BAUAW NEWSLETTER-SATURDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2004

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
END THE U.S. OCCUPATION OF IRAQ!
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW!
MARCH AND RALLY TO STOP THE WAR NOW!
WEDNESDAY, NOV. 3RD, 5PM
POWELL AND MARKET-MARCH TO 24TH & MISSION ST., S.F.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
VOTE YES ON N! MEETING THURSDAY, OCT. 28, 7PM,
GLOBAL EXCHANGE, 2017 MISSION STREET, SUITE 303
(NEAR 16TH & MISSION STREETS)
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
NEXT BAUAW MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 7 P.M.
1380 VALENCIA STREET
(BETWEEN 24TH & 25TH STREETS)

Dear All,

One thing is for sure, the war is not over and a new, massive
Offensive against the people of Iraq is about to begin-right
after the elections, of course.

We can't let this go on. We have to come together in a
massive outpouring of opposition to this war-
bigger than Feb. 15/16.

Vote Yes on N! Bring all the troops home now! Money for Human
Needs, not war!

All out Nov. 3rd, 5pm, Powell and Market Streets, S.F.
March to 24th and Mission.

Come to the meeting with your ideas for building these
actions and for future actions.

Peace and solidarity,
Bonnie


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

1) An Evening of Anti-War Culture:
Art, Comment, Spoken Word, Poetry,
Music in support of Prop N
Saturday, October 23, 4-7 PM
523 Gallery, 523 Sutter between Powell and Mason near
Union Square

2) BVHP mothers fight for their children's environmental health
by Marie Harrison
http://www.sfbayview.com/102004/bvhpmothers102004.shtml

3) After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law
By TIM GOLDEN
WASHINGTON
October 24, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/international/worldspecial2/24gitmo.html?h
p&ex=1098590400&en=65eec9e56f90971f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

4) Rebel Attacks Kill 12 Iraqis; G.I.'s Injured
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
BAGHDAD, Iraq
October 24, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/international/middleeast/24iraq.html?hp&ex
=1098590400&en=34534b10fa606fde&ei=5094&partner=homepage

5) CORRUPTION ACCUSATIONS
Memos Warned of Billing Fraud by Firm in Iraq
By ERIK ECKHOLM
October 23, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/politics/23whistle.html

6) Wife of Soldier Sentenced in Prison Abuse Scandal Speaks Out
By Brian Witte
The Associated Press
Baltimore
Friday 22 October 2004
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102304V.shtml

7) Stand in Solidarity with the People of Haiti

8) Safeguarding Colombia's Oil
By JUAN FORERO
PUERTO VEGA, Colombia
October 22, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/business/worldbusiness/22colombia.html?ore
f=login&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position

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

1) An Evening of Anti-War Culture:
Art, Comment, Spoken Word, Poetry,
Music in support of Prop N
Saturday, October 23, 4-7 PM
523 Gallery, 523 Sutter between Powell and Mason near
Union Square

Art: OUTRAGE exhibit of 60 paintings and sculpture
by Sheila Haligan-Waltz
www.outrage2004.org

Program Includes:
> Matt Gonzalez, President of SF Board of Supervisors
> Neeli Cherkovski, writer in residence New College
Spoken word by members of the Molotov Mouths
* Outspoken Word Troupe
> School of the Arts Creative Writing Program Students
> Ilya Kaminski
> Music by John Duke
> and more

Refreshments served
Suggested donation $5-$250
No one turned away for lack of funds
If you want to be in the program contact
Jim Dorenkott, 415-240-8839

More info: contact Howard Wallace 415-861-0318

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

2) BVHP mothers fight for their children's environmental health
by Marie Harrison
http://www.sfbayview.com/102004/bvhpmothers102004.shtml

With San Francisco's No. 1 polluter, the Hunters Point power plant,
as a backdrop, BVHP residents teach about environmental racism at
a People's Earth Day celebration. Photo: www.greenaction.org (Go
to web site to view image.)

Young mothers straight out of Hunters Point - fighting for the
environmental health of their community. It's a great story and
a source of pride for all of us!

Tessie Ester, coordinator for the "Mothers Committee" and president
of the Huntersview Tenants Association said it best: "We want thing
to change. We have to fight for our community and our children. We
know we can't do it all, but it's time each one of us did something."

She is always emotional when she is talking about her community:
"You realize that people in Bay View Hunters Point are still eating
mercury contaminated fish? It's a disgrace that our people are
getting cancer because nobody took the time to tell them the
simple truth."

That was one of the first projects that the Mothers Committee took
on. Fifteen mothers canvassed the community door-to-door, handing
out leaflets on the dangers of subsistence fishing and telling their
neighbors about the dangers of eating fish from the Bay. Toxins like
DDE, chlordane, selenium, mercury and dioxins. "These were things
we had never heard of," said Ester. "It's no wonder we have one of the
highest rates of infant mortality in the Bay Area." The flier the Mothers
Committee put out explained the dangers of each chemical and the
health risks when toxins accumulate in the body.

"It was tough to decide where to begin," said Sabrina Warren, mother
of three. "This community is so screwed up - it's a toxic soup. "She
stops to listen to her 8-year-old talk about school work and continues,
"I still feel like Hunters Point Power Plant poses the biggest danger to
our children. The Mothers Committee did research on the plant. Did
you know that it sends up 600 tons of pollution every year!"

She looks angry and continues, "It's about time that we stop being
sick and just get plain mad! Gov. Schwarzenegger and Mayor Newsom
better start listening, because we're going to come gunning for them
next. And the ISO! Who gave these people the right to make decisions
about our lives? They don't even live here."

The Mothers Committee started out more than a year ago as
a collaboration between Huntersview Tenants Association and
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice. The official name
was "Bayview Hunters Point Mothers Environmental Health and Justice
Committee," but that was a mouthful, so soon it was shortened
to the Mothers Committee.

The goal is to educate a new generation of environmental advocates,
mothers from public housing, to fight for their own and their children's
futures. Mothers Committee meetings were always open to the
public and tended to be spirited. Participants know first hand
how their community is being destroyed by pollution and neglect.

PG&E was a favorite subject. Everyone had a horror story about the
plant or their electric bill. Early on, it became a priority for the
Mothers Committee.

"Everyone knows that that plant should have been closed down
years ago," said Monica Autry. "Government agencies look right
through you like you were invisible. Our young men and woman
can't get jobs and can't take care of their families - and to add
insult to injury, die a little at a time to keep the lights on in other
parts of the Bay Area."

"Remember how Willie Brown said we'd get jobs when they put in
the light rail?"she asks. "We all know what happened to that promise."

The Mothers Committee set their targets high. They lobbied the
city, state agencies and even the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. They also circulated a petition calling on Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger and the California Independent System Operator
(ISO) to remove the Reliability Must Run Contract from PG&E's
Hunters Point Power Plant. Going door to door, they collected
more than 5,000 signatures that they plan to deliver to the state
capital. "We've listened to promises long enough,"says Ester,
"Now it's time for action."

The Mothers Committee is reaching out to other neighborhoods
in other areas of San Francisco to educate them on what's
happening in Bay View Hunters Point. "We're not looking for
a handout. This city is just 49 miles square. People have to
understand that pollution is a problem for everyone," says
Autry, a long-term resident of BVHP. "The soot from PG&E
hits us first," she continues, "but the other parts of San
Francisco are breathing the same toxic chemicals we are."

In a public meeting held at Milton Meyers Auditorium in
Hunters Point, Mothers Committee members unveiled
a year-long effort entitled "Pollution, Health, Environmental
Racism and Injustice: A Toxic Inventory of Bayview Hunters
Point, San Francisco." The 40-page report describes the
sources of water and air pollution in BVHP and talks about
the worst toxic waste sites in the community and the health
problems that the residents are suffering. The Mothers
Committee introduced it to the community at their meeting.
The full report can be read or downloaded at
www.greenaction.org/hunterspoint/documents/TheStateoftheEnvironment090204Fin
al.pdf.

The Mothers want to continue their work, perhaps expanding
it to youth activities that include parents and highlight
environmental issues. "It's still hard to figure out where
to begin,"says Ester. "We're a needy community but also
a community with a lot of heart."

As I walked away from the Mothers Committee meeting at
Milton Meyers, I had to agree. We do have a lot of heart. It's
amazing to see what a few mothers in public housing can do.
With the full support of the community, Bay View Hunters
Point could again become the safe and healthy community
we all hope for.

If you are interested in the work of the Mothers Committee,
contact me at marie@greenaction.org or Tessie Ester, president
of Huntersview Tenants Association, at (415) 821-2873 or
see www.greenaction.org for more information.
About us
Search sfbayview.com
Search WWW

Advertise in the Bay View!
San Francisco Bay View
National Black Newspaper
4917 Third Street
San Francisco California 94124
Phone: (415) 671-0789
Fax: (415) 671-0316
Email:
editor@sfbayview.com

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

3) After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law
By TIM GOLDEN
WASHINGTON
October 24, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/international/worldspecial2/24gitmo.html?h
p&ex=1098590400&en=65eec9e56f90971f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON - In early November 2001, with Americans still
staggered by the Sept. 11 attacks, a small group of White House
officials worked in great secrecy to devise a new system of justice
for the new war they had declared on terrorism.

Determined to deal aggressively with the terrorists they expected
to capture, the officials bypassed the federal courts and their
constitutional guarantees, giving the military the authority to detain
foreign suspects indefinitely and prosecute them in tribunals not
used since World War II.

The plan was considered so sensitive that senior White House officials
kept its final details hidden from the president's national security
adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and the secretary of state, Colin L. Powell,
officials said. It was so urgent, some of those involved said, that they
hardly thought of consulting Congress.

White House officials said their use of extraordinary powers would
allow the Pentagon to collect crucial intelligence and mete out swift,
unmerciful justice. "We think it guarantees that we'll have the kind
of treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve," said
Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a driving force behind the policy.

But three years later, not a single terrorist has been prosecuted.
Of the roughly 560 men being held at the United States naval base
at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, only 4 have been formally charged.
Preliminary hearings for those suspects brought such a barrage
of procedural challenges and public criticism that verdicts could
still be months away. And since a Supreme Court decision in June
that gave the detainees the right to challenge their imprisonment
in federal court, the Pentagon has stepped up efforts to send home
hundreds of men whom it once branded as dangerous terrorists.

"We've cleared whole forests of paper developing procedures for
these tribunals, and no one has been tried yet," said Richard L. Shiffrin,
who worked on the issue as the Pentagon's deputy general counsel
for intelligence matters. "They just ended up in this Kafkaesque
sort of purgatory."

The story of how Guantánamo and the new military justice system
became an intractable legacy of Sept. 11 has been largely hidden
from public view.

But extensive interviews with current and former officials and a review
of confidential documents reveal that the legal strategy took shape
as the ambition of a small core of conservative administration
officials whose political influence and bureaucratic skill gave them
remarkable power in the aftermath of the attacks.

The strategy became a source of sharp conflict within the Bush
administration, eventually pitting the highest-profile cabinet
secretaries - including Ms. Rice and Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld - against one another over issues of due
process, intelligence-gathering and international law.

In fact, many officials contend, some of the most serious problems
with the military justice system are rooted in the secretive and
contentious process from which it emerged.

Military lawyers were largely excluded from that process in the
days after Sept. 11. They have since waged a long struggle to
ensure terrorist prosecutions meet what they say are basic standards
of fairness. Uniformed lawyers now assigned to defend Guantánamo
detainees have become among the most forceful critics of the
Pentagon's own system.

Foreign policy officials voiced concerns about the legal and diplomatic
ramifications, but had little influence. Increasingly, the administration's
plan has come under criticism even from close allies, complicating
efforts to transfer scores of Guantánamo prisoners back to their
home governments.

To the policy's architects, the attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon represented a stinging challenge to American
power and an imperative to consider measures that might have been
unimaginable in less threatening times. Yet some officials said the
strategy was also shaped by longstanding political agendas that
had relatively little to do with fighting terrorism.

The administration's claim of authority to set up military commissions,
as the tribunals are formally known, was guided by a desire to
strengthen executive power, officials said. Its legal approach, including
the decision not to apply the Geneva Conventions, reflected the
determination of some influential officials to halt what they viewed
as the United States' reflexive submission to international law.

In designing the new system, many of the officials said they had
Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda in mind. But in
picking through the hundreds of detainees at Guantánamo Bay,
military investigators have struggled to find more than a dozen they
can tie directly to significant terrorist acts, officials said. While
important Qaeda figures have been captured and held by the C.I.A.,
administration officials said they were reluctant to bring those
prisoners before tribunals they still consider unreliable.

Some administration officials involved in the policy declined to be
interviewed, or would do so only on the condition they not be named.
Others defended it strongly, saying the administration had
a responsibility to consider extraordinary measures to protect
the country from a terrifying enemy.

"Everybody who was involved in this process had, in my mind,
a white hat on," Timothy E. Flanigan, the former deputy White
House counsel, said in an interview. "They were not out to be
cowboys or create a radical new legal regime. What they wanted
to do was to use existing legal models to assist in the process
of saving lives, to get information. And the war on terror is all
about information."

As the policy has faltered, other current and former officials
have criticized it on pragmatic grounds, arguing that many of
the problems could have been avoided. But some of the criticism
also has a moral tone.

"What several of us were concerned about was due process,"
said John A. Gordon, a retired Air Force general and former deputy
C.I.A. director who served as both the senior counterterrorism
official and homeland security adviser on President Bush's National
Security Council staff. "There was great concern that we were
setting up a process that was contrary to our own ideals."

An Aggressive Approach

The administration's legal approach to terrorism began to emerge
in the first turbulent days after Sept. 11, as the officials in charge
of key agencies exhorted their aides to confront Al Qaeda's threat
with bold imagination.

"Legally, the watchword became 'forward-leaning,' '' said a former
associate White House counsel, Bradford Berenson, "by which
everybody meant: 'We want to be aggressive. We want to take risks.' ''

That challenge resounded among young lawyers who were
settling into important posts at the White House, the Justice
Department and other agencies. Many of them were members
of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal fraternity. Some had
clerked for Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin
Scalia in particular. A striking number had clerked for a prominent
Reagan appointee, Lawrence H. Silberman of the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

One young lawyer recalled looking around the room during a meeting
with Attorney General John Ashcroft. "Of 10 people, 7 of us were
former Silberman clerks," he said.

Mr. Berenson, then 36, had been consumed with the nomination
of federal judges until he was suddenly reassigned to terrorism
issues and thrown into intense, 15-hour workdays, filled with
competing urgencies and intermittent new alerts.

"All of a sudden, the curtain was lifted on this incredibly frightening
world," he said. "You were spending every day looking at the dossiers
of the world's leading terrorists. There was a palpable sense of threat."

As generals prepared for war in Afghanistan, lawyers scrambled to
understand how the new campaign against terrorism could be
waged within the confines of old laws.

Mr. Flanigan was at the center of the administration's legal
counteroffensive. A personable, soft-spoken father of 14 children,
Mr. Flanigan's easy manner sometimes belied the force of his beliefs.
He had arrived at the White House after distinguishing himself as
an agile legal thinker and a Republican stalwart: During the Clinton
scandals, he defended the independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr,
saying he had conducted his investigation "in a moderate and
appropriate fashion." In 2000, he played an important role on
the Bush campaign's legal team in the Florida recount.

In the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Flanigan sought advice
from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel on "the
legality of the use of military force to prevent or deter terrorist
activity inside the United States,'' according to a previously
undisclosed department memorandum that was reviewed by
The New York Times.

The 20-page response came from John C. Yoo, a 34-year-old Bush
appointee with a glittering résumé and a reputation as perhaps the
most intellectually aggressive among a small group of legal scholars
who had challenged what they saw as the United States' excessive
deference to international law. On Sept. 21, 2001, Mr. Yoo wrote
that the question was how the Constitution's Fourth Amendment
rights against unreasonable search and seizure might apply if the
military used "deadly force in a manner that endangered the lives
of United States citizens."

Mr. Yoo listed an inventory of possible operations: shooting down
a civilian airliner hijacked by terrorists; setting up military
checkpoints inside an American city; employing surveillance
methods more sophisticated than those available to law
enforcement; or using military forces "to raid or attack dwellings
where terrorists were thought to be, despite risks that third parties
could be killed or injured by exchanges of fire."

Mr. Yoo noted that these actions could raise constitutional issues,
but said that in the face of devastating terrorist attacks, "the
government may be justified in taking measures which in less
troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual
liberties." If the president decided the threat justified deploying
the military inside the country, he wrote, then "we think that the
Fourth Amendment should be no more relevant than it would be
in cases of invasion or insurrection."

The prospect of such military action at home was mostly
hypothetical at that point, but with the government taking
the fight against terrorism to Afghanistan and elsewhere around
the world, lawyers in the administration took the same "forward-
leaning" approach to making plans for the terrorists they thought
would be captured.

The idea of using military commissions to try suspected terrorists
first came to Mr. Flanigan, he said, in a phone call a couple of days
after the attacks from William P. Barr, the former attorney general
under whom Mr. Flanigan had served as head of the Justice
Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the first Bush
administration.

Mr. Barr had first suggested the use of military tribunals a decade
before, to try suspects in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over
Lockerbie, Scotland. Although the idea made little headway at the
time, Mr. Barr said he reminded Mr. Flanigan that the Legal Counsel's
Office had done considerable research on the question. Mr. Flanigan
had an aide call for the files.

"I thought it was a great idea," he recalled.

Military commissions, he thought, would give the government wide
latitude to hold, interrogate and prosecute the sort of suspects who
might be silenced by lawyers in criminal courts. They would also put
the control over prosecutions squarely in the hands of the president.


The same ideas were taking hold in the office of Vice President Cheney,
championed by his 44-year-old counsel, David S. Addington. At the
time, Mr. Addington, a longtime Cheney aide with an indistinct portfolio
and no real staff, was not well-known even in the government. But he
would become legendary as a voraciously hard-working official with
strongly conservative views, an unusually sharp pen and wide influence
over military, intelligence and other matters. In a matter of months, he
would make a mark as one of the most important architects of the
administration's legal strategy against foreign terrorism.

Beyond the prosecutorial benefits of military commissions, the two
lawyers saw a less tangible, but perhaps equally important advantage.
"From a political standpoint," Mr. Flanigan said, "it communicated the
message that we were at war, that this was not going to be business
as usual."

Changing the Rules

In fact, very little about how the tribunal policy came about resembled
business as usual. For half a century, since the end of World War II,
most major national-security initiatives had been forged through
interagency debate. But some senior Bush administration officials felt
that process placed undue power in the hands of cautious, slow-moving
foreign policy bureaucrats. The sense of urgency after Sept. 11 brought
that attitude to the surface.

Little more than a week after the attacks, officials said, the White House
counsel, Alberto F. Gonzales, set up an interagency group to draw up
options for prosecuting terrorists. They came together with high
expectations.

"We were going to go after the people responsible for the attacks,
and the operating assumption was that we would capture a significant
number of Al Qaeda operatives," said Pierre-Richard Prosper, the
State Department official assigned to lead the group. "We were
thinking hundreds."

Mr. Prosper, then 37, had just been sworn in as the department's
ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues. As a prosecutor, he
had taken on street gangs and drug Mafias and had won the first
genocide conviction before the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda. Even so, some administration lawyers eyed him suspiciously
- as more diplomat than crime-fighter.

Mr. Gonzales had made it clear that he wanted Mr. Prosper's group
to put forward military commissions as a viable option, officials said.
The group laid out three others - criminal trials, military courts-martial
and tribunals with both civilian and military members, like those used
for Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg.

Representatives of the Justice Department's criminal division, which
had prosecuted a string of Qaeda defendants in federal district court
over the previous decade, argued that the federal courts could do the
job again. The option of toughening criminal laws or adapting the
courts, as several European countries had done, was discussed, but
only briefly, two officials said.

"The towers were still smoking, literally," Mr. Prosper said.
"I remember asking: Can the federal courts in New York handle
this? It wasn't a legal question so much as it was logistical. You
had 300 Al Qaeda members, potentially. And did we want to put
the judges and juries in harm's way?"

Lawyers at the White House saw criminal courts as a minefield,
several officials said.

Much of the evidence against terror suspects would be classified
intelligence that would be difficult to air in court or too sketchy to
meet federal standards, the lawyers warned. Another issue was
security: Was it safe to try Osama bin Laden in Manhattan, where
he was facing federal charges for the 1998 bombings of American
embassies in East Africa?

Then there was a tactical question. To act pre-emptively against
Al Qaeda, the authorities would need information that defense
lawyers and due-process rules might discourage suspects from
giving up.

Mr. Flanigan framed the choice starkly: "are we going to go with
a system that is really guaranteed to prevent us from getting
information in every case or are we going to go another route?"

Military commissions had no statutory rules of their own.
In past American wars, when such tribunals had been used
to carry out battlefield justice against spies, saboteurs and
others accused of violating the laws of war, they had generally
hewed to prevailing standards of military justice. But the
advocates for commissions in the Bush administration saw
no reason they could not adapt the rules, officials said. Standards
of proof could be lowered. Secrecy provisions could be expanded.
The death penalty could be more liberally applied.

But some members of the interagency group saw it as more
complicated. Terrorism had not been clearly established as
a war crime under international law. Writing new law for
a military tribunal might end up being more difficult than
prosecuting terrorism cases in existing courts.

By late October 2001, the White House lawyers had grown
impatient with what they saw as the dithering of Mr. Prosper's
group and what one former official called the "cold feet" of
some of its members. Mr. Flanigan said he thought the
government needed to move urgently in case a major
terrorist linked to the attacks was apprehended.

He gathered up the research that the Prosper group had
completed on military commissions and took charge of the
matter himself. Suddenly, the other options were off the table
and the Prosper group was out of business.

"Prosper is a thoughtful, gentle, process-oriented guy," the
former official said. "At that time, gentle was not an adjective
that anybody wanted."

A Secretive Circle

With the White House in charge, officials said, the planning
for tribunals moved forward more quickly, and more secretly.
Whole agencies were left out of the discussion. So were most
of the government's experts in military and international law.

The legal basis for the administration's approach was laid
out on Nov. 6 in a confidential 35-page memorandum sent
to Mr. Gonzales from Patrick F. Philbin, a deputy in the
Legal Counsel's office. (Attorney General Ashcroft has
refused recent Congressional requests for the document,
but a copy was reviewed by The Times.)

The memorandum's plain legalese belied its bold assertions.

It said that the president, as commander-in-chief, has
"inherent authority'' to establish military commissions
without Congressional authorization. It concluded that
the Sept. 11 attacks were "plainly sufficient" to warrant
applying the laws of war.

Opening a debate that would later divide the administration,
the memorandum also suggested that the White House could
apply international law selectively. It stated specifically that
trying terrorists under the laws of war "does not mean that
terrorists will receive the protections of the Geneva Conventions
or the rights that laws of war accord to lawful combatants."

