*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
TONIGHT: FIGHT BACK RALLY
"Fighting Back" for civil liberties & democratic rights
Defending Mumia Abu-Jamal: One court decision from
execution or new trial and freedom
Lynne Stewart/Michael Ratner/Pam Africa/Jeff Mackler
5:30 pm, San Francisco Reception
7:30 pm SF Mass Rally,
both at, Women's Bldg.,
3543 18th St.
(between Valencia & Guerrero (near 16th St. BART).
(SEE BELOW FOR TOUR SCHEDULE FOR BAY AREA.)
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
March 17: March on the Pentagon-1967/2007
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0gIIzg9hpN8
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
George Takai responds to Tim Hardaway's homophobic remarks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcJoJZIcQW4&eurl_
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Tues. Feb. 27, 7pm
ANSWER Black History Month Forum
THE CASE OF THE BLACK PANTHER 8—VIDEO & SPEAKER
2489 Mission St. #30, (at 21st St.) near 24th St. BART / #49, #14 MUNI, SF
Report on the case of the San Francisco Black Panther 8 by Dr. Henry
Clark—former Black Panther and director of West County Toxics
Coalition in Richmond, CA. See the video “Legacy of Torture:
The War Against The Black Liberation Movement”
415-646-6469 revolutionyouthsf@gmail.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
TWO SF BAY AREA EVENTS TO SUPPORT IRAQ WAR VETERAN
AND WAR RESISTER ARMY SPC. AGUSTIN AGUAYO!
Agustín Aguayo, a 35-year-old Army medic and conscientious
objector, will face court martial on March 6 for resisting
redeployment to Iraq. He has been formally charged by the
Army with desertion and missing movement. If convicted
of all charges, Agustín faces a maximum of seven years
in prison for following his conscience and refusing to
participate in war. He is currently imprisoned pending
trial at a military brig in Manheim, Germany.
Tuesday, February 27 at 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM
Benefit Dinner with Helga Aguayo
SF War Memorial Veterans Building, 2nd Floor
401 Van Ness (Civic Center BART), San Francisco
With brief presentations by: Agustin's wife Helga Aguayo;
Journalist Sarah Olson who led a successful campaign to
oppose reporter subpoenas by the Army in Lt. Ehren Watada's
court martial; Pablo Paredes, former Navy sailor who in
2005 publicly resisted shipping out in support of the Iraq War.
Dinner hosted by Courage to Resist and Veterans for Peace
SF Bay Area Chapter 69. Co-sponsored by the American Friends
Service Committee, SF Code Pink, Watada Support Committee,
APIs Resist! and Not in Our Name-Bay Area. Call 510-764-2073
More info: http://couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/252/36/
Saturday, March 2 at 7:00 PM to 2:00 AM
*PRAXIS* Party to Benefit Agustin Aguayo
Capoeira Angola Center 2513 Magnolia St., Oakland
*PRAXIS* party to benefit Agustin Aguayo and other soldiers
who refuse to fight! Wicked performers and stylin' djs. Including
ICAF-Oakland, Taiko Ren, Queen Deelah & Cov Records Artists,
Zazous, Fuga, DJ Zahkee, and Qbug. Good times for good causes
- Conscientious Objector Agustin Aguayo and Courage to Resist.
If you can't make either event, please consider an urgently
needed and much appreciated tax-deductible donation to
Agustin's defense fund. Online at
http://couragetoresist.org/donate
or make check payable to "Courage to Resist / IHC",
note "Agustin Aguayo defense" on the memo line,
and send to: COURAGE TO RESIST
484 LAKE PARK AVE #41, OAKLAND CA 94610
http://www.couragetoresist.org/donate
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
You are invited to
Witness to War: Revisiting Vietnam in Contemporary Art
at the Fine Arts Gallery, San Francisco State
University,
1600 Holloway Ave @ 19th Ave, SF
Open through March 15, 2007
Visit our website at:
http://www.sfsu.edu/~gallery/
Please join us. Spread the word, bring a friend!
Sat, Feb 24, 2:00 p.m.
Witness to War Artist Lecture – Daniel Joseph Martinez
Thurs, Mar 1, 1:00 p.m.
Witness to War Artist Panel Discussion
Sat, Mar 10, 1:00 p.m.
Artists Binh Danh, Thai Bui and Long Nguyen moderated
by art historian Boreth Ly.
Nguyen Dance Company
Dance Performance
Sat, Mar 10, 2:30 p.m.
West Coast Premiere of Documentary Film The Rain on
the River
Sat, Mar 10, 3:30 p.m.
Hope to see you there.
Defend the Los Angeles Eight!
http://www.committee4justice.com/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Lynne Stewart/Michael Ratner/Pam Africa/Jeff Mackler
Tour Bay Area for Civil Liberties
"Fighting Back" for civil liberties & democratic rights
Defending Mumia Abu-Jamal: One court decision from
execution or new trial and freedom
"Fighting Back: No one shall be tortured, falsely imprisoned, or denied
basic democratic rights" is the theme of the upcoming February 23-28,
2007 San Francisco Bay Area tour of Lynne Stewart/Michael Ratner/
Pam Africa/Jeff Mackler
Sponsored by and a benefit for the Lynne Stewart Defense
Committee and the Northern California-based Mobilization
Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, the tour includes some eighteen
meetings, rallies, receptions and media events. (See tour
schedule below).
Michael Ratner, President of the New York-based Center for
Constitutional Rights, won an historic lawsuit against the Bush
Administration when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detainees, imprisoned and tortured by
U.S. government interrogators, must be afforded access to U.S.
federal courts, that is, granted the right to habeas corpus.
This victory was essentially nullified soon after when the U.S.
Congress approved legislation legitimizing torture, but under
a new name. The same legislation effectively denied detainees
access to federal courts.
Ratner is currently in another battle to use the German court
system to file war crimes/torture charges against Donald Rumsfeld,
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and some eight other
U.S. officials responsible Abu Ghraib atrocities.
Lynne Stewart, 67, free on bail pending appeal of her conviction
on charges of "conspiracy to aid and abet terrorism," was granted
permission to travel to California by presiding District Court
Judge John Koeltl.
Koeltl shocked more than one legal observer by sentencing Stewart,
a lifelong civil rights and political prisoner attorney, to 28 months
in prison in the face of Probation Department and prosecution
recommendations that she be sentenced to thirty years.
Stewart was the lead attorney defending the Egyptian cleric, Shiek
Omar Abdel Rachman, who was convicted of conspiracy charges
to blow up federal monuments. Former U.S. Attorney General
Ramsey Clark and American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
head Abdeen Jabarra, were Stewart's co-counsels.
The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal:
Pam Africa and Jeff Mackler will join the tour in defense of
Mumia-Abu-Jamal, the award-winning African-American journalist
on Pennsylvania's death row for the past 25 years. Jamal's case
is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
with the State of Pennsylvania seeking its third order for Mumia's
execution by lethal injection. In 1982, in a trial that has been
condemned by groups ranging from Amnesty International
and the NAACP to the European Parliament and the presidents
of France and South Africa, Jamal was convicted of murdering
a Philadelphia policeman. His defense team, headed by attorney
Robert R. Bryan, awaits oral arguments before the court in
a major battle that could lead to a new trial and Mumia's freedom.
The tour is co-sponsored by the National Lawyers Guild, the
Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, Middle East Children's Alliance,
Vanguard Public Foundation, the Marin Peace and Justice Coalition,
and Pacifica Radio Station KPFA.
TOUR SCHEDULE:
Lynne Stewart/Michael Ratner/Pam Africa/Jeff Mackler Tour
(For details on all events, admission costs, or requests for
additional meetings call 415-255-1085)
Friday, Feb. 23:
10:30 am Oakland Press Conference
12:45 - 1:45 pm, Boalt Law School at UC
3 pm Berkeley KPFA;
5:30 pm, San Francisco Reception
7:30 pm SF Mass Rally,
both at, Women's Bldg.,
3543 18th St.
(between Valencia & Guerrero (near 16th St. BART).
Saturday, Feb. 24:
10 am Prison Radio SF Reception 415-648-4505
2 pm Marin Rally, College of Marin, Student Services Center (Cafeteria)
835 College Ave., Kentfield 415-302-9440
5:30 pm Berkeley Reception, Middle East Children's Alliance,
901 Parker at 7th, Berkeley, 510-548-0542
7:30 pm Berkeley Mass Rally,
King Middle School,
1781 Rose (near North Berkeley BART).
Sunday, Feb. 25:
1:00 pm, Palo Alto Reception,
Fireside Room,
2:00 pm Mass Rally,
both at Unitarian Universalist Church,
505 E. Charleston Rd., near Middlefield,
Palo Alto, 650-326-8837, peaceandjustice.org
Monday, Feb. 26:
10:30 am Gray Panther Reception 415-552-8800
12:30 pm, University of SF Law School,
Fulton at Stanyon, Kendrick Hall, 646-729-4303
5:30 pm Fresno Reception
7:00 pm Fresno Rally, 559-255-9492.
Tuesday, Feb 27:
5:30 pm Reception, Santa Rosa Peace and Justice Center, 707-569-9922
Wednesday, Feb. 28:
12:00 Noon, UC Davis School of Law,
Moot Courtroom, 734-972-1036
5:30 pm Sacramento Reception,
403 21st Street, Sacramento, 916-369-5510 jekeltner@aol.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
SUPPORT ARMY SPC. AGUSTIN AGUAYO
Iraq War Veteran – Conscientious Objector
Imprisoned awaiting court martial for refusing to return to Iraq
COMMUNITY FUNDRAISER DINNER WITH HELGA AGUAYO,
AGUSTIN'S WIFE.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2007
6:30 PM to 8:30 PM
War Memorial Veterans Building , 2nd Floor
401 Van Ness Avenue (across from City Hall), San Francisco
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
MARCH ON THE PENTAGON
SATURDAY, MARCH 17
WASHINGTON, D.C .
Free Speech Victory! Permits Secured for Pentagon Demonstration
http://www.internationalanswer.org/
MARCH AND RALLY IN SAN FRANCISCO
SUNDAY, MARCH 18, 2007
(The annual St. Patrick's Day Parade is taking
place on Sat., March 17 in SF.)
ASSEMBLE 12:00 NOON
JUSTIN HERMAN PLAZA -
MARCH TO CIVIC CENTER
For more information:
http://www.actionsf.org/#local4
answer@actionsf.org
Phone: 415-821-6545
Fax: 415-821-5782
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Iran
http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Another view of the war. A link from Amer Jubran
http://d3130.servadmin.com/~leeflash/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Petition: Halt the Blue Angels
http://action.globalexchange.org/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=458
http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/289327
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
A Girl Like Me
7:08 min
Youth Documentary
Kiri Davis, Director, Reel Works Teen Filmmaking, Producer
Winner of the Diversity Award
Sponsored by Third Millennium Foundation
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1091431409617440489
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Film/Song about Angola
http://www.prisonactivist.org/angola/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
"200 million children in the world sleep in the streets today.
Not one of them is Cuban."
(A sign in Havana)
Venceremos
View sign at bottom of page at:
http://www.cubasolidarity.net/index.html
[Thanks to Norma Harrison for sending this...bw]
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
ARTICLES IN FULL:
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) Why isn't UFPJ supporting the March on the Pentagon?
From: "Larry Holmes"
Please sign on to this letter, and circulate it widely. Below are only
initial signers: Thanks.
[VIA Email...bw]
2) Pentagon to Fill Iraq Reconstruction Jobs Temporarily
By THOM SHANKER
February 20, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/world/middleeast/20military.html
3) Iraq's Fading Grip on American Business
By DANIEL ALTMAN
Economic View
February 18, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/business/yourmoney/18view.html
4) Genetic Tests Offer Promise, but Raise Questions, Too
By DENISE CARUSO
February 18, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/business/yourmoney/18reframe.html
5) WHAT 'WAR ON TERROR'?
[Col. Writ. 2/7/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal
[VIA Email from Howard Keylor
howardkeylor@comcast.net ...bw]
6) Interview with the Ricardo Alarcón, President of the Cuban
La Vanguardia - Barcelona
Monday, February 19, 2007
International
This came to me without the URL.
Spanish original posted along
with English translation here:
http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs1137.html
7) Tougher Tactics Deter Migrants at U.S. Border
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
"The federal government has also begun punishing migrants with
prison time from the first time they enter illegally in some areas.
For instance, along the 210 miles of border covered by the Del Rio
office of the Border Patrol, everyone caught crossing illegally
is charged in federal court and, if convicted, sentenced to
at least two weeks in prison."
February 21, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/world/americas/21border.html
8) Shielding the Powerful
Editorial
February 21, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/opinion/21wed1.html
9) Iraqi Official Fired After Seeking Rape Inquiry
By JON ELSEN
February 21, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/world/middleeast/21cnd-sunni.html
10) The New Somalia: A Grimly Familiar Rerun
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
February 21, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/world/africa/21somaliaq.html
11) Inflation Is Slightly Higher Than Expected
By JEREMY W. PETERS
February 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/business/22econ.web.html
12) New Iraq Oil Law To Open Iraq's Oil Reserves to Western Companies
Democracy Now Transcript
Tuesday, February 20th, 2007
http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl?sid=07/02/20/1523250
13) WHO PROTECTS WHOM?
[Col. Writ. 2/4/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal
VIA Email from: Howard Keylor
howardkeylor@comcast.net
14) HARRIET TUBMAN -- A WOMAN CALLED 'GENERAL MOSES'
[Col. Writ. 2/8/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal
VIA Email from: Howard Keylor
howardkeylor@comcast.net
15) American Liberty at the Precipice
Editorial
February 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/opinion/22thu1.html
16) National Guard May Undertake Iraq Duty Early
By DAVID S. CLOUD
February 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/washington/22military.html
17) Soldier Weeps Describing Role in Rape and Killings in Iraq
By REUTERS
February 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/world/middleeast/22confess.html
18) U.S. Is Sued Over Position on Marijuana
By CAROLYN MARSHALL
February 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/washington/22marijuana.html
19) 'GIVE *WAR* A CHANCE'
[Col. Writ. 2/2/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal
VIA Email from: Howard Keylor
howardkeylor@comcast.net
20) Arab/Palestinian Mural at SFSU in Jeopardy!
Students need our support.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mural/
21) U.S. Used Base in Ethiopia to Hunt Al Qaeda in Africa
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and MARK MAZZETTI
February 23, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/world/africa/23somalia.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
22) Cuba's known for cigars now, but oil could change that
Updated 2/22/2007 9:03 AM ET
By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-02-22-cuba-usat_x.htm
23) THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 23, 2007
By JOSÉ DE CÓRDOBA
February 23, 2007; Page A5
VIA Email from:
Walter Lippmann
walterlx@earthlink.net
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) Why isn't UFPJ supporting the March on the Pentagon?
From: "Larry Holmes"
Please sign on to this letter, and circulate it widely. Below are only
initial signers: Thanks.
[VIA Email...bw]
Dear sisters and brothers in the leadership of United for Peace and Justice,
It is with deep concern, sincerity and hope that we the undersigned
appeal to you to cancel the protest that you have only recently
announced for March 18 in New York City, well after plans had been
announced for a D.C. mobilization, thus setting up misconceptions and
promoting confusion.
We urge you to support and work for a united mobilization in
Washington and use the power of your outreach to endorse and support
the march on the Pentagon on March 17 to mark the fourth anniversary
of the war.
Surely you must know that the activists in the antiwar movement view
your late announcement of a March 18 event as little more than a
deliberate attempt to undermine the long scheduled mobilization to
Washington and the Pentagon on Saturday, March 17; the talk already
going around is: "Why isn't UFPJ supporting the March on the Pentagon?
People do not see it as uniting.
