Decadent Elite Laugh At Torture During Gridiron Club Dinner - Russert dresses in drag, sings 'rendition' song Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com March 14 2006 The mainstream press is having a hearty chuckle about the capers and the chicanery witnessed at the annual Gridiron Club dinner, a get-together of media and government elites. The highlight was an "amusing" rendition of a torture song by a dragged-up Tim Russert. I for one don't find it funny that a bunch of war criminals and their sycophantic collaborators are cackling and patting each other on the back about the 'hilarious shortcomings' of the administration. Ahhh isn't Cheney cute for shooting a man in the face? Isn't it rollicking that those kids got raped and those Abu Ghraib prisoners were tortured to death? Even the CIA controlled Washington Post had to admit it went too far. "Tim Russert, making his first appearance as a new member, decked out in a blue dress and a shiny blond wig as one of the cable news bunnies. But there were also some true clunkers. Singing about torture, subbing "rendition" for "tradition" and borrowing the "Fiddler on the Roof" song was not funny at all. The chumminess of the politicos and the press corps can be cloying." You would think these power whores would learn to act with a modicum of decorum, especially after last time's fiasco, when Bush caused worldwide anger by making a comedy routine about Iraq's missing WMD, an 'intelligence mistake' (or lie to rational thinking people) that has already cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and over 2,000 US troops. George W. is so arrogant he even finds it funny that the people he supposedly represents support him in dwindling numbers. "By the way, when Dick first heard my approval rating was 38 percent, he said, 'What's your secret?'," joked Bush. Russert's womanly ways will come as no surprise for those in the know about Bohemian Grove, where the elite have a penchant for performing entire plays in drag, propositioning men for sexual favors and hiring homosexual porn stars to "service their needs." Why do you think former gay porn Internet prostitute turned reporter Jeff Gannon was given access to White House press briefings and Bush conferences without even being given a standard security clearance? The elite are a sick and decadent bunch and once the alcohol flows and their comments are veiled by a 'jokey atmosphere' - the true depravity of their motivations becomes awfully clear.

Republican contenders agree: Let's cut spending - Starting With Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - So We Can Buy More Bombs By Adam Nagourney The New York Times MARCH 13, 2006 MEMPHIS, Tennessee As prospective Republican presidential candidates search for themes to distinguish their prospective campaigns, and distance themselves from the embattled incumbent in the White House, they appear to be in agreement on one central issue for 2008: Curbing the U.S. government spending that has soared under President George W. Bush. For two days before an audience of Southern Republicans here, the party's potential candidates for 2008 called for cutting or slowing government spending across the board and retooling bedrock entitlement programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - that have become a drain on the Treasury. They called for a presidential line- item veto and a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. And with varying nuance, they attacked earmarking, the budget tactic some members of Congress use to channel money to favorite projects, outside the scrutiny of the normal budget process. "Yes, these last five years, we've been hit with unexpected challenges: a recession, 9/11, homeland security, the war on terror, Katrina," said Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, a likely candidate for 2008. "But they're not justification for a one-way ticket down a wayward path of wasteful Washington spending." Senator John McCain of Arizona, another likely candidate, declared: "We need to pass a line-item veto. But we also should have the willpower to stop this. We have to stop this." These attacks on the size of government, and the barely implicit criticisms of how Bush watched the books these past six years, are a direct appeal to fiscal conservatives who have long been distressed about the growth of spending under Bush and who are central to the party's presidential nominating process. But the issue, if politically potent and revealing of what kind of policies these men might pursue in the White House, is not without risks, particularly for the four U.S. senators who are thinking of running. Unlike the two soon-to-be former governors who are considering a run for president, these four senators face real-life tests of their commitment to attacking government spending, and, in the case of Frist, the ability to deliver a budget resolution that is acceptable to conservatives. Not surprisingly, none of the potential candidates who talked about cutting spending to 2,000 Republicans at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference here offered much idea about what actually could be cut. But back in Washington, where a new budget season has arrived, these senators are likely to find themselves voting on spending restraints in the months ahead that, if popular to this audience, may be politically problematic with a wider audience. Conservatives are pushing, for example, a budget proposal that would produce $650 billion in savings during the next five years, with much of the money coming out of Medicare and Medicaid. As it is, a budget resolution scheduled to come to the floor of the Senate this week has been stripped of cuts in Medicare that had been pressed by the White House, a reflection of the conclusion by congressional leaders that they could not get enough votes to pass such a bill. Indeed, last year, in a sign of just how hard it is to make any kind of cuts in spending, Republicans turned to Vice President Dick Cheney to break a tie in the Senate to enact a net $39 billion in cuts. Frist's choice of words in talking about this issue, in the midst of calling for cutting the size of government and reducing entitlement spending, was revealing: "No more hidden earmarks," he said. The other complication is the White House itself. The likely presidential candidates left little doubt about what at least some of them saw as Bush's complicity in the spending increases that took place during the first six years of his term. "Our discretionary spending - taking out Iraq and mandatory spending - grew 49 percent in four years," said Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, a likely presidential candidate. But they are not alone in seeing political benefit in returning to the spending issue. A Republican close to the White House, who insisted on anonymity in exchange for talking about private discussions, said Bush's own menu of spending restraints, along with his call for Congress to pass a line-item veto, reflects in part a political decision to embrace this issue to steady his presidency, and to build his standing with the party's conservative base. Bush's emphasis on the issue may also reflect an effort by the White House to help congressional Republicans. Some of them fear that the party's base, which is upset over the growth of government even with Republicans in control of the White House and Congress, may fail to turn out in sufficient numbers to counter an energized Democratic Party this November.