The central legal precedent cited in the memorandum was
a 1942 case in which the Supreme Court upheld President
Franklin D. Roosevelt's use of a military commission to try
eight Nazi saboteurs who had sneaked into the United States
aboard submarines. Since that ruling, revolutions had taken
place in both international and military law, with the adoption
of the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice in 1951. Even so, the Justice memorandum said
the 1942 ruling had "set a clear constitutional analysis" under
which due process rights do not apply to military commissions.

Roosevelt, too, created his military commission without new
and explicit Congressional approval, and authorized the
military to fashion its own procedural rules. He also established
himself, rather than a military judge, as the "final reviewing
authority'' for the case.

Mr. Addington seized on the Roosevelt precedent as a model,
two people involved in the process said, despite vast differences.
Roosevelt acted against enemy agents in a traditional war among
nations. Mr. Bush would be asserting the same power to take on
a shadowy network of adversaries with no geographic boundaries,
in a conflict with no foreseeable end.

Mr. Addington, who drafted the order with Mr. Flanigan, was
particularly influential, several officials said, because he represented
Mr. Cheney and brought formidable experience in national-security
law to a small circle of senior officials. Mr. Addington turned down
several requests for interviews and a spokesman for the vice
president's office declined to comment.

"He was probably the only one there who would know what an order
would look like, what it would say," a former Justice Department
official said, noting Mr. Addington's work at the Defense Department,
the C.I.A., and Congressional intelligence committees. "He didn't
have authority over anyone. But he's a persuasive guy."

To many officials outside the circle, the secrecy was remarkable.

While Mr. Ashcroft and his deputy, Larry D. Thompson, were closely
consulted, the head of the Justice Department's criminal division,
Michael Chertoff, who had argued for trying terror suspects in federal
court, saw the military order only when it was published, officials
said. Mr. Rumsfeld was kept informed of the plan mainly through
his general counsel, William J. Haynes II, several Pentagon officials
said.

Many of the Pentagon's experts on military justice, uniformed
lawyers who had spent their careers working on such issues, were
mostly kept in the dark. "I can't tell you how compartmented things
were," said retired Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter, who was then the
Navy's senior military lawyer, or judge advocate general. "This was
a closed administration."

A group of experienced Army lawyers had been meeting with
Mr. Haynes repeatedly on the process, but began to suspect that
what they said did not resonate outside the Pentagon, several of
them said.

On Friday, Nov. 9, Defense Department officials said, Mr. Haynes
called the head of the team, Col. Lawrence J. Morris, into his office
to review a draft of the presidential order. He was given 30 minutes
to study it but was not allowed to keep a copy or even take notes.

The following day, the Army's judge advocate general, Maj.
Gen. Thomas J. Romig, hurriedly convened a meeting of senior
military lawyers to discuss a response. The group worked through
the Veterans Day weekend to prepare suggestions that would have
moved the tribunals closer to existing military justice. But when
the final document was issued that Tuesday, it reflected none of
the officers' ideas, several military officials said.

"They hadn't changed a thing," one official said.

In fact, while the military lawyers were pulling together their
response, they were unaware that senior administration officials
were already at the White House putting finishing touches on the
plan. At a meeting that Saturday in the Roosevelt Room,
Mr. Cheney led a discussion among Attorney General Ashcroft,
Mr. Haynes of the Defense Department, the White House lawyers
and a few other aides.

Senior officials of the State Department and the National Security
Council staff were excluded from final discussions of the policy,
even at a time when they were meeting daily about Afghanistan
with the officials who were drafting the order. According to two
people involved in the process, Mr. Cheney advocated withholding
the draft from Ms. Rice and Secretary Powell.

When the two cabinet members found out about the military
order - upon its public release - Ms. Rice was particularly angry,
several senior officials said. Spokesmen for both officials
declined to comment.

Mr. Bush played only a modest role in the debate, senior
administration officials said. In an initial discussion, he agreed
that military commissions should be an option, the officials said.
Later, Mr. Cheney discussed a draft of the order with Mr. Bush
over lunch, one former official said. The president signed the
three-page order on Nov. 13.

No ceremony accompanied the signing, and the order was released
to the public that day without so much as a press briefing. But its
historic significance was unmistakable.

The military could detain and prosecute any foreigner whom the
president or his representative determined to have "engaged in,
aided or abetted, or conspired to commit" terrorism. Echoing the
Roosevelt order, the Bush document promised "free and fair"
tribunals but offered few guarantees: There was no promise of
public trials, no right to remain silent, no presumption of innocence.
As in 1942, guilt did not necessarily have to be proven beyond
a reasonable doubt and a death sentence could be imposed even
with a divided verdict.

Despite those similarities, some military and international lawyers
were struck by the differences.

"The Roosevelt order referred specifically to eight people, the eight
Nazi saboteurs," said Mr. Shiffrin, who was then the Defense
Department's deputy general counsel for intelligence matters and
had studied the Nazi saboteurs' case. "Here we were putting in
place a parallel system of justice for a universe of people who we
had no idea about - who they would be, how many of them there
would be. It was a very dramatic measure."

Mounting Criticism

The White House did its best to play down the drama, but criticism
of the order was immediate and widespread.

Civil libertarians and some Congressional leaders saw an attempt
to supplant the criminal justice system. Critics also worried about
the concentration of power: The president or his proxies would
define the crimes (often after an act had been committed); set the
rules for trial; and choose the judges, juries and appellate panels.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was then
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was among a handful
of legislators who argued that the administration's plan required
explicit Congressional authorization. The Congress had just passed
the Patriot Act by a huge margin, and Mr. Leahy proposed authorizing
military commissions, but with some important changes, including
a presumption of innocence for defendants and appellate review
by the Supreme Court.

Critics seized on complaints from abroad, including an
announcement from the Spanish authorities that they would
not extradite some terrorist suspects to the United States if they
would face the tribunals. "We are the most powerful nation on
earth," Mr. Leahy said. "But in the struggle against terrorism, we
don't have the option of going it alone. Would these military
tribunals be worth jeopardizing the cooperation we expect and
need from our allies?"

Senators called for Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Ashcroft to testify about
the tribunals plan. Instead, the administration sent Mr. Prosper
from the State Department and Mr. Chertoff of the Justice
Department - both of whom had questioned the use of commissions
and were later excluded from the administration's final deliberations.

But the Congressional opposition melted in the face of opinion
polls showing strong support for the president's measures against
terrorism.

There was another reason fears were allayed. With the order
signed, the Pentagon was writing rules for exactly how the
commissions would be conducted, and an early draft that was
leaked to the news media suggested defendants' rights would
be expanded. Mr. Rumsfeld, who assembled a group of outside
legal experts - including some who had worked on World War II-
era tribunals - to consult on the rules, said critics' concerns would
be taken into account.

But all of the critics were not outside the administration.

Many of the Pentagon's uniformed lawyers were angered by the
implication that the military would be used to deliver "rough justice"
for the terrorists. The Uniform Code of Military Justice had moved
steadily into line with the due-process standards of the federal
courts, and senior military lawyers were proud and protective of
their system. They generally supported using commissions for
terrorists, but argued that the system would not be fair without
greater rights for defendants.

"The military lawyers would from time to time remind the civilians
that there was a Constitution that we had to pay attention to," said
Admiral Guter, who, after retiring as the Navy judge advocate general,
signed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of plaintiffs in the
Guantánamo Supreme Court case.

Even as uniformed lawyers were given a greater role in writing
rules for the commissions, they still felt out of the loop.

In early 2002, Admiral Guter said, during a weekly lunch with
Mr. Haynes and the top lawyers for the military branches, he
raised the issue with Mr. Haynes directly: "we need more
information."

Mr. Haynes looked at him coldly. "No, you don't," he quoted
Mr. Haynes as saying.

Mr. Haynes declined to comment on the exchange.

Lt. Col. William K. Lietzau, a Yale-trained Marine lawyer on
Mr. Haynes's staff, often found himself in the middle. "I could
see how the JAGs were frustrated that the task of setting up the
commissions hadn't been delegated to them,'' he said, referring
to the senior military lawyers. "On the other hand, I could see
how some of their recommendations frustrated the leadership
because they didn't always appear to embrace the paradigm
shift needed to deal with terrorism."

Some Justice Department officials also urged changes in the
commission rules, current and former officials said. While
Attorney General Ashcroft staunchly defended the policy in
public, in a private meeting with Pentagon officials, he said
some of the proposed commission rules would be seen as
"draconian," two officials said.

On nearly every issue, interviews and documents show, the
harder line was staked out by White House lawyers: Mr. Addington,
Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Flanigan. They opposed allowing civilian
lawyers to assist the tribunal defendants, as military courts-
martial permit, or allowing civilians to serve on the appellate
panel that would oversee the commissions. They also opposed
granting defendants a presumption of innocence.

In the end, Mr. Rumsfeld compromised. He granted defendants
a presumption of innocence and set "beyond a reasonable doubt"
as a standard for proving guilt. He also allowed the defendants
to hire civilian lawyers, but restricted the lawyers' access to case
information. And he gave the presiding officer at a tribunal license
to admit any evidence he thought might be convincing to a
"reasonable person.''

One right the administration sought to deny the prisoners was
the ability to appeal the legality of their detentions in federal
court. The administration had done its best to decide the question
when searching for a place to detain hundreds of prisoners captured
in Afghanistan. Every location it seriously considered - including an
American military base in Germany and islands in the South Pacific -
was outside the United States and, the administration believed,
beyond the reach of the federal judiciary.

On Dec. 28, 2001, after officials settled on Guantánamo Bay,
Mr. Philbin and Mr. Yoo told the Pentagon in a memorandum that
it could make a "very strong" claim that prisoners there would be
outside the purview of American courts. But the memorandum
cautioned that a reasonable argument could also be made that
Guantánamo "while not part of the sovereign territory of the United
States, is within the territorial jurisdiction of a federal court." That
warning would come back to haunt the administration.

A Shift in Power

Some of the officials who helped design the new system of justice
would later explain the influence they exercised in the chaotic days
after Sept. 11 as a response to a crisis. But a more enduring shift of
power within the administration was taking place - one that became
apparent in a decision that would have significant consequences for
how terror suspects were interrogated and detained.

At issue was whether the administration would apply the Geneva
Conventions to the conflicts with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and
whether those enemies would be treated as prisoners of war.

Based on the advice of White House and Justice Department lawyers,
Mr. Bush initially decided on Jan. 18, 2002, that the conventions
would not apply to either conflict. But at a meeting of senior national
security officials several days later, Secretary of State Powell asked
him to reconsider.

Mr. Powell agreed that the conventions did not apply to the global
fight against Al Qaeda. But he said troops could be put at risk if the
United States disavowed the conventions in dealing with the Taliban -
the de facto government of Afghanistan. Both Mr. Rumsfeld and the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, supported
his position, Pentagon officials said.

In a debate that included the administration's most experienced
national-security officials, the voice that was heard belonged to
Mr. Yoo, who was only a deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel. He
cast Afghanistan as a "failed state," and said its fighters should not
be considered a real army but a "militant, terrorist-like group."
In a Jan. 25 memorandum to the president, the White House counsel,
Mr. Gonzales, characterized that opinion as "definitive."

The Gonzales memorandum suggested that the "new kind of war"
Mr. Bush wanted to fight could hardly be reconciled with the "quaint"
privileges that the Geneva Conventions gave to prisoners of war, or
the "strict limitations" they imposed on interrogations.

Military lawyers disputed the idea that applying the conventions
would necessarily limit interrogators to the name, rank and serial
number of their captives. "There were very good reasons not to
designate the detainees as prisoners of war, but the claim that
they couldn't be interrogated was not one of them," Colonel Lietzau
said. Again, though, such questions were scarcely heard, officials
involved in the discussions said.

Mr. Yoo's rise reflected a different approach by the Bush administration
to sensitive legal questions concerning foreign affairs, defense and
intelligence.

In past administrations, officials said, the Office of Legal Counsel
usually weighed in with opinions on questions that had already been
deliberated by the legal staffs of the agencies involved. Under
Mr. Bush, the office frequently had a first and final say on such
questions.

"O.L.C. was definitely running the show legally, and John Yoo in
particular," a former Pentagon lawyer said. "He's kind of fun to be
around, and he has an opinion on everything. Even though he was
quite young, he exercised disproportionate authority because of his
personality and his strong opinions."

Mr. Yoo's influence was amplified by friendships he developed not
just with Mr. Addington and Mr. Flanigan, but also Mr. Haynes, with
whom he played squash as often as three or four times a week at
the Pentagon Officers Athletic Club.

If the Geneva Conventions debate raised Mr. Yoo's stature, it had the
opposite effect on lawyers at the State Department, who were later
excluded from sensitive discussions on matters like the interrogation
of detainees, officials from several agencies said.

"State was cut out of a lot of this activity from February of 2002 on,"
one senior administration official said. "These were treaties that we
were dealing with; they are meant to know about that."

The State Department legal adviser, William H. Taft IV, was shunned
by the lawyers who dominated the detainee policy, officials said.
Although Mr. Taft had served as the deputy secretary of defense
during the Reagan administration, more conservative colleagues
whispered that he lacked the constitution to fight terrorists.

"He was seen as ideologically squishy and suspect," a former White
House official said. "People did not take him very seriously."

Through a State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher,
Mr. Taft declined to comment.

The rivalries could be almost adolescent. When field trips to
Guantánamo Bay were arranged for administration lawyers, the
invitations were sometimes relayed last to the State Department
and National Security Council, officials said, in the hope that lawyers
there would not be able to come on short notice.

It was on the first field trip, 10 days after detainees began to arrive
there on Jan. 11, 2002, that White House lawyers made clear their
intention to move forward quickly with military commissions.

On the flight home, several officials said, Mr. Addington urged
Mr. Gonzales to seek a blanket designation of all the detainees
being sent to Guantánamo as eligible for trial under the president's
order. Mr. Gonzales agreed.

The next day, the Pentagon instructed military intelligence officers
at the base to start filling out one-page forms for each detainee,
describing their alleged offenses. Weeks later, Mr. Haynes issued
an urgent call to the military services, asking them to submit
nominations for a chief prosecutor.

The first trials, many military and administration officials believed,
were just around the corner.Next: A Policy Unravels

Jack Begg contributed research for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times

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

4) Rebel Attacks Kill 12 Iraqis; G.I.'s Injured
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
BAGHDAD, Iraq
October 24, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/international/middleeast/24iraq.html?hp&ex
=1098590400&en=34534b10fa606fde&ei=5094&partner=homepage

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 23 - Insurgents launched strikes on Saturday
at United States and Iraqi outposts across Iraq, killing at least
a dozen Iraqi police officers and national guardsmen in car bombings
and wounding dozens of Iraqis and Americans in the assaults,
which included mortars and hidden roadside bombs.

No American soldiers were killed but six were wounded when their
Bradley fighting vehicle was attacked on the dangerous road that
leads to the Baghdad airport.

The deadliest attack occurred outside the gates of a Marine base in
Baghdadi, in the restive Anbar Province of western Iraq, a Sunni
area where a car bomber killed at least 10 Iraqi policemen and
wounded 5 others, according to the Marines. The police were
gathered at a checkpoint on the perimeter of the base, which is
home to a Marine aircraft wing near the Euphrates River about
110 miles west of Baghdad.

Mujtaba Ahmed al-Hiti, the police chief in Hit, a nearby town, told
Agence France-Presse that a total of 40 people had been wounded,
and he said the attacker had been trying to drive into an academy
where police were training.

In Falluja, the insurgent-controlled stronghold west of Baghdad
where a major offensive is being planned to take back the city,
United States officials say an early morning raid led to the capture
of a lieutenant to the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Mr. Zarqawi is the Jordanian militant said to have sworn allegiance
to Al l Qaeda and taken responsibility for scores of car bombings,
beheadings and other acts of terror.

American officials said the "individual targeted and captured today
was recently assessed to be a relatively minor member of the
Zarqawi network." But with more important Zarqawi aides having
been detained or killed in recent weeks, the aide captured at a safe
house south of Falluja at 1:30 a.m. "had moved up to take a critical
position as a Zarqawi senior leader." Five other terrorists were captured,
the military said.

Members of Mr. Zarqawi's network are increasingly moving to the
outskirts of the city to evade American attacks on safe houses and
other hideouts and are trying to blend in with civilians, military
officials say. United States forces, they say, have eliminated meeting
sites and safe houses for the network and destroyed car bombs and
other weapons. Military officials say Iraqi civilians in Falluja have
been providing information about the whereabouts of Zarqawi
associates.

The Marines have stepped up operations on the outskirts of Falluja
during the last two weeks, trying to flush out insurgents and
members of Mr. Zarqawi's Tawhid and Jihad terror organization
in anticipation of what Iraqi leaders have said will be a major offensive.
The Marines have also conducted nightly bombing raids for the last
two months aimed at the Zarqawi network. Since this summer,
Falluja has been controlled by insurgents and a Taliban-style
Islamist local government that United States and Iraqi officials say
has given refuge to Mr. Zarqawi and members of his network.

The flurry of violence on Saturday underscores the challenge facing
American and Iraqi officials as national elections draw near. Violence
and attacks have been rising, and American deaths continue to
mount, though by most accounts there are fewer attacks taking
place than during the recent peak in August.

In one of the most dangerous areas, the sprawling Sadr City slum,
a Shiite neighborhood in eastern Baghdad, the security situation has
been surprisingly calm of late, according to some American officers.
But in other places, especially Anbar Province, car bombings and
other attacks have continued at a steady pace.

In a statement on Saturday afternoon following the attack in Baghdadi,
the Marines said: "Insurgents have increased attacks on Iraqi Security
Forces seeking to secure a free Iraq."

Near Samarra, an insurgent flashpoint north of Baghdad that United
States forces retook early this month after a grisly three-day battle,
several Iraqi national guardsmen were killed Saturday morning by
a car bomb at a checkpoint south of town.

Reports quoting Iraqi officials said at least four guardsmen died
in the attack, but American forces that control the area say there
were two fatalities. Lt. Wayne Adkins, a spokesman for the Army's
First Infantry Division, said the attack occurred at 10:40 a.m.

"Two Iraqi National Guard soldiers were killed and one was injured
when Anti-Iraqi Forces detonated" a vehicle-borne improvised
explosive device at an Iraqi National Guard checkpoint, he said.
One Iraqi guardsman died at the scene and a second died later
from his wounds, Lieutenant Adkins said.

Insurgents also struck in central Baghdad, lobbing mortars during
lunchtime near the American-controlled green zone, where the
American Embassy and the Iraqi government have headquarters.
There were no reports of deaths or injuries from the mortars,
which could be easily heard throughout central Baghdad. A rocket
also struck the building that houses an Iraqi legal association.

And six soldiers were wounded at 7:15 a.m. when their Bradley
was struck by an improvised explosive device on the road that
leads to the Baghdad airport.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times

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

5) CORRUPTION ACCUSATIONS
Memos Warned of Billing Fraud by Firm in Iraq
By ERIK ECKHOLM
October 23, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/politics/23whistle.html

Managers of a security firm that won large contracts in Iraq warned
their bosses in February of what they called a pattern of fraudulent
billing practices, internal company memorandums suggest.

The memorandums, written primarily by two company managers,
charged that the security firm, Custer Battles, repeatedly billed the
occupation authorities for nonexistent services or at grossly
inflated prices.

The company, which quickly grew to garner security contracts worth
$100 million in little more than a year, denies the charges. It argues
that the managers confused sincere attempts to document jobs done
in a hurry, in a war zone, with deliberate deception and that the
company provided all contracted services for the agreed-upon price.

The memos and a lawsuit filed by former employees cite several
specific instances, including billing the Coalition Provisional Authority
$157,000 for a helicopter pad that in fact cost $95,000, and repainting
forklifts abandoned by Baghdad Airways and then charging the
authority thousands of dollars a month, claiming that the forklifts
were leased.

One of the managers was later fired by the company and is part of
a lawsuit charging Custer Battles with defrauding the federal government
of tens of millions of dollars. The other manager, who has since been
appointed to a high-level position with the company, recently declared
that after further research, he believed that any questionable practices
were the fault of a few individuals and had not been condoned by
the owners.

On Sept. 30, the Pentagon, concerned by the allegations raised by
the employees, barred Custer Battles from receiving further military
contracts, and it has withheld at least $10 million in payments to the
company. The company is appealing the ban.

The charges swirling around Custer Battles in part reflect a problem
that American government auditors have acknowledged: the inability
of the Iraq occupation authority, particularly in its first year, to monitor
properly the performance of hundreds of companies, large and small,
that flocked to Baghdad seeking contracts for everything from building
materials to armed guards.

The memorandums, provided by a lawyer for the managers who filed
the lawsuit against Custer Battles, charge that the company submitted
invoices from supposed subcontractors or suppliers that - unbeknownst
to the American officials who paid the final tab - were virtual shells,
newly created by Custer Battles executives and their partners.

Custer Battles, founded in 2001 by Scott Custer and Michael Battles,
both in their 30's, says it has about 700 employees.

Pete Baldwin, then the Iraq facilities manager, wrote in a Feb. 2
memorandum that in one typical invoice, Custer Battles claimed that
one of its shell companies had installed a helicopter pad for $157,000.
In fact, Custer Battles had hired a different company to build the pad
for $95,000, he asserted. He wrote that "every line item on that invoice,"
which was submitted for a total of $250,000, was just as "false,
fabricated, inflated."

Mr. Baldwin wrote that he had repeatedly informed Mr. Custer, the
company co-owner, of similar practices, but to no avail. A lawyer for
Custer Battles, Richard Sauber, said that Mr. Custer had subsequently
brought accountants to Iraq to clear up incomplete books but that they
had not found fraud.

Mr. Baldwin said in the memorandum that after he began raising alarms,
an executive with the company tried to fire him. Mr. Baldwin was given
notice on Feb. 20 - he has said because of his charges of fraud. Larry
Robbins, a lawyer for Custer Battles, says he was fired for "incompetence.''

Last week, documents unsealed by the Justice Department disclosed
that two former managers of Custer Battles, including Mr. Baldwin,
had brought a civil suit under the federal whistle-blower act charging
the company with fraud.

The company called those charges baseless and the work of
"a competitor and a disgruntled employee." The two former managers
could win million of dollars in rewards if the charges hold up.

In a memorandum dated Feb. 28, 2004, Peter Miskovich, who was
manager of the company's $21 million contract to safeguard Iraq's
new currency as it was being distributed, gave a scathing review of
the project, which he took over in midstream. Mr. Miskovich - who
is not part of the whistle-blower lawsuit - wrote to his superior,
Charles Baumann, then the country manager, that the records provided
"prima facie evidence of a course of conduct consistent with criminal
activity and intent."

Mr. Miskovich was later named director of the company's new Office
of Corporate Integrity. In an Oct. 13 affidavit, he said that after further
review, he had concluded that financial improprieties were more
isolated than he had declared in February. He said that "I do not
believe, based on what I learned during my tenure" as a project
manager, "that Scott Custer or Mike Battles was involved in the
questionable conduct."