The hard working rank and file activists of the antiwar movement, as
well as the millions of people who have come out to antiwar
demonstrations don't care which coalition calls the march, or what the
political differences are between the various coalitions, or about the
history of problems that the coalitions have had working together;what
they want is for us to march together, especially now.
Indeed, hardworking anti-war activists have attended all rallies
called by UFPJ as well as the other coalitions; therefore,
demonstrating a consistent expression of unity.We should then expect
nothing less from those who have taken leadership responsibility
within the US anti-war movement.
The broad array of forces that comprise the resistance to the Iraq
war, and new looming wars ie Iran expect the people in decision making
positions to take the high road, focus the peoples' energy on common,
united actions and pave the road together to strengthen our unity for
peace with justice.
Would it not be an enormous step forward, indeed a step towards
revitalizing the antiwar movement, if all
concerned abandoned the cynical infighting and
divisiveness that only serves to make the movement more fragmented,
and weak? UFPJ can make that possible, by calling on its supporters to
JOIN ONE LARGE AND STRONG ACTION IN WASHINGTON ON MARCH 17. Anything
short of that spreads more negativity than positive unity. Dear
friends, please take this appeal to heart and help unite us all on
March 17, 2007.
Sincerely,
Abayomi Azikiwe, Editor, Pan-African News Wire, Michigan Emergency
Committee Against War & Injustice
BAYAN USA
Brenda Stokely, Co-Convener New York Labor Against The War, Operation
Power, TONC, MWMM, MAY 1 Coalition
Comrade Shahid, Pakistan USA Freedom Forum
Charles Barron , New York City Councilmember
Chris Silvera, Secretary Treasurer, IBT Local 808, Million Worker
March Movement (MWMM), National Black Teamsters Caucus
Ellie Ommani, member, WESPAC, AIFC, NoWarWestchester, PNN
Eric Anders, Jersey City Peace Movement
Heather Cottin, LI Coalition for Immigrant Rights"
Jesse Lokahi Heiwa, Queer People Of Color Action
Larry Adams, Co-Convener New York Labor Against The War (NYCLAW)
Michael Letwin, Co-Convener, New York City Labor Against the War &
Former Member, UFPJ National and NYC steering committees
Saladin Muhammad, Member Black Workers For Justice
Teresa Gutierrez, New York Committee to Free the Cuban
Five
Troops Out Now Coalition
Vicente Alba –Panama, Activist
[I am adding my name to this list of endorsers of this letter:
Bonnie Weinstein, Bay Area United Against War, www.bauaw.org]
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) Pentagon to Fill Iraq Reconstruction Jobs Temporarily
By THOM SHANKER
February 20, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/world/middleeast/20military.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 — The Pentagon and State Department have
worked out a deal to send a small number of military personnel
and Defense Department civilians to Iraq for several months until
Foreign Service officers and State Department contract workers
with specialized skills can fill those jobs, senior officials said
Monday.
The internal administration discussions over filling the posts
had exposed tensions between the military and civilian agencies
over how to share responsibilities in carrying out President Bush's
new strategy for stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq — in particular,
how to fill hazardous positions in new provincial reconstruction
teams.
The State Department had asked the Pentagon to come up with
military personnel or civilians to fill about one-third of the 350
new State Department jobs in Iraq. While the numbers involved
are relatively small, the debate raised larger issues of whether
the government was properly organized to carry out a long-term
occupation of a country like Iraq.
The State Department's written request for military personnel
to fill some of the positions temporarily, received in late January,
was met with frustration by a number of senior Pentagon officials
and military officers.
But last week, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates agreed to the
State Department request. About 120 military personnel
or Pentagon civilians will fill the jobs for up to four months,
according to three senior officials who were briefed on the
discussions.
The officials said the stopgap measure would give the State
Department time to identify Foreign Service officers to serve in
political and economic development jobs in Iraq and to use new
Congressional financing to hire people with technical skills that
are not routinely part of diplomatic missions overseas.
The officials said the jobs included industrial development
specialists, public health advisers, engineers, veterinarians,
agricultural experts and lawyers who specialize in creating
or enhancing judicial institutions.
While those skills are not a standard part of the diplomatic corps,
they are found among active duty military and reserve personnel.
It is those people who will be asked to step in temporarily.
"We are moving forward to try and fill many if not all of those
positions, and can certainly manage it for 60, 90 or 120 days,"
a senior Defense Department official said.
Another senior Pentagon official said, "Rather than waiting
for the funding and contracting process, we want to push
the envelope to get the provincial reconstruction teams
running as rapidly as we can."
Mr. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have not
publicly discussed the specifics of the agreement. But they
met at the State Department last week, and Ms. Rice spoke
in positive terms of cooperation between the departments.
"This is one of several meetings that the secretary and I have
been holding and will continue to hold on major issues that
Defense and State are confronting together in the global war
on terror," Ms. Rice said at the time. "It gives us a chance
to get the people who are really responsible for managing
these issues on a day-to-day basis together with us to solve
the problems that we face and to take advantage of the
opportunity."
The president's new strategy calls for the State Department
to step up its efforts in Iraq, by doubling to 20 the number
of provincial reconstruction teams. That increase would be
in tandem with the deployment of 21,500 more troops
to Baghdad and Anbar Province to the west.
"We need to put more energy into government at lower levels,
at the provincial level and, in some cases, at the municipal level,"
a senior Defense Department official said.
Another official said the additional provincial reconstruction teams,
to be managed by State Department personnel, would not focus on
"brick and mortar" construction, but on "trying to reconstruct
governmental capacity — the ability for the Iraqi government
at all levels to effectively deliver services."
The State Department-run reconstruction teams will rely on military
personnel for security and to escort convoys, Pentagon and State
Department officials said. Striking a balance between assigning
troops to day-to-day combat missions versus providing security
for nonmilitary efforts has caused some tensions in the past.
At the core of the debate is a clash of cultures, civilian and military,
and assessments of the mission. Many in the military have said
that while administration officials routinely speak of the United
States as "a nation at war," by far the bulk of the mission is being
carried by those in uniform, while the rest of the government
is not on a similar war footing.
But across the civilian agencies, which have only a fraction
of the Pentagon's personnel and budget, government workers
say the question is whether a few hundred unarmed civilians
spread across Iraq can make a significant difference in promoting
democracy and reconstruction in the middle of a war zone,
when more than 130,000 troops are not succeeding in that task.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Iraq's Fading Grip on American Business
By DANIEL ALTMAN
Economic View
February 18, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/business/yourmoney/18view.html
WHAT will happen to the American economy if Washington pulls
the troops out of Iraq? What will happen if it doesn't? The answer
to both of these questions may be, not a heck of a lot. Where the
war was once the dominating factor in mainstream economic
prognostication, lately it has become little more than a tragic
sideshow.
In the United States, the most direct economic effect of the war
is on the federal budget, which has added hundreds of billions
of dollars in military and reconstruction spending in the last few
years. According to basic economic theory, that extra spending
should stimulate the economy by creating new demand for goods
and services.
But the situation isn't that simple. It's possible that money spent
on the war could have been used for more productive investments
instead — scientific research, for example. The net effect of the
war, in that case, would have been to hinder economic growth.
And while military spending might be stimulative, it might also
be pushing up interest rates by increasing the government's
borrowing, as well as raising the nation's eventual need for
taxes to repay those debts.
If the economic effect of the extra spending has been unclear,
there is also no guarantee that military spending would fall
if the troops came home. David R. Scruggs, a senior fellow
in defense industrial initiatives at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, says the Army is in urgent need of repairs
and refitting for its equipment, especially armored vehicles.
Those costs will eventually have to be paid.
"We've got some historically high rates of inoperable vehicles
right now, and battle damage is only part of it," Mr. Scruggs
said. "We've underfunded the depots and the industry to fix
this stuff. It may seem improbable given the amount of money
we've been spending in the last few years, but the money hasn't
gone into fixing old stuff. It's gone into fighting the war and
buying new stuff. We're not going to have the new stuff
for several years, and we need to fix the old stuff so that
in the interim, we'll have something."
Mr. Scruggs also said that in a comparison with earlier large-
scale engagements, the share of spending going into salaries,
food and amenities for the troops in Iraq was substantially
higher — and that many of those costs would continue even
if the troops came home. The all-volunteer Army, now fighting
a prolonged conflict for the first time, is more expensive than
a conscripted one, he said; today's force has to compete with
other professions to recruit workers, and it's also seeking out
highly skilled and highly educated soldiers.
Aside from its effect on the budget, of course, the war has also
had an impact on the price of oil. Before the war began, the
direst predictions about its economic costs centered around
$100-a-barrel crude. Oil prices have indeed risen, but it is
not clear how much the war is responsible — and, thus, how
much those prices would fall if the situation in Iraq changed.
A series of discrete events have helped to keep prices high.
Spikes have come as a reaction to sabotage in the former Soviet
Union, to guerrilla warfare in Nigeria, even to domestic legislation
on fuel additives. Deeper factors like growth in developing
countries and belligerence in Venezuela and Iran have also
raised long-term average prices. Because Iraq wasn't selling
its full production capacity of oil on international markets before
the war, the current shortfall in production hasn't hurt all that much.
"If we pull out and we get a more peaceful situation in Iraq,
we might get more oil out of the place," said Philip K. Verleger Jr.,
an energy economist based in Aspen, Colo. He added that the only
risk of a significant disruption in the oil supply would be if "the
situation in Iran blows up," drawing the region into a larger conflict.
The story is similar in financial markets. Stock and bond prices
respond to oil prices, as well as to worries about budget deficits,
long-term security risks and a host of other issues. Lately,
however, Iraq hasn't been much of a hot topic.
Shital Patel, an economist at Morgan Stanley, surveys her bank's
analysts to assess the economic climate and challenges in the
nation's various industries. "In reading a lot of people's reports
outside of defense, aerospace and energy, I haven't seen too
much mention of Iraq," she said. "No one's really mentioned
it at all as a risk. We ask how business conditions will be six
months out, and no one's commented on Iraq there."
Companies were not always so unconcerned, she said. In the
March 2003 version of her survey, half of Morgan Stanley's
analysts said the war in Iraq — which had just begun —
was weakening business conditions.
THE duration of the war has also led to indifference in consumer
behavior. Ken Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board,
a business group in New York, said consumer confidence
in the economy would not be affected much by either an
improvement or a worsening of the situation in Iraq.
"Iraq is `over there,' and `over there' is outside of our peripheral
vision," he said. "It tinges the picture to some extent, but what's
happening to jobs, what's happening to income, what's happening
to mortgage and credit rates — those are things which are of far
more immediacy to the consumer." The war can affect those things,
he said, but only "tangentially and incrementally."
One area where a peaceful conclusion to the war in Iraq could
make a big difference is the value of the dollar. Currency trading,
you could argue, responds to some of the most ephemeral but
also all-encompassing national factors.
"If President Bush just says that he needs to continue with his
program, the market's not going to react to that," said Kathy Lien,
chief strategist at Dailyfx.com, a subsidiary of Forex Capital Markets,
a currency broker in New York. "However, if we do have a complete
troop withdrawal, that would be taken very positively for the U.S. dollar.
Internationally, peace in Iraq and peace in general are also positive
for the U.S. dollar." And that's a comforting thought.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Genetic Tests Offer Promise, but Raise Questions, Too
By DENISE CARUSO
February 18, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/business/yourmoney/18reframe.html
A GROWING industry is hoping to spin gold from DNA's double
helixes by using ultrasensitive genetic tests to personalize medical
treatment for cancer, lupus and other diseases.
These molecular diagnostic tests can give doctors more detailed
information than ever about their patients. Genetic information
can help them decide whether their lymphoma patients would
respond better to surgery, chemotherapy or radiation treatment;
make more accurate diagnoses of abnormal cells or tissues;
and more readily detect serious autoimmune disorders.
What's more, the development of genetic tests has given academic
researchers the tools to begin establishing causal links between
common bacteria and viruses — streptococcus, say, or influenza
— and diseases like autism, cervical cancer, Type 1 diabetes,
schizophrenia and even obsessive-compulsive disorder.
More than 1,000 genetic tests are available clinically, and
hundreds more are available to researchers. Despite the
tremendous promise of these tests, there is growing concern
among researchers and patient advocates about how consistently
their claims match reality. How accurate are they at finding potential
genetic problems? Are different tests for different conditions
equally reliable? And how tight is the connection between
a genetic trait and a specific illness?
Some researchers say they believe that the practical relevance
of many tests has been oversold. Over the last two decades,
for example, there has been a steady stream of news about
researchers discovering "the gene" that links people to diabetes,
Alzheimer's, obesity, schizophrenia, depression and many
other afflictions.
Yet most of those hard-wired gene-disease links — as many
as 95 percent of them, according to one British study published
in 2003 — don't hold up to closer scrutiny. Instead, follow-up
studies find that if there is any measurable genetic link to these
common diseases, it results from the more complex interactions
of many genes with one another, as well as with the environment.
According to the Human Genome Project, this state of affairs
is particularly troubling, considering that a few companies have
started marketing genetic tests directly to the public — sometimes
claiming their kits not only test for disease, but can also customize
medicine, vitamins and diet to an individual's genetic makeup.
There is no independent review or government oversight
of the validity of these tests, particularly those available
to consumers through their doctors. No agency yet has
the formal responsibility to make sure that genetic tests
can produce correct answers reliably over time — or, more
important, that there is even a relationship between a particular
genetic variation and a person's health.
Companies that spend millions of dollars and years establishing
the clinical utility of their products can find themselves competing
in the marketplace with "a company with a couple of genes it ran
on 30 samples," as one frustrated industry executive put it.
Add to this mix the relentless churn of new, often conflicting
scientific information about the role of genetics in disease —
and the life-or-death nature of the medical decisions that
doctors and patients might make, based on results of genetic
tests. On what basis should we decide whether these tests
are worth getting our hopes up?
"Advances in technology change the types of questions
researchers can ask," said Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, a doctor and
professor of epidemiology, neurology and pathology
at Columbia University.
"New tools for detecting and discovering pathogens, new
sample collections and new research models will allow us
to head off future outbreaks of infectious disease and to
meet the challenges at the intersections between gene and
the environment," Dr. Lipkin added. "But technology is like
a car with a lot of horsepower. If you point it in the wrong
direction, you can run people over."
Dr. Lipkin is director of the Jerome L. and Dawn Greene
Infectious Disease Laboratory and scientific director of the
Northeast Biodefense Center at Columbia. For many years
he has been a significant player in the worlds of infectious
disease and biodefense, and is recognized for his interest
and skill in developing tools for discovering pathogens and
the relationships between pathogens and disease.
Because they are developed and used primarily for research,
not clinical practice, genetic tests developed by scientists like
Dr. Lipkin are not subject to oversight. But neither are the
1,000 or so commercial genetic tests available to consumers
through medical professionals.
Commercial laboratories do not have to negotiate any formal
approval process before offering a new genetic test, "and
government requirements to ensure that genetic testing
laboratories are getting the right answers to patients are
minimal," according to an issue brief by the Genetics and
Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University last September.
What's more, the center added, there is no government
requirement that a test must "actually relate to a particular
disease or risk of disease" in order to be sold.
At least one agency is trying to forge such requirements. The
Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological
Health held a public meeting on Feb. 8 to discuss guidelines
to regulate the safety and effectiveness of a type of test called
in-vitro diagnostic multivariate index assays.
One such test is Mammaprint, sold by Agendia, a Dutch company.
Mammaprint, which was the first product approved by the F.D.A.
under draft guidelines, measures the activity of 70 genes in
a cancer tumor after a surgeon removes it from a patient's breast.
It then calculates a score that estimates the risk of the cancer
spreading to another part of the patient's body.
Given the treatment decisions that will be made based on the results
of tests like Mammaprint, there is a critical need to assure doctors
and patients that the tests are as accurate and clinically valid
as possible.