The U.S. has run amok; former CIA analyst By AMBIKA BEHAL UPI Correspondent 9 Mar 06 WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- Corruption has run amok in intelligence circles and the president should be impeached, a former CIA analyst says. Also, he said, the United States is undergoing a constitutional crisis. "I do not wish to be associated, however remotely, with an agency engaged in torture," wrote Ray McGovern in a recent letter as he returned his Intelligence Commendation Award medallion to Congressman Pete Hoekstra, R-MI, and Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. At the time, McGovern was wearing an orange jump suit, similar to those worn at Guantanamo Bay, with a gag over his mouth on which was written the word, "torture." Along with 15 other individuals, dressed alike, he wandered the halls of Congress. "It was simply a slow, dead man walking kind of thing," said McGovern, who said the reaction he received was interesting. "I had expected turbulence, the worst I experienced was people averting their eyes and the most common reaction was people looking at me, silence," he said. He described the experience as having "a certain somberness and reverence." There were more volunteers wanting to take part, he said, but "not enough jump suits." A 27-year veteran of the CIA, spanning administrations from John F. Kennedy to George Herbert Walker Bush, the current president's father, McGovern has taken, in recent years, a vocal stand on several aspects of the current Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq and ensuing events. Returning his medal for "especially commendable service" took a lot of thought. "I had been thinking of ways I could disassociate myself from torture," he said, describing it as a response for his grandchildren who, he said, would ask him what role he played in current events. "Pete Hoekstra was one of the few people in our government who would be able to stop this," said McGovern. But neither has he seen any action from Hoekstra in attempt to stop torture of prisoners at American hands, nor has he received any response from the return of his medal yet, he said. "In my view, this is an order of magnitude different from my experiences in the past -- there has been torture before, but never before has it been ordered and openly 'justified'," he said. Recent months have seen CIA Director Porter Goss and Vice President Dick Cheney unsuccessfully try to prevent Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. from his successful initiative to ensure there were legal restraints on torture. Attorney General "Alberto Gonzalez in London was unwilling to say whether dogs were used in torture," said McGovern. "Even thought torture has always been conducted separosa, there should be a debate in this city," he said. During his time at the CIA, McGovern at one point was responsible for daily briefings to the first President Bush. After retiring in 1990; he said he received a "wonderful letter from Bush, Sr. We do stay in touch periodically," but would not comment on the former president's opinions on McGovern's current activities. Today, he spends his time writing and speaking around the world and abroad, mostly about the Iraq war, "trying to spread a little truth around," he said. The alleged corruption of intelligence strikes a heavy chord with McGovern. The war in Iraq started, he said, because former CIA director George Tenet, was given no choice but to state the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "Back in my day, I like to think we would have got up and walked out," if asked to force intelligence, he said. "Cooking intelligence is a cardinal sin in the intelligence world." In a chapter in the new book, "Neo-Conned Again!" -- a compilation of condemnations of the war in Iraq -- McGovern referred to the New Testament passage carved into the marble entrance at CIA headquarters. "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." "This was the ethos of the intelligence analysis directorate during most of the 27 years I spent there," McGovern wrote. "As outraged as we are by the politicization, some say prostitution, of intelligence procedures, we are upset by the undermining of the Constitution," he said, speaking for the anti-war group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, of which he is a founder. Currently the group has 54 members who are former and some current intelligence professionals from all branches of the government. VIPS started in 2003 with five members -- all former agency analysts. "If you're going to have an intelligence apparatus that tells the president what he wants to hear, you might as well just abolish the whole thing," and let the State Department run intelligence operations, said McGovern. The point of the CIA was to be accountable, he said. "We're supposed to tell the truth." VIPS focuses on putting out memos to critique and comment official actions regarding controversial subjects related to the War on Terror. "People can and do come to us for the straight answers," McGovern said. "When I speak frankly about the real reasons why we went into Iraq," he said, "I use the acronym OIL - Oil, Israel, Logistical bases." In recent months, the debate has turned to Iran. McGovern refers to a former colleague at the CIA -- Paul Pillar, recently retired and now able to voice his perspectives on current situations. McGovern quoted Pillar's words from a talk given at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington Tuesday, "It is important to bear in mind that we don't know if Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon." His point, he said, was that one must not only analyze the historical facts that would lead to such a conclusion, but also provide hard evidence -- not corrupted evidence. He said he believed that, if not prevented now, another war will start in the next month or two. "The American people need to wake up now, the evidence is all there," he said. "Our president and vice president have started a war of aggression defined by Nuremberg as a supreme international crime." Describing members of Congress as tools of the White House, McGovern expressed a need for the people to take a different way. "Together with torture and clearly illegal wiretapping, we need to look for ways to stop all these crimes and indignities," he said. McGovern also discussed the constitutional provision of impeachment. "I think impeachment proceedings should begin" against President Bush, he said. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc.