Reached by telephone this week, Mr. Miskovich refused to speak to
a reporter. Mr. Baldwin could not be reached for comment.

The Air Force, which suspended the Custer Battles contract, wrote
a memorandum citing suspicion of repeated fraud. The Air Force
quotes Mr. Miskovich's Feb. 28 memorandum, and calls the evidence
of company misconduct "of so serious or compelling a nature that
it affects their present responsibility to be government contractors
or subcontractors."

In the case of the currency exchange project, said Mr. Sauber, the
lawyer for Custer Battles, the occupation authority agreed on
a final fee of $21 million, but the Pentagon has held up the final
$10 million in payments while it investigates the contract.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department declined to prosecute
Custer Battles, though the civil suit continues under the whistle-
blower law. The department gave no public explanation, but officials
had previously told lawyers in the lawsuit that because the alleged
fraud was against the Coalition Provisional Authority, federal
prosecutors did not have jurisdiction. Some experts have
questioned that reasoning.

The company founders, Scott Custer and Michael Battles, are both
Army veterans. Mr. Battles unsuccessfully ran for Congress in
Rhode Island as a Republican two years ago.

The two started out by offering security services to nongovernmental
organizations in Afghanistan after the fall of Kabul in late 2001.

But their business really took hold in June 2003, soon after the fall
of Baghdad. The men obtained a $16.5 million contract from the
occupation authorities to provide security for the Baghdad airport.

That one-year contract was not renewed, but the company had
already begun pulling in others, directly with the Coalition Provisional
Authority or as a subcontractor to other companies.

As it cut a quick and profitable swath, Custer Battles sometimes
angered more experienced security companies with its aggressive
recruitment of scarce security experts and claims to industry
leadership. The company describes itself as "the premier security
company in Iraq" on its corporate Web site.

The two founders have received praise for their entrepreneurship.
The internal memorandums charge that part of that success, at least,
was built on questionable practices.

One example captures some of the fog of post-invasion Iraq. With
forged invoices, Mr. Miskovich wrote, Custer Battles billed for providing
a security detail for the road delivery from Baghdad to Mosul of
prefabricated cabins. The housing was urgently required by teams
carrying out the currency exchange.

Not only did the company provide no guards for the trip, Mr. Miskovich
said in his Feb. 28 memo, but the convoy was also somehow lost for
a week, officials in Mosul had to sleep in tents, and the company
had to offer a reward to locate the cabins.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times

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

6) Wife of Soldier Sentenced in Prison Abuse Scandal Speaks Out
By Brian Witte
The Associated Press
Baltimore
Friday 22 October 2004
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102304V.shtml

Baltimore - The wife of an Army reservist sentenced to prison
for abusing prisoners in Iraq said she knows her husband was wrong,
but she also blames higher-ranking officials who "sit behind the
curtains" for the abuse.

Martha Frederick, wife of Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, said the
eight-year sentence he received Thursday for his role in the Abu
Ghraib prison scandal will force her family to "endure hardships
and many sacrifices."

"The pain sets deeper yet in knowing that he serves these years
not only for his actions or actions of a few reservists, but those
included in the chain of command," she wrote in an e-mail to
The Associated Press.

Her 38-year-old husband, of Buckingham, Va., received the
stiffest punishment given so far in the scandal. But she questioned
why her husband's superiors weren't being punished for what she
said was their complicity on the abuse.

"I feel outrage that he and a few others will bear the weight for
the actions of many," she wrote.

Since finding out her husband faced charges, Frederick wrote
that her family has felt as if they were "facing a life-threatening
situation when you relive your life's most memorable moments
as well as contemplating all the things that you wish you could
change or have done differently."

Martha Frederick said she will always see her husband as a
"good soldier."

"I will see my husband as a far greater man than those who
have abandoned him, left him to be convicted for his acts and
the failures of their own," she wrote.

Throughout the e-mail, she claims "misguided" leadership led
to the abuse of Iraqi detainees. She wrote that the photographs
and videos showing abuse "do not represent the people of this
country, nor do they represent Chip as a person."

"I do not see Chip as a good soldier gone bad but as a good
soldier thrust into a no-win situation," she wrote.

She writes of the pain and isolation her family has felt, especially
her husband, who was sentenced in Iraq, far from his family.

"It is not just how my husband will endure incarceration but how
he will endure being left behind, used and discarded," she wrote.

Frederick joined the Army National Guard at 17, after convincing
his mother to sign the papers authorizing his enlistment.

Seven members of the 372nd Military Police Company of Cresaptown,
Md., have been charged in the scandal. Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits of
Hyndman, Pa., is already serving a one-year sentence after pleading
guilty in May to three counts.


(c) Copyright 2004 by TruthOut.org

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

7) Stand in Solidarity with the People of Haiti

The crisis situation in Haiti continues to deepen. The A.N.S.W.E.R.
Coalition -
along with the Haiti Support Network and progressives in the Haitian
community - initiated the Emergency Campaign to Support the Haitian
People. Many people are joining as volunteers to help support an
effective political response in Haiti and here in the United States in
solidarity with those resisting a wave of repression. We are also sending
humanitarian assistance in the form of much-needed medicines.

In the past two weeks, the de facto Haitian government has demonstrated its
complete bankruptcy by doing nothing for the flood victims and instead
launching a brutal crackdown on people in the neighborhoods of Belair
and Cité Soleil. On October 13, Haitian police, backed by UN occupation
troops, beat and arrested well-known activist priest Gérard Jean-Juste
as he was distributing food to hungry children. He is accused of being
"a threat to public order." The de facto prime minister called the
warrantless arrest "pre-emptive."

Meanwhile, the police and occupation troops have arrested and killed
dozens of other anti-coup activists. The former soldiers of the banned
Haitian Army now openly patrol the streets and have openly announced
their plan to "wipe out" resistance to the coup and occupation.

These developments make the indoor rally planned for Dec. 5 in
Brooklyn at New York Technical College all the more important.
Speakers from the Lavalas Family Party and the National Popular Party
will outline their respective visions of how the Haitian people's struggle
can advance. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and others
will also take part.

Thanks to your responses, we have been able to begin sending medicine
to help stave off and treat the diseases stemming from waters polluted
by sewage and cadavers. But more help is needed given the dramatic
medical and political situations in Haiti.

The Haitian people need our further support. At this time of great crisis,
generated by the U.S. government and its financial and political
dictates, the independent response of the people in the U.S. to help
stop the suffering of the Haitian people is urgently needed. Stand
with the Haitian people in their fight for democracy and
self-determination, and in their hour of medical and
humanitarian need.

You can make an urgently needed contribution immediately to the
Emergency Campaign to Support the Haitian People by clicking here
to donate by credit card online through our secure server. Credit
card donations are not tax deductible. If you want to make a tax
deductible donation to the Emergency Campaign, you can do so
by writing a check made out to the Progress Unity Fund/Haiti and
send it to Progress Unity Fund, 167 Anderson St., San Francisco,
CA 94110.

A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
Act Now to Stop War & End Racism
http://www.ANSWERcoalition.org
info@internationalanswer.org
National Office in Washington DC: 202-544-3389
New York City: 212-533-0417
Los Angeles: 323-464-1636
San Francisco: 415-821-6545
For media inquiries, call 202-544-3389.

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

8) Safeguarding Colombia's Oil
By JUAN FORERO
PUERTO VEGA, Colombia
October 22, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/business/worldbusiness/22colombia.html?ore
f=login&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position

PUERTO VEGA, Colombia - In the biggest, most ambitious army
offensive in Colombia's 40-year rebel war, 18,000 counterinsurgency
troops have since January fanned out across four isolated southern
states, a lawless swath that for years functioned as a de facto republic
for Marxist rebels.

Aided by American helicopters, planning and surveillance, Colombian
forces have the stated goal of penetrating the historic heart of
Colombia's largest rebel group to "strike a decisive blow to narco-
terrorists," as Gen. James Hill, the commander of United States
forces in Latin America, put it earlier this year.

But the Washington-backed offensive has another motive, oil and
military authorities say, one that Colombian and American officials
only gingerly discuss: to make potentially oil-rich regions safe for
exploration by private companies and the government-run
oil company.

With Colombian oil production falling and the Bush administration
eagerly seeking to diversify American oil imports, Colombia's
government has made securing potentially lucrative oil basins
and other energy infrastructure a cornerstone of its efforts to
pacify this vast country.

"For the military, the priority is to protect and provide confidence
for investors, in particular in the petroleum sector," said Mauricio
Salgar, operations director for Ecopetrol, the state oil firm. "For
the investor, it's important that he know that in Colombia he has
an ally."

The policy's twin emphasis of protecting oil production and
challenging Colombia's most formidable rebel group, the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, is most apparent
here in Putumayo province, where coca once grew like weeds
and rebels freely controlled roads and towns.

One of the newcomers is Petrotesting Colombia, a small, spirited
homegrown company that has made the production of crude in
dangerous corners of Colombia something of a specialty. But it
does not operate here alone.

Four hundred troops patrol a narrow dirt road used by tankers
to transport crude. At one Petrotesting well, soldiers with Galil
assault rifles stand guard from a heavily fortified base circled
by a dozen sandbag bunkers.

"We went in with the support of the armed forces," Frank C. Kanayet,
the company's president, said in an interview in at the company's
new offices in Bogotá. "Without government support, we would
not have been able to come in."

Much of the coca, used to produce cocaine, has been destroyed
here in an American-funded eradication drive. The soldiers who
now stand guard in the wilting heat say they have been told their
job is vital - ensuring that the oil and government revenues flow.
Lately, they have been in an upbeat mood.

"All of this belonged to the guerrillas," said Lt. Luis Villalba, the
young commander of a group of soldiers standing sentry. "Now
it belongs to the army."

Such boasts may be premature. Across four provinces, the guerrillas
have melted into the jungle, avoiding direct confrontations. But they
have left behind snipers and land mines that have bogged down
army forces, killed about 50 soldiers and wounded hundreds. Here
in the cattle pastures and jungles south of the Putumayo River, the
rebels also recently burned nine tankers carrying Petrotesting's oil
and killed one driver.

"They've told us, 'This is our crude, and you are only helping the
multinationals,' " said José Ney, 44, whose tanker was set on fire
by rebels in September. "If they stop me again, they'll kill me."

Still, for the first time in years, soldiers and police have arrived in
isolated pockets of this province, as well as forgotten regions of
three others, Caquetá, Meta and Guaviare. And while bombings
against infrastructure like oil pipelines and wells continue in
Putumayo, the attacks have fallen from 149 in 2003 to 58 this
year through mid-October.

The military and oil company representatives credit two battalions
created just to guard oil infrastructure. They and other units protect
such companies as Argosy Energy International of Houston, which
has 15 wells in Putumayo, and Petrobank Energy and Resources,
a Canadian oil producer that has banked much of its future in
Colombia on tapping into an oil deposit in the Orito region that
may contain a billion barrels.

"There's a feeling of safety, that we're keeping the peace," said
Major Pedro Sánchez, an 18-year counterinsurgency specialist
who is the second in command of the battalion that protects oil
installations in Orito. "We've provided confidence so companies
can explore here."

Employing Colombia's 200,000-member army to further oil
interests is seen as critical to President Álvaro Uribe's ambitious
plans to boost oil production. Oil is Colombia's No. 1 export,
providing nearly a third of the state's revenues. Latin America's
third-largest exporter of oil, Colombia has long been among the
top 10 suppliers of crude to the United States.

But a worsening conflict, coupled with contract terms that
prospective investors found unpalatable, prompted oil companies
to abandon the country and caused exploration to stagnate. From
production of 830,000 barrels a day in 1999, Colombia now pumps
535,000 daily.

With many of the country's major fields fast declining, like
Occidental Petroleum's Caño Limón and BP's Cusiana and Cupiagua,
energy planners here say Colombia will become a net importer by
2009 unless new discoveries are made.

That means luring oil companies, large and small, even to regions
like Putumayo, where energy planners say production of just
10,000 barrels a day could easily quadruple with more exploration.

"Whatever barrel of oil that's out there, we're going to go after
aggressively," said Mr. Salgar, the Ecopetrol director of operations.
"Some of these fields are very small, but we think they are all
important. One barrel of oil is better than no barrels."

Though unproven, Colombian energy officials believe the country
may contain 47 billion barrels of oil, an estimate based on
Colombia's proximity to its oil-rich neighbor, Venezuela, with
which it shares much of the same oil-producing geology.

Colombia, however, is vastly underexplored, with exploration
and production going on in only 7 of the nation's 18 sedimentary
basins, Ecopetrol officials said.

To spur exploration, the state in 2001 reduced Ecopetrol's
mandatory share in joint ventures from 50 percent to 30 percent.
Then, in 2002, the government replaced its flat 20 percent royalty
with a sliding scale that enhances the financial viability of small
projects.

In April, the state went further, eliminating Ecopetrol's required
participation in projects. Taxes were also reduced, the lifespan
of contracts extended and the awarding of concessions made
more flexible. Ecopetrol itself was split into two units, one
devoted to developing business.

The scope of the changes prompted the regional president of one
major oil company, who asked that his name not be used, to remark:
"The government is literally desperate."

Armando Zamora, director of the National Hydrocarbon Agency,
which administers concessions, agreed. "We were anguished and
that's what permitted us to undertake these reforms."

The measures have attracted attention and business. The biggest
catch this year has been Exxon Mobil , which along with Petrobras,
a long-time oil producer here, took advantage of beneficial terms
to undertake an ambitious offshore exploration project.

Other big companies like ChevronTexaco and Occidental Petroleum
have extended natural gas and oil contracts. The Harken Energy
Corporation , Repsol-YPF of Spain, Hocol and several smaller
companies have in recent months signed either exploration
contracts or viability agreements that will likely lead to exploration.

In all, 20 exploration contracts have been signed this year, continuing
a trend from 2003, when 21 companies signed contracts. In 2002,
when the conflict was raging and before new terms were introduced,
14 contracts were signed.

But the state realized that it needed to address security if it wanted
oil companies to explore in regions like the foothills of the Andes in
Meta and Casanare provinces or in the war-torn Catatumbo region
in northeastern Colombia. These areas may have oil, but they are
lawless and violent.

Upon taking office in August of 2002, Mr. Uribe's government
stepped up its protection of power lines and reduced the theft of
gasoline by right-wing paramilitary groups that had a long-
standing practice of tapping into government-owned pipelines.

The government also established a new office in the presidency,
the Presidential Councilor for Infrastructure Protection, which meets
frequently with military officials, Ecopetrol and oil officials to
discuss security measures.

The Bush administration, meanwhile, reversed American policy and
dispatched Special Forces trainers from Fort Bragg, N.C., to train
Colombian soldiers to protect a 500-mile pipeline used by Occidental
Petroleum, which is based in Los Angeles, to pump crude from its
northeastern oil fields.

State oil officials say the idea now is to simply get prospective
companies to travel to Colombia to discuss the safety issues.
"Those companies that are afraid, we tell them, 'First send your
security people,' " said Mr. Zamora of the National Hydrocarbons
Agency. "They come down, and we take them to the Defense
Ministry, the Mines and Energy Ministry, to other companies,
so they can see for themselves."

Such measures have raised concerns among some policy analysts
who question using public funds, both American and Colombian,
to benefit mostly private companies.

Many of the companies are American and, like Occidental, have
long lobbied Washington to back Colombia's government more
strongly. American military planners have also played an important
role in devising military efforts to both protect infrastructure and
hit the guerrillas.

"Even if the Uribe government has launched offensives in other
places, the U.S. assistance has been in places that do have oil
reserves," said Adam Isacson, a senior policy analyst who tracks
Colombia for the Center for International Policy, an organization
in Washington that promotes demilitarization and human rights.
"Coincidence?"

The policies, though, have in many cases benefited ordinary
Colombians long forgotten by the state.

There are now security forces in all 1,100 Colombian municipalities
nationwide; two years ago, nearly 200 towns had no police or soldiers.
Soldiers and light tanks line vital roads near big cities where
Colombians were often kidnapped.

For Petrobank's Colombian subsidiary, Petrominerales, the presence
of troops has been reassuring. Steven J. Benedetti, Petrominerales'
general manager in Colombia, notes that the company has not gone
unscathed: rebels have been attacking its wells since production
began in January of 2003.

Still, Mr. Benedetti remains optimistic. "It's a situation where we
have to weigh the risks with the benefits," he said. "Putumayo is
going to be important for a long time to come."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times

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

BAUAW NEWSLETTER-FRIDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2004 Â

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
END THE U.S. OCCUPATION OF IRAQ!
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW!
MARCH AND RALLY TO STOP THE WAR NOW!
WEDNESDAY, NOV. 3RD, 5PM
POWELL AND MARKET-MARCH TO 24TH & MISSION ST., S.F.
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
VOTE YES ON N! MEETING THURSDAY, OCT. 28, 7PM,
GLOBAL EXCHANGE, 2017 MISSION STREET, SUITE 303
(NEAR 16TH & MISSION STREETS)
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
NEXT BAUAW MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 7 P.M.
1380 VALENCIA STREET
(BETWEEN 24TH & 25TH STREETS)
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

1) Dear UFPJ Bay Area Members, (and BAUAW and everyone...bw)
"This week both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Examiner came out
strongly against Prop N..."
Quote from Chronicle Editorial:
"Such is the danger of a symbolic resolution written by a group
of politicians who have enough trouble solving problems in the
streets of their own city. They are clearly over their heads in
trying to figure out how to bring peace and stability to Fallujah
or Baghdad."

2) Yes on N Lowell coverage/photos
"Jeff Paterson"
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:57:11 -0700

3) MWM Meeting Sunday October 24th 5:30PM !!!
From: "Douglas MacDonald"
To: All MWM supporters and Committee Memebers
(NOTE: The Date for the Report Back on the MWM is SUNDAY
October 24 th !!!!! ( not the 22 nd )

4) Just Say No to More Cops!
This special Education not Incarceration announcement
is being sent out as the No on Measure Y campaign goes
into its home stretch.

5) A Call to Action:
The following Call to Action was raised from the stage at
the Million Worker March on Sunday, and supported by a
meeting of the Million Worker March Committee on Monday,
October 18.

6) Bush Signs $136 Billion
Corporate Tax Cut Bill
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON
Filed at 3:51 p.m. ET
October 22, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Corporate-Taxes.html?oref=login

7) Why Didn't Anyone Tell Us?
Environmental Racism Threatens the Lives of our Babies
By Ebony Colbert
http://www.sfbayview.com/102004/why102004.shtml

8) A Schoolgirl Riddled with Bullets. And No One is to Blame
Questions remain after Israeli unit commander is cleared
of Palestinian pupil's death
By Chris McGreal in Rafah
Published on Thursday, October 21, 2004 by the Guardian/UK
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1021-03.htm

9) Cancer and the Environment
What the Bill Moyers Program "Trade Secrets" Revealed
By Roland Sheppard

10) Ogallala Aquifer
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/3754520.stm
Published: 2004/10/20 07:48:58 GMT
[map on url]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/3754520.stm
Map: The world's water hotspots

11) I Was Robbed Last Sunday
My Personal Reflections After the Washington DC.
Million Workers March and
the Armed Robbery Happened to Me
By: Lee Siu Hin
October 20, 2004

12) DOCUMENTARY: 'A Killing in Choctaw' tells an extraordinary
American story of murder and forgiveness

13) Dear Readers
Here is the digest for October 21, 2004
1-Two killed in the northern Gaza Strip, another dies
of wounds sustained on Wednesday
2-231 Palestinians, including 88 children, killed in
Khan Younis in four year

14) Return of the Class Struggle: Hotel Workers National
Battle, One We Can't Afford to Lose
By Gene Pepi
craigslist.org/cgi-bin/search?areaID=1&subAreaID=1&query=san+francisco&cat=o
ff&minAsk=500&maxAsk=1000&minSqft=600&neighborhood=




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

1) Dear UFPJ Bay Area Members, (and BAUAW and everyone...bw)
"This week both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Examiner came out
strongly against Prop N..."
Quote from Chronicle Editorial:
"Such is the danger of a symbolic resolution written by a group
of politicians who have enough trouble solving problems in the
streets of their own city. They are clearly over their heads in
trying to figure out how to bring peace and stability to Fallujah
or Baghdad."

Prop N needs your help. This week both the San Francisco Chronicle
and the Examiner came out strongly against Prop N despite
endorsements from dozens of San Francisco groups including
the SF Labor Council, SF Building & Construction Trades Council,
the Sierra Club and the SF Democratic Party. This is a low blow to
the local Peace Movement.

In both arguments, the editors state that there is no place for
opposition to the Iraq War in local politics, appear to ignore the
psychological, economic and even physical harm caused to people in
our city because of the Iraq War, and seem to encourage the citizens
of San Francisco who are voicing their opposition through local
government to essentially burry our heads in the sand and let the
Bush or Kerry Administration take care of it. Yeah, right.

The Chron went so far as to suggest that Prop N was conceived
exclusively by ill-witted SF Supervisors, mockingly rename
Prop N 'Bring the supes home now', and say "(The Supervisors)
are clearly over their heads in trying to figure out how to bring
peace and stability to Fallujah or Baghdad." Are we activists
over our heads, too?

Both newspapers also took the common stance that an immediate
withdrawal of US Troops would do more harm than good. But,
if they had taken the time to speak to some of us working on the
Prop N, maybe they would have come to the conclusion that the
US military presence is a source of violence, not tranquility and
that our military occupation should be replaced by humanitarian
aid in order to bring peace. Maybe they would have also learned
about similar legislation that occured in many cities across the
nation during the final stages of the Vietnam War.

At the bottom of this message are links to the Chron and Examiner
Prop N arguments. If you want to help counter their assaults,
please send your opinion to the editors:

http://www.sfgate.com/feedback/
letters@examiner.com

Finally, to give you an idea of the Chron's cogent perspective on
local politics, today's headline in their online political section is
'Lovin' Mouthfuls' in which "Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom recently
shared steamy details about hubby Gavin's sexuality, prowess
and much more...". I'm sorry, but is that really newsworthy?

Jon Previtali
Bring Our Troops Home Now, Vote Yes on N!
www.yesonn.net


Chron (10/21/04) "Bring the supes home now" (No on Prop N)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/21/EDGD99CLKK1.DTL

Examiner (10/19/04) "No on Prop N"
http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/101904op_editorial

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

2) Yes on N Lowell coverage/photos
"Jeff Paterson"
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:57:11 -0700

Hi folks,

Here is the IMC coverage with photos from yesterday's
"Yes on N" rally at Lowell I filed today. Feel free to use the
photos for anything related to the campaign.