Yet news coverage of the F.D.A. meeting indicated that agency
representatives got an earful from angry diagnostics manufacturers,
denouncing the F.D.A.'s draft guidelines. They complained that
the guidance was confusing, untenable and a "disincentive
to innovation," and even suggested that the F.D.A. had no legal
authority to regulate these particular tests as "devices."
Instead, they want these in-vitro diagnostic multivariate index
assays to be subject to the same rules as "homebrew" tests
developed by individual labs. These tests are regulated today
by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a Health
and Human Services agency separate from the F.D.A.
Under H.H.S. guidelines, called Clinical Laboratory Improvement
Amendments, tests developed by individual labs do not require
regulatory review. What's more, the guidelines require only technical
proficiency; they do not require labs to prove their tests are clinically
valid, said Dr. Daniel G. Schultz, director of the F.D.A.'s Center
for Devices and Radiological Health.
He said in-vitro diagnostic multivariate index assays "are based
on algorithms that don't permit even a well-trained physician
to really understand whether or not the results are accurate and
meaningful or not."
"If that technology purports to tell an individual whether or not the
type of ovarian or breast or colon cancer is or isn't likely to recur,
and would or wouldn't require additional therapy — well, we think
there needs to be somebody looking at the testing that was done
to create those algorithms," Dr. Schultz said. "No one else is doing
that, and if we don't do it, no one else is going to."
Despite numerous calls by government advisory bodies and expert
committees over six years to do so, the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services have yet to develop special rules for labs
conducting genetic tests. Last September, the Genetics and Public
Policy Center filed a citizens petition with several other public
interest groups, arguing that the centers' refusal to address
the issue violates the law.
NEVERTHELESS, Sharon F. Terry, president of the Genetic Alliance,
said the F.D.A. guidelines should be withdrawn and formal rules
approved, an action that would take several years to complete.
In the interim, diagnostics makers would be free to offer whatever
products they wanted under the H.H.S.'s "laboratory improvement"
guidelines.
No one can blame diagnostics makers for wanting the freedom
to develop a new and obviously important market, and as
a society we should find every way possible to support their
investment in expanding their knowledge and developing these
new and powerful technologies.
But genetic tests lead people to make life-changing decisions:
To undergo surgery, or not. To take, or not take, a drug with
potentially significant side effects or benefits. To bear a child
or terminate a pregnancy.
It is difficult to see either the economic benefit or the ethical
wisdom of allowing genetic testing to move forward without
even the most basic protections for patients and physicians
who will rely on them.
Denise Caruso is executive director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute,
which studies collaborative problem-solving.
E-mail: dcaruso@nytimes.com.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) WHAT 'WAR ON TERROR'?
[Col. Writ. 2/7/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal
[VIA Email from Howard Keylor
howardkeylor@comcast.net ...bw]
Have you ever thought (but were afraid to admit) that there really
wasn't such a thing as a 'war on terror?'
Well, worry no more.
England's top prosecutor has set the record straight.
Britain's director of public prosecutions, Ken McDonald, gave a speech
in late January to the nation's Criminal Bar Association. In words
that few U.S. figures of such stature could ever muster, McDonald
told the assembly:
"On the streets of London, *there is no such thing as a 'war on terror'*,
just as there can be no such thing as a 'war on drugs'."
McDonald, who heads the Crown Prosecution Service, warned of the
"fear-driven and inappropriate response" of the nation's political
and legal community, which could threaten the fairness of trials
and due process of law.
McDonald added:
"The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war.
It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the
winning of justice for those damaged by the infringement."*
How utterly refreshing! Leave it to the Brits to stick a pin into
the U.S. balloon of the 'war on terror.'
Presidents love to sell the war metaphor to support their
prerogatives to accrue more power than their predecessors.
Every war sets the stage for the strengthening of the nation's
executive power.
That's what McDonald meant when he referred to 'fear-driven
responses.'
It may begin in Britain, but it won't end there.
That's because neither wisdom nor common sense can be
segregated behind borders.
That's because fear doesn't last forever.
Generations ago, during World War II, thousands of Japanese-
Americans, men, women, and babies, were placed in concentration
camps all across the country -- based purely on fear and racist
projections.
Today, people look back at that era with embarrassment and deep
misgivings. There was no real, honest basis for this kind
of treatment of such citizens.
It took decades, but presidents have condemned such treatment,
and reparations (albeit quite modest) were made to survivors
of that social tragedy.
Today, a host of errors and evils accompany the so-called 'war on
terror.' The president has tried to sell the Iraq debacle as 'the central
front' of this war, but fewer and *fewer* Americans are buying it.
And while politicians insist on swearing their false fealty to it
(even though they don't believe in it, but are afraid to do so, lest
they be marked as 'soft'), public opinion polls show most folks
are echoing the views of a British prosecutor.
False pretexts -- false wars. With millions of people refugees,
hundreds of thousands dead, land and lives ravaged by American
maniacs, and their imperial subjects.
Americans hear 'war and on terror' today, and turn to American Idol.
That's because they know -- in their innards -- that it's a crock.
The time will come when we look back, and may dare to smile.
Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal
[Source: *Asheville Global Report, No. 420, Feb. 1-7, 2007, p. 15.]
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) Interview with the Ricardo Alarcón, President of the Cuban
La Vanguardia - Barcelona
Monday, February 19, 2007
International
This came to me without the URL.
Spanish original posted along
with English translation here:
http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs1137.html
Parliament "I think we‚ll see Fidel again at close
quarters" An important man in the highest echelons of Fidel
Castro‚s Cuba, he has held that position since 1993.
Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada, 69, has been presiding over the
Cuban Parliament since 1993. A Doctor of Philosophy and
Arts, he was Cuba‚s ambassador to the United Nations from
1966 to 1978, when he was appointed Deputy President of the
General Assembly. He has also been in charge of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and is deemed an important man
in the highest echelons of Fidel Castro‚s Cuba.
Q: For the last six months Fidel Castro has stayed out of
the presidency because of his illness. What has changed?
A: Well, he has not exactly stayed out...
Q: Or away from it.
A: That‚s more like it. The thing is, we don‚t see him as
much as we used to. One of Fidel‚s habits is to keep a
firm, direct grip on many issues. It‚s his style. That
physical absence has been the main change. When something
happens, say, a hurricane, he‚s been there, and not only at
meetings where damages are assessed on paper. Of course, he
can‚t do that now that he‚s recovering from surgery, but I
assure you he‚s still on top of every important matter.
Like Raúl Castro has said, he spends a lot of time glued to
the phone he‚s got by his side.
Q: Does he ever call you?
A: We have talked over the phone a few times, but he
concentrates mostly on Vice-President Carlos Lage and
Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez. Lage [Economics] is quite
methodical and capable of conveying the main points
briefly. So is Felipe when it comes to international
events, a sensitive issue always in the center of Fidel‚s
attention.
Q: So what has changed in Cuba?
A: Neither society nor politics nor our basic directions
have changed. Most noticeable perhaps is the Cuban people‚s
reaction to Fidel‚s proclamation on July 31 (temporary
delegation of powers to Raúl), which puts paid to so much
speculation overseas; a mature, even-tempered, supportive
reaction amid their sorrow, of course, which confirms the
great unity of Cuban society and the strength of its
institutions.
Q: And what can and can‚t change, either now or after
Fidel?
A: Each person is unique and irreplaceable. We change all
the time, that‚s what life is about. Some people retire,
some die, others grow up... and everyone makes a mark. In
the early 1990s, with the collapse of the Soviet model and
its terrible blow on the Cuban economy as the U.S.
strengthened its blockade, the end of Cuban socialism was
announced with an excessive, unjustified fanfare: Cuba had
to correct its course and bet on an assumed winning ticket.
Yet, what are we talking about today? Look around you. The
allegedly winning choice is bankrupt all over Latin
America. Now the trend is to get closer to what Cuba has
meant. Everywhere there‚s fierce criticism of the
capitalist model, and people are looking for alternative
formulas: the 21st century socialism, or better said,
socialisms. Defending the neo-liberal model here is all but
a joke; no one is asking Cuba to do what Latin America does
less and less. You have to be out of your mind to be
willing to preserve the world ridden with the ecological
disaster as described by Al Gore, who almost became
president of the U.S.
Q: Is Fidel‚s return to direct, daily command to be
expected?
A: His recovery is going well. He‚s the one acting with
caution because of his hopeless addiction to the truth and
deep-seated contempt for deception. He‚s always reminding
us that his situation is delicate and complex, though he‚s
been forced to admit to be doing fine. I‚m confident that
he will not only keep managing our key issues as he is now,
but we will be seeing him again at close quarters.
Q: As much as before?
A: That would be only natural, but without spending so many
hours everywhere and paying visits. I‚m 11 years his
junior, and seeing his work capacity has made me feel
exhausted and amazed. I won‚t dare say he will adopt a more
discreet, moderate position, for I might make a fool of
myself. But he‚s very capable of surprising us all.
Q: Raúl Castro has a different style and a reputation for
being more pragmatic than Fidel.
A: It‚s another style that Cubans know too. He‚s
straightforward and unassuming, and reluctant to be center
stage, which makes a change. He likes to get to the point
and aim for the solution rather than elaborate too much and
get muddled up in discussions. I remember, though, that at
first Raúl was the extremist, radical, communist one. Now
he turns out to be the pragmatic and restrained one. So, he
was also a pragmatist then and a radical now.
Q: What do you think about the hypotheses of reforms in
Cuba according to the Chinese or Vietnamese model?
A: We‚re not Chinese. There are things about the Chinese
experience that could prove very useful, but also the other
way around. The idea of a single model is no longer a
choice among intelligent socialists. It‚s in the West where
some people still harbor that foolish idea.
Q: Are you afraid that corruption may put a damper on
Cuba‚s likely reforms or its evolution?
A: Fidel said the enemy would never defeat the Revolution,
for we‚re the only ones who could destroy it. And
corruption is a key issue here. It‚s a universal
phenomenon, but not as strong in Cuba as it is in other
countries. Nevertheless, that could be our final outcome.
Unlike the case of a capitalist country, corruption makes a
socialist country less so, and works against the idea of a
socially supportive environment which the United Nations
Economic Commission for Latin America labeled the mechanism
that curbed the adverse consequences of introducing a
market economy. The doses of capitalism we‚ve had to
swallow are not the only cause of corruption, but it‚s one
of the reasons, together with material scarcity.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) Tougher Tactics Deter Migrants at U.S. Border
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
"The federal government has also begun punishing migrants with
prison time from the first time they enter illegally in some areas.
For instance, along the 210 miles of border covered by the Del Rio
office of the Border Patrol, everyone caught crossing illegally
is charged in federal court and, if convicted, sentenced to
at least two weeks in prison."
February 21, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/world/americas/21border.html
SAN LUIS RÍO COLORADO, Mexico — For 10 years, Eduardo Valenzuela
has been crossing the border illegally near Yuma, Ariz., trekking over
desert scrub and hopping a freight train to get back to his job with
a construction company in Phoenix. The clandestine trip has become
an annual ritual for him, as he goes home each winter to see his
children.
But on a recent afternoon he and four travel companions from his
hometown, Los Mochis, plopped down on a bench in a park in the
border town of San Luis Río Colorado, exhausted and dispirited.
They were beat. Border Patrol agents had caught them twice over
three days, hounding them with helicopters and four-wheel-drive
trucks.
"It's become much more difficult," Mr. Valenzuela said, echoing
the comments of dozens of other migrants. "Before, you just arrived
here and then you walked a little and got the train. You used to see
a border patrol agent every 10 kilometers. Now you see four of them
where there was one. Think of it."
All along the border, there are signs that the measures the Border
Patrol and other federal agencies have taken over the last year,
from erecting new barriers to posting 6,000 National Guardsmen
as armed sentinels, are beginning to slow the flow of illegal
immigrants.
The only available barometer of the decline is how many
migrants are caught. In the last four months, the number has
dropped 27 percent compared with the same period last year,
the biggest drop since a crackdown immediately after 9/11.
In two sections around Yuma and near Del Rio, Tex., the numbers
have fallen by nearly two-thirds, Homeland Security officials say.
"We are comfortable that this actually reflects a change in
momentum," Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security,
said in an interview last week during his first official visit to Mexico
City. "I'm always quick to say it doesn't mean we can declare victory.
To some degree, I expect the criminal organizations or smugglers
are pulling back a little, watching to see if we lose interest."
Some immigration experts said it was too early to tell if the
enforcement efforts had caused a permanent downturn. In the
past, tougher enforcement has only caused smugglers to seek
new routes.
"It's the squeeze the balloon phenomenon," said Roberto Suro,
the director of the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington. "Sometimes
you can't tell where the bubble will come when you squeeze until later."
Nor can they rule out other factors, like a relatively cold winter
on the border and Mexico's solid economic growth last year.
Border Patrol commanders say they see no explanation for the
drop-off across the entire 2,000-mile border other than stiffer
enforcement deterring migrants. The slackening flow, they argue,
belies the conventional wisdom that it is impossible to stem illegal
migration. Many veteran officers in the force are now beginning
to believe it can be controlled with enough resources.
The new measures range from simply putting more officers out
on patrol to erecting stadium lights, secondary fences and barriers
of thick steel poles to stop smugglers from racing across the desert
in all-wheel-drive trucks. The Border Patrol has deployed hundreds
of new guards to watch rivers, monitor surveillance cameras and
guard fences.
In the Yuma headquarters of the Border Patrol, for instance,
Chief Ronald Colburn said that with the help of the National
Guard the patrol had doubled the agents in his sector to about 900,
extended the primary steel wall eight miles past the end of the
Mexican town of San Luis Río Colorado, and constructed a vehicle
barrier six miles beyond that. "It's the right mix, the right recipe,"
he said.
The federal government has also begun punishing migrants with
prison time from the first time they enter illegally in some areas.
For instance, along the 210 miles of border covered by the Del Rio
office of the Border Patrol, everyone caught crossing illegally
is charged in federal court and, if convicted, sentenced to
at least two weeks in prison.
That is an enormous break with past practice, when most Mexican
migrants were simply taken back to the border and let go. People
from Central American countries were given a court date and
released on their own recognizance. Few ever showed up.
In San Luis Río Colorado, the effects of the stepped-up patrols
are apparent. A year ago, migrants thronged the town park and
cheap motels, where guides, known as "coyotes" or "polleros"
offered their services. Now the park is nearly empty. The smugglers
are telling their charges to take a bus to a spot called El Sahuaro
about 50 miles east of town. From there the migrants make
a dangerous two-day walk through rocky canyons and barren
desert to reach Interstate 8.
On the other side, Border Patrol agents say they are picking up
about 100 people a day, rather than the 500 a day they handled
a year ago. A year ago, the processing center in Yuma, where
migrants are fingerprinted then shipped to the border, was
mobbed. Now it is nearly empty most of the time.
Several migrants waiting their chance in San Luis cursed under
their breath in Spanish when asked about the soldiers and
beefed-up patrols. Some are indignant that the United States
would treat them like enemies or criminals.
"It's harder and harder, and that's the reason why people
are dying in the desert," said Miguel Pérez, a 24-year-old
migrant from Guerrero State. "It makes no sense."
A year ago, a flood of immigrants from Central America was
also overwhelming the border patrol in Del Rio and Eagle Pass,
two small Texas towns on the Rio Grande. The migrants were
taking advantage of a lack of detention space, which had led
to the policy of giving them a hearing date and letting them
remain in the country.
The result was bizarre: Central Americans would cross the
river in droves in broad daylight, run up to Border Patrol agents
and line up to be arrested, knowing they would be released
and could then continue on their journey. More than 200
a day were arrested in Eagle Pass alone.
Agents at the processing center, never intended as a jail,
were so busy feeding and fingerprinting migrants they had
little time for patrolling, said Randy Clark, the agent in charge
of Eagle Pass Border Patrol office.