Flashback: How the Central Intelligence Agency Played Dirty Tricks With Our Culture By Laurence Zuckerman New York Times 18 Mar 02 Many people remember reading George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in high school or college, with its chilling finale in which the farm animals looked back and forth at the tyrannical pigs and the exploitative human farmers but found it "impossible to say which was which." That ending was altered in the 1955 animated version, which removed the humans, leaving only the nasty pigs. Another example of Hollywood butchering great literature? Yes, but in this case the film's secret producer was the Central Intelligence Agency. The C.I.A., it seems, was worried that the public might be too influenced by Orwell's pox-on-both-their-houses critique of the capitalist humans and Communist pigs. So after his death in 1950, agents were dispatched (by none other than E. Howard Hunt, later of Watergate fame) to buy the film rights to "Animal Farm" from his widow to make its message more overtly anti-Communist. Rewriting the end of "Animal Farm" is just one example of the often absurd lengths to which the C.I.A. went, as recounted in a new book, "The Cultural Cold War: The C.I.A. and the World of Arts and Letters" (The New Press) by Frances Stonor Saunders, a British journalist. Published in Britain last summer, the book will appear here next month. Much of what Ms. Stonor Saunders writes about, including the C.I.A.'s covert sponsorship of the Paris-based Congress for Cultural Freedom and the British opinion magazine Encounter, was exposed in the late 1960's, generating a wave of indignation. But by combing through archives and unpublished manuscripts and interviewing several of the principal actors, Ms. Stonor Saunders has uncovered many new details and gives the most comprehensive account yet of the agency's activities between 1947 and 1967. This picture of the C.I.A.'s secret war of ideas has cameo appearances by scores of intellectual celebrities like the critics Dwight Macdonald and Lionel Trilling, the poets Ted Hughes and Derek Walcott and the novelists James Michener and Mary McCarthy, all of whom directly or indirectly benefited from the C.I.A.'s largesse. There are also bundles of cash that were funneled through C.I.A. fronts and several hilarious schemes that resemble a "Spy vs. Spy" cartoon more than a serious defense against Communism. Traveling first class all the way, the C.I.A. and its counterparts in other Western European nations sponsored art exhibitions, intellectual conferences, concerts and magazines to press their larger anti-Soviet agenda. Ms. Stonor Saunders provides ample evidence, for example, that the editors at Encounter and other agency-sponsored magazines were ordered not to publish articles directly critical of Washington's foreign policy. She also shows how the C.I.A. bankrolled some of the earliest exhibitions of Abstract Expressionist painting outside of the United States to counter the Socialist Realism being advanced by Moscow. In one memorable episode, the British Foreign Office subsidized the distribution of 50,000 copies of "Darkness at Noon," Arthur Koestler's anti-Communist classic. But at the same time, the French Communist Party ordered its operatives to buy up every copy of the book. Koestler received a windfall in royalties courtesy of his Communist adversaries. As it turns out, "Animal Farm" was not the only instance of the C.I.A.'s dabbling in Hollywood. Ms. Stonor Saunders reports that one operative who was a producer and talent agent slipped affluent-looking African-Americans into several films as extras to try to counter Soviet criticism of the American race problem. The agency also changed the ending of the movie version of "1984," disregarding Orwell's specific instructions that the story not be altered. In the book, the protagonist, Winston Smith, is entirely defeated by the nightmarish totalitarian regime. In the very last line, Orwell writes of Winston, "He loved Big Brother." In the movie, Winston and his lover, Julia, are gunned down after Winston defiantly shouts: "Down with Big Brother!" Such changes came from the agency's obsession with snuffing out a notion then popular among many European intellectuals: that East and West were morally equivalent. But instead of illustrating the differences between the two competing systems by taking the high road, the agency justified its covert activities by referring to the unethical tactics of the Soviets. "If the other side can use ideas that are camouflaged as being local rather than Soviet-supported or -stimulated, then we ought to be able to use ideas camouflaged as local ideas," Tom Braden, who ran the C.I.A.'s covert cultural division in the early 1950's, explained years later. (In one of the book's many amusing codas, Mr. Braden goes on in the 1980's to become the leftist foil to Patrick Buchanan on the CNN program "Crossfire.") The cultural cold war began in postwar Europe, with the fraying of the wartime alliance between Washington and Moscow. Officials in the West believed they had to counter Soviet propaganda and undermine the wide sympathy for Communism in France and Italy. An odd alliance was struck between the C.I.A. leaders, most of them wealthy Ivy League veterans of the wartime Office of Strategic Services and a corps of largely Jewish ex-Communists who had broken with Moscow to become virulently anti-Communist. Acting as intermediaries between the agency and the intellectual community were three colorful agents who included Vladimir Nabokov's much less talented cousin, Nicholas, a composer. The C.I.A. recognized from the beginning that it could not openly sponsor artists and intellectuals in Europe because there was so much anti-American feeling there. Instead, it decided to woo intellectuals out of the Soviet orbit by secretly promoting a non-Communist left of democratic socialists disillusioned with Moscow. Ms. Stonor Saunders describes how the C.I.A. cleverly skimmed hundreds of millions of dollars from the Marshall Plan to finance its activities, funneling the money through fake philanthropies it created or real ones like the Ford Foundation. "We couldn't spend it all," Gilbert Greenway, a former C.I.A. agent, recalled. "There were no limits, and nobody had to account for it. It was amazing." When some of the C.I.A.'s activities were exposed in the late 1960's, many artists and intellectuals claimed ignorance. But Ms. Stonor Saunders makes a strong case that several people, including the philosopher Isaiah Berlin and the poet Stephen Spender, who was co-editor of Encounter, knew about the C.I.A.'s role. "She has made it very difficult now to deny that some of these things happened," said Norman Birnbaum, a professor at the Georgetown University Law School who was a university professor in Europe in the 1950's and early 1960's. "And she has placed a lot of people living and dead in embarrassing situations." Still unresolved is what impact the campaign had and whether it was worth it. Some of the participants, like Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who was in the O.S.S. and knew about some of the C.I.A.'s cultural activities, argue that the agency's role was benign, even necessary. Compared with the coups the C.I.A. sponsored in Guatemala, Iran and elsewhere, he said, its support of the arts was some of its best work. "It enabled people to publish what they already believed," he added. "It didn't change anyone's course of action or thought." But Diana Josselson, whose husband, Michael, ran the Congress for Cultural Freedom, told Ms. Stonor Saunders that there were real human costs among those around the world who innocently cooperated with the agency's front organizations only to be tarred with a C.I.A. affiliation when the truth came out. The author and other critics argue that by using government money covertly to promote such American ideals as democracy and freedom of expression, the agency ultimately stepped on its own message. "Obviously it was an error, and a rather serious error, to allow intellectuals to be subsidized by the government," said Alan Brinkley, a history professor at Columbia University. "And when it was revealed, it did undermine their credibility seriously." Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company