High school students organize rally against the war, for SF prop N.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1700635.php

Jeff for
Not in Our Name


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

3) MWM Meeting Sunday October 24th 5:30PM !!!
From: "Douglas MacDonald"
To: All MWM supporters and Committee Memebers
(NOTE: The Date for the Report Back on the MWM is SUNDAY
October 24th! (not the 22nd)



Dear Brothers and Sisters;



The SF MWM Committee voted at our last meting to have a report
back to describe and discuss what occurred and what will come
from the MWM on Washington . Please make certain to attend this
Million Worker March Meeting on SUNDAY Oct 24 th at 5:30PM,
400 North Point, the ILWU Local 10 Hall.

Proposed Agenda includes:

Report Back on March and Evaluation
Report Back on Regional Meeting and Proposed Organizing
Campaigns/Activities (see below)
Discussion on Division of Labor/Structure and
Membership of the SF MWM Committee
Old Business
Telephone Workers Solidarity Event
Update on Hotel Workers Struggle
Update on Bricklayers Struggle with Valero Refinery
Outreach to Local Endorsing Unions and Organizations

The following activities and actions were proposed to be brought
back to the regional committees in order to gain grass roots input.
Some, none or all of the activities can be executed, changed and modified.
The next Regional MWM conference call will develop an action plan
based the input gathered from the members of each regional committee.
The proposed actions and activities are listed below:

_ 11/7 - Support rallies for the National Japanese Day of Protest

_ November - Develop local workers boards to take testimony on
the harassment of workers organizing drives, the difficulty in obtaining
workers compensation and the general attack on workers rights in each
region of the nation.

_ November - Contacting UNITE/HERE to determine what the MWM
regional committees can do to support the national struggle of the hotel
and restaurant workers. Propose a National Day of Solidarity with
these workers struggle for a fair contract.

_ 12/3-12/10 - Support the National week of anti-war protests.

_ 12/4 - 12/5 - Attend the US Labor Against the War Conference
in Chicago and advocate for the cooperation of the MWM movement
and USLAW.

_ December - Send representatives to the Labor Party Meeting
to advocate for cooperation between the MWM movement and the
Labor Party.

_ 1/20/05 - Participate as a delegation in the anti-inauguration
activities

_ 3/20/05 - Support International Women's Day activities.

_ 5/1/05 - (International Labor Day) Promote a global demonstration
against privatization while building international solidarity for workers
rights.

_ 6/23/05 - Organize protests against Taft-Hartley, the slave-labor
law that undermines union organizing and strikes. 6/23 is the
anniversary of the creation and adoption of Taft-Hartley.

_ 7/7/05 - Send representatives to the national AFL-CIO convention
in Chicago to promote the MWM movement and advocate for cooperation
between the organized labor movement and community organizations
on the demands of the MWM.

_ 7/16/05 - Convene a National MWM Conference in order to promote
the MWM demands and the independent movement of working people
mobilizing in their own name to advance their own needs in their own voice.

_ Encourage ongoing regional actions and organizing around the
MWM demands by building labor-community alliances and coalitions
in each region.

Solidarity;

Douglas MacDonald

925-890-6430

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

4) Just Say No to More Cops!
This special Education not Incarceration announcement
is being sent out as the No on Measure Y campaign goes
into its home stretch.

Hi Friends,

Please join me at the fundraiser for the No on Measure Y campaign
(just say no to more cops) in Oakland this Friday night, 8pm,
Humanist Hall, 390 27th Street, downtown Oakland, and at the
following events Saturday and Monday. The movie "Every Mother's Son"
is a powerful documentary on three victims of police murder in New
York City and the mothers' quest for justice and accountability, and
the panel afterwards with the mothers of Idris Stelly, Cammerin Boyd,
and Malaika Parker of Bay Area Policewatch will bring it home to the
Bay Area.

Californians for Justice is the latest endorser of No on Y; let's keep
working to build a movement for peace and justice in Oakland.

Thank you,
Aaron Shuman
510-938-0654 mobile
510-428-9417 home

From: "Education Not Incarceration"
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
To: ednotinc@riseup.net
Subject: Special Announcement for No on Measure Y

NO ON MEASURE Y!!!!

This special Education not Incarceration announcement
is being sent out as the No on Measure Y campaign goes
into its home stretch. First is a list of 3 upcoming
No on Measure Y events. Following that is a powerful
essay written by a high school student at Oakland Tech
HS about being racially profiled in the hallway of his
school. Please endorse the No on Y campaign and share
this with your friends.

No on Measure Y: Jobs, Housing, Education and Health
Care, Not 63 More Cops

1. Fundraiser for No on Measure Y
A screening of the film, "Every Mother's Son," which
is about victims of police violence in New York City.
There will be guest speakers following the film,
including mothers of the victims. The event is
happening this Friday, October 22nd, from 8pm-10pm at
the Humanist Hall in Oakland, which is located at
390 27th Street (near 27th and Broadway)

Suggested Donation of $5-10, but no-one will be turned
away for lack of funds.

2. Saturday, October 23rd: Stop America's Other War.
March for Social Justice and Against Measure Y,
beginning at 11AM at Lake Merrit (Macarthur and Grand)

3. Monday, October 25th, No on Measure Y: Rally
Against Police Brutality, Racial Profiling and
Harrassment: 10:30AM at the Oakland Police
Headquarters, 7th Str. and Washington St.

Make a Donation...
If you can't make it to the fundraiser or the other
events, you can still help out by donating money to
the No on Measure Y campaign. Any amount of money would
be appreciated! Checks can be made payable to
No on Measure Y.org and sent to: No
on Measure Y, 3746 39th Ave, Oakland, CA 94619

A BLACK OAKLAND YOUTH SPEAKS OUT AGAINST MEASURE Y

Please pass this on to your friends (not to other
listservs). Please sign it at the bottom with your
name and organization to show that you are endorsing
No on Measure Y. If you are signature # 5,10,15 etc.
please also send the e-mail to noonmeasurey@yahoo.com

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/1703950.php

What Are You Doing in the Hall?
by Laurence Ashton/PoorNewsNetwork Youth in Media

One Black youth speaks out against Measure Y and the
march toward a whiter, richer more militarized Oakland

" What are you doing in the hall?" A mechanical voice
shot through the cavernous hall of Oakland Technical
High School. It couldn't have been for me, I thought,
I had a hall pass and wasn't causing no trouble for
noone

"Â…Â…did you hear meÂ…what are doing in the hall?" And
then it hit me , it was for me and this time it was
accompanied the dreaded click click noise of police
heels studded with metal tips for that almost
like-a-gun sound.

"I have a pass," I turned around and faced two Oakland
Police Officers who by this time were now fingering
their guns and coming toward me, clicking in unison.

"Let me see it" They had reached me now and one of
them was less than five inches away from my face"

I fumbled for my jacket pocket, as I did 'the other
cop began whispering into his shoulder, "codeÂ… call
for back-up"

Suddenly before my nervous hands could find the pass,
I was against the wall and they were patting me down.
Within seconds instead of weapons, they found the pass
and after a short cough, one of them helped me up and
said, "you should of spoke up sooner, next time keep
your pass in your hand" With that, they both walked on
down the hall ready to harass the next unsuspecting
student who happened in their path.

Later that day I found out that the Oakland Police
Department had been called on campus for "a
disturbance" which turned out was nothing, so I
figured just to make their day not a complete waste of
time, they decided to get me on a casual WWB (Walking
While Black) violation. But of course what they failed
to differentiate was the fact that I wasn't just
"walking" I was a 16 year High School student walking
through The Halls of my school and, in my opinion,
they had absolutely no right in there in the first
place.

This disgusting experience, one of many I have
encountered as young African Descendent male living in
Amerikka, happened almost 3 years ago, and it all came
back to me in living sickening color when my editor at
PNN asked me to write about the proposed legislation
Measure Y, which aims to put at least 63 more cops on
the streets in Oakland funding it with a new flat tax
on Oakland homeowners.

Measure Y will go on November's ballot because it was
approved by a majority vote of the Oakland City
Council, and instead of funding the already poverty
stricken Oakland schools will direct 60 percent of the
newly raised taxes to hire more police officers in
Oakland.

Education Not Incarceration reported that just like in
my case, cops don't prevent violence, they cause
violence, they instigate problems where there aren't
any. When there were less cops on Oakland's streets
such as between 1995 - 1996 when there approximately
100 less cops on the streets, homicides decreased from
152 to 102 and a similar situation occurred from 1999
to 2000, when homicide rates decreased when the number
of Oakland police officers decreased.

Those of us who deal on the frontline of racism and
poverty have known all of this for a long time, in my
case, not only is it my situation but my fathers' who
is a houseless, mentally ill Black man. He lives
homelessly in LA and the Bay Area and gets harassed,
abused and profiled by cops every day. He doesn't get
accepted into over-filled supportive housing or access
to scarce mental health treatment just because he is
arrested for sleeping in a park at night. And
similarly, I don't get a better public education
because I get harassed in my school's hall. Police
don't get at the root causes of poverty and racism;
they just make life harder for the poor folks and the
folks of color unlucky enough to be on their radar
screen that day.

Now I am not saying that all cops are bad, only most
of them, but the idea that getting more cops will
solve Oakland's' problems is just more Jerry Drowning
of our scarce resources and services to supposedly
make life better for scared rich folks who want to
move foreword with the march towards a whiter, richer,
more militarized Oakland.
www.poormagazine.org


I ENDORSE NO ON MEASURE Y:
*Organization Names are for identification purpose
1. Jonah Zern, Education not Incarceration and Oakland
Education Association
2. Zachary Runningwolf, Native American Leader
3. Tommy Escarcega, Proyecto Common Touch
4. Alice DoValle, Justice Now
5. Wilson Riles Jr., Oakland Community Action Network
6. David Laub, Oakland Education Association
7. Desley Brooks, Oakland Citycouncilwoman
8. Greg Hodge, School Board Member
9. Patricia Loya, Centro Legal de la Raza
10. Lisa Gutierez Guzman, Teachers for Social Justice
11. Fannie Brown, state co-chair, ACORN
12. Heath Maddom, Education not Incarceration
13. Cici Malin. Education not Incarceration
14. Jumoke Hinton Hodge
15. Dwayne Wiggins
16. Ricardo Barba

Benefit , Film Showing And Music
For San Francisco Unite-HERE Local 2 Locked Out Hotel Workers

Hotel Workers Battle For Justice
A series of films/videos celebrating the struggle of hotel and restaurant
workers.

Friday October 29, 2004 6:30 PM
New College Of California rm 4
777 Valencia St.
San Francisco

Sliding Scale $5.00-$10.00


Join labor supporters and activists when LaborFest will
screen hotel worker videos from

1946 Hotel Workers Strike with striking workers "Beauty
Pageant" at the Mark Hopkins
"Walking Out" a video of the Zim's restaurant workers strike
"Union Town" of the 1980 hotel workers strike

Sponsored by

LaborFest
P.O. Box 40983
San Francisco, CA 94140
(415)642-8066
laborfest@laborfest.net

Co-sponsored by
Labor Video Project
P.O. Box 425584
San Francisco, CA 94142
(415)282-1908

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

5) A Call to Action:
The following Call to Action was raised from the stage at
the Million Worker March on Sunday, and supported by a
meeting of the Million Worker March Committee on Monday,
October 18.

We forward this to you in lieu of a full report of this
historic and important event, which has formed a new level
of unity between the antiwar movement and the workers'
struggle.

We encourage activists across the country to begin
discussing December 3-10. Send us your ideas and feedback
as soon as possible.

There has been a suggestion that Friday, December 3 might
be a perfect day for student walkouts--this is something
that student activists will know best.

In the coming days, this web page will report on the
specific proposals for action on the various days, Dec.
3-10, including actions planned by labor activists and
unions, by students and youth, and by community
organizers.

Please contact us to endorse, to offer feedback, and to
share your ideas:
stopthewar@antiwar4themillionworkermarch.org

***ENOUGH!
A Call to Action

Dec 3 - Dec 10

"The War Must Stop Now!" Week

Not one more life - or U.S. bullet or bomb - or new war to
pacify Iraq.

It is with a shared sense of seriousness and urgency that
we appeal to all antiwar forces, including: those of us
who are based in the union/workers movement; organizations
that are fighting for jobs, health care and housing; youth
and student organizations; veterans; military families;
military resisters; solidarity movements; and all the
other progressive movements - to make the week of Friday
Dec. 3 - Friday Dec. 10 (International Human Rights Day) a
time for truly mass action across the country to Stop The
War Now! including job actions, student walkouts,
boycotts, and business closings.

The U.S. has started a new war to conquer Iraq - It Will
Not Work - But it will be deadly - UNLESS we say, "No
More!"

The bombing raids on Falluja and other Iraqi cities have
been intensifying, and after the U.S. presidential
elections, the occupation forces are preparing a
full-scale new war to "pacify" Iraq in preparation for
phony U.S.-controlled elections in January. This assault
will not subdue the Iraqi people; they have made it clear
that they want the U.S., and U.S.-led occupation forces to
leave immediately.

However, this new desperate and deadly plan to conquer a
people who refused to be conquered will cause enormous
death and destruction unless we make it clear that the war
will no longer be tolerated.

The War & Occupation must end now! And the People can end
it!

Our challenge, especially for those of us who have marched
against the war, and those of us who have worked hard to
organize those marches, to remind ourselves that the
election is not going to stop the war, and that waiting
for something beyond our control to stop the war only
weakens our movement. The majority of the people want the
war and occupation to end immediately. It is up to us to
act with a sense of urgency, immediacy, passion, and
determination. It is time to say “No More!”

Jobs - Unions - Healthcare - Education - Housing - Bring
the Troops Home Now!

stopthewar@antiwar4themillionworkermarch.org

Million Workers March Audio and Video by Ryme Katkhouda,
Fred Nguyen and the dc-radio-coop
http://dc.indymedia.org/feature/display/107031/index.php

Read the Washington Post article about the Million Worker
March:
http://www.antiwar4themillionworkermarch.org/washingtonpost.htm

http://www.antiwar4themillionworkermarch.org

To Donate: http://www.peoplesrightsfund.org

Other Upcoming Actions:

Dec. 4 - No Draft, No Way Conference in New York in NYC

Dec. 5 - Indoor Solidarity Rally with Haiti in NYC

Jan. 20 - Counter-Inaugural in Washington, DC

Anyone can subscribe.
Send an email request to
AntiWar4theMillionWorkerMarch-subscribe@organizerweb.com

To unsubscribe AntiWar4theMillionWorkerMarch-unsubscribe@organizerweb.com

Subscribing and unsubscribing can also be done on the Web at
http://www.organizerweb.com/mailman/listinfo/antiwar4themillionworkermarch

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

6) Bush Signs $136 Billion
Corporate Tax Cut Bill
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON
Filed at 3:51 p.m. ET
October 22, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Corporate-Taxes.html?oref=login

WASHINGTON (AP) -- With no fanfare, President Bush on Friday
signed the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly
two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses,
farmers and other groups.

Intended to end a bitter trade war with Europe, the election-year
measure was described by supporters as critically necessary to aid
beleaguered manufacturers who have suffered 2.7 million lost jobs
over the past four years.

But opponents charged that the tax package had grown into a massive
giveaway that will add to the complexity of the tax system and end up
rewarding multinational companies that move jobs overseas.

There was no ceremony for the bill-signing. White House press
secretary Scott McClellan announced it on Air Force One as Bush flew
to a campaign appearance in Pennsylvania.

Bush mentioned the new tax law at the beginning of a health care
event in Canton, Ohio.

``I signed a bill that's going to help our manufacturers -- that will
save $77 billion over the next 10 years for the manufacturing sector
of America,'' Bush said. ``That will help keep jobs here.''

The handling of the corporate tax bill was in contrast to Bush's action
on Oct. 4 when he sat before television cameras on a stage in Des Moines,
Iowa, to sign three tax-cut breaks popular with middle-class voters and
reviving other tax incentives for businesses.

Bush's campaign rival, Sen. John Kerry, missed the vote on the corporate
tax breaks. Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said there were many important
things in the bill but that ``George Bush filled the bill up with corporate
giveaways and tax breaks for multinational companies that send jobs
overseas. In his first budget, John Kerry will call for the repeal of all
the
unwarranted international tax breaks that George Bush included in this
bill.''

The Joint Tax Committee said the overall bill would not increase the
deficit because the $136 billion in tax cuts were balanced by $136 billion
in tax increases. Democrats contended the true costs of the tax cuts would
be nearly $80 billion higher because Republicans used accounting gimmicks
such as having popular provisions expire after a few years.

The original purpose for the legislation was to repeal a $5 billion annual
tax break provided to American exporters that was ruled illegal by the
Geneva-based World Trade Organization. Repeal of the tax break was
needed to lift retaliatory tariffs that are now being imposed on more than
1,600 American manufactured products and farm goods exported to
Europe.

The bill replaces the $49.2 billion export tax break with $136 billion in
new tax breaks over the next decade for a wide array of groups from
farmers, fishermen and bow and arrow hunters to some of America's
largest corporations.

The legislation also includes a $10.1 billion buyout of quotas held by
tobacco farmers. However, a Senate provision that would have coupled
this buyout with regulation of tobacco by the Food and Drug
Administration was dropped by the conference committee that
resolved differences between the two chambers.

The measure is the most sweeping overhaul of corporate tax law
since 1986. It provides a wide range of tax benefits for native Alaskan
whalers, importers of Chinese ceiling fans and NASCAR race track
owners.

The centerpiece is $76.5 billion in new tax relief for the battered
manufacturing sector, but manufacturing is broadly defined to include
not just factories but also oil and gas producers, engineering,
construction and architectural firms and large farming operations.

The bill was seen as must-pass legislation because it repeals a
$5 billion annual subsidy for U.S. exporters that has been ruled
illegal by the World Trade Organization. Because of that ruling,
1,600 American exports to Europe have been hit by penalty tariffs
that now stand at 12 percent and are rising by 1 percentage point
a month.

In addition to the $76.5 billion in tax relief for manufacturing, the
measure would also provide $42.6 billion in tax relief to multinational
companies.

Supporters argued that the tax relief for multinational corporations
would boost the competitiveness of U.S. companies, but opponents
argued that it would simply provide more tax benefits to support the
movement of U.S. jobs overseas.

To pay for the $136 billion total of new tax relief over the next decade,
the legislation would rely on the savings from repealing the export
subsidy and would close corporate loopholes and tax shelters --
thereby raising an estimated $82 billion over the next decade.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press

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

7) Why Didn't Anyone Tell Us?
Environmental Racism Threatens the Lives of our Babies
By Ebony Colbert
http://www.sfbayview.com/102004/why102004.shtml

Ebony holds little Shana, with Shawn beside
them and Keshawn standing behind, in this Christmas 2003 family
portrait.

Part 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle's major
front page exposé on California neighborhoods with unusually high
rates of infant death gave us a glimpse into the lives of Bay View
Hunters Point residents Tuli and Walter Hughes, a couple whose six-year
marriage had been burdened with several miscarriages and the depression
that follows. After five such losses, Tuli's doctor informed her
that she had a weak cervix, for which she was treated and given
much needed attention. She eventually conceived and carried to term
a beautiful baby girl, who just turned a year old. Their story is
one that is all too familiar for many young people of child bearing
age in Bay View Hunters Point, including myself.

This is why I felt compelled to write this article: Also a BVHP
resident, I am the mother of a happy, healthy 17-month-old baby
girl and am expecting a baby boy in January of 2005. My fiancé and
I, though ecstatic, are being very cautious. Together since March
1999, we experienced miscarriages once in the year 2000 and twice
in 2001 - all before the third month of pregnancy.

I was diagnosed, by a nurse practitioner at Kaiser, as having
polycystic ovaries, a reproductive disorder that affects the hormones
responsible for ovulation and conception. It causes lapses in your
menstrual cycle and spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) along with
a host of other problems. After getting a second opinion at San
Francisco General Hospital, I was told by a fertility specialist
that the disorder was not only hereditary but common among women
of color and those who are overweight.

He also told me that he had treated quite a few cases in women
who lived in Hunters Point for the same disorder. It wasn't until
my fiancé and I moved away from the Bay View in 2002 that we were
able to conceive and carry a child to term.

April 24, 2003, the day my daughter was born, was the happiest
day of my life.

For many women in Bay View Hunters Point, the confusion and
embarrassment of reproductive disorders and infertility have heard
many cases of them losing their unborn children before they feel the first
kicks. Erin McCormick, who wrote the Chronicle's five-part series,
"Too young to die" (10/3-7/04, www.sfgate.com/infantmortality/),
surmised that the "stress of racism, environmental problems, poverty
and crime may explain why so many babies die young."

Her article shed light on a problem whose cause could literally
be "up in the air." Until now, no one, not even the San Francisco
Department of Public Health, has disclosed to residents how these
issues may also be the cause of hundreds of cases of infertility
among BVHP's female population. To date, no studies on the matter
have been published.

Even those young women in our community who are not interested
in having children any time in the near future may find it interesting
to know that their chances for even conceiving a child may be lower
than those in other neighborhoods in the city.

In the past 10 years, we have learned of high instances of breast
cancer and asthma in BVHP, zip code 94124. However, no stretch of
the imagination could prepare us for the reality that not only are
our children at higher risk for death due to violence, they are
also less likely to even be born - and more than twice as likely
to perish before their first birthday than those who are merely
living in a nearby zip code.

Infant mortality rates have dropped significantly throughout the
United States in the past 16 years. San Francisco, in fact, has
the lowest rate of infant death of any large city in the U.S. However,
according to the Chronicle, which studied 10 years of state data,
Black babies in Bay View Hunters Point are three times more likely
to die than white babies born throughout California! The mortality
rate for all infants in BVHP is 2.5 times higher than for San Francisco
citywide.

So how it is possible for a woman to have a healthy pregnancy
and uneventful birth and still lose a child - who seems perfectly
healthy - before he utters his first word? One young woman I spoke
with recalls the funeral of a friend's "healthy" baby boy. "It was
so sad, and everyone was wondering how it could have happened. My
friend doesn't smoke, she doesn't drink. The baby slept in his own
crib. He shouldn't have died. His parents said they woke up and
he just wasn't breathing. He was fine before he went to sleep. He
always slept through the night. When she woke up to check on him
to see if he needed changing, he didn't have a pulse. He was only
5 months old." Until the Chronicle's study was released, most of
us would have called it the will of God. Now it's open to speculation.

So-called experts in the field would expect you to believe that
young mothers in the Bay View don't get adequate pre-natal care,
don't eat right, use drugs and alcohol or are uneducated when it
comes to parenting. They put the blame on the victims. New moms
and their families tend to disagree with these opinions. Of the
infant death cluster the Chronicle found - five families who had
lost a total of eight babies around Double Rock, near the Shipyard
- only one mother had a history of drug abuse.

Many new mothers complain that when they visit their doctors'
offices, they are immediately referred to social workers. They are
often treated as statistics and even insulted by doctors who question,
"Are you sure of the paternity of the baby?"