"It was a madhouse, literally a madhouse," he said, as he walked
through the processing center, its empty cells covered in graffiti.
"It's like night and day. Night and day."
Agent Clark and his colleagues attribute the reversal to two changes.
First, the Justice Department gave Border Patrol agents the ability
to deport most of the Central Americans more quickly, without
a hearing before a judge.
Then, in December 2005, the federal government started prosecuting
everyone the Border Patrol picked up for illegal entry, a misdemeanor
that carries a penalty of up to six months in county, state and federal
jails for a first offense.
On a recent morning, 78 immigrants shuffled into the federal courtroom
of Judge Victor Roberto Garcia. The migrants were shackled around
the feet and hands as if they were dangerous criminals.
Once in court, the judge conducted an unusual mass hearing in which
all the migrants — represented by a single lawyer — agreed to waive
their right to a trial and pleaded guilty to illegal entry. The judge gave
the first-timers 15 days in jail, but he handed out sentences of 120
or 180 days to those who had been deported in the past.
One Honduran woman, Gloria Machado-Lara, had been deported
just a month before, but tried to slip in again with her husband,
Freddy Rosales Díaz, in early February. The judge looked
dumbfounded.
"Just last month they sent you back?" he said. "You understand that's
why you have to go to jail."
Head lowered, she said, "Forgive me." He gave her and her
husband 120 days.
Though it seems cruel to many migrants, the zero-tolerance policy
appears to be working, Border Patrol commanders say. Along the
river the Del Rio sector patrols, arrests are a third of what they were
a year ago, only about 35 a day. In the meantime, drug seizures have
doubled, as more agents have been freed up to patrol.
"Word is getting around out there that if you cross in this area and
get apprehended you are probably going to go to jail, and that is
a deterrent," Sector Chief Randy Hill said.
Yet across the river in Ciudad Acuña, where migrants arrive bewildered
and penniless every afternoon after serving their prison sentences,
several said they had no idea they ran the risk of jail. The smugglers
they hired never told them.
One of the migrants was a 51-year-old plumber from Acámbaro,
Guanajuato, who asked that his name not be used because he was
ashamed of the criminal conviction. He said he was trying to get
to San Antonio, where a friend had promised to get him a job at
a water park.
He needed more money, he said, to pay his son's college tuition.
He had never set foot in a jail before.
But he acknowledged that the stint in jail had persuaded him not
to try again, even if his son must drop out. "No way," he said,
shaking his head.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) Shielding the Powerful
Editorial
February 21, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/opinion/21wed1.html
The Supreme Court's decision yesterday overturning a nearly $80
million punitive damage award against Philip Morris is a win for
corporate wrongdoers. It stretches the Constitution's guarantee
of due process in a way that will make it easier for companies
that act reprehensibly to sidestep serious punishments.
It also provides unsettling new evidence that the court is more
concerned about — and more willing to protect — the powerful
than the powerless.
An Oregon jury awarded Mayola Williams, the widow of a cigarette
smoker, about $821,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5
million in punitive damages. Ms. Williams argued that Philip Morris
had spent 40 years denying the connection between smoking and
cancer, even though it knew cigarettes were deadly. The Oregon
Supreme Court upheld the punitive damages award, saying that
Philip Morris's actions had been "extraordinarily reprehensible."
By keeping Oregonians smoking longer than they otherwise would
have, the court said, the company's actions would, "naturally and
inevitably, lead to significant injury or death."
By a 5-to-4 vote that did not follow the usual ideological lines,
the court ruled that the award was improper because it punished
Philip Morris for harm done to people who were not part of the
lawsuit. There is nothing unusual, or wrong, about courts considering
the broader impact of a wrongdoer's misdeeds. As Justice John Paul
Stevens noted in dissent, "A murderer who kills his victim by throwing
a bomb that injures dozens of bystanders should be punished more
severely than one who harms no one other than his intended victim."
The fact that Philip Morris hurt so many other smokers along with
Jesse Williams is surely relevant to its punishment.
The court in recent years has become increasingly activist when
it comes to defending the rights of corporations by striking down
punitive damage awards. And yesterday's ruling continues that trend.
It expands the notion of due process. And it overturns the decisions
of a jury and a state supreme court.
Unfortunately, the court has been far less activist when ordinary
people seek protection or challenge their punishments. The ruling
stands in particular contrast with the court's 2003 decision that the
Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishments" did not
bar California, under its "three strikes" law, from sentencing a man
to 50 years in prison for stealing $153.53 worth of videotapes.
Yesterday's decision is another disturbing sign that — as the current
court reads the Constitution — powerful parties have more rights
than regular people.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) Iraqi Official Fired After Seeking Rape Inquiry
By JON ELSEN
February 21, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/world/middleeast/21cnd-sunni.html
Political tensions ran high in Iraq today as Prime Minister Nuri
Kamal al-Maliki ordered the dismissal of a top Sunni official
who called for an international investigation into the alleged
rape of a Sunni woman by Iraqi security forces.
Mr. Maliki did not give a reason for his decision to dismiss
Sheikh Ahmad Abdul Ghafoor al-Samaraei, the head of the
Sunni Endowment, whose organization cares for Sunni
mosques and shrines in Iraq.
Mr. Samaraei, speaking to the Al-Arabiya television network
from Amman, Jordan, said that he knew of many cases of rape
by Iraqi security forces, but victims were reluctant to come
forward because of the stigma attached to the crime. He also
said he also knew of cases of rape by Sunni clergy members.
Mr. Samaraei disputed Mr. Maliki's right to fire him, arguing
that only Iraq's Presidential Council had that authority. He made
his comments after Mr. Maliki said that the accused officers
were innocent.
After news of the rape case surfaced, Mr. Samaraei signed
a statement saying, "The Sunni Endowment strongly denounces
this horrific crime and lets out a cry for help from the international
community and human rights organizations, demanding that they
launch an immediate investigation into this crime." The 20-year-old
woman said she was assaulted Sunday at a police garrison where
she was taken on suspicion of helping Sunni insurgents.
Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the chief American military spokesman,
said the woman was admitted to an American-run medical facility
on Sunday and was released the next day. He refused to disclose
details of her medical treatment or examination, saying that she
left the hospital with her medical reports.
Today, Mr. Maliki's office released what it said was a medical
report indicating that there were no signs that she had been raped.
The office also released a report on the investigation it conducted,
saying that Americans were present at all stages of the arrest and
transportation of the woman, and that her interrogation did not
take more than 15 minutes.
"We expected this fabricated propaganda," the report stated of the
accusations that she was raped while in custody. "It seems that the
success of the law enforcing plan was resented by some people
because it foils some political calculations."
A spokesman for the Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, Brig. Qasim
Atta, bemoaned what he called media bias in the reporting of the
rape allegations, especially on the part of the satellite television
network Al Jazeera.
He said he expects more such false accusations to be made,
but that this case is clear-cut.
"We've prepared some solid evidence, and they are
undisputable," he said.
Marc Santora contributed reporting.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
10) The New Somalia: A Grimly Familiar Rerun
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
February 21, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/world/africa/21somaliaq.html
NAIROBI, Kenya, Feb. 20 — Fierce mortar attacks killed at least
15 civilians in Somalia on Tuesday, and for a country that had
seemed on the verge of ending 16 years of chaotic violence this
is the new status quo.
Nearly every day, government forces and insurgents shell each
other across Mogadishu's already dilapidated neighborhoods,
scattering bodies and any remaining traces of hope. Gun prices
are soaring and more clans are joining the underground, while
an outbreak of cholera sweeps the countryside.
"To tell you the truth, I'm pretty worried," said Mohammed Ali
Mahdi, a top clan elder. When the government came to Mogadishu,
"I felt we were going the right way. Unfortunately, that's not the
case anymore and soon it's going to be too late."
It is hard to believe, but Somalia is actually becoming a more
violent and chaotic place. That is not how it was supposed to be.
Nearly two months ago, an internationally-supported transitional
government ousted the Islamist forces and steamed into Mogadishu,
the capital, with great expectations. But confidence in the government
— never very high — is rapidly bleeding away.
Somalia seems to be just shy of total collapse — again — because
the Ethiopian troops who provided the muscle to throw out the
Islamists are withdrawing, yet none of the peacekeepers promised
from other African countries have arrived.
Hundreds of families are streaming out of Mogadishu, hoisting
mattresses on their backs and following pitted roads to villages
where there is no electricity, medicine or even the faintest hint
of government, but at least no warfare. At least, not yet.
"We can't stand the shelling anymore," said Hassan Mohammed,
a father of four, who was headed to a village in the south.
There was a burst of optimism beginning Dec. 28, when government
troops, with Ethiopian firepower behind them, marched into Mogadishu
and planted the hope that the anarchy was ending. Cheering crowds
poured into ruined streets. Aid experts in Nairobi circulated ambitious
reconstruction plans. Ethiopian and American officials, who had
worked together to overthrow the Islamists, breathed a mutual
sigh of relief.
But what has happened in the past few weeks has killed that mood.
A deadly insurgency has started, beginning with a few clans connected
to the Islamists and now expanding to several more. Many government
troops refuse to get involved. "We're not going out there," said Dahir
Hassan, a police captain, from the confines of his police station.
"If we get hurt, who's going to take care of us?"
All analysts agree that the violence will continue and probably
intensify unless the government reconciles with clan leaders,
who control, as much as anyone controls, what happens in Somalia.
But so far, there's been very little of that. Instead of reaching out
to truly influential figures, analysts say the government has picked
ministers not because they have any substantial support among
their clans but because they will do the government's bidding.
The result is an increasingly isolated, authoritarian and unpopular
government in which the transitional president, Abdullahi Yusuf
Ahmed, is accused of behaving more like a clan warlord — which
he was — than a national leader.
"Where this government is heading is so far from where the
international community wants it to go," said Ali Iman Sharmarke,
one of the owners of the HornAfrik radio station in Mogadishu.
A common complaint is that the transitional government —
transitional being the operative word — is not working itself
out of a job as promised. Donor nations agreed to pay the
salaries of Somali officials with the understanding that those
men and handful of women would shepherd the country
to democratic elections in 2009. But there has been almost
no progress toward setting up an election commission, let alone
taking a census. Many Somalis say they would be more inclined
to support, or at least tolerate, the transitional government
if they thought it was indeed transitional.
To be fair, ruling Somalia, which has not had a functioning
central government since 1991, is no easy task. Thirteen
previous governments have been formed and 13 previous
governments have failed.
Abdirahman Dinari, the government's chief spokesman, said
the criticism about the government's selection of ministers
was just an excuse. "These people wouldn't be happy with
anyone in power," he said, conceding that the government,
on its own, did not have the skills to pull the country together.
"We need help."
But Mr. Dinari said help had been slow to arrive, partly because
international organizations were spending millions of dollars
on a staff based in Kenya, which is deemed a much safer
place to work, instead of investing those resources in Somalia.
But many say that argument rings hollow. Security in Somalia
does not depend on foreign troops or foreign aid. At least,
it never has. In the early 1990s, the United States and the
United Nations poured hundreds of millions of dollars into
stabilizing Somalia and they failed notoriously, leaving the
country as capriciously violent and hopeless as ever.
Then along came the Islamists, who during their six-month
reign last year pacified the hornet's nest of Mogadishu
by persuading clans to voluntarily disarm their militias
and persuading Somalis, most of whom are Sunni Muslims,
to buy into their Islam-is-the-answer solution.
One Western diplomat laughed when asked if a modest force
of peacekeepers — the African Union is proposing around
8,000 — could deliver the level of stability that the Islamists
had delivered on their own.
"No way," he said, speaking anonymously under diplomatic
rules. "And the government's urgency for peacekeepers shows
you just how badly they've done with reconciliation."
Mohammed Ibrahim and Yuusuf Maxamuud contributed
reporting from Mogadishu, Somalia.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
11) Inflation Is Slightly Higher Than Expected
By JEREMY W. PETERS
February 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/business/22econ.web.html
Consumer prices accelerated last month on a wide range of items,
from food to health care to hotel rooms, nudging the overall rate
of inflation a bit higher than expected.
The Labor Department said Wednesday that overall inflation climbed
0.2 percent in January after a rise of 0.4 percent in December. And
a less volatile measure of consumer prices that excludes energy and
food costs rose 0.3 percent last month after climbing 0.1 percent
in December.
Investors on Wall Street, who were expecting that inflation would
rise at a slower rate, reacted to the new data by pushing stock prices
lower. In early trading, the Dow Jones industrial average, the Standard
and Poor's 500-stock index and the Nasdaq composite were all
trading off Tuesday's closing levels.
The new price report also stung Wall Street because it came a week
after the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, told Congress
that he expected inflation to settle down this year. Those remarks
helped push the stock market to record levels.
But the inflation data was not entirely bad. Even though inflation
rose last month, it did so at a slower pace than in December,
making paychecks for the average worker go a little further.
Wages for workers in non-supervisory positions rose 2.1 percent
last month after inflation is taken into account. Inflation-adjusted
wages rose 1.7 percent in December.
Price increases also slowed in certain categories. Housing costs
rose 0.2 percent last month after climbing 0.4 percent in December.
And energy prices actually fell 1.5 percent. In December they
rose 4.2 percent.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
12) New Iraq Oil Law To Open Iraq's Oil Reserves to Western Companies
Democracy Now Transcript
Tuesday, February 20th, 2007
http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl?sid=07/02/20/1523250
The Iraqi blogger Raed Jarrar has obtained a copy of the proposed
oil law and has just translated it into English. He discusses the new
law with Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the
World One Economy at a Time." [includes rush transcript]
The Iraqi blogger Raed Jarrar has obtained a copy of the proposed
oil law and has just translated it into English. He discusses the new
law with Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading
the World One Economy at a Time." [includes rush transcript]
In one of the first studies of Iraqi public opinion after the US-led
invasion of March 2003, the polling firm Gallup asked Iraqis their
thoughts on the Bush administration's motives for going to war.
One percent of Iraqis said they believed the motive was to establish
democracy. Slightly more – five percent – said to assist the Iraqi
people. But far in the lead was the answer that got 43 percent -
"to rob Iraq"s oil."
Well, with the four-year mark of the Iraq war less than a month
away, the answer may come into clearer view. After a long negotiation
process involving US officials, the Iraqi government is considering
a new oil law that would establish a framework for managing
the third-largest oil reserves in the world.
What would this new law mean for Iraq? With me now from
Washington DC is Raed Jarrar - He is the Iraq Project Director
for Global Exchange. He has obtained a copy of the proposed oil
law which he translated from Arabic and posted on his website.
And Antonia Juhasz is on the phone with us -- She has written
extensively about the economic side of the US occupation of Iraq
and is the author of the book, "The Bush Agenda: Invading
the World One Economy at a Time." Antonia is a Tarbell Fellow
at Oil Change International. We welcome you both to Democracy
Now!
Raed Jarrar Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange. He is an
Iraqi blogger and architect. He runs a popular blog called
"Raed in the Middle."
Antonia Juhasz, author and activist. She is a Tarbell Fellow
at Oil Change International. Her latest book is called "The Bush
Agenda: Invading the World, One Econony at a Time."
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations
help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing
on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: With me now in Washington is Raed Jarrar. He
is the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange, and he has obtained
a copy of the proposed oil law, which he translated from Arabic
and posted on his website, raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com. Antonia
Juhasz is also with us on the telephone. She has written extensively
about the economic side of the US occupation of Iraq and is author
of the book, The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy
at a Time. Antonia is currently a Tarbell Fellow at Oil Change
International. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!.
Raed Jarrar, first, how did you get this document?
RAED JARRAR: The document was leaked by Professor Fouad
Al-Ameer and published on a website called al-ghad.org.
And then it was leaked to other important websites like
niqash.org and other places. There are different ways of --
different copies of it. Some of it are scanned, and others
of the original document, but it just hit the internet last week.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain what it says, now that you've
finished translating it.