Flashback: Zbigniew Brzezinski How the US provoked the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan First Published: Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76 Translated from the French by William Blum Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it? Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?** Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today. Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries. * There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.** It should be noted that there is no demonstrable connection between the Afghanistan war and the breakup of the Soviet Union and its satellites. This interview was translated from the French by William Blum, Author of "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower". Portions of the books can be read at: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm (with a link to Killing Hope)

Video: The Secret Government - Part I - Bill Moyers, documents U.S. support of terrorist regimes and the brutality of Americas foreign policy. Hosted ad Information Clearing House Must Watch.

Video: Harper's Magazine Panel on Case Bush Impeachment Broadcast 03/02/06 C-Span Harper's Magazine hosts a panel "Is There a Case for Impeachment?", discussing President Bush and his policies. Forum speakers include Lewis H. Lapham, Editor of Harper's Magazine; Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Ranking Member of U.S. House Judiciary Committee; and Michael Ratner, President of Center for Constitutional Rights.

U.S. terror hunt targets animal activists THOMAS WALKOM Toronto Star 13 Mar 06 Kevin Kjonaas set up a website with details about businesses that use animals for research information, and now he and five other activists have been convicted of inciting terrorism "This is just the starting gun," says David Martosko, research director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization funded by the U.S. restaurant industry and a fierce opponent of animal rights. He says the government should move against more mainstream organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or the Humane Society of the United States, which he calls "the farm teams for the eco-terror problem." Curiously, for a case with such serious implications, none of those convicted in Trenton is alleged to have carried out any of the substantive crimes laid out in the indictment - from property damage to intimidation. TRENTON, N.J.-Kevin Kjonaas is an unlikely casualty of George W. Bush's war against terror. No one, including the U.S. government attorneys who just finished prosecuting him for so-called animal enterprise terrorism, says that the 28-year-old Minnesota native killed anyone - or even hurt anyone. He's never planted a bomb or sent anthrax through the mail. The government doesn't claim Kjonaas damaged property - or knowingly provided material assistance to anyone who did. "I've been an ass," Kjonaas acknowledged days before a Trenton jury found him guilty of inciting terrorism. "Some of the things I've done have been just rude, and I wouldn't do them again. But am I legally responsible (for the crimes the government accused him of)? No." However, earlier this month, Kjonaas and five others ranging in age from 27 to 31 became the first people convicted under a 1992 U.S. law - significantly beefed up after 9/11 - that defines as terrorists those who damage firms involved in the animal business. Along with another case in Oregon, this one involving radical environmentalists, the New Jersey trial marks a significant step forward in the Bush administration's decision to bring the war on terror home for use against those it views as its new domestic enemies. "This is just the starting gun," says David Martosko, research director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization funded by the U.S. restaurant industry and a fierce opponent of animal rights. He says the government should move against more mainstream organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or the Humane Society of the United States, which he calls "the farm teams for the eco-terror problem." Curiously, for a case with such serious implications, none of those convicted in Trenton is alleged to have carried out any of the substantive crimes laid out in the indictment - from property damage to intimidation. Prosecutors didn't provide evidence they knew the perpetrators or had ever communicated directly with them. Rather, the six were convicted of running an Internet site that allowed others access to information that could be used in crimes. They call themselves the SHAC Six, after the acronym of their animal rights group - Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. They could be called the Internet Six. Animals arouse strong and contradictory passions. We fuss over pet dogs and weep when, as happened in Toronto recently, a police horse is hit by a car. Yet we support laws that legalize, and in some cases require, the killing of animals. In both the U.S. and Canada, federal laws demand that virtually all new pharmaceuticals be tested on animals. The active ingredients of household products, such as cleansers or cosmetics, are also routinely tested on animals, although in Canada at least there are no statutory requirements. Usually, the animals are killed afterwards so that autopsies can be performed. It's a big business. George Goodno, spokesman for the Washington-based Foundation for Medical Research - an organization set up to promote the virtues of animal testing - estimates the U.S. industry alone is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. "One (genetically modified) mouse can cost $10,000," he says. And that's just on the testing side. The animal business also includes farmers, slaughterhouses, restaurants, furriers and ranchers. All of which helps to explain the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, an otherwise inexplicable U.S. law that singles out property crimes against businesses that use animals and treats them more seriously than similar offences against other organizations. Passed in 1992, the law was initially viewed as one of those quirky American statutes that make for good politics but difficult jurisprudence. But then two things happened. First, radical animal rights protestors changed their tactics. No longer content to liberate animals held in labs and mink farms, they mounted sophisticated public campaigns against firms involved in animal testing. To