"I feel like they're trying to intimidate me," said Porshe, 16.
"I know that I'm young to be having a baby. But the point is that
I'm pregnant and I should be treated the same way as any pregnant
woman - with respect. They shouldn't just assume that I'm not with
my baby's daddy or that I'm ignorant and don't know how to take
care of my baby. That's what makes people not even want to go to
the doctors until they go into labor. They make you feel ashamed
when you should be happy."

Although some of these mommies are busy with school and work and
are discouraged - once treated poorly by their doctors - from returning,
they still make the trip, often across town, to make sure their
babies are healthy. In addition, more young fathers are committed
to attending the appointments than ever before. Mothers, fathers
and even grandparents are also getting more involved in the care
of the pregnancy. So why hasn't anyone informed them that though
their pregnancy may not be "high risk," the very life of their newborn
child may be?

One mother says that the answer lies within the healthcare system.
Latiesha Bermont, 31, says that she didn't know she was pregnant
the first time until she was three months along. She was only 20
years old. "I never had regular periods and the doctor never made
a big deal out of it, so neither did I. I went to the doctor's,
and the pregnancy test was negative. I started cramping one night
really bad and was bleeding heavy, so I went to emergency. That's
when they decided to give me a blood test. It was positive," she
sighed.

"By the time I found out I was pregnant, I was already miscarrying.
They said there was nothing they could do. I felt confused." Like
many young women, Latiesha admits that she didn't expect to ever
have a miscarriage. She also says that she visited the doctor regularly
because she had "issues with her cycle." She swears they should
have been able to tell her something, but her doctors remained
indifferent.

She was never given an answer to her many questions about her
problems with infertility. She is convinced that not knowing is
what put her at risk. Not stress or poverty. She changed her insurance
and eventually was told she had a non-working right ovary that wasn't
producing enough estrogen. After years of treatment and trying,
at 24 years old she finally conceived a child, who died of SIDS
just four months later. At 26, she saw another specialist who helped
her to safely deliver her daughter, Unique, who is almost 5 years
old. Even though she and her husband have been trying for three
years, though, they have yet to be blessed with another pregnancy.
"I guess the medicine isn't working anymore. I think we may just
give up," she says.

How is it possible that our neighborhood and a few other neighborhoods
of color in the most populous state in the country have held the
record for infant mortality for over 10 years? Some who have lived
in the Bay View for decades are convinced, as is the Chronicle,
that environmental racism looms just below the surface of this problem.
For years, residents have complained about the stench coming from
the sewage treatment plant on Phelps Avenue. "That can't be healthy,"
one non-Bay View resident exclaimed as the No. 19 bus passed the
facility. "It smells like death over here. How can anyone breathe?"

Residents have complained to the Department of Public Health about
the abundance of respiratory problems and cancers in the areas surrounding
the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. All to no avail. If nothing has
been done about these issues, how can we be sure that a problem
as monumental as infant mortality won't be swept under the rug?

How is it possible that the same things are happening in predominately
Black or Latino neighborhoods in both Oakland and Richmond, yet
no one has bothered to bring it to the forefront? The Naval Shipyard,
the city sewage plant, the PG&E and Mirant power plants and
several other toxic dumping grounds and waste facilities in or around
BVHP have yet to be investigated as causes for not only the death
of dozens of babies, but the reproductive disorders and cancers
plaguing the young women who will eventually give them life. There
are also hot spots of infant death in South Central LA and in Fresno
and Shafter, Calif., in the Central Valley, all in low-income neighborhoods
populated by Blacks or Latinos and exposed to highly polluted air.

The Chronicle reports: "Studies published in the past few years
link pesticides, carbon monoxide and tiny airborne particles with
birth defects, prematurity, low birth weight and respiratory ailments
that can lead to an infant's demise." Nevertheless, the blame has
continued to be laid at the feet of the parents. Already deemed
incompetent by their lack of income, these moms and dads often blame
themselves.

"Stuff like this wasn't even discussed when we were growing up,"
says 50-year-old grandmother Sylvia Gross. "If your baby died, it
was crib death. This has been happening for years, babies dying,
and nobody blamed nobody. We didn't even contemplate that the very
air we were breathing could be the cause. It's amazing that no one
has even mentioned that it was a possibility until now."

This is what our local government wants. They take no responsibility
for the environmental genocide being unleashed upon our community
and don't anticipate confrontation because we have been conditioned
to believe our suffering is ultimately our own fault.

We've been taught that the best way to have a safe pregnancy is
to eat right and exercise, not indulge in drugs or alcohol and get
prenatal care as early as possible. Our doctors have continued to
us the standard "Put your baby on his back to sleep," "Don't
smoke in the house," "Breastfeeding is best" script when we become
new parents. Never once are you told, "If you live near power plants,
sewage plants and landfills, your baby may die ... but even if you
try your best to be a good parent, if your baby gets sick or dies,
we'll blame you." If someone had had the forethought to warn us,
perhaps this issue would have been brought to the front page long
ago and those who really deserve the blame could have been held
accountable.

While local politicians give Bay View Hunters Point gentrification-inducing
perks like Muni Light Rail, they should be fighting to make the
city's air safe for all its residents to breathe - not just for
those who live in Diamond Heights, Nob Hill or the Castro. They
should shut down plans to build housing in the Hunters Point Shipyard,
which is unfit for human habitation, investigate how the release
of toxins and particulates into the air from the city's sewage plant
and PG&E's power plant are affecting the quality of life in
our community, and provide our citizens with programs that will
educate them about how to live healthier lives. Instead, they continue
to target our young mothers as potential CPS cases, hire corrupt
companies to fill the most unsafe land with homes that will ultimately
be our coffins, and ignore or block our own efforts to rebuild our
community.

One brand new mommy of twins agreed to give me her opinions on
the topic but only if she could challenge me with some questions
of her own: "Has everyone been so blinded by the bad media coverage
about HP that they can't see that this is bigger than any shooting
on the 10 o'clock news? What makes our children's lives less important
than the babies born in Fillmore or in Chinatown? Why is it okay
for so many of them to die, and nobody does anything about it?"

I couldn't even begin to give her the answers she was looking
for, but I suggested that in her quest to find them, she start with
answering this one first: "Why didn't anyone tell us?"

I'm not sure we'll get any closure on the pain this issue has
caused any time soon. But I am confident that with hard work and
research, we'll have the answers we're looking for. I doubt that
our local government will be happy to answer them for us. I am hopeful
that with patience and diligence on the part of myself and my family,
my unborn son will survive these statistics, and I pray that with
the grace of God, others will as well.

Email Ebony at efcolbert@yahoo.com.

San Francisco Bay View
National Black Newspaper
4917 Third Street
San Francisco California 94124
Phone: (415) 671-0789
Fax: (415) 671-0316
Email:
editor@sfbayview.com

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

8) A Schoolgirl Riddled with Bullets. And No One is to Blame
Questions remain after Israeli unit commander is cleared
of Palestinian pupil's death
By Chris McGreal in Rafah
Published on Thursday, October 21, 2004 by the Guardian/UK
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1021-03.htm


The undisputed facts are these: it was broad daylight, 13-year-old Iman
al-Hams was wearing her school uniform, and when she walked into the
Israeli army's "forbidden zone" at the bottom of her street she was
carrying her satchel. A few minutes later the short, slight child was
pumped with bullets. Doctors counted at least 17 wounds and said
much of her head was destroyed.

Beyond that there is little agreement between the army top brass and
Palestinian witnesses as to how Iman came to die last week, or even
among members of the military unit responsible for killing the child
in Gaza's Rafah refugee camp.

Palestinian witnesses described the shooting as cold-blooded. They
say soldiers could not have failed to see they were firing at a child,
and she was killed as she already lay wounded and helpless.

"Some soldiers were lying on the ground and shooting very heavily
toward her," said Basim Breaka, who saw the killing from her living
room. "Then one of the soldiers walked to her and emptied his clip
into her. For sure she died on the second or third bullet. I could see
her lying on the ground, not moving. I can't imagine why that soldier
wanted to shoot her after she was dead."

This week an army investigation cleared the unit's commander after
some of his own soldiers accused him of giving the order to shoot
knowing the target was a young girl, and of then emptying the clip
of his automatic rifle into her.

On the day she died, Iman left home shortly before 7am for the short
walk to school in Rafah's Tal al-Sultan neighborhood. The school,
facing the heavily militarized border with Egypt, is under the shadow
of a towering camouflaged Israeli gunpost.

Like almost every other building in the area, Iman's school is
pockmarked by bullets. Last year, a 13-year-old boy was shot
dead by the army outside the school. This year, two pupils and
a teacher were wounded by bullets inside the grounds.

Iman walked past her school with her satchel over her shoulder,
crossed the road and climbed down a small sandy bank to an area
that was an olive and citrus orchard until the army's bulldozers
flattened it in April. She had entered the "forbidden zone" next
to the watchtower where any Palestinian risks being shot.

The schoolgirl kept on walking toward the tower but was still several
hundred meters away when two shots caught her in the leg. She
dropped her bag, turned, tried to hobble away, and fell.

Four or five soldiers emerged from the army post and shot at her
from a distance. Palestinian witnesses and some Israeli soldiers
say that the platoon commander moved in closer to put two bullets
in the child's head. They say that he then walked away, turned back
and fired a stream of bullets into her body.

Iman's corpse was taken to Rafah's hospital and inspected by
Dr Mohammed al-Hams. "She has at least 17 bullets in several
parts of the body, all along the chest, hands, arms, legs," he said.
"The bullets were large and shot from a close distance. The most
serious injuries were to her head. She had three bullets in the head.
One bullet was shot from the right side of the face beside the ear.
It had a big impact on the whole face. Another bullet went from the
neck to the face and damaged the area under the mouth."

The doctor said that the nature of the wounds suggested that
Iman was already dead when some of the bullets hit her. The
army swiftly blamed Iman for her own death by entering the forbidden
zone. At first, the military said soldiers suspected the girl was carrying
a bomb in her satchel. When it turned out there was no bomb, it said
she was being used by Palestinian combatants to lure troops from
their post.

But some soldiers in the unit responsible, the Shaked battalion, were
outraged at what they saw as a cover-up. One told Yedioth Ahronoth
newspaper that a soldier in the watchtower had told the company
commander that he was about to shoot a child: "Don't shoot, it's
a little girl".

"The company commander approached her, shot two bullets into her,
walked back towards the force, turned back to her, switched his
weapon to automatic and emptied his entire magazine into her.
We were in shock. We couldn't believe what he was doing. Our
hearts ached for her. Just a girl of 13," a soldier told the newspaper.

Other soldiers said that if the company commander was not
dismissed they would refuse to serve under him: "It is a disgrace
that he is still in his position. We want him kicked out."

The accounts of Palestinian witnesses back the claims of the
protesting soldiers.

Fuad Zourob was working at a small brick factory overlooking
the area where Iman was shot. "The girl was walking in the sand.
She was shot from the army post. She was hit in the leg and she
was crawling.

"Then she stood up and started to try and run and then she fell.
The shooting went on. The soldiers arrived by foot. One came close
to the girl and started to shoot. He walked away, turned back and
then shot her some more," he said.

Yousef Breaka watched from the balcony of his second floor flat.
He owns the 12 acres of bulldozed land beside the building which
Iman crossed minutes before she was shot.

"The first shot came from the army post. It hit her in the leg. She
was starting to walk on and then fell. She dropped her bag. They
were firing, heavy shooting. I am sure she died before the two
soldiers came and shot her bag and then her," he said.

Mr Breaka's living room wall is decorated with the holes of nine
bullets fired from the Israeli army watchtower two years ago.
A tenth bullet killed his 80-year-old mother, Jindiya.

Neither Iman's father, Samir al-Hams, nor the witnesses know why
the girl walked into the forbidden zone.

"I can't explain why she was there. I've asked everyone and no one
can explain it. Perhaps she just wanted to walk on the sand. Perhaps
she was confused. I don't know," said Mr al-Hams.

Mr Zourob was surprised to see Iman walking at the back of his
factory. "I was astonished. I didn't know why she was there. No
one goes toward that area. She was alone but some of the school
children were calling her: Iman, why are you there?" he said.

The watchtower sits atop a large hill of sand. It is surrounded by
barbed wire and other defenses. Even before she was hit in the leg,
it would have taken Iman 10 minutes or more to scramble up the
hill. Once she was wounded, there was little chance she could have
got to the watchtower.

If she was carrying a bomb, it could have harmed Israeli troops
had she got close enough to them. But after Iman was shot in the
leg she dropped her school bag.

Palestinian witnesses say soldiers pumped it full of bullets,
establishing that it was not a bomb, but still went on to shoot
the girl.

The Israeli army's rules of engagement permit soldiers to wound
a person who enters a security zone and does not heed warning
shots to leave. But once the person is wounded, soldiers are only
permitted to kill if there is an imminent threat to their lives.
Witnesses say Iman was helpless and posed no such threat.

Her father is a teacher at a primary school neighboring his daughter's.
"The day Iman was killed, the headmistress of her school called me
at 8.15 and asked why she wasn't at school. I said I had no idea.,"
he said.

"I ran to the school. The teachers and headmistress told me the
army shot toward a small girl but she was fine, don't worry. I calmed
down a bit when I heard that and thought maybe they shot toward
her to make her afraid and arrested her for interrogation and they
will release her. But then they declared her dead. That was the worst
moment in my life."

This week, the officer responsible for the Gaza strip, Major General
Dan Harel, completed his investigation and pronounced that the
company commander had not acted unethically in the shooting
of Iman but was being suspended for losing the confidence of his
soldiers.

The speed of the investigation has revealed once again the cursory
nature of the army's inquiries into such shootings. A more thorough
investigation usually only follows if there is external pressure, such
as in the case of three Britons shot dead by Israeli soldiers over the
past two years.

The military has quietly dropped an investigation into the killing by
an Israeli sniper of a brother and sister, both teenagers, in Rafah in
May. The army falsely claimed that the pair were killed by a Palestinian
bomb and only began the investigation after journalists found the
bodies of the children and reported that both had a single shot to
the head.

Under pressure from the revelations of the Shaked battalion soldiers,
the military police has launched a separate investigation into the
death of Iman al-Hams. The soldiers say they will insist that it
is completed.

(c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
(c) Copyrighted 1997-2004
www.commondreams.org

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

9) Cancer and the Environment
What the Bill Moyers Program "Trade Secrets" Revealed
By Roland Sheppard

On March 26, 2001, a "Bill Moyers PBS Special" titled "Trade Secrets"
documented the chemical industry's conspiracy of silence and refusal
to properly inform hundreds of thousands of workers about the risks
of cancer and other diseases associated with the manufacturing of
vinyl chloride (VC) and its polyvinyl chloride (PVC) product.
The program was based on a Houston Chronicle article written by
Jim Morris in 1998 titled "Rules for hazardous chemicals evolve
slowly-Industry challenges frustrate regulation'

According to www.mycounsel.com, "a trade secret is any piece of
information used in a business that isn't generally known to the public.
This is valuable because the information is kept secret. Trade secret
law can apply to a broad variety of information, including formulas,
patterns, business plans, designs and procedures. The law provides
some protection against others from misappropriating, or improperly
obtaining, your secret.' Companies in the industry have applied "Trade
Secret Protection' to their study of health effects caused by the
chemicals they produce.

Usually, these "Trade Secrets" or "Smoking Guns" do not become
known until a successful lawsuit is filed against a company and their
files are opened. This was the case with the Tobacco Companies and
was the case with the manufacturers of vinyl chloride. The PBS show
made it clear that the drive for profits superceded precaution for
workers lives in particular and life in general.

The show was a good introduction to the hazards of capitalist
production. It demonstrated the endemic problems of capitalist
production and its effects on the environment. It will help increase
the general awareness of the causes of cancer and other diseases.
However, the program only showed the "tip of the iceberg' about the
daily catastrophe of production for profit at the expense of human
lives and the future of humanity.

The chemical industry is well aware of the environmental health
consequences of its products. The following is from "Environmental
Illness Briefing Paper" published by the Chemical Manufactures
Association, Washington D.C. (1990)

"There is no doubt these patients are ill...and deserving of
compensation, understanding and expert medical care (...) The
primary impact on society would be the huge cost associated with
the legitimization of environmental illness"

The conclusion in the above statement is absolutely correct. There is
currently a huge cost in human life and the pursuit of happiness.
The cost they talk about are the huge costs, in compensation for victims
of chemical diseases, if all of the "Trade Secrets" become public
knowledge forcing the recognition and "legitimization of
environmental illness!"

In reality, Trade Secrets only get exposed after a sufficient number
("body count") of workers and others die from a common exposure
to a chemical. The increase in cancer begins with the expansion
and development of the chemical industry sine World War II. The
development and production of synthetic organic chemicals, used
in everyday life, has increased over 100 fold since World War II in
the United States. The increase has been geometric, doubling every
seven to eight years. In the United States, by the late 1980s,
production had reached over 200 billion pounds per year. Many
of these new compounds and medicines have been to the benefit
of humanity.

Unfortunately, only approximately 3 percent of these chemicals
have been tested for their toxicity and potential long-range harm.
Under the banner of "Better Living Through Chemistry," life and
production changed. The "miracle fiber" asbestos was used
everywhere and everything was dusted with DDT. Twenty years
after their introduction, the death toll from cancer caused by these
two substances began to come in. The development and production
of synthetic organic chemicals, used in everyday life, has increased
over 100 fold since World War II in the United States. The increase
has been geometric, doubling every seven to eight years. In the
United States, by the late 1980s, production had reached over
200 billion pounds per year.

In her book Living Downstream, Sandra Steingraber wrote:

"In 1964, two senior scientists at the National Cancer Institute,
Wilhelm Hueper and W.C. Conway, wrote, 'Cancers of all types
and all causes display even under already existing conditions,
all the characteristics of an epidemic in slow motion.' The
unfolding epidemic was being fueled, they said in 1964, by
"increasing contamination of the human environment with

chemical and physical carcinogens and with chemicals supporting
and potentiating their action."

"And yet the possible relationship between cancer and what
Hueper and Conway called 'the growing chemicalization of the
human economy' has not been pursued in any systematic,
exhaustive way....

"Industrialized countries have far more cancers than countries
with little industry (after adjusting for age and population size).
One-half of all the world's cancers occur among people living in
industrialized countries, even though such people are only one-
fifth of the world's population. From these data, WHO (the World
Health Organization) has concluded that at least 80 percent of
all cancer is attributable to environmental influences."

One of the most alarming factors is that the original safety standards
that the Occupation Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) adopted
in 1971 were the standards set by a private organization called the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
The ACGIH is a group composed of industrial hygienists from state
and local governments, plus academics and industry consultants.
From that point on it has been nearly impossible to improve the
standards to protect lives.

In the late 1970's OSHA administrators estimated that the agency's
proposed legislation would produce a 20 percent drop in cancer
rates. Since all such regulations are a battle between businesses with
their "Trade Secrets' and science independent of corporations the proposed
legislation to eliminate 20% of all cancer was never approved by the
capitalist politicians. In fact, the current "body count' for cancer is
over 40% of the people in the United States will get cancer. Such is
the tragedy of "Trade Secrets."

The most glaring example is the occupational environment, where
workplaces have become "killing fields." In the United States, in 1990
the American Public Health Association estimated that at least 350,000
workers get occupational diseases (cancer, etc.) and 50,000-70,000
workers will die each year from these diseases. Given the steady
decline in occupational health these estimates are now most likely
much higher!

Blue-collar workers and agricultural workers all have higher rates of
cancer and other diseases because they receive higher doses of the
toxic chemicals at the workplace than the rest of the population.
Eventually, these toxins spread to the entire working class as they
become part of the environment.

An example of this fact is the population living "downwind" from the
many Oil Refineries in Contra Costa County in the San Francisco Bay
Area. People living near these refineries have very high rates of cancer.
In EPA terms, this is called a cancer cluster.

The EPA , in its corporate manner, determined that the high rates of
cancer were caused by high rates of smoking in the area-not from the
refineries carcinogenic pollutions! However, under the rules of
Proposition 65 in California and after several years of litigation, the
entire Gasoline Refining Industry, in California, had to post this
warning in the February 24, 1999 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle:

"WARNING: Chemicals known to the State to cause cancer, birth
defects, or other reproductive harm are found in gasoline, crude oil,
and many other petroleum products and their vapors, or result from
their use. Read and follow label directions and use care when handling
or using all petroleum products.

"Chemicals known to the State to cause cancer, birth defects, or
other reproductive harm are found in and around gasoline stations,
refineries, chemical plants, and other facilities that produce, handle,
transport, store, or sell crude oil and petroleum and chemical products.

"Other facilities covered by this warning include, for example, oil and
gas wells, oil and gas treating plants, petroleum and chemical storage
tanks, pipeline systems, marine vessels and barges, tank trucks and
tank cars loading and unloading facilities, and refueling facilities."

The contradiction between governmental agencies agencies is part
and parcel of the overall problem of "Trade Secrets." By keeping
most of the old pre-OSHA standards and by not even enforcing
the regulations that exist due to understaffing and underfunding,
the government regulatory agencies are not protecting workers or
the public-they are protecting the polluters who are poisoning
humanity.

The following is an article that I wrote on this subject that was
published in San Francisco Painters District Council l#8's Newspaper
"The Voice" and was also published in Organized Labor, the newspaper
of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

Why Painters Should Wear Respirators and Skin Protection At All Times
In our safety classes you are taught to read "MSDS sheets." For
prevention of cancer, these sheets are of no value. The reason is
that NIOSH, the scientific part of OSHA, does not set the permissible
legal (OSHA) limits of particles in the air while you are working.
From the following examples from the 1994 NIOSH Pocket Guide
To Chemical Hazards, one can see what is wrong with OSHA.

SUBSTANCE NIOSH PEL OSHA PEL

Benzene. 1 ppm 1 ppm
Ethylene Oxide .1 ppm 1 ppm
Formaldehyde .0165 ppm 0.75 ppm

From Page 342 of the "Pocket Guide": "NIOSH has not identified
thresholds that will protect 100% of the population. NIOSH usually
recommends that occupational exposures to carcinogens be limited
to the lowest feasible concentration.'(In an occupational health video,
"Before Their Time," produced by the Windsor Occupational Health
Information Service, Windsor Canada, Peter Infante, the Director of
Standards for OSHA, stated that NIOSH includes one more cancer
per 1000 workers exposed as feasible.)

From these facts about two known carcinogens and one probable
carcinogen, common in paints, one can tell that OSHA can not
prevent occupational cancer. Especially in painters who are
exposed to over 150 known and suspected carcinogens and over
3000 hazardous substances daily. As you can see people getting
cancer are part of the equation; OSHA pel's are at least ten times
higher than NIOSH; therefore, the OSHA "feasible" risk for cancer
is at least ten times higher. (This is the usual difference between
NIOSH and OSHA.)

Cancer being a part of painting is guaranteed by OSHA.
Children and spouses of painters also have high rates for cancer.

