper job at
the Kentucky Post, then went to The Cleveland Plain Dealer and
The Mercury News.
Within two years of arriving at The Mercury News, Mr. Webb was
part of a team that won the Pulitzer Prize in 1990 for coverage of
a San Francisco-area earthquake.
Mr. Webb continued to defend his reporting, most notably in
a 548-page book, ''Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the
Crack Cocaine Explosion," published in 1999.
After leaving The Mercury News, Mr. Webb worked in state
government, including the Joint Legislative Audit Committee's
investigation into then-Governor Gray Davis's controversial
award of a $95 million, no-bid contract to Oracle in 2001.
''The guy had a fierce commitment to justice and truth. He
cared deeply about the people who are forgotten, that we try
to shove into the dark recesses of our minds and world," said
Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for the California attorney general's
office who worked with Mr. Webb on the Oracle investigation.
Mr. Webb's career remained troubled. While working for another
legislative committee in Sacramento, he wrote a report accusing
the California Highway Patrol of unofficially condoning and even
encouraging racial profiling in its drug interdiction program.
Legislative officials released the report in 1999 but cautioned that
it was based mainly on assumptions and anecdotes. Earlier this
year, Mr. Webb was one of a group of employees fired from the
Assembly speaker's Office of Member Services for failing to
show up for work.
(c) Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
No comments:
Post a Comment