the alarm of the animal industry, some of these campaigns were successful. The second was 9/11. After September 2001, anything labelled terrorism was anathema in America. In mid-2002, under industry pressure, Congress quietly strengthened the animal enterprise protection act. Without formally changing its name, legislators also began to refer to it routinely as the "animal enterprise terrorism act." In 2004, a senior FBI official told a congressional subcommittee that animal rights and environmental militants had become "the most active criminal extremist elements in the United States." Like much of the militant animal rights movement, SHAC started in England. Founded in 1999, it was aimed at Britain's biggest animal research firm, Huntingdon Life Sciences. A video aired on television that showed some Huntingdon employees deliberately abusing test animals gave the campaign particular piquancy. By 2001, protestors had driven the firm almost to bankruptcy. Not all of the militants' tactics were peaceful. In one celebrated instance, two men beat Huntingdon's managing director with baseball bats. While SHAC denounced the attack, this beating - as well as instances of threats, vandalism and firebombing - added a disturbing aura of thuggery to its protest. Far more damaging to Huntingdon, however, were SHAC's successful attempts to persuade other companies not to do business with the firm. Tactics ranged from boycott threats to protests staged outside the homes of employees. By 2001, after losing its major bank lender, its broker and many of its customers, Huntingdon fled across the Atlantic. SHAC followed too. Kjonaas, already an animal activist, had come across the SHAC campaign while visiting England. On returning home, he and a few others set up SHAC-USA Inc. which, like its English parent, was remarkably successful in convincing firms and financiers not to do business with Huntingdon. The protestors' biggest coup occurred last year when, at the last minute and without explanation, the New York Stock Exchange refused to list Huntingdon on its big board. "It's become almost impossible to trade our shares," Mike Caulfield, general manager of Huntingdon's U.S. operations told the Star. At the Trenton trial, witnesses testified that SHAC-USA neither organized nor controlled the anti-Huntingdon demonstrations. Rather it acted as an information clearing house. Details of anti-Huntingdon protests were usually e-mailed to SHAC-USA which would put them on its website. Similarly, home addresses for corporate officers and other employees of target companies would be posted. Gleaned from public sources such as annual reports and phone books, they would include a disclaimer saying SHAC-USA advocated only legal protest. Still, there were problems. A legal home protest might involve a vanload of demonstrators arriving outside an employee's residence to scream insults and pass out leaflets accusing the target of killing puppies. In some cases, the strategy involved targeting people with only the most roundabout relationship to animal testing. Amy Hessler, a patent agent for a company that did business with Huntingdon, testified that until her home was picketed she had never heard of the firm. "I was scared for my life," she said. At times, demonstrators would pound on her door and shout obscenities or phone her anonymously to ask why she abused animals. And that was the second big problem for SHAC. Regardless of its website disclaimer, some people - never identified - did engage in acts that were clearly illegal. Most notable was the bombing in 2003 of a California drug firm that did business with Huntingdon. While it caused no injuries, there was considerable property damage. To the Trenton jury, other examples raised in court may have been even more disturbing. Insurance executive Sally Dillenback testified she received an anonymous email asking how she'd feel if her 7-year-old son were treated like a Huntington lab animal and had his stomach slit open to be filled with poison. Eventually, Dillenback's company, Marsh USA, dropped Huntingdon as a client. In person, Kevin Kjonaas seems quite unlike the fire-breathing radical described by prosecutors. Slight and soft-spoken, he remains unfailingly polite as a reporter quizzes him, over dinner, on the animal movement's tactics and his role in them. "I still think residential picketing is a good idea," he says. "It's been done for ages. Look at Cindy Sheehan (the U.S. peace activist who held a vigil outside of Bush's ranch). But not all of it is appropriate right now and not all of it is savoury." Recalling Dillenback's testimony, he sighs. "If I had to do it over again, I'd censor more of those Web postings and be less aggressive and confrontational, so that no one could perceive us as a threat, only as an embarrassment. "We want to put pressure on those people (involved in animal testing) but we don't want them to think their children are going to be abducted. That's ridiculous... The tone and tenor need to change, not just from a PR perspective but because we represent a noble cause... "The American public supports violence at times," he goes on, picking at his vegetarian curry. "But the animal rights movement is not at the stage now where violence or the rhetoric of violence is appropriate... It's not even close." Perhaps what is most puzzling about both this case and another getting underway in Oregon is the sheer amount of government energy expended. True, animal and environmental radicals have claimed responsibility for actions that destroyed property worth tens of thousands of dollars. The Foundation for Biomedical Research calculates illegal acts by animal and environmental extremists have increased 1,000 per cent over the past decade. But even so, the absolute numbers (82 incidents in 2005) remain miniscule. FBI spokeswoman Cathy Milhoan says there have never been any deaths or injuries in the U.S. attributable to animal rights or environmental terrorism. By comparison, radical right-wingers killed 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Since then, according to a Southern Poverty Law Center report, police have uncovered 60 more right-wing plots, including plans to assassinate judges, bomb synagogues and destroy mosques. In 2000, the head of Pittsburgh's tiny Free Market Party killed five and critically wounded a sixth. Three years later, a neo-Nazi videotaped himself firebombing a synagogue. Yet in spite of this, as the Alabama-based law centre points out, the U.S. government has decided the radical right presents little or no threat. And the FBI says illegal activities of the extreme right have been eclipsed by the "special interest terrorism" of the animal rights and environmental movements. Meanwhile, Kjonaas and his fellow defendants await sentencing. The SHAC-USA websites have been shut down. A proposed law would make it easier for the FBI to electronically eavesdrop on animal and environmental groups, and more difficult for groups to mount campaigns against companies. It's not clear what difference any of this makes. Another organization, Win Animal Rights has taken over the anti-Huntingdon protests. "The train has left the station," says Pamelyn Ferdin, a Los Angeles animal rights activist recruited to formally run SHAC after Kjonaas was indicted. "When activists see above ground people getting put in jail, they're just going to get mad."

