Jamie Zuieback, an official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), explained such an emergency like this: "If, for example, there were some sort of upheaval in another country that would cause mass migration, that's the type of situation that the contract would address."

That sounds a tad fuzzy, but let's concede that the camps do have something to do with immigration, illegal or not. In fact, there already are thousands of beds in place at various U.S. locations for the purpose of housing illegal immigrants.

But for anyone familiar with history U.S. or European the construction of detention camps for whatever purpose should prompt a chilling scenario.

Same folks

The new detention camps will be built by Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The latter, as you likely know, is the defense-related corporate giant with fists full of contracts involving the war in Iraq.

Halliburton was led by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995 to 2000. Democrats in Congress have accused the administration of favoring the company via no-bid contracts. But KBR says the detention contract was competitive.

Tuesday's story also said the contract was awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers. However, Halliburton says it was awarded by the Department of Homeland Security in support of ICE.

The contract is for a year, but includes four one-year options. It is a renewal of an existing ICE contract, notes Halliburton.

KBR, in fact, had the $9.7 million contract to build the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. This facility, popularly dubbed "Gitmo," holds 660 prisoners classified by the government as "enemy combatants."

Anyone care?
This column is written with the distinct feeling that not many people will give a hoot about any or all of this. But as already noted, a news story about construction of government detention centers should give us all pause.

Considering what took place in Nazi Germany, as well as the shameful incarceration of Japanese-Americans in 1942, no detention camp should be built without the widest possible public scrutiny.

Bottom line: The contract cries out for greater attention. So far, the government's expressed reason for building them is insufficient and ill-defined. And even if the camps do relate to illegal immigration, their purpose could be changed overnight.

This is an instance in which we could be well served by our representatives in Congress. They need to look at this and give constituents a better picture of what is going on.

Let's not have it said, years from now, that no one ever questioned this.

Tom Hennessy's viewpoint appears Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. He can be reached at (562) 499-1270 or by e-mail at Scribe17@aol.com

In October, Cantwell signed a letter stating "simply staying the current course is not a strategy for success." Yet when I met with Cantwell, she failed to distinguish her position from that of President Bush.

She also touted the importance of the Warner/Frist Amendment, which does nothing more than offer advice to the president and require that he report to Congress. After almost three years of unnecessary war, is this the best our highest deliberative body can do: make suggestions that will be ignored and beg to be kept informed? At this point in her re-election campaign, Cantwell must clarify her position on the Iraq war and hold public forums to discuss realistic options for ending this ever-deepening disaster.

It is time to acknowledge that the United States has now hit a dead-end on both the political and military fronts in Iraq, with current U.S. involvement in both areas only inflaming civil war. Last December's election in Iraq -- an event heralded as promising stability -- is itself undermined by the continuation of this occupation.

The United States is caught in the middle of a sectarian divide, and it will only get worse. Over the past five months, it has been widely reported that the United States has been trying to engage the Sunnis in political dialogue. Experts say that failing to do so can only deepen the insurgency. Yet showing Sunnis diplomatic respect inspires mistrust and anger from the rival Shiites.

Militarily, we've created the armed basis for a civil war. Iraqi armies in the north now consist of more than 10,000 Kurdish Peshmerga militia members who "wouldn't hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades," according to a Knight Ridder new story in December. In southern Iraq the army consists of pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalists. We have created military forces that, as they increase in "operational readiness," actually add to the instability of Iraq. Yet we continue a policy that conditions U.S. military disengagement on such operational readiness.

More Iraqi civilians are dying as a result of U.S. military actions. U.S. air strikes in Iraq have jumped from 25 per month last August to around 150 in December. The results of this strategy are predictable and horrifying. On Jan. 2, as many as 14 Iraqis, mostly women and children, were killed in a U.S. air strike. On Dec. 24, 2005, The Washington Post reported that U.S. air strikes killed many dozens of civilians throughout Iraq's Western Anbar province during the November offensive. In a 2005 report, Human Rights Watch deplored the U.S. strategy of resorting to indiscriminate aerial strikes resulting in civilian deaths.