RAED JARRAR: It said so many things. I don't think we can
summarize it this short, because it's a very long document,
around thirty pages. But majorly, there are three major points
that I think we should talk about. Financially, it legalizes very
unfair types of contracts that will put Iraq in very long-term
contracts that can go up to thirty-five years and cause the
loss of hundreds of billions of dollars from Iraqis for no cause.
And the second point is concerning Iraq's sovereignty. Iraq
will not be capable of controlling the levels -- the limits
of production, which means that Iraq cannot be a part of OPEC
anymore. And Iraq will have this very complicated institution
called the Federal Oil and Gas Council, that will have representatives
from the foreign oil companies on the board of it, so representatives
from, let's say, ExxonMobil and Shell and British Petroleum
will be on the federal board of Iraq approving their own contracts.
And the third point is the point about keeping Iraq's unity. The law
is seen by many Iraqi analysts as a separation for Iraq fund.
The law will authorize all of the regional and small provinces' authorities.
It will give them the final say to deal with the oil, instead of giving this
final say to central federal government, so it will open the doors
for splitting Iraq into three regions or even maybe three states
in the very near future.
AMY GOODMAN: Antonia Juhasz, what is the significance of this
for Western oil companies?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, in my mind, the law certainly opens the
door to US oil companies and the Bush administration winning
a very large piece of their objective of going to war in Iraq, at least
winning it on paper. The law does almost word for word what was laid
out in the Baker-Hamilton recommendation, which I discussed previously
on your show, which is, at the very basic level, to turn Iraq's nationalized
oil system, the model that 90% of the world's oil is governed by, take
its nationalized oil system and turn it into a commercial system fully open
to foreign corporate investment on terms as of yet to be decided.
So it leaves vague this very important question of what type of contracts
will the Iraqi government use. But what it leaves clear is that basically
every level of the oil industry will be open to private foreign companies.
And, as Raed said, it introduces this very unique model, which is that
ultimate decision making on contracts rests with a new council to be
set up in Iraq, and sitting on that council will be representatives --
executives, in fact -- of oil companies, both foreign and domestic.
In addition, it does maintain the Iraq National Oil Company, but gives
the Iraq National Oil Company almost no preference. It's almost in all
cases just another oil company among lots of other companies,
including US oil companies. And this council, the new oil and gas
council, is going to be the decision making body to determine what
kind of contract the Iraqis can sign, and all contract models are still
on the table, yet to be determined. I think that's left vague or open,
so that the very necessary criticism to earlier drafts of the law, which
included specifically production sharing agreements, might be quieted.
But the law definitely sets up a very dangerous setup for Iraq's future
economic stability, economic development, and certainly sets the stage
for a tremendous amount of increased hostility and violence to US
soldiers positioned on the ground, as being seen as the implementers
of this oil hijack.
AMY GOODMAN: Antonia, what about the advocates' argument
for Western company involvement, that they need to come into
Iraq to kick-start the oil development?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Iraq's oil development has actually been going
quite well since the invasion under the guidance of the Iraqis themselves.
Prior to the war, Iraq produced 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Since the
war, it's been producing about 2.2 million barrels of oil a day. That's
definitely dropped most recently, because of the intense violence in Iraq
of late. And there have definitely been targeted actions against the oil
system as demonstrations of opposition to the occupation. So I believe
there is a very concrete argument that can be made that the best thing
that Iraq can do right now to see its oil infrastructure secure and pumping
at a reasonable level is to see the US occupation end.
Given that Iraq's oil only costs less than a dollar per barrel to pump
and oil is selling at over $50 per barrel, the Iraqis are already making
a tremendous return on their oil. The danger is that under the different
models of oil contract that are being put on the table, that the Iraqis
would lose the vast majority of that profit to the foreign oil companies.
Now, just really quickly, Iraqis have lost a fair amount of expertise,
technical know-how, as technology has increased over the past
eleven years and the Iraqis were shut out because of the sanctions.
The answer to that is found in the models put forward by their neighbors,
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are technical service contracts
that countries sign with foreign companies to bring in that expertise,
but under very limited time frames and very specific economic benefits
to the companies and to the country, not these 35-year contracts,
as Raed said, and the potential for vast profits leaving the country.
AMY GOODMAN: Raed Jarrar, what is the response of Iraqis,
of people in Iraq?
RAED JARRAR: No one in Iraq knows about the law. The law has been
kept in a very low profile, and there is a huge propaganda campaign
by the government trying to portray the law as straight and good
for Iraq, a law that will turn Iraq into heaven on earth, because it will
bring all of the foreign investments. Even parliamentarians in the Iraqi
government, the ones who will have the final say to pass this law, haven't
received a copy of this law yet. I sent them the copy three or four days
ago, and I sent a copy to many of the other Iraqi bloggers and journalists,
because I think it's very important to raise awareness about this
and make it an issue. The Iraqi government and the Bush administration
are trying to keep a very low profile in Iraq on this law. I think they're
planning just to, you know, surprise the parliamentarians one morning
and have them vote on it without any knowledge of what the law
actually causes.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk, Raed Jarrar, about the control, the
dispute over federal or regional control of oil in Iraq?
RAED JARRAR: Most of the control will be under the regional and provincial
authorities. They have all of the authority of monitoring and even dealing
with small disputes. Now, there is this bigger council that is very complicated,
very bureaucratic. This council just has the authority to veto what the regional
and provincial authorities decide. So in case the council just stayed silent,
everything can go without any interruption. So, you can see that this council
is kind of controlled by foreign companies, as well, so the possibilities
of the council vetoing what's happening on the regional level will be very
small. So we end up having a situation where Iraqis in different provinces
will start signing contracts directly with foreign companies and competing
between themselves, among themselves, among different Iraqi provinces,
to get the oil companies to go to there without any centralized way
in controlling this and thinking of the Iraqi interest and protecting
Iraq as a country.
AMY GOODMAN: This document that you've translated into English
was originally written in Arabic?
RAED JARRAR: No, the document was originally written in English. It was
sent to the Iraqi oil ministry, and some parts of it were changed, and
some parts were edited, some parts were added. So when I translated
it, I made my translation based on a previously leaked English copy,
which is the original version of this law. The English copy leaked
in mid-2006. So this -- the Arabic version now is totally based
on that one. There are, I think out of the twenty-nine or thirty pages,
there are around six or seven totally new pages, and there are new
sections here and there.
But the major differences, as I mentioned, are regarding the authorities
that can control oil, and it can show very clearly what the Iraqi leaders,
who are influential and can control these laws, are planning to do. It can
show very clearly that there are very influential separatist Iraqi leaders
who are trying to use this law to fund the separatist project and
to turning Iraq into three states.
In fact, one of the things that I did while translating is I kept some
traces of the original one and put a line over the -- like struck them,
so that people can see the small differences, how many of the authorities
that were supposed to be a given to the central government and
to the ministry now were shifted to the regional authorities. Like,
this is the most interesting thing that happened in the changes.
But overall, it's a law that is promoted by the Bush administration
and the IMF. It's not at all an urgent item on the Iraqi agenda.
It's just an urgent item on the Bush and the IMF agenda.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Antonia, who has the largest oil reserves
in the world, the top three?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Saudi Arabia is one. Iraq is two. Iran is three.
And I think in that list, particularly obviously Iraq and Iran, you
can see pretty clearly a key focus for the Bush administration
in its remaining years in office.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that is related to this current
intensification of focus on Iran, the possibility of a US strike
on Iran?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Oh, most certainly. You know, to be clear,
oil is about a lot of things. Oil is about profit, and it's about
the money that the oil interests in the United States, which
of course also include members of the Bush administration,
can get.
But controlling the second and third largest oil reserves in the
world also has a tremendous amount to do with imperial power
and global power that the Bush administration wants. Controlling
that oil denies it to other countries that want it, like China
and India, countries that the Bush administration now sees
itself in rivalry to.
And it also gets the government in control of a resource that
is obviously dwindling in supply and which they want to hold onto.
And they have been quite clear, meaning members of the Bush
administration, but also the United States government, in its dedication
to securing Middle East oil for the United States, and that agenda
has hit high speed under this administration, where corporate
and oil interests are part and parcel to government interest.
And I definitely think that if we in the United States want to end
the war in Iraq and want to prevent another war in Iran, we have
to pull back this curtain over that three-letter word, "oil," and
expose this agenda. The four-year anniversary of the war, coming
up March 19th, is a critically important opportunity to do that and
in the lead-up to that anniversary to really target our attention on
demanding that our members of Congress defund the war and that
we direct our attention and our protest energy on revealing this oil
agenda. And to that end, Oil Change International, the organization
I work with, is going to be in the coming weeks working with our
allies to pull together some clear lists of activities and actions that
folks can do, particularly on exposing the oil law in Iraq.
So I encourage folks to come to our website to check that out.
AMY GOODMAN: Antonia Juhasz, I want to thank you for being
with us, Tarbell Fellow at the Oil Change International, author
of The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time.
And Raed Jarrar in Washington, D.C., is the Iraq Project Director
for Global Exchange. His blog is raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com.
www.democracynow.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
13) WHO PROTECTS WHOM?
[Col. Writ. 2/4/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal
VIA Email from: Howard Keylor
howardkeylor@comcast.net
A woman is stopped for a traffic violation.
She tearfully explains that she is pregnant, she is bleeding,
and she begs -- at least a dozen times -- to be taken
to the hospital.
She might as well have been talking to the wall.
The cops either ignore her, or make light of her plight. They
respond, when they bother to do so, with replies like,
"What do you want *us* to do about it?"
She was jailed -- and not taken to a hospital despite her pleas.
Several days later, upon her release, she gives birth to
a premature baby, who breathes precisely for one minute
-- and dies.
When I heard this story, I thought of the motto, 'protect and
serve' -- and wondered, 'protect who?' -- 'serve who?'
A young pregnant woman, bleeding -- begging -- and it means
nothing. Less than nothing. One of the cops, a female, replied,
"How is that *my* problem?"
Will these cops, who saw a pregnant woman suffering -- bleeding!
-- ever face reckless endangerment charges? Nope. Were they fired?
Nope. Will they be? I doubt it.
The most that may happen -- I say *may* -- is the woman
may file a civil suit -- and some years later, she may even win
(unless a judge decides the cops are immune from suit,
as is often the case).
But it will mean nothing -- for a baby is dead, forever.
No judge on earth can restore that infant's spark of life.
That all of this was caught on video, and was hot news (until
the tornadoes ripped through Florida), tells us that the cops
weren't terribly concerned about it.
It was just the job -- hospitals might've involved too much
paperwork -- or perhaps overtime.
I've named no city: nor the woman. I haven't had to.
For it could've been anywhere -- and almost anyone.
It's not like these were mutually exclusive choices -- take her
to the hospital, *or* take her to jail. Observers know that when
folks are injured, they are often carted to the hospital, where
facilities exist to insure security.
That didn't happen -- because those two people holding
her hostage didn't want to.
It's really that simple.
It happened in early 21st Century America, and shows us vividly
what's going on these days.
'Protect and serve?' Protect who? Serve who?
Not her. Not that baby.
Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
14) HARRIET TUBMAN -- A WOMAN CALLED 'GENERAL MOSES'
[Col. Writ. 2/8/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal
VIA Email from: Howard Keylor
howardkeylor@comcast.net
She has been gone for almost a century, and still her name
is on millions of lips; her memory sacred among those who
love freedom.
Her parents named her Araminta, the daughter of Black slaves
in the Tidewater area of Maryland, perhaps in 1820 (or 1821 --
no one is sure).
As a baby, the slaves shortened her fancy name into the
nickname, "Minty."
History remembers her by her married name: Harriet Tubman,
freedom fighter.
She began on the road to freedom as a child, for she wasn't even
10 years old when she ran away from cruel slaveowners, people
who used naked violence against babies and children to force
them to do their will.
Harriet was a tender 5 years old, when she was forced to take care
of a white baby, to keep house, to work day and night for others.
She was all of 7 years old when she got caught eating some sugar,
food that only white people were allowed to eat. Threatened with
a beating, the girl fled, and running so fast that her little legs gave
out, she fell into a hog slopping sow. Hunger forced her to return
to the house of her 'mistress', where she was promptly and viciously
flogged by the 'master.' This child no doubt learned an important
lesson by the violence, but doubtless it wasn't what the slaveowning
class wanted her to learn. They wanted to instill the seed of terror
into the child, so that she never thought of running away again.
Instead, it appears she learned that if she ran, there would
be no return.
She married a 'free' man, John Tubman, who was free in name,
and in law, but hardly in mind. When she talked about freedom,
he shouted at her to stop it. "You take off and I'll tell the Master.
I'll tell the Master right quick," he threatened.
As she looked at her husband, a feeling of disbelief washed
over her, "You don't mean that."
But, in her guts, she knew. He *did* mean it.
Yet, she meant to be free. No doubt she learned another important
lesson. Everybody can't be trusted. She must be watchful, attentive,
and observant.
When the time came, she left, walking through thick forests,
over rivers, and over hills. She avoided open roads. She followed
the North Star, and when she got to Pennsylvania (a so-called
'free' state), she noted:
"I had crossed the line. I was 'free': but there was no one to welcome
me to the land of freedom. I was a stranger in a strange land;
and my home, after all, was down in Maryland; because my father,
my mother, my brothers, my sisters, and friends were there.
But I was free and they should be free! I would make a home
in the North and bring them there!"
She said it. She meant it. She did it.
She returned repeatedly to the Tidewater, and carried folks
off, with cleverness, courage, and determination.
She returned to the plantation 2 years after her escape for
John Tubman, but the 'free Negro' had remarried, and thinking
himself free, didn't want to leave Maryland! Still, this wouldn't
deter her from her sacred mission: freedom.
She carried a pistol, and once, while leading some 25 captives
North, came within a hair's breadth of using it. One of the men,
bone-tired, hungry, and scared, decided that nothing was worth
this scampering through the swamps. He refused to be persuaded
to move on, until she moved close to him, and aiming the weapon
at his head, said, "Move or die." He moved.
In several days they were in Canada.
Harriet knew that a returned slave would be tortured until he told
all he knew, thus endangering all who wanted to be free.
To her, it was freedom or death. That simple.
She would later say, of her upbringing, and of slavery itself:
"I grew up like a neglected weed -- ignorant of liberty, having
no experience of it. I was not happy or contented: every time
I saw a white man I was afraid of being carried away. I had two
sisters carried away in a chain gang -- one of them left two
children. We were always uneasy .... I think *slavery is the
next thing to hell.*"
Her raids into the prison-states of the South led to the freedom
of literally hundreds of Black people -- including her own aged
parents, Harriet and Benjamin Ross.
It is thought her family originally came from the Ashanti people,
a tribe which hails mostly from the West African coast.
(The central region of Ashanti life would be modern-day Ghana.)
Her life, from beginning to end, was one of resistance and struggle
in freedom's cause.
There may have been 15 to 19 raids led by her into the South
to free Black captives. In these raids, she liberated between
300 to 500 people.
Recruited to aid the Northern forces during the U.S. Civil War, Tubman
organized and led the Combahee River raid in South Carolina, which
netted some 800 slaves, and caused thousands of dollars damage
to Southern installations. She reported with glee the sight of so many
people escaping bondage. Tubman would later recall the scene:
"I never saw such a scene. We laughed and laughed and laughed.
Here you'd see a woman with a pail on her head, rice-a-smoking
in it just as she'd taken it from the fire, young one hanging on behind ...
One woman brought two pigs, a white one and a black one; we took
them all on board; named the white pig Beauregard (a Southern general),
and the black one Jeff Davis (president of the Confederacy). Sometimes
the women would come with twins hanging around their necks. It appears
I never saw so many twins in my life; bags on their shoulders, baskets
on their heads, and young ones lagging behind, all loaded ....