One must also remember that ethylene glycol is the base for most
latex paints and radiator fluid. NIOSH recommends when working
with ethylene glycol that you should prevent skin and eye contact,
wash when contaminated and change clothes daily.

OSHA and MSDS sheets can not protect you from occupational
diseases. Work safe! Be smart! Wear respirators, gloves, goggles,
and long sleeve shirts at all times when painting. Protect yourself
and your family from occupational diseases.

OSHA tried to correct itself in the 1970's but with no success. If, as
OSHA administrators estimated, during the Carter presidency, that their
proposed legislation would produce a 20 percent drop in cancer rates,
then Ronald Reagan was a carcinogen, and a potent one at that.
Today, one can add Clinton to the list.

Scientific technology exists to prevent the high rate of occupational
diseases, but the profit motive and capitalist competition prevent
the implementation of preventive action and proper safety precautions.

Science and technology are not an obstacle to maintaining a safe
environment. The barrier to a safe environment is capitalism and
its paramount principle of production and science for profit. Most
environmental studies demonstrate that environmental destruction
has become globally intertwined within our society and that the
globalization of capitalism has quickened the destruction of the planet.

The struggle for environmental health and safety is directly against
the very fibre of capitalist production. In fact, environmental illness
is so intertwined within our society that it requires all of humanity to
act, in their overall interests for survival as a species, to correct the
problem. It requires a society where humanity has social control
over the entire environment, social, economic, and political-
a socialist society in which science is in the interests of humanity
in harmony with nature.

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

10) Ogallala Aquifer
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/3754520.stm
Published: 2004/10/20 07:48:58 GMT
[map on url]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/3754520.stm
Map: The world's water hotspots

From disappearing lakes and dwindling rivers to military threats over
shared resources, water is a cause for deep concern in many parts of the
world. Click on the map to read about some of the world's water hotspots.

Ogallala Aquifer

Ninety-five percent of the United States' fresh water is underground.
One crucial source is a huge underground reservoir, the 800-mile
Ogallala aquifer which stretches from Texas to South Dakota and provides
an estimated third of all US irrigation water.

The aquifer was formed over millions of years, but has since been cut
off from its original natural sources and is being steadily depleted. In
some areas its level is dropping by three to five feet (90 - 150cm) a
year. Estimates for its remaining lifespan vary in different areas,
ranging from 60 to 250 years.

Many farmers in the Texan High Plains, which rely particularly on the
underground source, are now turning away from irrigated agriculture as
they become aware of the hazards of over-pumping.

Mexico City

Mexico City is sinking because of the amount of water being pumped out
from beneath its foundations.

One of the largest and most populous cities in the world, it was once a
lush land of lakes.

The city draws 80% of its water from aquifers below it, and has sunk an
estimated nine metres into the soft, drained lake bed since the 1900s.

It already buys in a third of its water from surrounding areas, and an
estimated million people are dependent on water trucks.

Although work is being done on its rusting pipe system, 27% of the
city's water is still wasted through leaks.

Spain

The battle to provide water for Spain's parched southern coast has
generated major controversy in recent years.

A 4.2 billion euro plan to divert water from the River Ebro to supply
the area around Valencia, Almeria and Murcia was abandoned by the
incoming Socialist government in 2004.

Tens of thousands had protested against the project, which was
criticised by environmentalists concerned that it would encourage misuse
of water and that the Ebro's fragile delta would suffer.

Work had already begun and developers were planning new tourist
developments and golf courses when the project was scrapped.

The new government plans to build several desalination plants instead to
provide water for the near-desert region.

Chad

Lake Chad, once a huge lake straddling the borders of Chad, Niger,
Nigeria and Cameroon, has shrunk by 95% since the mid 1960s.

The region's climate has changed during that time, with the monsoon
rains which previously replenished the lake now greatly reduced.

Local weather changes, rather than global warming, are blamed, but human
activities such as overgrazing and crop irrigation are thought to have
made the situation worse.

Nine million farmers, fishermen, and herders in the region now face
water shortages, crop failure, livestock deaths, collapsed fisheries,
soil salinity and increasing poverty.

There are plans to divert water from a tributary to the Congo to
replenish the lake, and also to establish better management of the
remaining water.

Oil has recently been found in the Chadian sector of the lake, raising
hopes of a longer-term solution to the region's economic problems.

River Nile

The Nile is vitally important to the survival of 160 million people in
10 countries who share the basin in which it flows.

To Egypt in particular, the river is a matter of life and death as the
country has almost no other source of water.

A 1929 treaty between Britain and Egypt said no work would be done on
the river that would reduce the volume of water reaching Egypt.

But tensions have been rising as neighbouring countries question the
treaty - Tanzania, for example, is building a pipeline to extract
drinking water and Ethiopia is planning to use the water for irrigation.

Cairo has said in the past that it was ready to use force to protect its
access to the 7,000km-long river. Talks took place in 2004, but an
agreement is yet to emerge.

Israel

With 5% of the world's population trying to survive on 1% of its water,
there is strong competition for water in the Middle East.

A series of dry years - together with population growth - has recently
increased the pressure. Both Israel and Jordan rely on the River Jordan
- but Israel controls it and has cut supplies during times of scarcity.

The level of the Sea of Galilee has dropped in recent years, sparking
fears that Israel's main reservoir will become salinated.

The Palestinians - whose water supply is also controlled by Israel - say
supplies are intermittent and expensive, and that the underground
aquifer which they share with Israel has become depleted and damaged
through overuse. Israeli settlers in the West Bank use several times
more water than their Palestinian neighbours.

To help ease the crisis, Israel has agreed to buy water from Turkey and
is investigating building desalination plants.

Iraq

Drainage and irrigation schemes carried out by the government of Saddam
Hussein in southern Iraq have led to the loss of an estimated 90% of one
of the world's most significant wetlands.

A vast network of canals has diverted water from the 20,000 square
kilometres of marsh land between the Tigris and Euphrates, in places
leaving nothing but salty, crusted earth behind.

Turkish dams upstream are also thought to have reduced the water flow
and contributed to the wetlands' fate.

Most of the Marsh Arabs fled, facing both political persecution under
Saddam Hussein's regime and the loss of the freshwater which sustained
their way of life.

Since the US-led invasion of Iraq, local people have attempted to
restore water flow, but there are reports that this has led to disease
as much of the water is contaminated.

A UN project to restore the area was announced in July 2004.

Turkey

Water-rich by Middle-Eastern standards, Turkey has in recent years
undertaken an ambitious project to sell water from its Manavgat river
across the region.

It is still vulnerable to shortages, however - just a few weeks after
Turkey agreed to sell water to Israel, officials were warning of a water
crisis.

Turkey has spent billions of dollars in the past decades building dams
to increase its water reserves and boost its hydroelectric capabilities.

Two particular projects the Ilisu and Yusefeli dams, have faced delays
after several Western companies withdrew funding following bad publicity
over human rights concerns.

Another project, a system of 22 dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers,
has provoked criticism from downstream neighbours Iraq and Syria.

Aral Sea

The Aral Sea in Central Asia was once the world's fourth biggest inland
sea, and one of the world's most fertile regions. But economic
mismanagement has turned the area into a toxic desert.

The two rivers feeding the sea, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya, were
diverted in a Soviet scheme to grow cotton. Between 1962 and 1994, the
level of the Aral Sea fell by 16 metres.

The surrounding region now has one of the highest infant mortality rates
in the world, and anaemia and cancers caused by chemicals blowing off
the dried sea bed are common.

China

China is undertaking two huge projects to tackle flooding in the south
and drought in the north.

The Three Gorges Dam under construction on the Yangtze River aims to
control flood waters and generate power.

The dam will provide 10% of the country's electricity when finished.
More than 600,000 have been moved to make way for a reservoir longer
than Lake Michigan behind the $25bn dam.

In the north, all three rivers feeding China's Northern Plain are
severely polluted, damaging health and limiting irrigation.

The lower reaches of the Yellow River, which feeds China's most
important farming region, run dry for at least 200 days every year.

In the north China plain, 30 cubic kilometres more water is being pumped
to the surface each year by farmers than is replaced by the rain.

As groundwater is used to produce 40% of the country's grain, experts
warn that water shortages could make the country dependent on grain
imports.

To counter this, work has begun on China's biggest ever construction
project - a massive scheme to channel billions of cubic metres of water
from the Yangtze to the replenish the dwindling Yellow River.

The River Ganges

The most sacred Hindu river, the Ganges, is suffering from depletion,
pollution and has been the source of a long-running dispute between
India and Bangladesh.

The Gangorti glacier at the head of the River Ganges is retreating at a
rate of 30 metres per year - experts blame climate change.

Deforestation in the Himalayas has caused subsoil streams flowing into
the river to dry up.

Downstream, India controls the flow to Bangladesh with the Farakka
Barrage, 10km on the Indian side of the border.

Until the late 1990s, India used the barrage to divert the river to
Calcutta to stop the city's port drying unds and mangrove forests at the
river's delta seriously threatened.
The two countries have now signed an agreement to share the water more
equally.

Water quality, however, remains a huge problem, with high levels of
arsenic and untreated sewage in the river water.

Southern Australia

Australia is the continent with the least rainfall, apart from Antarctica.

Its two largest rivers, the Murray and the Darling, have been
extensively dammed for power and irrigation, reducing flows to the sea
by three-quarters - but providing three million people and 40% of
Australia's farms with water.

Salt rising to the surface as the lower reaches of the Murray dried out
has destroyed prime agricultural land. Wetlands have shrunk, species
numbers have dropped and the Australian National Trust has declared the
whole river an "endangered area".

In the east, the Snowy River was dammed and diverted to the Murray basin
decades ago to water the country's dry interior. But the ecological
impact on the depleted river was so great that some flow was restored in
2002.

Water extraction from the Murray river was capped in 1995 and programmes
to repair some of the destruction are now under way.

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

11) I Was Robbed Last Sunday
My Personal Reflections After the Washington DC.
Million Workers March and
the Armed Robbery Happened to Me
By: Lee Siu Hin
October 20, 2004

Last Sunday, October 17 at
D.C. I was participating at the
historical Million Workers March's
(MWM) and organized the immigrant workers tent.

After the march, around 9:50 PM
when I left the post-MWM event and walk back
to my sleeping space, at the
corner of O & 11th Street of the D.C.
neighborhood (just few blocks
away from the event). I was robbed by two
African-American youths who were
drunk and claimed to have "weapons"
on their pocket. They stole my wallet
with approx. $80.00 cash, remarkably
they didn't stole my cell phone and
I was not injured, and I immediately
used my cell phone to call the police.

I am not here to write my 30 seconds
experience of how being robbed; rather
I want to talk about why it happened.
The experience last Sunday night didn't
frightened me at all, rather I felt very sad,
because at the earlier same
day we just had a labor march to
demand justice for the working class & the
poor, and demand to hold the
corrupt corporations & government
accountable, just
few hours and less then
2 miles ways away I was robbed. How I can convince
the skeptics who caused the
problems of poor, and how
I can tell the pro-gun,
pro-death penalty advocates
that more cops and jail is not the answer? And to
assume black=criminals is
reasonable self-protection on the mean street
since I was robbed by two African-American youths?

It was ironic that I went to a poor
African American neighborhood to attend
the post MWM-anarchist event--
who organized by a group of white youths who
are not even came from the neighborhood,
I was robbed by two black teenagers
from the neighborhood, and no choice
but need to call white cops for the
help, and they didn't help me too much.

We need to ask, why this neighborhood?

Anyone living in will understand this is
the so-called the North eastern
part of the D.C., where most poor
African-American family lives. It's famous for
their impoverishment, high crime, high
unemployment rates with crack house,
street prostitute, robbery are at every
corner. While wealthy and powerful
white D.C. politicians and power
brokers working just few blocks away from the
area (The infamous F.B.I. headquarters
are just 10 blocks south at the same
11th street), they are living at the north
-western part of the city or
Maryland suburbs.

With the rapid gentrifications of the
neighborhood for the past ten years,
many white middle and upper class
are moving back to the city, forcing the
poor black families out, with the newly
build 3-blocks long Washington
Convention center had opened recently
across the street, this neighborhood
will soon become the next Dupont
circle kind of the wealthy neighborhood for the white
middle classes, with the streets are
getting "better" and "safer," the lucky
ones from the community will get
a job to work at the nearby convention
center or newly build shopping
establishments, the unlucky one will be eventually
force out from the neighborhood.

I had so many mixed feelings
about the labor and social justice
movements--When we were talking
about the workers right for the bottom
of our society, except beautiful slogans,
we still doesn't seem have able to help
anyone to win their struggles. Sadly, we
spend more time to fight within ourselves then
fight for our real enemy-the multi-national
corporations, the imperialism and
corrupt government policies. Think about
it! I was thinking about it deeply
when I was walking alone at this
neighborhood at the same moment when two
teenagers jump from the dark ally to robbed me....

It's ironic that we fight more often
within ourselves then to fight against
our true enemy-the corporations and
the government policies. Just like what
happened these days when the AFL-CIO
working with right-wing business and
CIA-funded sources to launch racists
China-bashing campaign, and mobilized the
American workers instead to held
corporations and the government policy
accountable, we blindfully blame China
is the reason who American jobs were lost.
However, beside thankful that I was
not hurt, by miracle they also dropped
my lucky half U.S. dollar coin from
my wallet, this coin had been following me
every step of my life, my work and
places I visited for the past 5 years,
included Iraq, Mexico and China, it
gives a sense of hopes that like what
Martin Luther King, Jr. said before--
our dreams will come true one of these days.

ActionLA
Action for World Liberation Everyday!
Tel: (213)403-0131
URL: http://www.ActionLA.org
e-mail: Info@ActionLA.org
Please join our ActionLA Listserv
go to: http://lists.riseup.net/www/subscribe/actionla
or send e-mail to: actionla-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

12) DOCUMENTARY: 'A Killing in Choctaw' tells an extraordinary
American story of murder and forgiveness

[Carl Ray's refusal to say "sir" to a white man in the deep South one summer
night in 1962 led to his father's murder by a white neighbor in 1962. He
continued his education and became a successful engineer, but was haunted by
depression and nightmares. For years no one who knew him, including his own
wife and children, knew about what had happened. But years later, after he
had given up a successful career as an engineer to become a stand-up
comedian,
Carl Ray found a way to tell about this experience through performance art
--
and now, a documentary film by Chike C. Nwoffiah called "A Killing in
Choctaw:
The Power of Forgiveness." Below: (1) An Oct. 20, 2004, *New York Times*
story on the film and Carl Ray's story; (2) a description of the original
play, from Carl Ray's web site; (3) a review of the play that appeared in a
San Jose, CA, magazine in 1999; (4) a description of the documentary, from
the
web site; (5) the press release for the documentary, dated Aug. 10, 2004;
(6)
a detailed account in an Oct. 3, 2004, *Mobile Register* (Mobile, AL) story;
(7) Carl Ray's biography; (8) booking information. --Mark]

1.

HAUNTED BY HIS FATHER'S MURDER AT THE HANDS OF A RACIST
By Carol Pogash

New York Times
October 20, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/movies/20kill.html

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Amelia Ray was 22 when she sat in a darkened theater,
watching her father, Carl Ray, perform his autobiographical one-man show, "A
Killing in Choctaw." Only then did she discover that he had witnessed the
murder of his father decades before, killed because Carl had refused to say
"sir" to a white man.

After a scene in which Mr. Ray begs his dead father to rise and see him go
to
college, a friend who was at the theater that night in 1999 leaned over and
whispered: "Did you know about this?" Ms. Ray shook her head no. She
didn't
even think it was odd, she explained recently in an interview. "I guess I'd
grown accustomed to the silence."

At first it was only on stage that Mr. Ray, now 60, could give voice to his
experience. Recently that story has been made into a documentary by Chike
C.
Nwoffiah, a filmmaker and executive director of the Oriki Theater, a
nonprofit
community theater here in Silicon Valley. Called "A Killing in Choctaw: The
Power of Forgiveness," after the Alabama county where Mr. Ray was born, the
film had its premiere last month at the Montgomery Theater here. Explaining
why he was moved to make the documentary, Mr. Nwoffiah said, "It's an
important enough story that it needs to get out there."

That story began in Butler, Ala., on Sept. 6, 1962, when Carl was 18 and
preparing to leave for the Tuskegee Institute to major in engineering. With
his bags packed, he and a cousin shot off firecrackers near his house. The
echoing booms attracted their neighbor, Bill Carlisle, who pulled up in his
pickup and blasted the boys with angry questions. After Carl replied with a
series of yeses and nos, Mr. Carlisle asked if Carl didn't know that he
should
say "yes, sir" and "no, sir" to a white man.

"No," Carl said.

Mr. Carlisle knocked him to the ground and pulled out a knife. "I was
looking
straight in his eyes," Mr. Ray says in the film, remembering the moment.
"Just before he plunged the knife in my throat, he stopped." Mr. Carlisle
rose, Mr. Ray recalled, returned to his truck and drove away.

Carl went home, and with his father, George, waited. "I knew Bill was
coming.
My daddy knew Bill was coming," Mr. Ray says in the documentary.

George Ray moved his family next door to a relative's house, and then pushed
the television set onto the porch. Father and son sat outside watching
"Douglas Edwards With the News" while they waited.

Carl Ray says he remembers the crunch of the truck tires as Mr. Carlisle
arrived. After angry words and a scuffle, Mr. Carlisle cocked his .45
automatic.

In a segment of his show, which is part of the documentary, Carl Ray slowly
re-enacts the events: "Each time the bullet hit, Daddy's body would flinch.
The dust particles from his clothes began to float up and mix with the smoke
from the gun barrel. Bill continued to fire. Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop! Daddy
falls in slow motion. He takes his last breath."

"When I saw his body at the church," Mr. Ray says in the film, "reality set
in. When they took him outside and put him in the ground, I began a
nightmare
that lasted a lifetime."

For the documentary Mr. Ray returned to the Alabama courthouse where Mr.
Carlisle was tried.

"It was like a one-day circus come to town," Mr. Ray recalls as he sits on
the
witness stand retelling what happened some four decades earlier. Joe
Thompson, Mr. Carlisle's defense attorney, accused Carl Ray of murdering his
father. Mr. Ray impersonates Mr. Thompson: "You killed your daddy because
you don't know how to talk to white people! If you knew how to talk to
white
people he would still be alive. Isn't that so?"

"No, sir," Mr. Ray said.

"Damn uppity negra," Mr. Thompson said to the judge and jury.

At intervals Mr. Nwoffiah was so overcome that the camera trembles. "As a
director," he said in an interview, "you wonder at what point do you stop?
Mr. Ray always said: 'Keep going. We have to get through this.' "

Mr. Ray recalled blacks sitting upstairs in the courthouse crying as if the
trial were a funeral, while downstairs whites laughed.

The jury found Mr. Carlisle guilty of first-degree manslaughter and
sentenced
him to nine years in prison. Although the state has no record of Mr.
Carlisle's having served any time, Mr. Ray's oldest brother, Lindsey, and
Mike
Dale, a former Butler resident who knew the Carlisle family, said he had
heard
that Mr. Carlisle served less than a year.

Mr. Ray said that he has always felt responsible for his father's death, and
worried that his siblings blamed him as well. He suffered from severe
depression and nightmares. For years he told no one what had happened. He
felt "a silent scream," he said.

His wife, Brenda Hampton-Ray, learned of her husband's history 10 years ago,
when she came across an old clipping about the killing.

"He had this facade for so many years," Ms. Hampton-Ray says in the
documentary. "We really didn't know who the real husband and real father
was."

Despite his troubles, Mr. Ray graduated from Tuskegee, then began working as
an engineer at the Lockheed Corporation in California. Then this haunted
man,
who as a child had used humor to ward off bullies, decided to become a
comedian.

The documentary blends portions of his show with Mr. Ray's commentary and
interviews with others. At one point a split screen shows a thinner Mr. Ray
darting onstage, wowing a Southern California crowd with his comedy. On the
other half of the screen, Mr. Ray's old, sad eyes barely move: "You walk
back
off that stage," he says, "you walk back into that prison where all the
demons
are waiting for you."

Mr. Ray began finding his voice in 1998 when an exhibition of civil rights
photos from the Smithsonian Institution were displayed at the San Jose
Museum
of Art, and an official there who knew Mr. Ray was a comedian from Alabama
asked him to speak about the civil rights era there.

"She didn't really know what she was getting," Mr. Ray said recently. Among
those who listened was Tommy J. Fulcher Jr., president of Economic and
Social
Opportunities Inc., a nonprofit organization in the area. Mr. Fulcher told
Mr. Ray that his story was more moving than all the famous photos from the
civil rights exhibition. He made Mr. Ray an offer: Mr. Fulcher would back
a
one-man play written and acted by Mr. Ray. A year later, Mr. Ray was
telling
his story onstage.

Since then Mr. Ray has traveled the country, performing his play before
college audiences and in community theaters. Wanting to make a documentary,
he searched for the right filmmaker. He contacted Mr. Nwoffiah after seeing
his 2000 documentary about a black hospital, "A Jewel in History." With no
financing, Mr. Ray raised $150,000 himself. Amelia, one of his five
children,
wrote the accompanying music and designed the Web site, www.carlraye.com.
Mr.
Nwoffiah said he plans to submit "A Killing in Choctaw" to film festivals
and
show it at community theaters and colleges. No New York showings have been
scheduled yet.

Theaters in Choctaw County probably won't be too eager to show it though,
said
Tommy Campbell, the editor and publisher of The Choctaw Sun, who knows both
the Carlisle and Ray families. "This is not the South of the 1960's
anymore,"
he said. Residents "would just like to let it alone,'' he said.

Mr. Ray wanted to expose what happened 42 years ago, but he was not quite
ready to watch the documentary. During the premiere he stood silently in the
back of the theater, seeing snippets of his life, before fleeing outside.

2.

[The play]

A KILLING IN CHOCKTAW
Performed by: Carl Ray
Directed by: Ann Johnson

http://www.carlraye.com/story.shtml

"A Killing In Choctaw" is a one-man, two-act play written and performed by
Carl Ray. The play is about his life growing up in Alabama. In 1962, while
being questioned by a white man, Carl responded by saying "yes" and "no,"
instead of "yes sir" and "no sir," which was the customary response when
addressing white people. Carl was severely beaten for being disrespectful.
An hour later, that man went to Carl's home and shot his Father eight times
as
Carl looked on.

The play deals with the years following the tragedy, beginning with the
trial,
in which Carl was blamed for his Father's death because he did not know how
to
respect whites. It was suggested to the court that Carl be taken to the
Mississippi State Line and thrown out of the state of Alabama, and not
allowed
back until he knew how to talk to white people.

After the trial, the traumatized and guilt-ridden 18-year old was taken to
Tuskegee Institute where four faculty members spent a year counseling him
through nervous breakdowns and depression. Due to shock, Carl had shut down
and refused to talk. He remained in a zombified state. As a result of the
incident, Carl developed three different personalities. One of the
personalities was prone to blackouts and violent behavior.