A "reduction" of U.S. troops during 2006, in concert with an increasing air war, is not morally defensible or a way out.

The city of Fallujah represents a microcosm of the larger nightmare. We destroyed this town in order to save it. More than half its residents remain as refugees in their own country, and Americans are again dying in Fallujah at an increasing rate (12 in the past two months). The Pentagon's policy of "clear, hold and build" in reality does nothing more than "destroy, banish and build resentment."

We must go beyond the administration's false choice of staying the course or cutting and running. It is time for Cantwell to help move the debate beyond pointless rhetoric by taking a clear position and holding public forums to promote a better understanding of the costs of this war and how to end it. The only victory to be gleaned from this war is one for the American soul: Let's stop the killing.

Joe Colgan of Kent served in the Army from February 1963 to January 1966.

Once upon a time Code Pink almost made their protest mainstream when a Code Pink member returning after Bush’s Invasion of Iraq reported on the bloodshed on the Republican News Hour with Jimmy Lehrer. Luckily the News Hour realized their error and cut her off in mid sentence forcing Code Pink underground to work with the likes of the radical Cindy Sheehan.

Who is this radical Cindy Sheehan? Cindy Sheehan is a disgusting example of motherhood. Her son Casey, a soldier in Iraq gave his life in the line of duty. Now that Cindy Sheehan knows the facts about why Bush started the war in Iraq she’s one pissed off mother. Like most terrorists her mental apparatus is irrational. She doesn’t want other Mother’s to suffer the loss that she’s experienced.

At first in shock over the loss of her son, Cindy Sheehan had behaved sensibly. She had met with Bush as he offered her his condolences. Later when Cindy discovered that Bush lied about the reasons for the War she became irrational. This inconsistent behavior indicates instability based on a willingness to use her brain and assess the truth based on data that the main stream media kept from her and most of the American public. Cindy should be put in a mental gulag to prevent this truth virus from infecting other Americans.

Once learning the truth the unstable Cindy sought to terrorize Bush in every manner imaginable. Cindy camped 26 days near Bush’s homestead. The Bush homestead has a cozy cabin and the surrounding grounds have brush just dying to be cut. Bush was at his homestead on a working 26 day vacation. In the tradition of great Americans, George cut brush and fell off his bike daily.

Cindy asked to meet Bush at the end of his driveway, saying she wanted an explanation as to why her son had died in Iraq. Cindy’s so powerful and terrifying that the most powerful man in the world was afraid to walk to the end of his driveway and talk to her. A very sensible precaution as her current behavior demonstrates.

Upping the anti, increasingly irrational and threatening, Cindy Sheehan peacefully protested in Washington D.C. in front of the White House along with 300 other peace activists. Thank god these people were arrested.

We need stronger laws preventing Peace Protests and Protestors from embarrassing the war monger in Washington. Currently protests and protestors must be kept at least Five Miles away from Bush when he’s propagandizing. This should be made one hundred miles.

Furthermore Loyalty oaths that must be signed saying that no one will protest or exercise their right to Free Speech at a Bush propaganda rally needs to be strengthened to include everywhere in America that Buffalo once roamed and crapped--- no just make that everywhere. No protest allowed. Period.

Growing more and more unstable and radical, Cindy Sheehan took her seat at Bush’s state of disunion armed with a hidden T-shirt with the words, “2,245 Dead – How Many More??” This referenced the number of American service personnel killed to date in Iraq. Luckily she was arrested when she could remove her outer clothing to reveal the disgusting pornography she wore below.

Later, Sheehan was released without charge because the trophy wife of a Republican Congressman wore a shirt that said, “Support Our Troops.” Quite rightly the Congressman protested the treatment of his wife longly and loudly in the House the following day. A capital spokesman said it was all a mistake. Neither woman should have been removed from the proceedings. Next year congressmen & family members will be allowed to wear NASCAR type regalia with their corporate sponsors and logos on full display.