[Fr. Butch Lee, *Jailbreak Out of History: The Re-Biography of
Harriet Tubman*] (Brooklyn, NY: Stoopsale Bks., 2000), p. 78]
Harriet Tubman left this life in 1913, living into her nineties.
Her name has come to mean freedom fighter. It is a holy name,
high on the altar of freedom.
Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal
[Sources: Lee, Butch. *Jailbreak Out of History: The Re-Biography
of Harriet Tubman*] (Brooklyn, NY: Stoopsale Bks., 2000). Petry,
Ann, *Harriet Tubman, Conductor on the Underground Railroad.*
(NY: Harper Collins, 1955 [1983]; unpubl. sources].
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
15) American Liberty at the Precipice
Editorial
February 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/opinion/22thu1.html
In another low moment for American justice, a federal appeals court
ruled on Tuesday that detainees held at the prison camp at Guantánamo
Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to be heard in court. The ruling relied
on a shameful law that President Bush stampeded through Congress
last fall that gives dangerously short shrift to the Constitution.
The right of prisoners to challenge their confinement — habeas corpus
— is enshrined in the Constitution and is central to American liberty.
Congress and the Supreme Court should act quickly and forcefully
to undo the grievous damage that last fall’s law — and this week’s
ruling — have done to this basic freedom.
The Supreme Court ruled last year on the jerry-built system of military
tribunals that the Bush Administration established to try the Guantánamo
detainees, finding it illegal. Mr. Bush responded by driving through
Congress the Military Commissions Act, which presumed to deny
the right of habeas corpus to any noncitizen designated as an “enemy
combatant.” This frightening law raises insurmountable obstacles
for prisoners to challenge their detentions. And it gives the government
the power to take away habeas rights from any noncitizen living
in the United States who is unfortunate enough to be labeled an
enemy combatant.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
which rejected the detainees’ claims by a vote of 2 to 1, should have
permitted the detainees to be heard in court — and it should have
ruled that the law is unconstitutional.
As Judge Judith Rogers argued in a strong dissent, the Supreme Court
has already rejected the argument that detainees do not have habeas
rights because Guantánamo is located outside the United States. Judge
Rogers also rightly noted that the Constitution limits the circumstances
under which Congress can suspend habeas to “cases of Rebellion
or invasion,” which is hardly the situation today. Moreover, she said,
the act’s alternative provisions for review of cases are constitutionally
inadequate. The Supreme Court should add this case to its docket
right away and reverse it before this term ends.
Congress should not wait for the Supreme Court to act. With the
Democrats now in charge, it is in a good position to pass a new
law that fixes the dangerous mess it has made. Senators Patrick
Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Arlen Specter, Republican
of Pennsylvania, have introduced a bill that would repeal the provision
in the Military Commissions Act that purports to obliterate the habeas
corpus rights of detainees.
The Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties does not end
with habeas corpus. Congress should also move quickly to pass
another crucial bill, introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd,
Democrat of Connecticut, that, among other steps, would once
and for all outlaw the use of evidence obtained through torture.
When the Founding Fathers put habeas corpus in Article I of the
Constitution, they were underscoring the vital importance to a
democracy of allowing prisoners to challenge their confinement
in a court of law. Much has changed since Sept. 11, but the bedrock
principles of American freedom must remain.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
16) National Guard May Undertake Iraq Duty Early
By DAVID S. CLOUD
February 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/washington/22military.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — The Pentagon is planning to send more
than 14,000 National Guard troops back to Iraq next year, shortening
their time between deployments to meet the demands of President
Bush’s buildup, Defense Department officials said Wednesday.
National Guard officials told state commanders in Arkansas, Indiana,
Oklahoma and Ohio last month that while a final decision had not been
made, units from their states that had done previous tours in Iraq and
Afghanistan could be designated to return to Iraq next year between
January and June, the officials said.
The unit from Oklahoma, a combat brigade with one battalion currently
in Afghanistan, had not been scheduled to go back to Iraq until 2010,
and brigades from the other three states not until 2009. Each brigade
has about 3,500 soldiers.
The accelerated timetable illustrates the cascading effect that the
White House plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq by more
than 21,000 is putting on the entire Army and in particular
on Reserve forces, which officers predicted would face severe
challenges in recruiting, training and equipping their forces.
It also highlights the political risks of the White House’s Iraq strategy.
Sending large numbers of reservists to Iraq in the middle of next year’s
election campaign could drive up casualties among part-time soldiers
in communities where support for the administration’s approach
in Iraq is already tenuous, according to opinion polls.
A final decision on whether the additional Guard units will be required
next year in Iraq will not be made for months, the officials said,
and the full extent of the Guard role next year will depend on
whether the situation in Iraq improves in the meantime.
It has been clear since Mr. Bush announced his plan last month
that additional reservists could be required in Iraq, but the numbers
and the identity of the specific units involved had not been
previously disclosed.
Changing the reservists’ schedules means abandoning previous
promises that they would get several years between deployments.
And the acceleration means that soldiers who usually drill just once
a month and for a few weeks in the summer will have to begin
intensive preparations right away.
“We’re behind the power curve, and we can’t piddle around,”
Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National
Guard, said in an interview. He added that one-third of his soldiers
lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there
were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment.
If his unit is going to be sent to Iraq next year, he said, “We expect
the Army to resource the Guard at the same level as active-duty units.”
He also noted that one of the brigade’s battalions that could deploy
to Iraq next year was now in Afghanistan and was not scheduled to
return until April, which would leave its soldiers with just over a year
at home before having to leave for Iraq in June 2008. He said
discussions were under way with top Army officials about providing
necessary equipment and extra compensation for reservists
in the Oklahoma Guard’s 45th Brigade Combat Team if the unit
was sent back to Iraq two years earlier than planned.
Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National
Guard, said the state’s 39th Brigade Combat Team was 600 rifles short
for its 3,500 soldiers and also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and
howitzers.
Of particular concern, he said, is the possibility that the prospects
of going to Iraq next year could cause some Arkansas reservists not
to re-enlist this year. Over the next year roughly one-third of the
soldiers in the 39th will have their enlistment contracts expire or be
eligible for retirement, Captain Heathscott said.
Guard and Reserve units were used most extensively in Iraq and
Afghanistan in 2004, and have regularly supplied brigades throughout
the fighting. The reinforcements now heading for Iraq will raise the
number of combat brigades now in Iraq, only one of which is a Guard
unit, to around 20 total. Thousands of additional Reserve support
troops would also be required sooner, officials said.
To draw more heavily on Reserve units, the Bush administration
announced in January that it was revising rules that limited call-ups
of Guard members. The previous policy limited mobilization of Guard
members to 24 months every five years, but prolonged and large
deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan led the Pentagon to abandon
that rule.
The new guidelines allow units that have already been deployed
in the last five years to be called up again, but the Pentagon has
said that it will try to limit the total time Guard units are mobilized
to a year, instead of the current year and a half to two years.
Given that they would be in Iraq for about nine months, that would
leave only three months for training before they go. In the past, six
months of training has been the norm before heading to the war zone.
To make up the difference, officials said the soldiers would get more
part-time training, close to home, before being mobilized. That would
cut the time they have to spend away from their jobs and families,
Captain Heathscott said.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
17) Soldier Weeps Describing Role in Rape and Killings in Iraq
By REUTERS
February 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/world/middleeast/22confess.html
FORT CAMPBELL, Ky., Feb 21 (Reuters) — A soldier broke down
and wept at his court-martial here on Wednesday as he described
how he and others had planned the rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl,
who was murdered along with her family.
Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, 24, was the second American soldier to plead
guilty to raping the girl and killing her and her family in Mahmudiya,
south of Baghdad, in March 2006, then burning the bodies to cover
up the crime.
The confession, which he read, described how he, Specialist James
P. Barker and Steven D. Green, a private who was later discharged
after a psychiatric evaluation, had planned the attack.
“While we were playing cards Barker and Green started talking about
having sex with an Iraqi female. Barker and Green had already
known ...” Sergeant Cortez said before breaking down. He bowed
his head and remained silent, sniffling occasionally, for a full
minute before continuing.
“Barker and Green had already known what, um, house they wanted
to go to. They had been there before and knew only one male was
in the house, and knew it would be an easy target,” he said.
The sergeant went on to describe how the men, before heading
to the house, changed their clothes so they would not be recognized
as American soldiers.
Once at the house, Private Green, the suspected ringleader, took
the girl’s mother, father and 7-year-old sister into a bedroom,
Sergeant Cortez said, while he and Specialist Barker took the teenager
to the living room, where they took turns raping her.
“She kept squirming and trying to keep her legs closed and saying
stuff in Arabic,” said Sergeant Cortez, who was flanked by his civilian
and military lawyers.
He said that during the rape, “I hear five or six gunshots that came
from the bedroom. After Barker was done, Green came out of the
bedroom and said that he had killed them all, that all of them were
dead,” Sergeant Cortez said.
When he began crying again, one of his lawyers asked the court for
a recess, which was granted.
Sergeant Cortez could face life in prison without possibility of parole
for the rape and four counts of murder. In all, four soldiers as well
as the former soldier, Mr. Green, were charged in the case, which
outraged Iraqis and heightened tensions in the war zone. The
infantrymen were members of Company B of the First Battalion,
502nd Infantry, 101st Airborne Division and were assigned to
a checkpoint considered one of the most dangerous in Iraq.
Specialist Barker pleaded guilty in November and was sentenced
to 90 years in a military prison. Mr. Green was discharged from
the Army for a “personality disorder” and is in a Kentucky prison
awaiting civilian trial.
Specialist Barker and Sergeant Cortez both avoided the death
penalty by pleading guilty and are expected to testify against
Mr. Green and others charged in the crime.
Sergeant Cortez also pleaded guilty to arson and breaking into
the girl’s house and to obstruction of justice for helping get rid
of the murder weapon, an AK-47, which was thrown into a canal.
In addition, he admitted to drinking whiskey before the attack,
a violation of Army rules against alcohol in that area of Iraq.
The other soldiers charged in the case are Pvt. Jesse V. Spielman
and Pvt. Bryan L. Howard.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
18) U.S. Is Sued Over Position on Marijuana
By CAROLYN MARSHALL
February 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/washington/22marijuana.html
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 21 — Frustrated by government policy
and inaction, a group of advocates for medical marijuana sued
two federal health agencies on Wednesday over the assertion
that smoking it has no medical benefit.
The group, Americans for Safe Access, a nonprofit organization
based in Oakland, filed the lawsuit in Federal District Court,
challenging the government’s position that marijuana, “has no
currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”
In its lawsuit, the group contends that federal regulators have
publicly issued “false and misleading statements” about the
medical benefits of marijuana.
The lawsuit, which named the Department of Health and Human
Services and the Food and Drug Administration, seeks a court
order to retract and correct statements that the group called,
“incorrect, dishonest and a flagrant violation of laws.”
A lawyer for the medical marijuana group, Joseph Elford, said
the lawsuit was filed now because administrative avenues had
been exhausted and because of mounting scientific and anecdotal
evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Elford said a recent study by the Clinical Research Center
at San Francisco General Hospital, which was approved by the F.D.A.
and other federal agencies, found that smoking marijuana relieved
pain and certain symptoms of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.
A spokeswoman for the health department said Wednesday in
a telephone interview that “the agency does not comment
on litigation as a general policy.”
The spokeswoman, Christina Pearson, said the agency stood by
its publicly stated position and pointed to an April 20, 2006,
statement. In that advisory, which Ms. Pearson said was current,
the federal government asserts that “there is currently sound
evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful.”
It goes on to say that “no animal or human data supported the
safety or efficacy of marijuana,” which is not an approved drug.
Related:
HOW DANGEROUS IS MARIJUANA
COMPARED WITH OTHER SUBSTANCES?
Number of American deaths per year that result directly
or primarily from the following selected causes nationwide,
according to World Almanacs, Life Insurance Actuarial (death)
Rates, and the last 20 years of U.S. Surgeon Generals' reports.
TOBACCO: 340,000 to 450,000
ALCOHOL (Not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65%
of all murders): 150,000+
ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdose): 180 to 1,000+
CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular
heartbeats, etc.): 1,000 to 10,000
"LEGAL" DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from legal,
prescribed or patent medicines and/or mixing with alcohol
- e.g. Valium/alcohol: 14,000 to 27,000
ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from
all illegal drugs: 3,800 to 5,200
MARIJUANA: 0
(Marijuana users also have the same or lower incidence of murders
and highway deaths and accidents than the general non-marijuana
using population as a whole. Crancer Study, UCLA; U.S. Funded
($6 million), First & Second Jamaican Studies, 1968 to 1974; Costa
Rican Studies, 1980 to 1982; et al. LOWEST TOXICITY 100% of the
studies done at dozens of American universities and research
facilities show pot toxicity does not exist. Medical history does
not record anyone dying from an overdose of marijuana (UCLA,
Harvard, Temple, etc.).
http://www.jackherer.com/comparison.html
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
19) 'GIVE *WAR* A CHANCE'
[Col. Writ. 2/2/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal
VIA Email from: Howard Keylor
howardkeylor@comcast.net
A lifetime ago, when the British rock band, the Beatles were at the top
of the charts, and before cable TV and the reign of computers,
anti-war activists sang a haunting chorus as they demonstrated
by the tens of thousands at the Pentagon: "All we are saying,
is give peace a chance."
Decades later, and there is still war (albeit in another place, and for
another 'cause'), and demonstrations seem far less potent
than times past.
American imperialism, unshackled by the prospect of a true global
rival, now fairly bellows in the face of its own unpopularity (in the
voice of its acolytes, like George W. Bush): "Give war a chance."
The Iraq invasion and occupation has been an admitted disaster,
and those who called for it the loudest are deserting that sinking
ship like rats on a wharf.
The US imperial president, flirting with disapproval numbers that
rivals Nixon's at the height of the Watergate scandal, is overwhelming
only in his irrelevance, and perhaps his inability to convince anybody
to believe his blather about the so-called 'war on terror.'
So, in light of the administration's latest maneuver to support the
flagging war with 'new ideas' about a "surge", the White House and
its minions on the Hill are asking Americans to 'give the president's
plan a chance.'
In the face of this catastrophe, what is the role of Congress?
It proposes to debate, and then, after debating, to issue a non-binding
resolution, which condemns the current troop build-up, and also
critiques the president's present handling of the war.
In essence, Congress agrees to say, 'We don't like what you're doing,
but we won't stop it.'
This, in a time of war, a war launched on lies and subterfuge.
Apparently, over 600,000 dead Iraqis, over 3,000 dead Americans,
and over 400 billion dollars lost in this failing effort, isn't quite enough.
In fact, the Congress could stop the war today, by cutting the war
budget. But it won't do this, for it might endanger a congressman's
future political prospects.
Most of the millions of people who voted in the mid-term elections
did so to send a strong anti-war message.
The majority party heading both houses of Congress has indeed
changed, but little else has. It has resolved to issue words, while
the president launches bombs.
And given his profoundly neoconservative bent, it is entirely possible
that, before the remaining two years have passed through time's
hourglass, the US may've launched a strike against Iran.
Even now we hear the media stirrings, provocations meant to soften
up the American populace for a new 'preemptive war.'
What did your votes really mean?
Do you really still believe that you live in a democracy?
What you voted for, and what you believe, is ultimately irrelevant.
The words of the legendary Black freedom fighter, Frederick Douglass
echo through the annals of time: "Power concedes nothing without
demand. It never has, and never will."
Voting is never enough.
These ruinous wars didn't begin in a voting booth; nor will voting,
standing alone, end them.
It will take much stronger stuff.
Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
20) Arab/Palestinian Mural at SFSU in Jeopardy!