Pa. seizes paper's computer hard disks By John Shiffman Philadelphia Inquirer - The Attorney General's Office says they may show evidence of a felony: unauthorized use of a restricted Web site. "This is horrifying, an editor's worst nightmare," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Washington. "For the government to actually physically have those hard drives from a newsroom is amazing. I'm just flabbergasted to hear of this." In an unusual and little-known case, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office has seized four computer hard drives from a Lancaster newspaper as part of a statewide grand-jury investigation into leaks to reporters. The dispute pits the government's desire to solve an alleged felony - computer hacking - against the news media's fear that taking the computers circumvents the First Amendment and the state Shield Law. The state Supreme Court declined last week to take the case, allowing agents to begin analyzing the data. "This is horrifying, an editor's worst nightmare," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Washington. "For the government to actually physically have those hard drives from a newsroom is amazing. I'm just flabbergasted to hear of this." The grand jury is investigating whether the Lancaster County coroner gave reporters for the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal his password to a restricted law enforcement Web site. The site contained nonpublic details of local crimes. The newspaper allegedly used some of those details in articles. If the reporters used the Web site without authorization, officials say, they may have committed a crime. In interviews yesterday, the reporters' lawyer, William DeStefano, and the coroner, Gary Kirchner, disagreed over whether Kirchner had given them permission to access the site. DeStefano said that although he didn't know whether any of the reporters used the Web site, "evidence has been presented to the attorney general which makes it clear that the county coroner, an elected official, invited and authorized the paper or reporters access to the restricted portion of the Web site... . If somebody is authorized to give me a password and does, it's not hacking." The coroner said yesterday that he had not "to my knowledge" provided the password or permission to the reporters. "Why would I do that?" Kirchner said yesterday. "I'm not sure how I got drawn into something as goofy as this." State agents raided Kirchner's home outside Lancaster last month and took computers, he said. He said he had had no other contact with authorities since. The morning Intelligencer Journal is owned by Lancaster Newspapers Inc., which also publishes the afternoon Lancaster New Era and the Sunday News. The Intelligencer Journal's editor, Raymond Shaw, was compelled last month to testify before the grand jury, which is based in Harrisburg. Yesterday, he declined to comment on the case. Grand-jury investigations are secret. But some details trickled out when a lower-court judge in Harrisburg, Barry Feudale, held hearings last month to consider the newspaper's motion to stop the state from enforcing its subpoena for the hard drives. Officials said the Internet histories and cached Web-page content retained on the newspaper's computer hard drives could contain evidence of a crime - unauthorized use of a computer. To properly search the computers, state lawyers argued, they needed to haul them to a government lab in Harrisburg. Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach argued that this was not a case of a journalist's right to protect a source but an attempt to use the First Amendment to shield a crime. "We know the source," she said. It is a password-protected Web site, she said, essentially "a bulletin board in a locked room, and it is getting into that locked room and seeing the bulletin board that makes this a crime." At the hearing, another lawyer for the newspaper, Jayson Wolfgang, said the search was illegal, and troubling. "The government simply doesn't have the ability or the right, nor should it, in a free democracy, to seize the work-product materials, source information, computer hard drives, folders with paper, cabinet drawers of a newspaper," he argued. Feudale ruled Feb. 23 that the state could seize the computers but view only Internet data relevant to the case. The judge also ordered the agent who withdraws the data to show them to him first - before passing them to prosecutors - to ensure that the journalists' other confidential files are not compromised. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the State Supreme Court. In the newspaper's appeal, DeStefano argued that the ramifications of allowing government officials to have control over a newspaper's computers, no matter the restrictions imposed, are frightening. "Permitting the attorney general to seize and search unfettered the workstations will result in the very chilling of information," DeStefano wrote. "Confidential tips, leads, and other forms of information will undoubtedly dry up once sources and potential sources learn that Lancaster Newspapers' workstations were taken out of its possession and turned over to investigations." In response, the state argued that "the newspaper has not produced one shred of evidence that the computer hard drives contain information protected from disclosure." In a one-page order dated Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on procedural grounds, freeing the state to examine the hard drives.

Preview of 'Vanity Fair' Article on Plamegate: Too Much of Nothing? By Greg Mitchell Editor & Publisher March 11, 200 Actually, the only jolt for some readers will come nearly halfway through when they read that the writer of the piece, Marie Brenner, is a good friend of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller-and even helped organize a farewell dinner for her just before she went to jail last year. The article, no surprise, is sympathetic to Miller, and Robert Novak, too, and against prosecutors going after information gained by journalists. With so little really new in the article, one thing that jumps out is the impact of blogs-principally The Huffington Post--on the Miller case. NEW YORK A massive Vanity Affair review of the Plame/CIA case coming to newsstands on Tuesday is notable for the absence of major revelations. The article, "Lies and Consequences," covers all or parts of 17 pages but the money quote is merely a joke, from the normally bland Bob Woodward. He quips that while insiders argue the fine points of special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's probe, those in the rest of the country "think Fitzgerald is the author of 'The Great Gatsby.'" Actually, the only jolt for some readers will come nearly halfway through when they read that the writer of the piece, Marie Brenner, is a good friend of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller-and even helped organize a farewell dinner for her just before she went to jail last year. The article, no surprise, is sympathetic to Miller, and Robert Novak, too, and against prosecutors going after information gained by journalists. With so little really new in the article, one thing that jumps out is the impact of blogs-principally The Huffington Post--on the Miller case. One interesting exchange occurred when Bill Keller, New York Times executive editor, allegedly told Miller back in 2003 that she would have to quit reporting from Iraq because she had become "radioactive….You can see it on the blogs." Miller claims she replied, "Why do you give a shit about the blogs? They do not know anything." (Brenner relates that Keller disputes this, saying he's "pretty sure" he never said any such thing.) Then Brenner quotes Miller complaining about the lack of editing on the blogs and that sometimes "slanderous" attacks on her appear there. But, actually, she is more "appalled" by her colleagues "who believed what they read on the blogs." But as time passed, Miller could not escape the blogs, principally Huffington, even though her attorney Floyd Abrams says, "No one takes this stuff seriously, do they?" At another point he refers to "the defamation that was running on the blogs." The article recounts a scene where another lawyer visits Miller in jail and hands her a clip from Huffington, saying, "You are going to be upset with this." In view of that attorney, Arianna Huffington and other bloggers were "passing off speculation as fact" or engaging in "pure character assassination." This was a problem because, as Brenner writes, Huffington's blog was "steadily gaining heft" and had "become must reading for the media." This became particularly troubling when "people at the Times appeared to be talking to Huffington." Brenner then quotes famed investigator Lowell Bergman as claiming that Huffington's idea that Miller was a White House collaborator "was a fantasy fed by the deep animosity of people toward Judy." For Brenner the question is, "Did partisan politics trump the First Amendment?" Only Bob Woodward claims to be immune from blog fever. He tells Brenner he doesn't look at them at all--unless an assistant directs him to something specific. Brenner's strongest new fact comes near the end when a Hearst Corp. attorney reveals that the company was served with 42 subpoenas relating to reporters in the last six months of 2005, eight times the number in the same period the year before. This is attributed to "Plamegate." Brenner then goes on to cite Judith Miller's reporter friends Lowell Bergman and David Barstow, who blame "Fitzgerald's mission and the agenda of the progressive left."

Injured by Cops: Sheehan Cancels Trip to Europe Associated Press 13 Mar 06 PARIS - Peace activist Cindy Sheehan has canceled a trip to Paris and other European cities because of injuries she allegedly sustained a week ago while being arrested in New York, organizers said Monday. "We had to cancel Cindy's trip because her doctor said she was not fit to travel," said Elsa Rassbach, of American Voices Abroad, one of the groups that organized the trip. She cited an arm injury and possible concussion. Sheehan, who gained international attention when she camped outside President Bush's Texas ranch to protest the war in Iraq, was to visit Paris on Monday, then travel to Strasbourg, France, to meet members of the European Parliament, and go on to two German cities. A pacifist group in the United States, Women Say No to War, had claimed that Sheehan was physically assaulted by security officers during the March 6 arrests following a march to the U.S. mission of the United Nations. Photos showed officers dragging Sheehan, with her shirt yanked up. Police said four women were arrested for criminal trespassing and resisting arrest. They were among about a dozen activists trying to deliver a petition to the U.S. mission of the United Nations urging a withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq. Sheehan has become the face of the anti-war movement in the United States following the death of her son in Iraq. She was to meet here with representatives of various French pacifist groups, said Arielle Denis, president of the Movement for Peace. British and American soldiers who opposed the war in Iraq were to accompany Sheehan on her visit, Denis said.

Nigeria: The Next Quagmire? By G. Pascal Zachary AlterNet March 14, 2006. If U.S. troops go to Africa, it won't be for a humanitarian intervention; it will be to protect American oil interests in the troubled Niger Delta. Africa's humanitarian needs -- today the pillage in Darfur, yesterday the famine in Niger -- dominate the headlines. Human suffering, from hunger to rape, also dominates the limited attention that Americans have for hearing about problems in the most troubled part of the world. Now that may be changing as an armed insurgency in oil-rich Nigeria threatens oil exports to the U.S. and raises the possibility that U.S. troops will dig into African soil in order to protect a resource deemed vital to American interests. In short, Nigeria might be the next Iraq. Putting American troops at risk in Africa would be a big change -- and speaks volumes about the new relationship between America and the sub-Saharan Africa. Ever since American troops were killed in Somalia early in the presidency of Bill Clinton, a firm rule of U.S. policy toward Africa has been to never put U.S. soldiers on African ground. For more than 10 years, American troops have studiously avoided intervening directly in African conflicts. This policy prevented the United States from trying to halt the genocide in Rwanda in the mid-1990s. More recently, this stance stopped the United States from using troops to restore order to Liberia. The policy may also stop the United States from sending troops to Nigeria. But maybe not, because the purpose of an intervention in Nigeria would be to protect American oil -- not save lives in a humanitarian spirit. Oil drives American foreign policy as never before, and the Middle East isn't the only troubled oil-producing region. Nigeria is already one of the top-five largest exporters of oil to the United States, and the country's oil-producing region, the Niger Delta, is beset with insurgencies and criminality, some of which is directed by factions in Nigeria's own government. Two Nigerian rear admirals were court-martialed last year for their part in the attempted theft of thousands of tons of Nigerian oil by an international crime syndicate operating in Russia and eastern Europe. Chevron and Shell, the two largest foreign oil companies operating in the Niger Delta, are targets of citizen rage, not the least because Nigeria's government has ignored social needs and political protest in the region for many years. Tensions are high, and disorder threatens to engulf the region. As the Council on Foreign Relations, a leading foreign policy group, observes in a new report, "The suppression of dissent in the [Niger] Delta, together with armed violence and the existence of armed militias, makes for a potentially explosive combination." Kidnapping of American oil workers is common. So are protests by local residents who say their needs are neglected even as Chevron and Shell reap huge revenues from oil. Most local people lack electricity, running water, decent schools for their children and job opportunities. Tensions flare between families and between ethnic groups forced to scramble for crumbs tossed by the oil companies, which routinely try to undercut social unrest by making small donations to local communities and hiring men for make-work jobs "guarding" pipelines. Perhaps most galling to people living in the Niger Delta are the frequent gasoline shortages caused by the Nigerian government's failure to refine enough crude oil to meet its own domestic needs. The simmering outrage felt by Delta Nigerians has deep roots. A decade ago, during a period of military dictatorship, protests against oil exploitation triggered a brutal government crackdown. The leaders of the protest were arrested and imprisoned. Some were executed, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, one of Nigeria's finest writers and a passionate advocate for social justice in the Niger Delta. Raising the stakes American dependence on Nigerian oil is anticipated to grow rapidly in the years ahead as new fields come online. In 2007, Nigeria expects to hold a presidential election. President Olusegun Obasanjo has not ruled out that he will run for office again, even though he has exhausted his two-term limit. U.S. officials have openly expressed dismay over the possibility of another Obansanjo election victory, saying he should abide by Nigeria's constitution and step down. The tangling between the United States and Obasanjo, coupled with the instability in Nigeria's oil region, has prompted private discussions in Washington about the wisdom of sending U.S. troops to sort out the situation. So far the Bush administration has said nothing publicly, but a new report on the future of U.S.-Africa relations, by the influential Council on Foreign Relations, calls for the U.S. to launch a "pilot program for interdiction and to curb (oil) piracy." Such a program might involve ships and personnel from the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard. Nigerians themselves are pondering whether they should invite U.S. intervention into the troubled Niger Delta. Late last month, Nigeria's vice president, Atiku Abubakar, told the Financial Times of London that the United States could provide more military assistance to his government. The Nigerian government is believed to want at least 200 patrol boats to guard the Delta against oil pirates and insurgents. The Financial Times has reported that the United States has provided only four old boats. In response, Nigeria has turned to China for military assistance. Last year, the Chinese, who have been scouring the globe for secure oil supplies, signed a deal to receive 30,000 barrels of oil a day from Nigeria. Insurgent attacks on oil operations have reduced output by 20 percent, and the threat of further conflict has raised oil prices globally. Nigeria is the world's eighth-largest oil exporter and a significant factor on the world market. The Nigerian government insists it plans to impose order on the restive region, but it has failed to do so in the past. These repeated failures lend credence to the possibility of U.S. military assistance, and even American troops on the ground. One restraint on any U.S. intervention in Nigeria: concerns that American troops on the ground, or even an expanded military alliance, might merely assist corrupt factions in the Nigerian government. There is also the danger that an American presence would provoke hostility from ordinary Nigerian citizens -- even if American soldiers were merely trying to rescue some of the American oil workers routinely taken hostage by Nigerian insurgents. "There's widespread fear among local people in the Niger Delta that the U.S. government is preparing a military strike force to attack insurgents and release kidnapped oil workers," notes Ike Okonta, a research fellow at the Department of Politics and International Relations at Oxford University. "This could turn out to be a disastrous venture," adds Okonta, who is the co-author of a book on oil conflict in Nigeria. "The Niger Delta is a vast and intricate maze of creeks and swamps, and the hostages could be secreted in any of these. Unless the U.S. military is able to pinpoint with accuracy where the hostages are being held, and are also able to mount a surprise rescue mission with speed and stealth, the insurgents could move the hostages to another location and, in retaliation, harm them." Okonta warns that an American military intervention into Nigeria could get bogged down, turning into an "African Vietnam," in which U.S. troops are pitted against both a hostile local population and a highly difficult terrain. Rather than a military move, the U.S. government should seek to broker a diplomatic bargain between the Nigerian government, oil companies and aggrieved residents of the oil-producing region. Such bargains are difficult to achieve, but the United States carries a big stick: the potential to make war in Nigeria to protect American oil sources. G. Pascal Zachary writes regularly about Africa. He has visited Nigeria's oil-producing region for Amnesty International.