Luckily, the Sheehan episode hardly affected the proceedings. The Republican seals barked and clapped vigorously, on cue, as George, Resident Select of the White House entered the room.

I always try to end my pieces with some positive news. Meanwhile, in an unrelated report Exxon-Mobil and Chevron Oil announced whopping record breaking war profiteering.

Now there’s something The Annie Rand Think Tank, chief proponents of greed as the most valuable of American values, can cheer about.

(Ben Hooked is currently working on his best seller, book three of The Chronicles of Alpha-Omega 1,2,3, Revenge of the Reincarnated Slave Masters even as he comments on events on earth. Due to a crack in the Time-Space continuum Ben lives on the future home of earthlings while observing and writing about the past on earth. That’s how historical science fiction works.)

As a writer, I get many responses to my articles across a wide spectrum of ideologies, from all over the world. This is one of the things that make writing interesting to me — engaging people and hearing their ideas about things that matter. Almost invariably people ask me what they can do, or who is going to lead the next great social justice movement. What follows is my response to those inquiries. Bear in mind that it is hastily crafted and intended as a rough outline — a starting point. I will leave it to others more capable than me to build upon the foundation I have laid; or if necessary to start anew.

As the result of our hurried lifestyle, we live in a relatively intellectually shallow culture that has been softened by the idea of instant gratification. When we are sick we take a pill with the expectation that it will quickly make our malady disappear. We rarely consider the underlying causes of illness and disease. Our meals are rarely savored: they are prepared quickly and eaten in haste. Everything we do is predicated upon speed. This, I believe, has led to a kind of intellectual laziness that is prevalent among Americans, more than anywhere else in the world. We want quick fixes, easy answers—instant gratification. We want someone to lead us and tell us what to do, in essence relieving us of the burden of personal responsibility we know is ours.

Let us come to understand, however, that the complex problems facing not only America, but also the world, have no simple or easy solutions. If solutions exist—not all problems can be solved by mortal minds—these issues will require deep thought and long and persistent effort on the part of many. If we are serious about the business of revolution we must not only be committed to meaningful change, we must be in it for the long haul. Unfortunately, change often occurs at glacial speed, not at the velocity of light, as we might hope. Even when change appears to happen very quickly, it only appears that way after a long hard struggle on the part of many to reach critical mass. When critical mass is reached, and we rarely know exactly where we are in relation to it, then things happen quickly and dramatically. But it is a long and difficult process that leads up to critical mass.

It is expecting too much of anyone to lead a revolution. Revolutions succeed only by the force of many, acting in unison toward a common goal, not by the leadership of a few. If they are to succeed, movements must be bigger than the leadership that organizes them. They must be essentially self-organizing. Leaders can be assassinated, movements cannot. Effective national and global movements are the result of the efforts of millions upon millions of individuals united in common belief, and common effort. They are the result of many single acts added together that move the whole toward a common goal. These acts have a cumulative and profound impact when carried out day after day, month after month, year after year. This is when they acquire the force of revolutionary change for the betterment of all.

Centralized power is concentrated power that is prone to corruption and betrayal. Decentralized, loosely organized movements disperse power throughout the entirety of the movement or cause. It places power equally into the hands of all, rather than a few. This is the kind of movement that, it seems to me, is most likely to succeed. It is the kind of movement in which, paradoxically, everyone is a leader, and no one is a leader. This kind of organization is the kind that most troubles authority, the status quo, because they do not know how to attack it. Its leadership is at once everywhere and nowhere. How does one assassinate an entire movement without engaging in genocide?