Students need our support.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mural/
We need your help. We are doing a petition drive right
now and we need as many signatures as possible to put
pressure on the SFSU president to approve our mural.
It is the first Arab/Palestinian Mural in a University
in the United States. Two governing boards approved it
but he remains against it. Sign it and forward this
message below in a bulletin, and whatever way you can
to help us get signatures.
Don’t be just hype! Be part of the revolution for
justice and equality for all!
Thank you very much.
HELP SPREAD THE WORD! Please post a bulletin etc…
Palestinian Mural in Jeopardy!
From: Norman Finkelstein
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=903
http://www.petitiononline.com/mural/
If you are in support of the Palestinian mural please
sign the petition. Our artists are Dr. Fayeq Oweis and
Dr. Susan Greene; a Palestinian Muslim man and an
American Jewish woman. Thanks for the support!
General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS)
www.sfgups.org 415-338-1908
San Francisco State University
In April 2005, the General Union of Palestine Students
at San Francisco State University proposed something
revolutionary, to begin a process of implementing a
mural paying tribute to Edward Said and Palestinian
culture on the University campus. This is the first
mural of its kind a University in the United States.
After over a year of painstaking efforts by the mural
committee to follow the established process, the
President of San Francisco State University, Robert A.
Corrigan, prematurely denied the mural just before the
final stage. It is 2007 and the mural is in jeopardy
and needs your immediate help The SF State president,
Robert Corrigan claims the mural represents a “culture
of violence” and is “hate to Jews.” He is saying that
the Palestinian house key and Handala are offensive
but he does not explain why or what to support his
claim. He allowed other murals up on the Cesar Chavez
Student Center, such as the Malcolm X mural, the Cesar
Chavez mural, the Filipino Mural, the Pan Asian and
Pacific Islander Mural, which depict struggles of
refugees and colonialism,
http://www.sfsustudentcenter.com/about/murals.php
however the administration has been trying to stop our
mural since day one before they knew anything about
it. Please sign the latest online petition, and/or
writing a letter to President Corrigan from yourself
or your organization, and/or financially support the
legal process to show support for the mural and all
its elements including the Palestinian house key and
Handala! Go to www.sfgups.org for more info. (SFSU’s
newspaper website = xpress.sfsu.edu)
What You Can Do
1. Sign the New Online Petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mural/
2. Write a Letter or email SFSU President Robert A.
Corrigan: (corrigan@sfsu.edu, gups@sfsu.edu,
cortez@sfsu.edu)
President Robert Corrigan
1600 Holloway Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94132
(email: corrigan@sfsu.edu)
PLEASE CC:
General Union of Palestine Students
1650 Holloway Ave
Business Office, M100B
San Francisco, CA 94132
(email: gups@sfsu.edu)
and CC:
Maria Liliana Cortez
1650 Holloway Ave
Business Office, C-134
San Francisco, CA 94132
(email: cortez@sfsu.edu)
3. Make a Donation: Donations are tax- deductible.
Financial Support for the mural; The American Arab
Anti-Discrimation Committee San Francisco Chapter is
helping with the collection of donations.
Please make checks payable to: ADCSF/AGAPE with “GUPS”
written in the memo section of the check.
Please send your donation to:
The ADC-SF (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee of San Francisco)
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, California, 94110
email: adcsfintern@adcsf.org Phone (415) 861-7444
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
21) U.S. Used Base in Ethiopia to Hunt Al Qaeda in Africa
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and MARK MAZZETTI
February 23, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/world/africa/23somalia.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 — The American military quietly waged
a campaign from Ethiopia last month to capture or kill top leaders
of Al Qaeda in the Horn of Africa, including the use of an airstrip
in eastern Ethiopia to mount airstrikes against Islamic militants
in neighboring Somalia, according to American officials.
The close and largely clandestine relationship with Ethiopia also
included significant sharing of intelligence on the Islamic militants’
positions and information from American spy satellites with the
Ethiopian military. Members of a secret American Special Operations
unit, Task Force 88, were deployed in Ethiopia and Kenya, and
ventured into Somalia, the officials said.
The counterterrorism effort was described by American officials
as a qualified success that disrupted terrorist networks in Somalia,
led to the death or capture of several Islamic militants and involved
a collaborative relationship with Ethiopia that had been developing
for years.
But the tally of the dead and captured does not as yet include some
Qaeda leaders — including Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Fahid
Mohammed Ally Msalam — whom the United States has hunted
for their suspected roles in the attacks on American Embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. With Somalia still in a chaotic state,
and American and African officials struggling to cobble together
a peacekeeping force for the war-ravaged country, the long-term
effects of recent American operations remain unclear.
It has been known for several weeks that American Special Operations
troops have operated inside Somalia and that the United States
carried out two strikes on Qaeda suspects using AC-130 gunships.
But the extent of American cooperation with the recent Ethiopian
invasion into Somalia and the fact that the Pentagon secretly used
an airstrip in Ethiopia to carry out attacks have not been previously
reported. The secret campaign in the Horn of Africa is an example
of a more aggressive approach the Pentagon has taken in recent
years to dispatch Special Operations troops globally to hunt high-
level terrorism suspects. President Bush gave the Pentagon powers
after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to carry out these missions, which
historically had been reserved for intelligence operatives.
When Ethiopian troops first began a large-scale military offensive
in Somalia late last year, officials in Washington denied that the Bush
administration had given its tacit approval to the Ethiopian government.
In interviews over the past several weeks, however, officials from
several American agencies with a hand in Somalia policy have
described a close alliance between Washington and the Ethiopian
government that was developed with a common purpose: rooting
out Islamic radicalism inside Somalia.
Indeed, the Pentagon for several years has been training Ethiopian
troops for counterterrorism operations in camps near the Somalia
border, including Ethiopian special forces called the Agazi Commandos,
which were part of the Ethiopian offensive in Somalia.
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to discuss details
of the American operation, but some officials agreed to provide specifics
because they saw it as a relative success story. They said that the close
relationship had included the sharing of battlefield intelligence on the
Islamists’ positions — a result of an Ethiopian request to Gen. John
P. Abizaid, then the commander of the United States Central Command.
John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence at the time,
then authorized spy satellites to be diverted to provide information
for Ethiopian troops, the officials said.
The deepening American alliance with Ethiopia is the latest twist in the
United States’ on-and-off intervention in Somalia, beginning with an
effort in 1992 to distribute food to starving Somalis and evolving into
deadly confrontation in 1993 between American troops and fighters
loyal to a Somali warlord, Mohammed Farah Aidid. The latest chapter
began last June when the Council of Islamic Courts, an armed
fundamentalist movement, defeated a coalition of warlords backed
by the Central Intelligence Agency and took power in Mogadishu,
the capital. The Islamists were believed to be sheltering Qaeda
militants involved in the embassy bombings, as well as in a 2002
hotel bombing in Kenya.
After a failed C.I.A. effort to arm and finance Somali warlords, the
Bush administration decided on a policy to bolster Somalia’s weak
transitional government. This decision brought the American
policy in line with Ethiopia’s.
As the Islamists’ grip on power grew stronger, their militias began
to encircle Baidoa, where the transitional government was operating
in virtual exile. Ethiopian officials pledged that if the Islamists attacked
Baidoa, they would respond with a full-scale assault.
While Washington resisted officially endorsing an Ethiopian invasion,
American officials from several government agencies said that the
Bush administration decided last year that an incursion was the best
option to dislodge the Islamists from power.
When the Ethiopian offensive began on Dec. 24, it soon turned into
a rout, somewhat to the Americans’ surprise. Armed with American
intelligence, the Ethiopians’ tank columns, artillery batteries and military
jets made quick work of the poorly trained and ill-equipped Islamist militia.
“The Ethiopians just wiped out entire grid squares; it was a blitzkrieg,”
said one official in Washington who had helped develop the strategy
toward Somalia.
As the Islamists retreated, the Qaeda operatives and their close aides
fled south toward a swampy region. Using information provided by
Ethiopian forces in Somalia as well as American intelligence, a task
force from the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command began
planning direct strikes.
On Dec. 31, the largely impotent transitional government of Somalia
submitted a formal request to the American ambassador in Kenya
asking for the United States to take action against the militants.
General Abizaid called Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and informed
him that the Central Command was sending additional Special
Operations forces to the region. The deployment was carried out
under the terms of an earlier, classified directive that gave the military
the authority to kill or capture senior Qaeda operatives if it was determined
that the failure to act expeditiously meant the United States would lose
a “fleeting opportunity” to neutralize the enemy, American officials said.
On Jan. 6, two Air Force AC-130 gunships, aircraft with devastating
firepower, arrived at a small airport in eastern Ethiopia. American Special
Operations troops operating in Kenya, working with the Kenyan military,
also set up positions along the southern border to capture militants
trying to flee the country.
A Navy flotilla began to search for ships that might be carrying fleeing
Qaeda operatives. Support planes were deployed in Djibouti. F-15Es from
Al Udeid air base in Qatar also flew missions. Intelligence was shared with
Ethiopia and Kenya through C.I.A. operatives in each country. American
military planners also worked directly with Ethiopian and Kenyan military
officials.
On Jan. 7, one day after the AC-130s arrived in Ethiopia, the airstrike
was carried our near Ras Kamboni, an isolated fishing village on the
Kenyan border.
According to American officials, the primary target of the strike was
Aden Hashi Ayro, a young military commander trained in Afghanistan
who was one of the senior leaders of the Council of Islamic Courts.
Several hours after the strike, Ethiopian troops and one member
of the American Special Operations team arrived at the site and
confirmed that eight people had been killed and three wounded,
all of whom were described as being armed. After sifting through
the debris, they found a bloodied passport and other items that led
them to believe Mr. Ayro was injured in the strike and probably died.
Several members of the Special Operations team were also in Somalia
at the time of the strike, one official said.
The second AC-130 strike, on Jan. 23, had another of the Islamic
council’s senior leaders, Sheik Ahmed Madobe, as its target. Mr. Madobe
survived and was later captured by the Ethiopians, Americans say.
American officials said that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, the mastermind
of the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the alleged
ringleader of Al Qaeda’s East African cell, remains at large. Some officials
caution that while the Ethiopians have said additional “high-priority
targets,” including Abu Talha al-Sudani, a leading member of the cell,
were killed in their own airstrikes, American intelligence officials have
yet to confirm this.
In late January, American officials played a role in securing the safe
passage of Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, the second-highest-ranking
Islamist leader, from southern Somalia to Nairobi, Kenya. The exact
role of American involvement is still not clear, but some American
officials consider him to be a moderate Islamist.
Jeffrey Gettleman contributed reporting from Nairobi, Kenya.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
22) Cuba's known for cigars now, but oil could change that
Updated 2/22/2007 9:03 AM ET
By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-02-22-cuba-usat_x.htm
One day soon - possibly before the end of this year - an oil rig will
maneuver into position in waters less than 100 miles from the coast
of Florida. A drill will plunge into the inky sea and begin chewing
its way into the ocean floor, hunting for oil.
But the drilling rig won't belong to an American company, and any
petroleum it discovers won't do a thing to curb the USA's addiction
to foreign oil. Instead, any new sub-sea gusher will belong to Cuba.
That's right: Cuba. The island nation long has been known for its
aromatic cigars and sweet rums. But after years of limited oil
production on lands around Havana and in neighboring Matanzas
province, Cuba is poised for a significant expansion of its oil
program into the waters that separate it from the United States. And
thanks to U.S. law, Cuba's drilling partners will be working closer
to Florida beaches than any American company ever could.
"Our studies . have shown there is a great potential, especially
offshore," says Dagoberto Rodriguez, the senior Cuban diplomat in the
USA. "Basically, we know that there is oil. The problem is just where
it is."
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) agrees. Two years ago, after
reviewing available data on the subterranean structures in the
region, the agency estimated Cuba can lay claim to 4.6 billion
barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
With oil prices hovering around $60 a barrel and global supplies
persistently tight, any new supply source could benefit the USA, the
world's top oil consumer. Likewise, Cuba, which relies on Venezuela
for more than half of its daily oil consumption, craves
self-sufficiency. "In economic terms, it could be a win-win," says
Daniel Erikson, an analyst at the Inter-American Dialogue, a
Washington, D.C., think tank.
There's just one problem: politics. Since 1962, the U.S. has
maintained an economic embargo of Cuba, aimed at toppling the
communist government of Fidel Castro. The ailing dictator, who has
outlasted nine U.S. presidents, last summer handed power temporarily
to his brother, Raul, while he recovers from abdominal surgery.
Companies such as ExxonMobil (XOM), Chevron (CVX) and Halliburton
(HAL), however, remain barred from the Cuban market, which a 2001
Rice University study said could be worth up to $3 billion annually.
The embargo also will increase the time and cost of the Cuban program
by denying Havana access to the closest source of oil industry
technology, spare parts and expertise. Likewise, U.S.-owned
refineries in Aruba and St. Croix are off-limits for any of the
heavy, sulfur-rich Cuban crude.
"The U.S. (embargo) presents them with significant barriers and
obstacles," says Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, a political scientist at
the University of Nebraska who studies Cuban energy issues.
Replacing the Soviets
Cuba is modernizing a dilapidated Soviet-era refinery at Cienfuegos
with help from Venezuela's state-owned oil company, PDVSA, and
refurbishing three other facilities, Rodriguez said. Within 18
months, Cuba will be able to satisfy all of its refining demand, he
said. Independent analysts are less optimistic.
The Cuban oil fields were formed more than 50 million years ago in a
slow-motion collision between Earth's tectonic plates, which entombed
pulverized rocks, animals and plants. Over subsequent millennia, the
resulting stew cooked into buried petroleum deposits, says
Christopher Shenk, a geologist at the USGS in Denver.
Before Castro's 1959 revolution, U.S. oil companies such as Esso and
Amoco carried out preliminary explorations. The following year, Cuba
nationalized refineries belonging to Exxon, Texaco and Shell (
(RDSA,RDSB), and U.S. industry hasn't been back since.
In the modern era, Cuba's first significant oil find came in 1971
when Soviet engineers discovered the Varadero field, east of Havana.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba opened its oil program to
foreign investment in 1993. Today, companies from Spain, Norway,
India, Malaysia and China are involved, either drilling wells onshore
or using horizontal drilling to reach reservoirs in shallow coastal
waters.
Canada's Sherritt is the most active foreign company with nine fields
operating onshore and five exploration or appraisal blocs being
drilled, says Michael Minnes, a company spokesman. Daily output from
the company's wells averages a modest 30,000 barrels a day, down from
about 43,000 in 2004.
"It's like any other foreign jurisdiction or developing nation. There
are challenges, and there are opportunities," Minnes said. "We see
Cuba as a great environment to do business in."
So far, only one offshore well has been drilled, in July 2004 by
Spanish oil company Repsol. The company said it found oil at the site
95 miles southwest of Key West, though not in commercially viable
deposits. Since then, the Spanish company has teamed with Norway's
Norsk Hydro, one of a select number of global oil companies with
expertise in deepwater exploration, according to Jorge Pinon, the
former president of Amoco's Latin American operations.
Offshore drilling this year
In an interview this week, Rodriguez, the chief of the Cuban
interests section in Washington, said widespread offshore drilling
could start by the end of this year. Cuban exploration, like drilling
ventures elsewhere, has been slowed by a worldwide shortage of
drilling rigs that has increased daily lease rates by more than 60%
since fall 2005.
Offshore wells aren't cheap: Those envisioned in Cuban waters will
cost $40 million to $50 million, says Pinon, the former oil executive
now affiliated with the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and
Cuban-American Studies. "This is a very high-risk, high-reward area,"
R.S. Butola, managing director of India's ONGC, said on the company's
website.
Since 1981, the U.S. has observed a moratorium on coastal drilling,
except for a portion of the Gulf of Mexico and limited areas off of
Alaska. The drilling ban was enacted after a series of high-profile
oil industry environmental disasters. Perhaps the most notorious: the
1969 Santa Barbara spill that released 3 million gallons of oil in
waters off of California, coating 35 miles of coastline with oil up
to 6 inches thick.