Carl graduated from Tuskegee in Electrical Engineering and worked for
thirteen
years in the Aerospace Industry before pursuing a career as a stand-up
comedian. On the surface, Carl appeared to be a normal, successful
individual. After 22 years of trying to manage his secret of his Father's
death, his states of depression, guilt, and multiple personalities, Carl was
still suffering.

In 1984, Carl met a man who talked to him about the power of forgiveness.
Carl attributes the act of forgiving the man who killed his Father as saving
his life. He describes it as being the most enjoyable moment of his life --
a
day of freedom from his self-imposed prison.

In the play, Carl takes the audience through his personal agony of being
humiliated in a Jim Crow court trial to being locked in a hotel room and
being
harassed by eight members of the Klan, the night before George Wallace stood
in the door of the University of Alabama to keep black students out; he
gives
you a peek into the struggles of being a polio victim attending grade
school;
how his Father's killer became his imaginary enemy and friend; the nurturing
environment at Tuskegee Institute, his changes in careers -- from engineer
to
taxi driver to stand-up comedian -- and more.

3.

"A KILLING IN CHOCTAW": A WALK IN THE SHOES OF CARL RAY
By Joe Aytch

City Flight News (San Jose, CA)
August 1999

http://www.carlraye.com/walkinshoes.shtml

SAN JOSE -- "Why must we suffer? Why are we here? God I'm not complaining,
I'm just asking why . . ." pleads Comedian/Actor Carl ray at the end of his
one-man play "A Killing in Choctaw."

"A Killing in Choctaw" is a biography that chronicles the incredible
struggle
to success of a young Black man from Alabama after witnessing the brutal
murder of his father in 1962, and how forgiveness changed his life. This
particular young person happened to be named Carl Ray. But he or she could
have been the child of a lynching victim, or a relative of the 200 to 300
killed during the Oklahoma Race riots of 1921, or one of the people beaten
or
murdered during the Civil Rights movement.

It's a play that demonstrates the essence of African American theatre. It's
Our Story, told as only we can tell it. From Jim Crow to status quo -- it's
a
drama, and documentary. It's a horrendous family tragedy, an abject lesson
on
racism in America, and its sprinkled with the topical down-home humor that
Carl Ray is known for.

CARL RAY'S JOURNEY

Not only did 18-year old Carl witness the murder of his father -- he was
left
feeling responsible.

"All because I didn't say 'sir' to a white man," says Carl, referring to an
encounter he had with Bill Carlisle, a white neighbor, earlier that fateful
day. "Don't you know you're supposed to say sir to a white man?" demands an
angry Carlisle when Carl responded with yes or no answers to the man's
questioning on September 6, 1962.

After beating Carl to the ground for being uppity, the angry man later
followed the battered youth home. There, in front of Carl and his family,
Carlisle argued, then emptied a 45-caliber gun into the chest of George Ray.

The subsequent trial was a sham. Even so, the trial of Bill Carlisle was
considered by many to be the first time a white man was sentenced for
killing
a black man in that part of Alabama.

Attempting to put the past behind him, after attending Tuskegee Institute,
Carl went on to 13 successful years as an engineer in the aerospace
industry.
He retired in 1980 to pursue his dream of being a stand-up comic. He went
to
comedy school in San Francisco, and began touring the country performing at
colleges and comedy clubs. Eventually, he recorded an album in 1989, and
hosted "The Carl Ray Comedy Show" on cable TV. He also continued to perform
on TV and in comedy clubs throughout the country.

Carl is also a successful motivational speaker, a husband going on 20 years,
and a father of five.

Still, others know him for his very successful Black College Tour that for
12
years has taken dozens of college bound Black youth on tours of Black
Colleges.

Back in Butler, Alabama he was known as a smallish child with polio, often
referred to as that "flicted kid". A young Carl used humor to disarm school
bullies. Others may still think he's the uppity colored boy who caused the
death of his father, as he was portrayed during the trial of Bill Carlisle.
"People don't know the aftermath of the time of survival. I felt guilty
[responsible]," says Carl Ray today. "It ate away at me and did a lot of
damage. There were many years of turmoil."

THE PLAY

Last year, the San Jose Museum hosted a display of approximately 75 pictures
on loan from the Smithsonian documenting the Civil Rights Movement. Carl
Ray
and several others served as tour guides at the exhibit, sharing their
stories
before the tour in hopes of giving the pictures more meaning.

After one particular tour, Tommy Fulcher, Jr., Founder/President of the
Economic & Social Opportunity (ESO), approached Carl and suggested he do a
play based on his life. Fulcher graciously offered to assist with the
financing.

Carl sat down and began to write. Then he enlisted the aid of local
Actress/Director Ann Johnson, President of the Board of Directors for the
San
Jose Multicultural Actors Guild.

Ann, best known for her work with San Jose's Tabia African American Theatre
Ensemble, has over 15 years of directing and acting credits. "Ann knew how
to
put my story into a play form," says Carl. "The sections were broken up and
staged. She put an order to it, a flow."

Although Ann had directed five plays previously, "A Killing in Choctaw"
presented a different set of challenges. "Initially it was just one big
story," says Ann. "I had to have an understanding of what it meant to Carl,
then visualize and stage it, getting what he wanted and getting what was
good
for the audience. He really was still dealing with a lot of [emotional]
stuff
during the whole process . . . [it was] a way of working towards healing."

About the comedy portions of the play she adds, "Yes we had to show his
suffering, but we knew people would come expecting to see Carl Ray the
comedian. We used the comedy to make people comfortable."

The play may be good for the Ray family. A family still struggling to
understand why. It may be good for all to see, especially in a nation that
continues to be confounded by the destructive nature of bigotry.

Look for [a] . . . showing of "A Killing In Choctaw" . . . and prepare to
have
what promises to be one of your best theatrical experiences in years.

4.

[The documentary]

"A KILLING IN CHOCTAW"
Directed by: Chike Nwoffiah

"A Killing In Choctaw" is a documentary based on the one-man, two-act play
written and performed by Carl Ray. The play is about his life growing up in
Alabama. In 1962, while being questioned by a white man, Carl responded by
saying "yes" and "no," instead of "yes sir" and "no sir," which was the
customary response when addressing white people. Carl was severely beaten
for
being disrespectful. An hour later, that man went to Carl's home and shot
his
Father eight times as Carl looked on.

"A Killing In Choctaw" is an enthralling documentary on Ray's life and how
the
dreadful incident of 1962 defined his life and held him prisoner in his own
skin for over 20 years. Ray's compelling story comes alive under Nwoffiah's
masterful direction. Nwoffiah effectively blends narration, reenactment,
archival footage, and interviews with actual witnesses of the murder and
trial
participants. The documentary takes us back to the 1960s and sets the social
context that bred many such horrific crimes. We then follow the subsequent
trauma, depression, and denial that young Ray suffered and endured for over
20
years until he met a man in 1984 that taught him about the power of
forgiveness. Ray attributes the act of forgiving the man who killed his
Father
as saving his life. He describes it as being the most enjoyable moment of
his
life and a day of freedom from his self imposed prison.

"A Killing In Choctaw is a haunting awakening to the affects of America's
age-long racial injustice," said Nwoffiah. "It is a documentary that
celebrates the triumph of light over darkness."

Carl graduated from Tuskegee in Electrical Engineering and worked for
thirteen
years in the Aerospace Industry before pursuing a career as a stand-up
comedian. On the surface, Carl appeared to be a normal, successful
individual.
After 22 years of trying to manage his secret of his Father's death, his
states of depression, guilt, and multiple personalities, Carl was still
suffering.

1984, Carl met a man who talked to him about the power of forgiveness. Carl
attributes the act of forgiving the man who killed his Father as saving his
life. He describes it as being the most enjoyable moment of his life - a day
of freedom from his self-imposed prison.

In the court, Carl takes the audience through his personal agony of being
humiliated in a Jim Crow court trial; the nurturing environment at Tuskegee
Institute, his changes in careers - from engineer to taxi driver to stand-up
comedian - and more.

For production and distribution information, contact Chike Nwoffiah at
ChikeCN@aol.com

5.

Press Release: Art/Entertainment, Education, Features, Event Calendars

CARL RAY'S SPELLBINDING AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MOVIE DOCUMENTARY

** Premieres September 19th at Montgomery Theater, San Jose, CA; Film
Adaptation of Ray's Critically-acclaimed Stage Production **

--Carl Ray carried scars from witnessing his father's brutal 1962 murder in
segregated Choctaw County, Alabama; a white man's retaliation for
18-year-old
Ray's having responded to the man's questioning by saying "yes" and "no"
instead of "yes, sir" and "no, sir," which were the customary responses when
addressing white people. In 1984 -- more than twenty years after the
incident
-- Ray met a man from whom he learned about the power of forgiveness.

August 10, 2004

http://www.carlraye.com/docpr.shtml

Thousands of viewers have raved about the critically acclaimed
autobiographical play by and about comedian, activist and educator Carl Ray.
Della Productions now brings a candid and soul stirring documentary
adaptation
of Ray's spellbinding play "A Killing in Choctaw" directed by award winning
filmmaker Chike Nwoffiah, co-founder and artistic director of the celebrated
Oriki Theater. While being questioned by a white man in 1962, in the small
town of Butler, Choctaw County, Alabama, an 18-year-old Ray responded by
saying "yes" and "no" instead of "yes sir" and "no sir," which was the
customary response when addressing white people. He was severely beaten for
being disrespectful. An hour later, the man went to Ray's home and shot his
father eight times as Ray looked helplessly on. "A Killing In Choctaw" will
premiere on Sunday, September 19, 2004 at Montgomery Theater, 291 So. Market
Street, San Jose, Ca. Tickets for the 4:00 p.m. premiere are $30. Tickets
may be purchased online at www.urbanevents.com or by calling 408-668-2578 or
408-259-6516.

"A Killing In Choctaw" is an enthralling documentary on Ray's life and how
the
dreadful incident of 1962 defined his life and held him prisoner in his own
skin for over 20 years. Ray's compelling story comes alive under Nwoffiah's
masterful direction. Nwoffiah effectively blends narration, reenactment,
archival footage, and interviews with actual witnesses of the murder and
trial
participants. The documentary takes us back to the 1960s and sets the
social
context that bred many such horrific crimes. We then follow the subsequent
trauma, depression, and denial that young Ray suffered and endured for over
20
years until he met a man in 1984 that taught him about the power of
forgiveness. Ray attributes the act of forgiving the man who killed his
Father as saving his life. He describes it as being the most enjoyable
moment
of his life and a day of freedom from his self-imposed prison.

"A Killing In Choctaw is a haunting awakening to the affects of America's
age-long racial injustice," said Nwoffiah. "It is a documentary that
celebrates the triumph of light over darkness."

ABOUT CARL RAY:

In 1967, Carl Ray graduated from Tuskegee Institute with a B.S. Degree in
Electrical Engineering. After graduation, he traveled to California to
begin
a career in the Aerospace Industry. Early in his career, he was sidetracked
by a yearning to perform stand-up comedy.

Carl Ray started a Youth Opportunity Program in East Palo Alto in 1968;
began
recruiting youth to attend Historically Black Colleges and Universities in
1970; then undertook sponsoring tours to the colleges. Ray continues to
host
Spring and Fall tours to Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCU).
To date, he has chaperoned more than 2,000 students on HBCU tours.

In 1988, Ray, together with his wife, founded Courtland Esteem School -- a
private school in San Jose, California -- where they continue to educate
young
African American children in grades one through six.

Carl Ray has performed "A Killing in Choctaw" live nearly 100 times at
theaters, churches, colleges, museums and other venues throughout the United
States.

To learn more about Ray's fascinating biography, please visit
www.carlraye.com

###

MEDIA CONTACT: PR, et Cetera, Inc. -- Toni Beckham -- 408-499-3664 --
Toni@PRetCetera.com

6.

ALABAMIAN SPREADS MESSAGE OF FORGIVENESS WITH DOCUMENTARY
By Casandra Andrews

Mobile Register (Mobile, AL)
October 3, 2004

http://www.carlraye.com/candrews.shtml

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Even before Carl Ray appeared on screen, his voice
reverberated through the Montgomery Theater here, mimicking the sounds of
gun
fire that repeatedly pierced his father's chest.

"Pop! Pop! Pop!" he shouted as some in the audience gasped, then grimaced at
the cruel image his words conjured. "Pop! Pop! Pop!"

Then silence.

Forty-two years ago, an 18-year-old Ray watched as his father's body was
riddled with bullets in Choctaw County because the youth hadn't addressed a
white neighbor as "sir."

After the shots rang out, witnesses said the shooter, William "Bill"
Carlisle,
lowered his .45-caliber handgun, stumbled to his truck, then drove away.
George Ray, a 62-year-old farmer, lay dying in the yard of a friend's home
near Butler.

That moment, and much of Ray's life since, has become the subject of a
documentary that premiered here in late September, thousands of miles from
the
spot where the engineer-turned-comedian-turned-actor-turned-activist grew
up.

Despite rain and unseasonably cool conditions, several hundred people packed
into the theater in Silicon Valley to see the film chronicling Ray's pain,
plight and path to forgiveness.

Speckled with comedic as well as somber moments, the autobiographical
documentary, "A Killing in Choctaw, the Power of Forgiveness," follows Ray's
life through a series of interviews with friends, family and journalists.
It
also includes clips from the one-man play, "A Killing in Choctaw," that Ray
began performing five years ago.

Now 60, he's presented the play nearly 100 times at community theaters and
college campuses across the country. The production chronicles his life
growing up in a racially divided Alabama, including his father's 1962 death
and the years he spent blaming himself for the slaying.

The play, as well as the film adaptation, details the strange set of
circumstances that led Ray to forgive the man who killed his father. The
documentary digs deeper and brings viewers into Ray's struggle for peace.

"As I was watching, I was thinking it was a personal story, but it really
does
reach out to other people," said Orpheus Crutchfield, 37, from Hercules,
Calif. "It's a horrible story, but it's a universal story."

Crutchfield, who literally sat on the edge of his seat through most of the
film, met Ray a few years back at a conference on race relations.

"I think it's going to Sundance," he said, referring to the independent film
festival in Utah started by actor Robert Redford. For Crutchfield, the
film's
message was clear: "We all think we have problems, but they can be
overcome."

Ray is living proof of that, he said.

The film opens with Ray describing his past in a monologue interspersed with
photos from his childhood.

The youngest of five children, he was born two months premature. He
contracted polio at age 4. Ray said he was known as "that 'flicted boy"
throughout his elementary school years.

Ray grew up just outside the tiny town of Butler, Ala., a spot close to
nowhere in particular, about 120 miles north of Mobile.

Fate had divided the population about evenly between black and white there,
and the state of Alabama, by custom and law, had guaranteed privilege for
only
one side.

Ray's parents, who never made it much past sixth grade, saw to it that their
children all went to college. It wasn't a subject for debate in the Ray
household.

As the youngest, Ray was the last to leave home.

On Sept. 6, 1962, a teenage Ray was packing his bags for Tuskegee Institute,
about 150 miles east in Tuskegee. He found some old fireworks in a
footlocker
as he rummaged around, he said.

In his documentary, Ray describes what happened next:

Done with his packing, Ray and a younger cousin went out to a nearby dirt
road
to light the fireworks. They weren't long without company.

Carlisle rambled up in his truck and asked them about what he thought was
gunfire. Ray explained that the loud noise was just fireworks, answering
the
man's questions with "yes" and "no."

Because Ray didn't respond with "yes, sir" and "no, sir," as was the custom
then in much of the rural South, Carlisle violently beat him, stopping just
short of cutting his throat, Ray said.

For reasons Ray still doesn't understand, the man spared his life, climbed
back in his pickup and roared away. Ray, bruised and bleeding, went home
and
told his family what happened.

About an hour later, Ray and his parents went down the road to a friend's
home
to watch the evening news. Instead of staying inside, George Ray placed the
television in the doorway and sat outside to watch.

It wasn't long before Carlisle came calling.

The white man told George Ray his son needed to leave town, explaining that
he
needed to be taught how to talk to white folks. The elder Ray said his son
was leaving for college in just a few days.

George Ray's words only seemed to enrage Carlisle.

The white man slammed his pistol into George Ray's head more than once.
Bleeding, the black man fell into a flower bed.

Trying to protect his father, Ray picked up an empty glass bottle and
shattered it against Carlisle's head. That's when the white man began
firing
his weapon at George Ray.

Originally charged with the murder of George Ray, Carlisle was convicted of
manslaughter in 1963 in circuit court in Butler, and sentenced to nine
years.
All of the jurors were white. Ray thinks the case marked the first time a
white man was sent to jail for killing a black man in Choctaw County.

Nine years later, Carlisle, who by then was out of jail, was shot in the
chest
and killed by his father-in-law in during an argument in 1973, according to
a
news story in the *Choctaw Advocate*, a weekly newspaper.

Two years ago, while filming the movie about his life, Ray walked up the
worn
steps inside the Choctaw County Courthouse, then took a seat in the wooden
witness box where he'd been questioned some 40 years earlier.

It wasn't long before the past became the present.

"I'm sitting here and he's ripping me apart," Ray recalled in the film of
the
day he testified in Carlisle's trial. As the camera moved in closer, Ray
looked down, then wiped at his cheeks.

Many in the audience at the film premiere did the same.

"I'd never seen so much hatred," Ray said, looking into the camera again
after
a few moments, then gesturing to where the all-white spectators sat on the
first floor of the courtroom. "It was like, how could somebody hate like
that? I'll never understand. It was just a sea of hate."

His older brother, Lindsey, who lives in Montgomery, said the treatment Ray
received at the trial was "a lynching without a rope" in the documentary.

Ray said Carlisle's attorney, who is now deceased, blamed him for his
father's
death. "In my mind I had subconsciously accepted that fact," he said of the
way he held himself responsible for the killing.

Bracing for Carlisle's trial and staying in school proved difficult. After
dropping out of Tuskegee, Ray eventually went back to college. Before
leaving
Alabama in 1967, he had a bachelor's degree from Tuskegee and a job in
engineering in San Jose.

But comedy tugged at him, even with a wife and five children to support. He
broke into the comedy scene at northern California clubs in the late 1970s.
By 1984, he was in Los Angeles, working comedy stints and driving a cab for
the money and because he liked being around people.

One day he picked up a man in Hollywood and dropped him off at the airport.
About a week later, he got a call to pick up someone at a hotel. It was the
same man, country songwriter Wil Hinkson. Within weeks, he found himself
driving Hinkson for a third time. The cabbie and his paying rider were
amazed
at the coincidences.

As they talked during their third meeting, a news item on the radio sparked
a
solemn turn in their conversation. Out of the blue, Ray said, the
songwriter
started talking about forgiveness. Ray offered bits of his own life story,
explaining his lingering anger.

The white man told Ray to simply forgive Carlisle.

It was then, Ray said, that he stated he forgave Carlisle, if for no other
reason than to silence Hinkson. "After I said the words," Ray says in the
film, "it was as if I had been instantly moved from one planet to another
planet."

While much of the anger and pain had vanished, Ray says in the film he was
still left with emotional scars: "There's no such thing as closure. You
get
to different levels of peace."

After more than two years of performing the story of his life for audiences
around the country, the play's subject matter was taking its toll.

Ray said that 2001 was one of the toughest years he's ever endured,
comparing
the time period to when he first started college just after his father's
death.

Things got so bad that his wife, Brenda, tried to make him stop performing
the
one-man show. "I felt like if I didn't do the play, Bill would win," Ray
said. "I'd been in a battle with him all my life."

Eventually, he sought help from a psychologist.

"The forgiveness part freed me," Ray said, "but it didn't get rid of my
depression. I forgave Bill for killing my father but I still had my own
guilt
and I was trapped. The hardest part to do was to forgive myself."

A few years back, looking to elevate his play to another level, Ray went in
search of a director. After attending a film festival in California, he met
filmmaker Chike Nowffiah, who had recently completed a documentary about the
closure of black hospitals in America.

The two hit it off.

As producer of the documentary, Ray spent more than two years working with
Nowffiah to make the 90-minute adaptation.

Ray accompanied the director and a film crew to Alabama several times,
interviewing those who lent perspective to the production, including Choctaw
County residents, his guidance counselor at Tuskegee and some of his
siblings.
Ray sold shares in the production as a way to maintain control over the
finished product.

Another Alabama resident who took part in the film was Hollis Curl, a former
newspaper reporter in Choctaw County who arrived on the scene of the
shooting
shortly after it happened. Curl, who is white, was interviewed at length in
the film about what he saw that day and his feelings about segregation.

"I thought the races were getting along pretty good," Curl says in the film.
"I thought that separate but equal worked for me."

The term "separate but equal" meant that blacks didn't eat in the same
restaurant dining rooms as whites, didn't use the same bathrooms, didn't
share
the same schools.

Ray's plan is to enter the project at various film festivals across the
country. He also is working to market a shorter version of the documentary
to
cable television companies and universities. Ray said he would like to tour
with the film, much like he has done with the play, introducing audiences to
his life story and path to forgiveness.

Mike Dale, a former Choctaw County resident who went to high school in
Butler
during the turbulent 1960s, knew one of Carlisle's sons.

"I think it's good to remember all this stuff," said Dale, who now lives in
Michigan and attended the film premiere. "The world's a better place than
it
was in Choctaw County in 1964. It's a better place and people are better
than
they were."

In the Montgomery Theater's lobby in San Jose, famous black-and-white images
from the South's segregated past sat on large easels for the premiere. News
photographs of Ku Klux Klansmen, a burning cross and a group crossing a
bridge
in Selma set the scene for Ray's documentary.

Inside the 500-seat arena, blacks and whites sat side by side to see the
film.

Rick Callender, president of the San JosSilicon Valley branch of the NAACP,
addressed the audience before the presentation. "It's not only the story of
one man," Callender said. "It is our collective story. It's the story of
our
strength."

After a standing ovation at the end of the film, a beaming Ray took the
stage,
chest out and thumbs through his belt loops.

He was ready to answer questions.

There were many.

People who traveled from as far away as Michigan and Mississippi wanted to
know more about the man who shot his father. They wanted to know what
became
of the lawyer who blamed Ray for his father's death. They also wanted to
reassure him that the shooting wasn't his fault.

"If white America could change places with you, what do you think they would
have learned?" someone eventually asked.

Ray's answer was immediate.

"It's hell being a black man in America," he said.

"Should we forget?" a man from the balcony wondered aloud.

Ray, along with others in the audience, responded almost in unison: "We
should forgive but we should never forget."

It's the kind of dialogue Ray hopes to spark in communities across the
country.

"We have to share our problems," he said. "We have to talk to each other."

7.

[Carl Ray's biography]

http://www.carlraye.com/bio2.shtml

In 1967, Carl graduated from Tuskegee Institute with a B.S. Degree in
Electrical Engineering. After graduation he traveled to California to begin
a
career in the Aerospace Industry. During the morning commutes, he listened
to
comedians on the "Freeway Funnies" morning show and enjoyed it immensely.
After hearing a commercial for a comedy school, he enrolled in a comedy
class
in San Francisco.

After two years of honing his comedy skills in comedy clubs in the Bay Area
clubs, Carl left his engineering career for comedy, and headed to Hollywood.
Upon arriving in Hollywood, Carl found himself competing with hundreds of
aspiring entertainers searching for part-time employment to support their
dreams. Thus, Carl became a taxi driver with Celebrity Cabs.

His dream began to materialize, and four years later he was working in
comedy
clubs throughout the country. In 1989, he was host and producer of his own
cable television show, "The Carl Raye Comedy Show." In 1990, while working
the college circuit, Carl discovered he had a talent for public speaking.
He
added motivational speaking to his resumé. It was a motivational speaking
engagement that led him to performing the one-man play about his life.

After speaking at the San Jose Museum of Art about his life and the Civil
Rights Movement, he was approached by one of the guests in the audience.
The
guest shared a vision that entered his mind while Carl was speaking. The
vision was a one-man play about Carl's experiences. Carl was made an offer
he
couldn't refuse. If he would agree to perform his life story, the guest
would
finance the production. That was the birth of the play, "A Killing In
Choctaw."

8.

[Booking information]

FOR BOOKINGS CONTACT:

Della Productions
Dellap44@aol.com
408.206.1768 - phone
408.259.6516 - phone/fax


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

13) Dear Readers
Here is the digest for October 21, 2004
1-Two killed in the northern Gaza Strip, another dies
of wounds sustained on Wednesday
2-231 Palestinians, including 88 children, killed in
Khan Younis in four year

1- Two killed in the northern Gaza Strip, another dies of wounds
sustained on Wednesday
Saed Bannoura -IMEMC & Agencies, October 21, 2004

An Israeli military source claimed that two residents were shot dead
overnight near Nahal Oz settlement in the Gaza Strip, in addition to
another resident who died of wounds sustained on Wednesday in
Jabalia refuge camp.

The source claimed that soldiers spotted two activists crawling
towards a restricted zone, near the border fence, under cover of
fog, and shot them dead, suspecting that they intended to carry out
shootings in settlement blocs near the fence.

Meanwhile, Dr. Moaweya Hassanein, head of the Emergency Unit in the
Ministry of Health, said that Mohammad Zaki Abu Hliyyil, 31 years
old, died of critical wounds sustained on Wednesday, after soldiers
fired several shells at a number of homes in Jabalia refugee camp
killing four residents and wounding four others.

The Army continued its military operations in several areas in the
Gaza Strip despite their claims that 'Operation Days of Penitence'
had officially ended. Soldiers shelled several areas in the Gaza
Strip especially in Jabalia refugee camp, in the north, and Rafah in
the south of the Gaza Strip.

On Wednesday, soldiers shot dead a youth near Salah Ad-Deen Street,
in Rafah, in the south of the Gaza Strip, after claiming that two
men had attempted to place an explosive charge near the Egyptian
Borders.

According to the army, a third activist managed to escape.
Moreover, also on Wednesday, in Rafah, in the south of the Gaza
Strip, soldiers fired several shells at homes in Tal Zo'rob area,
south of Rafah, in the south of the Gaza Strip killing one youth and
causing damages to tens of homes, in addition to raiding Beit
Hanoun, in the north of the Gaza Strip, and firing several shells
causing large scale damages on Wednesday at dawn.

In addition, UNRWA said on Tuesday, that the number of homes
demolished in the latest military operation in Jabalia refugee camp,
in the north of the Gaza Strip, exceeded 90 homes. more than 140
residents were killed, 30 among them children, and approximately 400
residents were wounded.

2- 231 Palestinians, including 88 children, killed in Khan Younis in
four years
Saed Bannoura -IMEMC & Agencies, October 21, 2004, 14:12

The Public Relations Office at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis
revealed that soldiers killed more than 231 Palestinians, mainly
children and women, in Khan Younis, since the outbreak of Al-Aqsa
Intifada, in September 30, 2000.

The office said in a report published on Thursday that soldiers
killed 321 Palestinians from Khan Younis in four years, in addition
to hundreds of residents who sustained different kinds of injuries
among the residents including children and elderly.

The published report revealed that more the 88 children were killed,
199 under the age of 39, and 34 residents between the ages of 40-70.
Moreover, the number of wounded residents exceeded 413 residents;
most of them sustained moderate and critical wounds; most of the
injuries were to the head and upper parts of the body.

The report of the Hospital revealed that 1701 Palestinians were
admitted to surgery in several branches of the hospital, and that
soldiers shot wounded four medics, three ambulance drivers, and
three administrators, in addition to destroying three ambulances
which belongs to the hospital.

It is worth mentioning that soldiers lately increased the military
attacks and violations against the medical teams, and shelled the
hospital causing damages in the reception Desk, Physiotherapy
Section, Surgery Branch, Kidney Section, in addition to other
branches in the hospital.

The damages were estimated with more than one million Dollars.

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://asia.groups.yahoo.com/group/Marxists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Marxists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://asia.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms

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

14) Return of the Class Struggle: Hotel Workers National
Battle, One We Can't Afford to Lose
By Gene Pepi
craigslist.org/cgi-bin/search?areaID=1&subAreaID=1&query=san+francisco&cat=o
ff&minAsk=500&maxAsk=1000&minSqft=600&neighborhood=

On September 29, 2004, 1400 San Francisco hotel workers (members of
UNITE-HERE Local 2) hit the streets at four of fourteen major San Francisco
hotels for a two-week strike. Two days later, the other ten hotels in the
San Francisco Major Employers Group (SFMEG-who bargain together
against UNITE-HERE Local 2) responded by locking out the other 2600
San Francisco UNITE-HERE members covered under the SFMEG contract.

A week earlier, Local 2 members had authorized a strike by a 97% vote
of more than 3000 members. As of September 23, 2004, in cities across
the US, over 14,000 hotel and casino workers had passed resolutions to
authorize strikes by margins and numbers similar to those in San Francisco.
And on October 1, 2004, 10,000 union casino workers in Atlantic City,
New Jersey, struck with massive picket lines against seven of the twelve
major Atlantic City casinos. This is the start of a new wave of class
struggle, one we should win.

Hotel union labor contracts began to expire last June for 2800 Los
Angeles workers and in August for San Francisco hotel workers.
Contracts have expired for casino workers at the 12 major Atlantic
City gaming palaces, 12 major hotels in Washington, DC and on the
casino boats and casino facilities in cities of Indiana: Gary, Michigan
City and East Chicago.

Across the country in every hotel, casino, and union restaurant UNITE-
HERE members face similar issues. The bean counters at the hotel,
restaurant and gambling conglomerates want workers to pick up the
increased costs of healthcare for their families and retirees, to hold
the line on pension contributions, and to accept increased workloads
without increases in wages.

They absolutely do not want to have major hotel contracts expire in
2006, the common expiration date that UNITE-HERE members and
leaders are fighting for.

The 2006 expiration date would align the contract negotiations
for somewhere near 50,000 to 70,000 hotel workers from New York
City, up and down the East Coast, through Chicago and the Midwest,
up and down the West Coast, and across the Pacific Ocean to Hawaii.

It also reflects the merger of the unions that now make up UNITE-
HERE, possible changes in the leadership of the AFL-CIO union
confederation and the massive restructuring and consolidation of
the hotel, restaurant and gambling industries as represented by
the conglomerates that own, run and franchise what is now a multi-
billion dollar industry. The hotel and casino conglomerates adamantly
oppose the 2006 common contract expiration date, as reflected in
the San Francisco lockout and "bad-faith bargaining" legal action
by SFMEG taken against UNITE-HERE Local 2.

Merger Mania

On July 8, 2004, two existing AFL-CIO affiliated unions merged to
form UNITE-HERE. They were the Union of Needletrades, Textiles
and Industrial Employees (UNITE) and the Hotel Employees and
Restaurant Employees International Union (HERE).

The combined unions now number almost 500,000 active members
and 400,000 retirees throughout North America. More than half of
the current active members are women and the combined union has
organized more than 100,000 new workers in the last five years.

Three things preceded this union merger. UNITE itself was created
by the merger of two unions: the International Ladies Garment
Workers Union (ILGWU) and the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers Union (ACTWU), both famous for their struggles in textile
manufacturing and US politics. However in the years since the 1950s,
the two unions have lost a combined total of 850,000 members, as
clothing and textile manufacturing jobs were exported from the US.
By 2004 their combined membership totaled only 180,000.

The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union
(HERE) was originally formed in the 1890s. Its membership peaked
in the 1980s. Just before September 11th, 2001 its membership was
272,000. Following the 2001 terrorist attacks union membership
dropped to 180,000, as much of the tourism industry collapsed.
The collapse was aggravated by the bursting of the 1990s economic
bubble. However by 2004 HERE membership had grown again to 260,000.

To support its call for the 2006 expiration date, UNITE-HERE points
out that in the last two decades, hotel lodging companies have
undergone a major consolidation. Hotels that used to be locally
owned are now parts of huge transnational corporations.

According to information provided by the union, 75% of UNITE-
HERE Local 2 workers in San Francisco are employed by national
chains (like Hilton, Hyatt, InterContinental, Marriott and Starwood).
These 5 transnational conglomerates together run 60% of San Francisco
hotels. Local companies run only 5% of San Francisco hotels.

The largest conglomerate, InterContinental, owns or franchises
3500 hotels in 100 countries and in San Francisco operates the
Mark Hopkins hotel and others. In 2003 InterContinental reported
an operating profit of more than one-half billion dollars.

In a like manner, in 2003 the Hilton Corporation reported over
$160 million profits on $4 billion in revenues, Marriott reported
$500 million profits on $9 billion in revenues, and Starwood reported
over $309 million profits on $3.8 billion in revenues.

Power in 2006

On Friday, August 13th, Hyatt Chicago Regency hotel workers
marched into management offices wearing their new red and black
"2004 Unity, 2006 Power" buttons. They presented managers with
a 500-signature petition. Five workers were sent home for wearing
the "2004 Unity, 2006 Power" buttons.

On Saturday, August 14th, in the face of 1400 guest check-outs,
82 button wearing hotel workers, including the main kitchen crew
and the main luncheon banquet server crew, were sent home when
they refused to remove their "2004 Unity, 2006 Power" buttons.
Food service at the hotel all but collapsed.

Management had to scramble to serve food buffet style and serve
a VIP luncheon using managers and other hotel staff. On Sunday
Hyatt Regency hotel managers asked UNITE-HERE Local 1 hotel
workers to come back to work and said that it was OK to wear the
"2004 Unity, 2006 Power" buttons.

"We sent a message to the hotels in Chicago and the giant
corporations that run them that this is a national fight and
we are ready for it," Francine Jones, a Hyatt Chicago Room
Attendant said.

UNITE- HERE Local 2 Vice-president Lamoin Werlein-Jean, told
San Francisco news-media reporters that, "We're fighting to build
a national movement to unite our brother and sister hotel workers
across the country so we may be able to negotiate with more
balance with these multinational hotel corporations."

Ignacio Ruiz, a food server at the Los Angeles Century Plaza, told
an LA reporter that hotel workers had learned from the super-market
strike that they need national coordination to win these battles against
international hotel chains.
UNITE- HERE Local 2 President Mike Casey told us that UNITE- HERE
is trying to avoid the problems that UFCW grocery workers in Southern
California had with their contracts. Casey also said they are trying to
connect with Northern California UFCW Grocery workers and SEIU-
represented hospital workers, who face similar issues in their
contracts that are expiring and are being negotiated now.

Post 911 Recovery

The tourism industry suffered an economic blow immediately
following the 911 terrorist attacks. That was on top of the economic
downturn already taking place. In San Francisco, about one third of
union hotel workers were laid off and many of the rest had their work
hours reduced. However in the last year, the industry has been
experiencing a recovery to levels at or above those of 2001,
particularly in San Francisco and New York.

In Washington, D.C. both room occupancy and rates have increased
in the last year. The Washington Post, reported on September 3, 2004
that Smith Travel Research Inc. states that area hotels reported revenue
per room to be up from $75.77 in 2003 to $86.45 in 2004, over
a similar time period.

This figure is also higher than the same period preceding the
terrorist attacks in 2001. However employment levels in the
hotels have not kept pace with increased workloads. Fewer
workers are now doing more work than they did in 2001.

As Mike Casey, President of UNITE- HERE Local 2 puts it, "We
won't allow the hotels to balance their books on our backs ..."

In San Francisco (and around the country), UNITE-HERE Local 2
is also fighting to defend immigrant workers, arguing that employers
should join the union in the fight to change US immigration laws.
UNITE-HERE unions are also proposing to increase the hiring rates
of black workers, which are underrepresented in the hotel work
force. UNITE-HERE Local 2 also has endorsed San Francisco Ballot
Initiative F, which would allow non-citizens, with children in public
schools, to vote in school board elections.

The contracts expiring in San Francisco affect other San Francisco
hotels, where contracts will expire soon. Which is why we see SFMEG
(and all other hotel employers across the country) proposing
increased employee contributions to health insurance costs,
meager wage proposals, inadequate pension contributions, and
finally, more than anything else, opposition to the 2006 contract
expiration date. In fact the fight for the 2006 expiration date is
the main reason that negotiations broke down and that UNITE-
HERE Local 2 called the strike.

In every hotel across the country, if their regular employees strike
or employers lock union workers out, hotel managers and executives
say they will keep their hotels open. It remains to be seen if they can
do this if union workers put up the fight necessary to shut down the
hotels despite the use of strikebreakers.

Words are cheap. What the striking workers need is massive solidarity.
The AFL-CIO and all local Labor Councils and individual unions must
help the Hotel Workers with money, food and, more importantly, labor
actions such as boycotts of hotel chains and massive support for picket
lines. Supporters must enforce the premise that picket lines are not to
be crossed.

Politicians, especially those running for office, should be put on the spot
and in the spotlight. They must speak out in favor of the mostly
immigrant strikers and avoid the trap of "mediating" in favor of the
hotel owners-as San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom has hinted at doing.
On September 29, 2004, 1400 San Francisco hotel workers (members of
UNITE-HERE Local 2) hit the streets at four of fourteen major San Francisco
hotels for a two-week strike. Two days later, the other ten hotels in the
San Francisco Major Employers Group (SFMEG-who bargain together
against UNITE-HERE Local 2) responded by locking out the other 2600
San Francisco UNITE-HERE members covered under the SFMEG contract.

A week earlier, Local 2 members had authorized a strike by a 97% vote
of more than 3000 members. As of September 23, 2004, in cities across
the US, over 14,000 hotel and casino workers had passed resolutions
to authorize strikes by margins and numbers similar to those in San
Francisco. And on October 1, 2004, 10,000 union casino workers in
Atlantic City, New Jersey, struck with massive picket lines against seven
of the twelve major Atlantic City casinos. This is the start of a new wave
of class struggle, one we should win.

Hotel union labor contracts began to expire last June for 2800 Los
Angeles workers and in August for San Francisco hotel workers.
Contracts have expired for casino workers at the 12 major Atlantic
City gaming palaces, 12 major hotels in Washington, DC and on the
casino boats and casino facilities in cities of Indiana: Gary, Michigan
City and East Chicago.

Across the country in every hotel, casino, and union restaurant UNITE-
HERE members face similar issues. The bean counters at the hotel,
restaurant and gambling conglomerates want workers to pick up the
increased costs of healthcare for their families and retirees, to hold
the line on pension contributions, and to accept increased workloads
without increases in wages.

They absolutely do not want to have major hotel contracts expire in
2006, the common expiration date that UNITE-HERE members and
leaders are fighting for.

The 2006 expiration date would align the contract negotiations for
somewhere near 50,000 to 70,000 hotel workers from New York City,
up and down the East Coast, through Chicago and the Midwest, up
and down the West Coast, and across the Pacific Ocean to Hawaii.

It also reflects the merger of the unions that now make up UNITE-HERE,
possible changes in the leadership of the AFL-CIO union confederation
and the massive restructuring and consolidation of the hotel, restaurant
and gambling industries as represented by the conglomerates that own,
run and franchise what is now a multi-billion dollar industry. The hotel
and casino conglomerates adamantly oppose the 2006 common contract
expiration date, as reflected in the San Francisco lockout and "bad-faith
bargaining" legal action by SFMEG taken against UNITE-HERE Local 2.

Merger Mania

On July 8, 2004, two existing AFL-CIO affiliated unions merged to
form UNITE-HERE. They were the Union of Needletrades, Textiles
and Industrial Employees (UNITE) and the Hotel Employees and
Restaurant Employees International Union (HERE).

The combined unions now number almost 500,000 active members
and 400,000 retirees throughout North America. More than half of
the current active members are women and the combined union has
organized more than 100,000 new workers in the last five years.

Three things preceded this union merger. UNITE itself was created
by the merger of two unions: the International Ladies Garment Workers
Union (ILGWU) and the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union (ACTWU), both famous for their struggles in textile manufacturing
and US politics. However in the years since the 1950s, the two unions
have lost a combined total of 850,000 members, as clothing and textile
manufacturing jobs were exported from the US. By 2004 their combined
membership totaled only 180,000.

The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union
(HERE) was originally formed in the 1890s. Its membership peaked in
the 1980s. Just before September 11th, 2001 its membership was
272,000. Following the 2001 terrorist attacks union membership
dropped to 180,000, as much of the tourism industry collapsed.
The collapse was aggravated by the bursting of the 1990s economic
bubble. However by 2004 HERE membership had grown again to
260,000.

To support its call for the 2006 expiration date, UNITE-HERE points
out that in the last two decades, hotel lodging companies have
undergone a major consolidation. Hotels that used to be locally
owned are now parts of huge transnational corporations.

According to information provided by the union, 75% of UNITE-HERE
Local 2 workers in San Francisco are employed by national chains
(like Hilton, Hyatt, InterContinental, Marriott and Starwood). These
5 transnational conglomerates together run 60% of San Francisco
hotels. Local companies run only 5% of San Francisco hotels.
The largest conglomerate, InterContinental, owns or franchises
3500 hotels in 100 countries and in San Francisco operates the
Mark Hopkins hotel and others. In 2003 InterContinental reported
an operating profit of more than one-half billion dollars.

In a like manner, in 2003 the Hilton Corporation reported over
$160 million profits on $4 billion in revenues, Marriott reported
$500 million profits on $9 billion in revenues, and Starwood
reported over $309 million profits on $3.8 billion in revenues.

Power in 2006

On Friday, August 13th, Hyatt Chicago Regency hotel workers
marched into management offices wearing their new red and
black "2004 Unity, 2006 Power" buttons. They presented managers
with a 500-signature petition. Five workers were sent home for
wearing the "2004 Unity, 2006 Power" buttons.

On Saturday, August 14th, in the face of 1400 guest check-outs,
82 button wearing hotel workers, including the main kitchen crew
and the main luncheon banquet server crew, were sent home when
they refused to remove their "2004 Unity, 2006 Power" buttons.
Food service at the hotel all but collapsed.

Management had to scramble to serve food buffet style and serve
a VIP luncheon using managers and other hotel staff. On Sunday
Hyatt Regency hotel managers asked UNITE-HERE Local 1 hotel
workers to come back to work and said that it was OK to wear the
"2004 Unity, 2006 Power" buttons.
"We sent a message to the hotels in Chicago and the giant corporations
that run them that this is a national fight and we are ready for it,"
Francine Jones, a Hyatt Chicago Room Attendant said.

UNITE- HERE Local 2 Vice-president Lamoin Werlein-Jean, told San
Francisco news-media reporters that, "We're fighting to build
a national movement to unite our brother and sister hotel workers
across the country so we may be able to negotiate with more
balance with these multinational hotel corporations."

Ignacio Ruiz, a food server at the Los Angeles Century Plaza,
told an LA reporter that hotel workers had learned from the
super-market strike that they need national coordination to win
these battles against international hotel chains.
UNITE- HERE Local 2 President Mike Casey told us that
UNITE- HERE is trying to avoid the problems that UFCW grocery
workers in Southern California had with their contracts. Casey
also said they are trying to connect with Northern California UFCW
Grocery workers and SEIU-represented hospital workers, who face
similar issues in their contracts that are expiring and are being
negotiated now.

Post 911 Recovery

The tourism industry suffered an economic blow immediately
following the 911 terrorist attacks. That was on top of the
economic downturn already taking place. In San Francisco,
about one third of union hotel workers were laid off and many
of the rest had their work hours reduced. However in the last year,
the industry has been experiencing a recovery to levels at or above
those of 2001, particularly in San Francisco and New York.

In Washington, D.C. both room occupancy and rates have increased
in the last year. The Washington Post, reported on September 3, 2004
that Smith Travel Research Inc. states that area hotels reported
revenue per room to be up from $75.77 in 2003 to $86.45 in 2004,
over a similar time period.

This figure is also higher than the same period preceding the terrorist
attacks in 2001. However employment levels in the hotels have not
kept pace with increased workloads. Fewer workers are now doing
more work than they did in 2001.

As Mike Casey, President of UNITE- HERE Local 2 puts it, "We won't
allow the hotels to balance their books on our backs ..."

In San Francisco (and around the country), UNITE-HERE Local 2 is also
fighting to defend immigrant workers, arguing that employers should
join the union in the fight to change US immigration laws. UNITE-HERE
unions are also proposing to increase the hiring rates of black workers,
which are underrepresented in the hotel work force. UNITE-HERE Local 2
also has endorsed San Francisco Ballot Initiative F, which would allow
non-citizens, with children in public schools, to vote in school board
elections.

The contracts expiring in San Francisco affect other San Francisco hotels,
where contracts will expire soon. Which is why we see SFMEG (and all
other hotel employers across the country) proposing increased employee
contributions to health insurance costs, meager wage proposals,
inadequate pension contributions, and finally, more than anything
else, opposition to the 2006 contract expiration date. In fact the fight
for the 2006 expiration date is the main reason that negotiations broke
down and that UNITE-HERE Local 2 called the strike.

In every hotel across the country, if their regular employees strike or
employers lock union workers out, hotel managers and executives say
they will keep their hotels open. It remains to be seen if they can do this
if union workers put up the fight necessary to shut down the hotels
despite the use of strikebreakers.

Words are cheap. What the striking workers need is massive solidarity.
The AFL-CIO and all local Labor Councils and individual unions must help
the Hotel Workers with money, food and, more importantly, labor actions
such as boycotts of hotel chains and massive support for picket lines.
Supporters must enforce the premise that picket lines are not to be
crossed.

Politicians, especially those running for office, should be put on the spot
and in the spotlight. They must speak out in favor of the mostly immigrant
strikers and avoid the trap of "mediating" in favor of the hotel owners-as
San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom has hinted at doing.