There are few tried and true methods to follow. Mostly these are uncharted waters where we venture. However, there is one absolute certainty—we must massively organize on a global scale across a broad spectrum of interrelated concerns and issues. There is no other place to start than at the beginning. This means we must start from where we are—at home and in our respective communities. We might begin by creating decentralized but loosely organized networks of local activists, who meet regularly at someone’s home, or a local library, perhaps, to discuss matters of importance to them; who work both individually and in unison on the issues that concern them. Partnerships are formed and alliances made, as we educate ourselves and decide how to solve local problems.

Some members of this group might work on organizing and democratizing the work place; others might address homelessness and affordable housing. Another group might work to put their own people on school boards, or run candidates for county commissioner. Still others might work on preserving wild forests or monitoring the biological health of local streams and rivers. There are any number of issues to choose from. It requires no more than a single person to begin working on them. The work can begin immediately and its impact can be felt at once. Of course, the more people involved the better. The idea is to find common ground and to make connections based upon commonality.

Meanwhile, broader networks begin to branch out from the local network into the surrounding county, then to the state level. From the state level they broaden their scope to the National level. From there the next step is the global level. All of these citizen activists will be in constant communication with each other, coordinating their efforts and broadening membership in the group. The network continuously branches out in concentric circles, building bridges across platforms and ideologies as it proceeds, until it circumnavigates the globe and joins hands with the people of every nation. There is no fast way to accomplish this. It requires time and persistent effort. This is the basis of a sound and enduring foundation.

Thus we now have large numbers of individuals working on specific parts of interrelated issues that produce specific outcomes. Rather than being overwhelmed by the immensity and complexity of the larger problem, they are broken down into manageable parts. Similar groups will form in every community. They will talk to each other, teach each other, share results and coordinate their efforts. The enormity and complexity of issues can be overwhelming and paralyzing. One hardly knows where to begin, so nothing gets down. The pitfall of enormity can be avoided by delegating work and breaking everything down into manageable portions. If there are enough people willing to do the work they may need to be given a rough blue print and a little guidance. There will necessarily be some false starts, but together we will find our way.

Seemingly disparate but interrelated issues such as corporate control, revolutionary unionism, militarism, public funding of political campaigns, proportional representation in government, sweatshops, civil rights, starvation and hunger, disease, safe organically grown food, small family farming—a broad spectrum of issues—are addressed in this way. Clearly, there is no shortage of issues to select from. There is something for everyone. Find something that interests you and get started.

By continuously attacking these individual issues on many levels, we will be making steady progress on the broad front of a massive social justice movement of global dimensions. Thus we must reach out to the people working in other but related movements, who are already working on their own issues and know them best. In effect, we would be uniting the working poor with labor unions at home and in Sri Lanka; democratizing and liberating the work place through revolutionary unionism, taking public ownership of the economy from the corporations and redistributing wealth equitably to those who produce. We would be cleaning our streams and rivers, even as we address global warming. All things are related. Pluck a flower, trouble a star.

We would work in unison with the disempowered and voiceless across every front, in every nation. Together we have a voice. Separate we do not. Those working on civil rights issues would be united with people working on labor issues, because those issues are interconnected. Individual problems will not be fixed in isolation from the whole. A particular problem can be isolated temporarily for the purpose of making it a manageable part, but it must be reassembled within the matrix of the integrated whole if it is to work. For example, women chained to work tables in Chinese sweatshops would be working with the employees of Wal-Mart in the US and Germany to emancipate all parties from wage slavery. The problem must be fixed globally; otherwise, it migrates to regions where there are few environmental regulations, or no protection for workers against corporate tyranny.

Creative and visionary ways must be found to bring groups of people together in common causes that may appear to be unrelated, but which are in fact interrelated. I will leave that to minds more brilliant than my own, but I will participate.

Ours will be a movement that gives voice to the voiceless, wherever they are, whatever they do. Uniting thousands of smaller issues into a great river of revolutionary activism is the only thing that will set us free. Many of these movements already exist—we have only to join forces with them. It is a monumental undertaking that will require relentless effort, self sacrifice, and commitment to the larger common cause. Uniting all of these disparate factions and moving them forward under a social justice umbrella, pushing forward in unison against our oppressors gives us enormous power that is virtually unstoppable. It is a power that can remake civilization by working toward the common good, by looking out for each other. It requires a different way of thinking than the one we are accustomed to. This way of thinking and doing stresses cooperation over competition and exploitation.

The most important principle of the movement is also logistically the most difficult to achieve—to unite and to focus the disparate parts—to make them function as a single organism in the cause of social justice. This means that we must work in accord across party lines, race, sex, socioeconomic class, political ideology, theology and geopolitical boundaries. We will be creating a global Commonwealth that tolerates and celebrates diversity. It will be based upon mutual respect and concern for the welfare of others. The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few.

The rug weaver in India, the peasant farmer in Bangladesh, the Jewish Monk living in the rocky deserts of Israel; the truck driver moving across the plains of Montana, the anti-war protester in the streets of Washington or London in the prelude to war; the soldier in the sands of Iraq, as well as the insurgent on the other side of the fight; the political prisoners in the US such as Leonard Peltier, and his counterpart in China—all share a commonality with enormous potential to unite. Our rulers succeed by keeping us apart.

The wars that continually erupt across the planet and cause misery and suffering to the poor and the disenfranchised; the enormous gaps that exist between the classes; racism, sexism—the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the few must be abolished. They will not be abolished by the system that created them. We must believe that another world is possible. We must believe it with all our heart and we must be willing to work for it. It will be humankind’s most incredible journey. It will be the most important and satisfying work we can do.

As we proceed along this diverse but united front toward a goal of social justice and world peace, we must recognize that what we are trying to accomplish is nothing less than a global revolution of Democratic Socialism. The name is not important; the substance of the dream is.

This requires a new paradigm—that of the Commonwealth, which is really an old paradigm that has served humankind well for thousands of years. From this moment forth let us not work for private gain and individual wealth; let us work for the common good of everyone, everywhere. Let us recognize that no one can be free until everyone is free.

Let those with technical expertise now come forward to organize global forums online so that we can share ideas, even as we set out to change our respective communities. Let us not only begin talking among ourselves; let us begin the work that we know must be done—work that we can do ourselves beginning this very moment. Let us come together for peace, whatever name we give to it. Everything we do matters—the effect is cumulative.

This hope for remaking civilization in the image of the common people, rather than the money changers, must rise, like a Phoenix, out of the ashes of capitalism. That will be a glorious day. Let us begin the Great Work.

Padilla and four others are charged with conspiracy and providing material support to terrorists for allegedly operating a North American cell providing finances, recruits and supplies.

The handcuff exchange underscored the difference for Padilla between his 3 1/2 years in U.S. military custody and the due process protections afforded by the justice system.

The case is scheduled to go to trial in early September and could take about six months.

Only Padilla and co-defendant Adham Amin Hassoun were in court for Friday's status hearing, and both wore handcuffs attached to a waist chain as well as ankle chains, something Hassoun had not done in previous hearings.

Cooke asked prosecutors for an explanation, saying the defendants have "always been respectful, polite and courteous."

The prosecutors cited Marshals Service policy. Hassoun's lawyer, Kenneth Swartz, said he was told the shackles were ordered because of Padilla's high profile.

President Bush designated Padilla as an "enemy combatant" in June 2002, a month after he was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on allegations that he was on an al-Qaida terrorist mission. The government dropped that designation in November, leading to a grand jury indictment on criminal charges.

The Supreme Court is considering whether to take up Padilla's case arising from that long military detention, which would test whether a U.S. president may order unlimited detention without trial during wartime for U.S. citizens.

Ties between Venezuela's left-wing government and Washington have been strained for several years, but it is the first time Venezuela has decided to expel a US official.

In Washington, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld described the election of a string of left-wing leaders in the region as worrying.

"[Chavez] is a person who was elected legally, just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally and then consolidated power," he said.

"Now [Chavez] is of course working closely with [Cuban President] Fidel Castro and [Bolivian President Evo] Morales and others.

"It concerns me."

'Spy ring'

Thursday's announcement came three days after Mr Chavez said agents had infiltrated an alleged spy ring at the US embassy.

"We have decided... to throw out of the country a military official from the mission of the United States for espionage," the president said.

He warned that the full US embassy military mission would be expelled if authorities caught any of its officers spying.

"The next step would be to withdraw the whole so-called military mission of the United States," Mr Chavez said.

He had threatened last week to have any American officials involved in spying arrested.

In the past week, Venezuela has also said that several of its military officers have been caught passing state secrets to the US.

Tensions

Relations between the US and Venezuela were already under strain before the spying row erupted.

Washington is deeply opposed to the government of left-wing Mr Chavez, who is a vocal critic of the US.

The US has expressed concerns about Venezuelan democracy under Mr Chavez and about the effect of his government's military purchases on regional stability.

The US has tried to block his attempts to buy military equipment using American technology.

Rumsfeld, asked during a National Press Club appearance Thursday about indications of a deteriorating general relationship between Washington and parts of Latin America, said he believes such a characterization "misses the mark."

"We saw dictatorships there. And then we saw most of those countries, with the exception of Cuba, for the most part move towards democracies," he said. "We also saw corruption in that part of the world. And corruption is something that is corrosive of democracy."

The secretary acknowledged that "we've seen some populist leadership appealing to masses of people in those countries. And elections like Evo Morales in Bolivia take place that clearly are worrisome."

"I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added. "He's a person who was elected legally _ just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally _ and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others."

There have been increasing signs of hostility between Washington and Caracas, and on Monday Chavez said Venezuela's intelligence agencies have "infiltrated" a group of military officials from the U.S. Embassy who were allegedly involved in espionage.

Venezuelan authorities, including the vice president, have accused officials at the U.S. Embassy of involvement in a spying case in which Venezuelan naval officers allegedly passed sensitive information to the Pentagon.

It was not the first such charge by Chavez.

He has accused President Bush of backing efforts to overthrow his leftist government, and specifically has charged that the United States supported a short-lived coup in 2002, fomented a devastating strike in 2004 and expelled some American missionaries from Venezuela for alleged links to the CIA.

Washington has repeatedly rejected the allegations.

Concurrently, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. Congress, John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the 15 intelligence bodies of the U.S. Government, claimed, "In Venezuela, President Chavez, if he wins reelection later this year, appears ready to use his control of the legislature and other institutions to continue to stifle the opposition, reduce press freedom, and entrench himself through measures that are technically legal, but which nonetheless constrict democracy. We expect Chavez to deepen his relationship with Castro (Venezuela provides roughly two-thirds of that island's oil needs on preferential credit terms). He also is seeking closer economic, military, and diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea. Chavez has scaled back counter-narcotics cooperation with the US. Increased oil revenues have allowed Chavez to embark on an activist foreign policy in Latin America that includes providing oil at favorable repayment rates to gain allies, using newly created media outlets to generate support for his Bolivarian goals, and meddling in the internal affairs of his neighbors by backing particular candidates for elective office."

Apart from the dangerous misrepresentation of the reality of Venezuelan social and political life and the absurd comparison to Hitler, with whom the U.S. went to world war, these declarations evidence a scary escalation of aggression towards the Venezuelan government and people by the Bush Administration. Rumsfeld and Negroponte represent the two entities in the United States that wage war: Defense and Intelligence. Their positions go beyond the State Department's diplomatic rhetoric that has characterized relations between Venezuela and the United States during the past few years and up the ante to an increasing possibility of war between the two nations. As the U.S. prepares to take actions against Iran in the very near future, publicly declaring a link between Venezuela and Iran, as well as North Korea, provides justification for an inclusion of Venezuela on the list of nations targeted by the Bush Administration for military intervention.

During the past few days, the Venezuelan government has made public concrete evidence of an espionage case that has resulted in the expulsion of a U.S. military attaché, Navy Capitan John Correa, from this South American nation. Capitan Correa had been recruiting Venezuelan naval officials over a period of more than twelve months, with the aim of obtaining inside information of military and political strategies of the Venezuelan government and pressuring officials to turn against President Hugo Chávez. Although the U.S. Embassy in Caracas and its Ambassador, William Brownfield, have denied knowledge of any wrongdoing on the part of U.S. diplomatic officials, evidence of illegal penetration of Venezuelan armed forces by U.S. military attachés has been provided to this author.

An excerpt of testimony from a Venezuelan soldier recruited by the U.S. Embassy and working as a "double-agent" for the Venezuelan government, to be published in entirety in my next book, the follow-up to The Chávez Code: Cracking U.S. Intervention in Venezuela, follows:

"I am an enlisted soldier pertaining to the action command group. I am testifying about the activities of officials from the United States Embassy [in Caracas]. They seek information and analysis about certain activities of members of our Armed Forces and have contacts with officials that work with the Minister of Defense and they provide them with activities about our Armed Forces. My job is to try and find certain information and to monitor different political organizations, such as the Tupamaros, Bolivarian Circles, the people who work with Lina Ron, as well as information about the acquisition of arms in the Armed Forces. I note herein that I am working as an infiltrator in these groups, an undercover agent, I do not share the anti-American views of these groups, I am just trying to obtain the best information possible for my superiors, for the defense of our nation."

"What do they give you in return?"

"Money, political contacts and the possibility of work"

"What is the best they have given you up until now?"

"A ten-year visa to enter the United States, whenever I want, and according to them, in the future I can attend a course in their intelligence agency in the United States and once I prove my loyalty to them and they see I truly have guts, I can possibly do an intelligence course with the CIA, that's what the military attaché at the Embassy, [name removed], told me himself."

Today's statements by Rumsfeld and Negroponte merely confirm the diehard intentions of the U.S. government to continue its efforts to remove President Chávez from power and impede the development of the Bolivarian Revolution. Over the past few years, the Bush Administration has funneled millions upon millions of dollars into building up an opposition movement to the Chávez administration in Venezuela, utilizing U.S. tax payer dollars filtered through the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development, and has backed a failed coup d'état against President Chávez and oil industry sabotage that caused billions of dollars in damages to the nation yet failed to oust the government from power. For the year 2006, the U.S. Congress has allocated more than $9 million dollars to opposition groups in Venezuela (again, U.S. taxpayer dollars) and has launched a psychological operations campaign coordinated from the Pentagon's Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida. In a document published by the U.S. Army in October 2005 entitled "Doctrine for Asymmetric War Against Venezuela," President Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution were labeled as the "largest threat since the Soviet Union and communism."

Clearly, the Bush Administration has decided Venezuela and President Chávez represent a "severe threat" to U.S. domination in the region and U.S. control over energy resources in the hemisphere. Venezuela may very well be next on the list for a "preemptory war" in the style of Iraq. Citizens of the United States need to be aware of these dangerous steps taken by their government against a nation exercising its democratic and sovereign right to decide the type of socio-political system it desires. Venezuela's democracy, participatory in nature, is supported by more than 70% of its populace. Recent polls place President Chávez's popularity at 77%.

Citizens from around the world had the opportunity to witness Venezuela's thriving democratic revolution firsthand during the VI World Social Forum that just ended in Caracas. Hundreds of thousands of diverse voices from around the world, along with millions of Venezuelans, can attest to the fact that no dictatorship or threat to democracy exists in Venezuela. The only threat Venezuela presents to the United States is that of a good example.

Eva Golinger is a Venezuelan-American attorney and author of The Chávez Code: Cracking U.S. Intervention in Venezuela, available in English and Spanish through her website, www.venezuelafoia.info/codigo.html.