Last year, the House voted to relax the prohibition on offshore
drilling, but the measure died in the Senate. There may be close to
95 billion barrels of oil affected by the ban, according to the
Interior Department.
The House-passed bill still would have allowed individual states to
ban drilling up to 100 miles from their shores. But Cuba's wells
could eventually be as close to the USA as 60 miles from Key West.
The two countries agreed in 1977 to a maritime boundary that evenly
divides the waters between them.
Capitol Hill takes notice
The prospect of foreign oil companies drilling Cuban wells so close
to American shores has unnerved some on Capitol Hill. Sen. Bill
Nelson, D-Fla., last year introduced legislation to deny U.S. visas
to executives employed by oil companies involved in the Cuban
program. Dan McLaughlin, a spokesman for Nelson, says the senator
plans to reintroduce the measure this year. Nelson also wants the
United States to renegotiate the 1977 treaty that defines the
U.S.-Cuban maritime boundary, a proposal Cuba's Rodriguez called
"silly."
Others see the prospect of Cuban offshore oil rigs as a reason to
relax the U.S. embargo. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., co-authored
legislation last year that would have permitted U.S. firms to sell
their services to companies drilling for Cuba or to drill themselves.
"U.S. companies should be able to bid on these oil leases. . If there
are going to be oil rigs within 50 miles of Florida, . I'd rather see
U.S. oil rigs than Chinese oil rigs, given technological and safety
considerations," Flake said in a telephone interview.
For now, Big Oil is staying out of the political fray. But, at a time
when unexplored terrain is rapidly shrinking, the oil industry would
eagerly jump into Cuban waters if given the chance.
One year ago, a U.S.-Cuba Energy Summit attracted representatives
from Exxon and a handful of smaller oil service companies to three
days of meetings in Mexico City. Attendees viewed PowerPoint
presentations from Cuban government ministries including state-owned
oil company Cupet that invited American companies to help exploit
"several giant oil and gas fields."
Events since July, when Castro's illness forced him to step aside,
have rekindled industry interest in Cuba's future. "U.S. oil
companies would love to do business there as soon as this thing opens
up," says Ron Harper, an analyst at IHS Energy in Houston. "They're
looking at it quietly. They'd be short-sighted not to."
Earlier this week, Rodriguez reiterated that Cuba remains open to the
U.S. industry's involvement and may hold a second summit this year,
either in Mexico or Canada. But he said time may be running out for
the U.S. to change course. "In my opinion, if the American companies
are not able to get something, some changes before no more than one
year, after that it will be too late," he said.
For now, any U.S. involvement remains only hypothetical. Houston
oilman Antonio Szabo, president of Stone Bond Technologies, says U.S.
companies likely would require greater transparency, a commitment to
the rule of law and market economics in Cuba before investing
significant money there.
Some in the oil industry also have long memories when it comes to
Cuba. At the 1997 World Petroleum Congress in Beijing, a Cuban
official approached Lee Raymond, then Exxon's chief executive, and
asked in a jocular tone when the U.S. oil giant might return to Cuba.
"When you give us back our (expletive) refinery," Raymond growled.
Cuban officials note they already have willing partners from Canada,
Spain, Norway, Brazil, India, Malaysia, Venezuela and China.
Rodriguez made clear that the United States has no veto over Cuba's
oil plans.
"Everyone knows how advanced is American technology," the Cuban
diplomat said. "But we are going to continue with our programs - with
American companies or without American companies."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
23) THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 23, 2007
By JOSÉ DE CÓRDOBA
February 23, 2007; Page A5
VIA Email from:
Walter Lippmann
walterlx@earthlink.net
MEXICO CITY -- The Cuban government refused to renew the visas of at
least two resident foreign journalists, dimming hopes it will move
forward with reforms as Fidel Castro fades from power.
The refusals were "part of a political tightening in the expectation
that when Fidel dies they will have total control and there won't be
any opposition or resistance," said Jaime Suchlicki, an expert on
Cuba at the University of Miami.
Mr. Castro, 80 years old, handed power over to his brother, longtime
Defense Minister Raúl Castro, 75, on a provisional basis after
undergoing surgery in July. Since then, many analysts have speculated
that the younger Castro, who is believed to be more pragmatic than
his brother, would experiment with reforms and fresh thinking.
Since the younger Castro assumed power, there have been some signals
of a domestic thaw. In one speech, Raúl Castro urged university
students to question authority. On another occasion, intellectuals
took the unprecedented action of demanding an apology from the
government for seeming to bring back a hard-line official who had
been involved in censuring writers decades ago. The younger Castro
also has called for negotiations with the U.S. to resolve the
differences between the two countries.
While Raúl Castro has sounded like a moderate, Ramiro Valdez, a
hard-line former interior minister who is information and technology
minister, has been cracking down on the use of parabolic antennas
used by Cubans to pick up television signals from the U.S. He also
defended the restrictions Cuba places on its citizens to access the
Internet.
Cuba recently announced regulations that it would require
correspondents to renew permits every 30 days, enabling the
government to keep a tighter leash on journalists.
Gary Marx, who has been based in Havana for the Chicago Tribune since
2002, and Cesar Gonzalez Calero, a reporter for the Mexico City daily
El Universal, were told this week by Cuban officials that their visas
wouldn't be renewed and they could no longer report from the island,
according to the Chicago Tribune and El Universal.
The Chicago Tribune said a reporter for the South Florida
Sun-Sentinel will continue to staff the Tribune Co. bureau in Havana,
and the Cuban government had told Mr. Marx that the government would
welcome an application from a new Chicago Tribune correspondent.
The Tribune quoted Mr. Marx as saying the Cuban government said it
had revoked his visa because he had been on the island too long, and
didn't give any examples of stories to which they objected.
Julia Sweig, a Cuba specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations,
said the Cuban government often exhibits a contradictory pattern of
opening up in one area and battening down in another. "It's like,
'Just in case someone is getting too excited that we might have
process of reform, we'll take a whack at the foreign press to show
who we are -- a closed society,' " she said.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
LINKS AND VERY SHORT STORIES
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Report: over 5,000 Palestinians killed by the Israeli army since 2000
Date: 21 / 02 / 2007 Time: 16:00
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=19746
Fallujans Defiant Amidst Chaos
Inter Press Service
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily
"FALLUJAH, Feb 22 (IPS) - Resistance attacks against U.S. forces
have been continuing in Fallujah despite military onslaughts
and strong security measures.
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/iraq/000540.php#more
Britain to Trim Iraq Force by 1,600 in Coming Months
By ALAN COWELL
February 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/world/middleeast/22blair.html
Law restricting Guantanamo appeals upheld
Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:07AM EST
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2016803120070220
Law restricting Guantanamo appeals upheld
Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:07AM EST
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2016803120070220
Soldiers coming home to neglect at Walter Reed
By Shelly Lewis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shelley-lewis/expose-wounded-soldiers-_b_41538.html
Gallaudet Accreditation in Jeopardy, Official Says
By BLOOMBERG NEWS
Gallaudet University, the only United States university for the deaf,
may lose its accreditation because of poor governance, low graduation
rates and a lack of tolerance on campus for varying views, a review
official warned. The official, Linda A. Suskie, vice president of the
Middle States Commission on Higher Education, wrote in a Jan. 13
letter to the university's interim president, Robert R. Davila, that
Gallaudet's accreditation was "fragile." Copies of the letter were
distributed yesterday by leaders of protests last year that led to the
ousting of the university's chosen president, Jane K. Fernandes.
Gallaudet has until March 1 to submit a supplement to an accreditation
report that did not meet the commission's requirements,
Ms. Suskie wrote.
February 21, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/washington/21brfs-gallaudet.html
737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire
By Chalmers Johnson
http://www.alternet.org/story/47998
"I Swore to Uphold the Constitution. Instead, I Disgraced It"
Vermont Legislature Says Bring Them Home Now!
By JAMES MARC LEAS
February 16, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/leas02162007.html
The giant Anglo-Dutch oil group Shell has signed a long-awaited
$800m deal with Iran to develop two offshore oil fields.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/519688.stm
Kids get Addicted to WarSan Francisco's high school students
to study a different kind of schoolbook
By Amanda Witherell
http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=2785
Fed Chief Sees a Rate Rise if Inflation Rears Its Head
By REUTERS
February 16, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/business/16fed.html
Hershey Cutting Work Force 12%
By BLOOMBERG NEWS
Hershey will close more than a third of its assembly lines and eliminate
12 percent of its work force after sales fell for the first time in 3 1?2 years,
the company said yesterday.
The company, whose products include Hershey's Kisses and Reese's
peanut butter cups, will cut 1,500 jobs over the next three years and
start production at a new factory in Monterrey, Mexico. The reductions
will cost as much as $575 million before taxes, the company said.
Hershey, which is based in Hershey, Pa., lost market share last year
to Mars, the maker of Snickers, and last month reported a fourth-
quarter sales decline of 0.7 percent.
Hershey's United States market share fell to 42.5 percent in the
13 weeks through Dec. 24, from 43.5 percent at the end of the
fourth quarter of 2005, according to Information Resources. Mars's
share rose to 25.9 percent, from 24.2 percent. The data excludes
sales to Wal-Mart Stores.
When the plan is completed, Hershey expects 80 percent of its
production to be in the United States and Canada.
Shares of Hershey rose 80 cents, or 1.6 percent, to $52.10 on
the New York Stock Exchange.
February 16, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/business/16hershey.html
Radio Station Cries 'Enough' -- Won't Quote From Certain News Stories
Relying on Unnamed Officials
By Greg Mitchell
Published: February 13, 2007 10:55 PM ET
http://www.editorandpublisher.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
SCROLL DOWN TO READ:
EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (IN FULL DETAIL)
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
LYNNE STEWART AND MICHAEL RATNER IN BAY AREA
FEBRUARY 23-25 (Lynne and her husband Ralph will
stay on several more days. Stay tuned for complete
schedule of events.)
Dear Friends of Lynne Stewart,
I am pleased to announce that Lynne Stewart and Michael Ratner have
just accepted our invitation to tour the Bay Area. The confirmed
dates are February 23-25, 2007. Lynne, accompanied by her husband
Ralph Poynter, will stay on several more days for additional meetings.
In solidarity,
Jeff Mackler,
West Coast Coordinator, Lynne Stewart Defense Committee
Co-Coordinator, Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
O: 415-255-1080
Cell: 510-387-7714
H: 510-268-9429
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
May Day 2007
National Mobilization to Support Immigrant Workers!
Web: http://www.MayDay2007.net
National Immigrant Solidarity Network
No Immigrant Bashing! Support Immigrant Rights!
webpage: http://www.ImmigrantSolidarity.org
e-mail: info@ImmigrantSolidarity.org
New York: (212)330-8172
Los Angeles: (213)403-0131
Washington D.C.: (202)595-8990
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
A NEW LOOK AT U.S. RADIOACTIVE WEAPONS
Join us in a campaign to expose and stop the use of these illegal weapons
http://poisondust.org/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
You may enjoy watching these.
In struggle
Che:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqcezl9dD2c
Leon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukkFVV5X0p4
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
FIGHTBACK! A Collection of Socialist Essays
By Sylvia Weinstein
http://www.walterlippmann.com/sylvia-weinstein-fightback-intro.html
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
URGENT APPEAL TO SAVE IRAQ'S ACADEMICS.
Call for action to save Iraq's Academics
A little known aspect of the tragedy engulfing Iraq is the systematic
liquidation of the country's academics. Even according to conservative
estimates, over 250 educators have been assassinated, and many
hundreds more have disappeared. With thousands fleeing the country
in fear for their lives, not only is Iraq undergoing a major brain drain,
the secular middle class - which has refused to be co-opted by the
US occupation - is being decimated, with far-reaching consequences
for the future of Iraq.
http://www.brussellstribunal.org/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
END ALL U.S. AID TO ISRAEL!
Stop funding Israel's war against Palestine
Complete the form at the website listed below with your information.
https://secure2.convio.net/pep/site/Advocacy?
JServSessionIdr003=cga2p2o6x1.app2a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=177
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
ENDORSE THE A.N.S.W.E.R. CALL TO ACTION
March 17-18, 2007
GLOBAL DAYS OF ACTION ON THE
4TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WAR!
http://answer.pephost.org/site/Survey?
SURVEY_ID=3400&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&JServSessionIdr011=
k7a3443r73.app8a
http://answer.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANS_homepage
Please circulate widely
www.answercoalition.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Sand Creek Massacre
"THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY
SHORT FEATURED AT NATIVE AMERICAN FILM FESTIVAL:
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/local/16035305.htm
(scroll down when you get there])
"THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" AWARD-WINNING
WRITER/FILMMAKER DONALD L. VASICEK REPORT:
http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/sandcreekmassacre.html
"THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY
SHORT FINALIST IN DOCUMENTARY CHANNEL COMPETITION (VIEW HERE):
http://www.docupyx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=41
VIEW "THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY
SHORT FILM MOVIE OF THE WEEK FOR FREE HERE:
http://twymancreative.com/twymanc.html
On November 29, 1864, 700 Colorado troops savagely slaughtered
over 450 Cheyenne children, disabled, elders, and women in the
southeastern Colorado Territory under its protection. This act
became known as the Sand Creek Massacre. This film project
("The Sand Creek Massacre" documentary film project) is an
examination of an open wound in the souls of the Cheyenne
people as told from their perspective. This project chronicles
that horrific 19th century event and its affect on the 21st century
struggle for respectful coexistence between white and native
plains cultures in the United States of America.
Listed below are links on which you can click to get the latest news,
products, and view, free, "THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" award-
winning documentary short. In order to create more native
awareness, particularly to save the roots of America's history,
please read the following:
Some people in America are trying to save the world. Bless
them. In the meantime, the roots of America are dying.
What happens to a plant when the roots die? The plant dies
according to my biology teacher in high school. American's
roots are its native people. Many of America's native people
are dying from drug and alcohol abuse, poverty, hunger,
and disease, which was introduced to them by the Caucasian
male. Tribal elders are dying. When they die, their oral
histories go with them. Our native's oral histories are the
essence of the roots of America, what took place before
our ancestors came over to America, what is taking place,
and what will be taking place. It is time we replenish
America's roots with native awareness, else America
continues its decaying, and ultimately, its death.
You can help. The 22-MINUTE SAND CREEK MASSACRE
DOCUMENTARY PRESENTATION/EDUCATIONAL DVD IS
READY FOR PURCHASE! (pass the word about this powerful
educational tool to friends, family, schools, parents, teachers,
and other related people and organizations to contact
me (dvasicek@earthlink.net, 303-903-2103) for information
about how they can purchase the DVD and have me come
to their children's school to show the film and to interact
in a questions and answers discussion about the Sand
Creek Massacre.
Happy Holidays!
Donald L. Vasicek
Olympus Films+, LLC
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Vasicek,+Don
http://www.donvasicek.com
dvasicek@earthlink.net
303-903-2103
"THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY
SHORT FEATURED AT NATIVE AMERICAN FILM FESTIVAL:
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/local/16035305.htm
(scroll down when you get there])
"THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" AWARD-WINNING
WRITER/FILMMAKER DONALD L. VASICEK REPORT:
http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/sandcreekmassacre.html
"THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY
SHORT FINALIST IN DOCUMENTARY CHANNEL COMPETITION (VIEW HERE):
http://www.docupyx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=41
VIEW "THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY
SHORT FILM MOVIE OF THE WEEK FOR FREE HERE:
http://twymancreative.com/twymanc.html
SHOP:
http://www.manataka.org/page633.html
BuyIndies.com
donvasicek.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment