Anti-war groups and other organizations, including a Quaker group - the American Friends Service Committee - protested after it became public that the military had monitored anti-war activities, organizations, and individuals who attended peace rallies.

"The U.S. military should not be in the business of maintaining secret databases about lawful First Amendment activities,'' said ACLU attorney Ben Wizner. "It is an abuse of power and an abuse of trust for the military to play any role in monitoring critics of administration policies.''

ACLU affiliates in Florida, Georgia, Rhode Island, Maine, Pennsylvania and Washington, along with more than two dozen activist groups, joined the lawsuit, which charges that the Pentagon is violating federal freedom of information laws by refusing to provide information on the database.

Pentagon officials did an internal review of TALON - or the Threat and Local Observation Notice - and concluded that it was an important tool in counterterrorism investigations. The review also found that as many 260 reports were improperly collected or kept in the system.

At the time, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said there were about 13,000 entries in the database, and that less than 2 percent either were wrongly added or were not purged later when they were determined not to be real threats.

The ACLU lawsuit argues that the organizations and individuals monitored by the Pentagon have a right to know what information the military has collected about them.

"Spying on citizens for merely executing their constitutional rights of free speech and peaceful assembly is chilling and marks a troubling trend for the United States,'' said Joyce Miller, assistant general secretary for justice and human rights of the American Friends Service Committee. "These actions violate the rule of law and strike a severe blow against our Constitution.''

Other countries where positive views dropped significantly include India (56 percent, down from 71 percent since 2005); Russia (43 percent, down from 52 percent); and Indonesia (30 percent, down from 38 percent).

In Turkey, a NATO ally of the United States, only 12 percent said they held a favorable opinion, down from 23 percent last year.

Declines were less steep in France, Germany and Jordan, while people in China and Pakistan had a slightly more favorable image of the United States this year than last.

The ebbing of positive views of the United States coincides with a spike in feeling that the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. This perception was shared by majorities in 10 of the countries surveyed, including Britain, where 60 percent said the world had become more dangerous since Saddam Hussein's removal from power in 2003.

Over the past year, support for the U.S.-led fight against terrorism also declined again, Pew found.

The latest declines came after a year in which anti-American sentiment had slightly receded, aided by good feeling over U.S. aid for tsunami victims and political progress in Iraq.

Many respondents distinguished between their largely negative feelings about President George W. Bush and their feelings about ordinary Americans. Majorities in 7 countries polled had favorable views of Americans, led by Japan, at 82 percent, and Britain, at 69.

But only in India and Nigeria did majorities express confidence in Bush. In Spain, just 1 in 14 respondents registered confidence in him, as did only 1 in 33 in Turkey, an important NATO ally.

After a tumultuous year in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the fight against terrorism is now backed by more than 50 percent only in Russia and India, while support has virtually collapsed in Japan, the poll found. In Spain, deeply affected by the March 2004 bombings in Madrid, a scant 2 in 10 people back the U.S.-led fight.

Pessimism about the future of Iraq was widespread. The polling, by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, was conducted in April and May this year - before the completion last week of the Iraqi government, or the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

All groups except Americans and Germans saw the U.S. presence in Iraq as posing a greater threat to world peace than the threat posed by Iran, which is pursuing a uranium enrichment program that the United States and other Western countries view as a prelude to developing its own nuclear weapons. Russians held that view by a 2-to-1 margin, and even the British did so by a narrow margin.

"Obviously, when you get many more people saying that the U.S. presence in Iraq is a threat to world peace as say that about Iran, it's a measure of how much Iraq is sapping good will to the United States," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center.

But as leading powers seek ways to contain the Iranian nuclear program, the poll found strong majorities in Western Europe, Japan, and India sharing underlying U.S. concerns. The percentage of people in Britain, France, and Spain who view Tehran as a threat has roughly tripled in three years.

Pew surveyed 16,710 people in Britain, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Turkey, and the United States. The polling was conducted from March 31 to May 14.

The success in Palestinian elections of Hamas, which the United States and the European Union consider a terrorist group, raised concerns. For the first time, Germans said that they sympathized with Israel more than with the Palestinians. Support for Israel rose in France, as well. But in Muslim countries, large majorities supported Hamas's victory.

The poll found people in most of the 15 countries unhappy with national conditions. But in China, amid continued vigorous economic growth, a striking 8 in 10 people said that they were satisfied with the way things were going. Slim majorities in Egypt, Jordan and Spain also expressed satisfaction.

After a year of immigrant riots and job protests in France, people in every country but one - the United States - said that they held dimmer views of the French. The number of Americans favorably impressed by France rose to 52 percent, up from 29 percent in 2003, when the French angered Americans by refusing to back the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq.

There was considerable agreement on Iran. More than 9 in 10 Americans, Germans, Japanese and French opposed Iran acquiring nuclear arms.

By sizable margins, they deemed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad untrustworthy, and said that if Tehran had nuclear weapons it would be likely to share them with terrorists and to attack Israel. Only 1 in 25 Spanish respondents expressed a lot or some confidence in the Iranian leader.

The picture was different in Muslim countries: Pakistanis, who take great pride in their own nuclear program, narrowly favored Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and more than 40 percent in Egypt and Jordan agreed. Muslim publics believed that Iran would use a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes.

In other areas, too, regional differences emerged. The Japanese were more than twice as likely to see North Korea as a threat as they were Iran. But in China, which shares a border and economic ties with North Korea, only 1 in 10 saw Pyongyang as a threat.

Despite the toll taken by the Iraq war, Americans appeared to be paying less attention than others around the world to controversies the war has engendered.

While 3 in 4 Americans said they had heard reports of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, substantially more West Europeans and Japanese - 9 in 10 - had heard about them.

Awareness of global warming was uniformly high in the industrialized countries, but concern about its effects was sharpest in Japan and India, with two-thirds of those polled in both countries expressing great concern. Awareness was lowest in the countries that are the greatest emitters of the greenhouse gases linked to warming - China and the United States - and only 2 in 10 people in those countries said they were very concerned about the problem.

Awareness of bird flu was nearly universal. The greatest alarm over the spread of the disease was in Asia, where the avian epidemic began, and in Africa. Only one American in 10 was very worried, and European levels were similarly low.

Americans' views of several other countries have improved, perhaps influenced by efforts at reconciliation between the United States and some of its Iraq war critics, and by increased cooperation on issues including Iran and North Korea.

"It runs counter to this notion that we've become xenophobic," Kohut said.

While ancient wartime grievances still reverberate between China and Japan, darkening each side's views of the other, two other historical foes, France and Germany, have highly favorable feelings toward each other.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, enjoys very high approval ratings not just at home - where 8 in 10 Germans support her - but in France, where nearly as many French do so.

And in a phenomenon troubling to Bush and his Republican supporters, war worries and high gasoline prices appear to be weighing on Americans' satisfaction ratings, even as many economic indicators have risen. While half of Americans expressed satisfaction with conditions at home in 2003, only 29 percent did so this year.

The Pew survey's margin of error was 2 to 4 percent in every country but Britain and Germany, where it was 6 percent. Kohut said the 6 percent margin, while high, was still valid in so broad a comparative survey.


WASHINGTON As the war in Iraq continues for a fourth year, the global image of America has slipped further, even among publics in countries closely allied with the United States, a new global opinion poll has found.

Favorable views of the United States dropped sharply over the past year in Spain, where only 23 percent now say they have a positive opinion, down from 41 percent in 2005, according to the survey, which was carried out in 15 nations this spring by the Pew Research Center. In Britain, Washington's closest ally in the Iraq war, positive views of America have remained in the mid-50s in the past two years, still down sharply from 75 percent in 2002.

Other countries where positive views dropped significantly include India (56 percent, down from 71 percent since 2005); Russia (43 percent, down from 52 percent); and Indonesia (30 percent, down from 38 percent).

In Turkey, a NATO ally of the United States, only 12 percent said they held a favorable opinion, down from 23 percent last year.

Declines were less steep in France, Germany and Jordan, while people in China and Pakistan had a slightly more favorable image of the United States this year than last.

The ebbing of positive views of the United States coincides with a spike in feeling that the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. This perception was shared by majorities in 10 of the countries surveyed, including Britain, where 60 percent said the world had become more dangerous since Saddam Hussein's removal from power in 2003.

Over the past year, support for the U.S.-led fight against terrorism also declined again, Pew found.

The latest declines came after a year in which anti-American sentiment had slightly receded, aided by good feeling over U.S. aid for tsunami victims and political progress in Iraq.

Many respondents distinguished between their largely negative feelings about President George W. Bush and their feelings about ordinary Americans. Majorities in 7 countries polled had favorable views of Americans, led by Japan, at 82 percent, and Britain, at 69.

But only in India and Nigeria did majorities express confidence in Bush. In Spain, just 1 in 14 respondents registered confidence in him, as did only 1 in 33 in Turkey, an important NATO ally.

After a tumultuous year in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the fight against terrorism is now backed by more than 50 percent only in Russia and India, while support has virtually collapsed in Japan, the poll found. In Spain, deeply affected by the March 2004 bombings in Madrid, a scant 2 in 10 people back the U.S.-led fight.

Pessimism about the future of Iraq was widespread. The polling, by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, was conducted in April and May this year - before the completion last week of the Iraqi government, or the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

All groups except Americans and Germans saw the U.S. presence in Iraq as posing a greater threat to world peace than the threat posed by Iran, which is pursuing a uranium enrichment program that the United States and other Western countries view as a prelude to developing its own nuclear weapons. Russians held that view by a 2-to-1 margin, and even the British did so by a narrow margin.

"Obviously, when you get many more people saying that the U.S. presence in Iraq is a threat to world peace as say that about Iran, it's a measure of how much Iraq is sapping good will to the United States," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center.

But as leading powers seek ways to contain the Iranian nuclear program, the poll found strong majorities in Western Europe, Japan, and India sharing underlying U.S. concerns. The percentage of people in Britain, France, and Spain who view Tehran as a threat has roughly tripled in three years.

Pew surveyed 16,710 people in Britain, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Turkey, and the United States. The polling was conducted from March 31 to May 14.

The success in Palestinian elections of Hamas, which the United States and the European Union consider a terrorist group, raised concerns. For the first time, Germans said that they sympathized with Israel more than with the Palestinians. Support for Israel rose in France, as well. But in Muslim countries, large majorities supported Hamas's victory.

The poll found people in most of the 15 countries unhappy with national conditions. But in China, amid continued vigorous economic growth, a striking 8 in 10 people said that they were satisfied with the way things were going. Slim majorities in Egypt, Jordan and Spain also expressed satisfaction.

After a year of immigrant riots and job protests in France, people in every country but one - the United States - said that they held dimmer views of the French. The number of Americans favorably impressed by France rose to 52 percent, up from 29 percent in 2003, when the French angered Americans by refusing to back the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq.

There was considerable agreement on Iran. More than 9 in 10 Americans, Germans, Japanese and French opposed Iran acquiring nuclear arms.

By sizable margins, they deemed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad untrustworthy, and said that if Tehran had nuclear weapons it would be likely to share them with terrorists and to attack Israel. Only 1 in 25 Spanish respondents expressed a lot or some confidence in the Iranian leader.

The picture was different in Muslim countries: Pakistanis, who take great pride in their own nuclear program, narrowly favored Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and more than 40 percent in Egypt and Jordan agreed. Muslim publics believed that Iran would use a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes.

In other areas, too, regional differences emerged. The Japanese were more than twice as likely to see North Korea as a threat as they were Iran. But in China, which shares a border and economic ties with North Korea, only 1 in 10 saw Pyongyang as a threat.

Despite the toll taken by the Iraq war, Americans appeared to be paying less attention than others around the world to controversies the war has engendered.

While 3 in 4 Americans said they had heard reports of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, substantially more West Europeans and Japanese - 9 in 10 - had heard about them.

Awareness of global warming was uniformly high in the industrialized countries, but concern about its effects was sharpest in Japan and India, with two-thirds of those polled in both countries expressing great concern. Awareness was lowest in the countries that are the greatest emitters of the greenhouse gases linked to warming - China and the United States - and only 2 in 10 people in those countries said they were very concerned about the problem.

Awareness of bird flu was nearly universal. The greatest alarm over the spread of the disease was in Asia, where the avian epidemic began, and in Africa. Only one American in 10 was very worried, and European levels were similarly low.

Americans' views of several other countries have improved, perhaps influenced by efforts at reconciliation between the United States and some of its Iraq war critics, and by increased cooperation on issues including Iran and North Korea.

"It runs counter to this notion that we've become xenophobic," Kohut said.

While ancient wartime grievances still reverberate between China and Japan, darkening each side's views of the other, two other historical foes, France and Germany, have highly favorable feelings toward each other.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, enjoys very high approval ratings not just at home - where 8 in 10 Germans support her - but in France, where nearly as many French do so.

And in a phenomenon troubling to Bush and his Republican supporters, war worries and high gasoline prices appear to be weighing on Americans' satisfaction ratings, even as many economic indicators have risen. While half of Americans expressed satisfaction with conditions at home in 2003, only 29 percent did so this year.

The Pew survey's margin of error was 2 to 4 percent in every country but Britain and Germany, where it was 6 percent. Kohut said the 6 percent margin, while high, was still valid in so broad a comparative survey.

Isn't it ironic that just this week the commanders in charge of forces in Iraq, after having suffered the painful blowback, the natural consequences, of having so punctiliously trained our children to kill, having trained them to reflexively disregard the rather inconvenient intrusion of an always present voice reminding one of the value of human life, have found it necessary to reverse the harm they have done, that they tighten the slack in their leash on the troops, that it might be better if soldiers did begin to think, did in fact begin to use their minds, before choosing to take the life of another human being. The new training program, technically referred to as "Core Warrior Values," an effort to enable soldiers to discriminate between who they should as opposed to who they should not be willing to kill; that is...... that it is proper for them to be chomping at the bits to kill the "bad guys," those armed with guns eager to kill them, but better for them to hold back a bit when it comes to the "good guys," women, children, the blind, and old men (especially those found to be sitting in wheel chairs). Something like training an American Pit Bull to viciously rip apart, that is, to devour, its prey, and then in midstream, amidst the chaos of an enraged battle, ensuring that the avenger will gently back off choosing to show mercy for those disinclined to fight back.

So many of our children, the vast majority of them Black, Hispanic, and poor, having been cajoled into joining the ranks of the military, all in order to support a country out to "right a world of wrongs." However, what these young folks are never told is that their primary job will be that of killing people, most often that of the enemy, but sometimes even those of their own buddies (during the first Gulf War nearly one out of four soldiers were shot and killed as a result of "friendly fire"). As part of their training (read: brainwashing) these young men and women will be taught: to stuff their conscience (to forget everything taught to them by their parents, elementary school teachers, preachers, priests, and/or rabbis); how to fire an automatic weapon with deadly accuracy; to loathe the adversary since such animosity will make it much easier to kill the enemy; and to trust the government, to have faith that once the soldier returns home all will be well, that all of his/her memories, the recollections of a buddy's head having been blown off, the old lady whose guts were splattered all over the wall, the insurgent who tried to smile as he lay dying on the street, and the little boy whose body he mistakenly blew apart while running to his mother arms, that the unending nightmares will simply vanish into thin air, for no reason other than the soldier's assurance that he did the right thing, that he was doing his duty, that he had done what he had been told to do, that he was simply following orders. However, what the soldier is never told is that as a result of having gone to war there is a reasonable likelihood that he will struggle until the day he dies with nightmares depicting the horrors of war, the unrelenting grief, bitterness and resentment, despair, depression, and the anger that will have taken possession of his life; a marriage in which his wife will never understand what he has gone through; attempts to keep a job amidst the chaos of a life still at battle within; and, if all goes awry, that of exile, soldiers having been banished for having found themselves unable to adapt to "the niceties" of a more civilized world, those damned to a world of losers, a sort of depository, a melting pot of homelessness for those who have given up on life.

Our children need to be told the truth. Our sons and daughters need to realize that choosing to be a soldier means a decision to place themselves among "the damned," since no matter what they end up doing while on the field of battle, they will eventually be damned...... damned if they do and damned if they do not. Realizing that compliance with a superior's order to shoot and kill the enemy may well lead to the damnation (the self-extirpation) of one's soul. On the other hand, noncompliance will lead to that of being court-martialed. However, regardless of the chaotic rigors of battle, regardless how terribly difficult it might be to figure out what one ought (or ought not) do, the lowest man on the totem pole, the grunt, rather than his superiors at the top, will be the one held responsible, the individual most likely to spend time in prison, and in some cases, the one most likely to be put to death for having killed an innocent victim. Of course, along with the fact that most recruits will never receive any educational benefits, that their training in the military is for the most part irrelevant to jobs in the civilian sector, that their military recruiter was always a salesman and never a friend, that he was nothing more than "an advanced grunt" trying desperately, and far too often dishonestly, to meet a quota set for him by a military needing more bodies to be placed on the battlefield, the military recruit needs to understand that he is "an expendable," that his life has little or no value whatsoever for those at the top, that he is nothing more than mere cannon fodder, a redundant grunt filling a slot on the "front lines" of battle enriching the military-industrial complex, a conglomeration of the transnationally rich, felons whose prosperity depends upon the promise of more wars to come!

Just yesterday I discovered that a new bill, HR 4752, The Universal National Service Act of 2006 (a fancy name for a bill that would bring back "the draft"), has been introduced to The House of Representatives. Because the United States government (meaning the Bush-Cheney administration) is on the verge of militarily invading Iran, a conflict that might well lead to all out war in the Middle East, the United States Congress is not taking any chances. Such a bill "on the table," and ready to be passed (enacted) when necessary, will authorize the United States government to once again initiate a military draft for each and every man and woman aged 18 to 42. Although most of the people I have discussed this matter with have told me that there is no way our government would reinstitute the draft since such would no doubt represent political suicide. And they are right. However, there is one thing that trumps the need to avoid political self-immolation, and that is the need to have an adequate supply of soldiers on the ground to fight the next war, the "Battle of Iran," a conflagration likely to draw in the remainder of countries in the Middle East, partisans who may well begin to realize that we, as a nation, had no business meddling in the affairs of the Middle East, no right to have sent our soldiers a world away in order to occupy that of another country.

Consequently, since the war in Iraq is no doubt illegal, it is destroying the social fabric of our people, the economic infrastructure of our nation, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the spreading of peace and democracy around the world, the fact that the president lied in regards to why we went to war, the conflict in Iraq has created a world of greater danger, our warring posture has given the world even more reasons to hate us, I am proposing that it is time for young folks to pull their heads out of the sand, that they come in from the dark, that they begin to pay attention, that they realize that their brothers and sisters have been used (more likely even, abused) by the government, that, before it is too late, they need to tell the military establishment that they will not go to war! Our youth need to understand the tremendous power they have, that war is simply not possible if they refuse to fight, if they make it clear that they will not take up arms. Because our country has become the world's leading producer as well as supplier of military weapons and technology, the world's primary advocate of war, a warmongering nation that requires the destruction of all who threaten its right to dominate the world, our children need not presume that they have a moral responsibility to support the military establishment. I realize that our time has not yet come, that the tipping point, that of the military draft, has yet to become a reality. But when forced conscription into the military becomes inevasible, I expect young people, at least those able to comprehend the significance of their place in history, to take a stand against the tyranny of war...... forces of evil cryptically embedded within the polity of a nation having gone wrong. I am calling upon the youth of this country to say no to war, to tell their leaders that they will not obey the government's request that they take up arms, that they will not go to war for the purpose of killing the enemy.


So many of our young folks have been brought up to believe that being a good person has something to do with that of having a good reputation, being liked by everyone, being held in high esteem by others, even that of being a patriotic citizen, but such has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that of being a truly decent person. I beg the young people of this nation to consider the ominous proposition that, as it was in the days of Nuremberg when the Nazis were held responsible for crimes against humanity, when the leaders of the German nation dressed their children "in brown shirts" reminding that they had a moral obligation (a national duty) to fight for the Fatherland, it will be the same for the leaders of our nation, as well as for those who blindly allow themselves to be coerced into fighting for our country, a nation having come under the nefarious control of malefactors convinced that our nation has been given the right, the God-ordained responsibility, to oversee the planet, to, in fact, rule the world.

So someday when you reach the end of your days, when you become rather old, and are no doubt ready to die, realize that no one (at least no one of any significance) will ever choose to ask if you were a good citizen, if you were a patriot, if you were loyal to your country. You will never be asked if you wore a uniform with distinction. The only thing for which you will be held accountable, by "those who count," is that of having chosen to become a decent human being, that of having chosen to live your life according to the laws of humanity (the principles of justice, peace, and love), the Law of God, which demands but one, and only one, thing........ that we love one another.

Doug Soderstrom, Ph.D. Psychologist

Charlie Grapski, a Democrat running for the Florida House of Representatives, was arrested in April after filing a lawsuit alleging that City officials abused power and influenced the outcome of an election by manipulating the absentee voting process. The story, however, does not start or end with election fraud allegations. What Grapski tells is a tale that one cannot imagine occurring in a law abiding country, one of false arrest, intimidation, and a crony-business system all centered around money interests.

Clovis Watson is not only the City Manager of Alachua county and, as such, the defendant in Grapski's lawsuit, he is also the Police Commissioner of Alchua, Florida, a town dominated by the Republican Party and pro-development Democrats. Watson, one website alleges, is funded by the Alachua County Republican Party, and declined to accept the Democrat of the Year Award because he is planning a switch to the Republican Party. The site also takes aim at Grapski.

According to Grapski, "Clovis Watson filed a sworn complaint as a police officer himself, and as City Manager he was the aggrieved party. As Police Commissioner, he was his own boss and accepted the sworn complaint from himself--and then instructed his subordinates on the police force to have me arrested."

Now, RAW STORY has learned, the Sheriff's office has announced that additional charges, including felony wiretapping, will be filed against Grapski and Michael Canney, a Green Party member who witnessed and videotaped Grapski's efforts to obtain public records.

In this exclusive interview with RAW STORY on June 11, 2006, Grapski reveals startling details of his situation and updates regarding an election outcome allegedly changed by absentee ballot manipulation. He also levels serious allegations of abuse of power by public officials, including officials linked to President George W. Bush's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Raw Story's Miriam Raftery: What was your background before you decided to run for public office?

Charlie Grapiski: I'm a political scientist and political theorist. I taught those topics at the University of Florida. I am finishing two doctorates, one in politics and one in law; that's a PhD in law, not a JD. I've been involved in local politics for a long time as an activist. I served on a campaign charter review board for the City of Gainsville.

RS: How did you become involved in election reform?

CG: I've been involved in election reform a long time and have been pushing for election reform through charter review board this year.

RS: Let's go back to April and what happened that that started all the troubles leading up to your arrest.

CG: On April 11th there was an election in the City of Alachua. That's part of my district that I'm running for. I went up to the polling location to meet people and get petitions signed and campaign for my candidacy. I knew of some problems in Alachua, but I didn't know how bad they were; people came to me with all sorts of concerns. I said "I'll stay around to watch the vote count on election night." So I went there and saw a number of violations of the law. This was at City Hall. The City officials conducted the elections themselves, which is problematic.

RS: What happened next?

CG: I began investigating this matter and speaking to other people who conveyed stories of their experiences in the election. What they were alleging is that city officials abused their authority and power and actually manipulated the election outcome through use of the absentee ballot process.

RS: How did they manipulate the absentee ballot process, in your opinion?

CG: More will come out this week, but in effect they improperly influenced citizens who cast absentee ballots and instructed them on how to cast them. This included Clovis Watson, the City Manager who is also the Police commissioner. He served on the canvassing board, which is supposed to be neutral, and he is the one who personally arrested me. Another one is Alan Henderson, the City Deputy Clerk, he acted as supervisor of elections for that election.

RS: Were they on the ballot themselves?

CG: No. They influenced the election for a guy named James Lewis. He won the election by 18 absentee ballots but lost it prior to the absentee ballots being counted. This was his election to his 40th consecutive commission. He was on the City Commission (like a City Council). Basically they went up and actively influenced voters on how to vote.

RS: Could that be legal campaigning?

CG: Not if you're a city official and an election official...I don't want to go into too much detail, but in the conduct of giving people ballots they were also engaged in telling them how to cast the ballots. We believe that this is not the first time that they have done this.

RS: Did they try to influence the general public, or are you referring to City employees?

CG: We know that one of the ways they did this was to the general public...people that work for the city are either part of the problem or they are afraid to stand up against it. The people in the City of Alachua are afraid of retaliation by the public officials and the police officials if they stand up to the government. People are literally afraid.

RS: What did you do that started the trouble you're facing?

CG: The first thing I did was I began investigating on my own and organizing and explaining to people what the law was, after the April 11 election. We began talking to others. I spoke to a law professor and former Mayor of Gainsville. His name is Joe Little. He said these are very serious problems and we need to do something about them. We met and discussed it, then I brought citizens of Alachua down to his office and we discussed what we knew. At that point we began interviewing people who were unduly influenced in the election. The things we found out were beyond your imagination. We have an amended complaint being filed this week (week of June 19, 2006).

RS: When was the earlier complaint filed?

CG: We filed a complaint April 23 against the city officials including the mayor and Clovis Watson.

RS: What happened after that?

CG: Later that week, what I began to do was review all of the records of the election to strengthen the case as we wrote up the filing and to document what we knew, to make sure we were correct in our allegations. On Thursday after filing the lawsuit I filed a formal public records request under Florida law with Alan Henderson (the City Deputy Clerk who is also Supervisor of Elections). He is required under law to have those documents ready every day by noon. I said I'd come in on Friday of that week to review the documents. I also knew that with a similar problem ten years ago, the City destroyed the records and told citizens they no longer existed.

RS: So you had reason to be suspicious?

CG: The City's normal approach even to City Commissioners they didn't like was to deny them the public records. So I went in on that Friday with a witness, Eileen McCoy, who was the sole plaintiff at the time, a resident of Alachua. A lot of people were afraid to put their name on the complaint, but she did. I brought my video recorder, because if the city was going to tell me lies or deny me records I wanted a record of that. So I walked in and I told Alan Henderson that I was recording him even though I didn't have to tell him, and he even talked to the recorder to make sure he was being heard clearly.

RS: Did he give you any records?

CG: He basically denied me the records. I said put it in writing and give me the reason you're denying access.' And he called the police!


RS: What was your reaction and what happened next? Were you surprised that the police were called?

CG: Whenever anybody comes to City Hall in Alachua and speaks up, they call the police force. Clovis Watson holds more than one office (City Manager/Police Commissioner/Clerk Canvassing Board Member). It's unlawful in state of FL to hold 2 offices....Then Clovis came in and began speaking; a few minutes into it said I notice you're recording me. He said "If I don't give consent, that's a felony." I said, "No, you can clearly see that I'm recording, two is that you're continuing to talk, and three is you're a public official engaged in public business." He actually wrote in a memorandum to the City Commission that he had no problem being recorded.


RS: So they arrested you?

CG: He didn't arrest me that day. He then said I could review the records Monday at 10:30. Over the weekend he e-mailed me asking for a copy of the tape. I said I'd consider it...He asked to be notified in advance if I planned to record him. I said "Be on notice that I will record all my transactions with you." I came in on Monday, began reviewing the records and in the middle of doing that he came out with a police chief and two armed officers and arrested me for what is a felony wiretap statute.

RS: Is that a state, local or federal statute?

CG: It's a state law intended to make wiretapping illegal. Clovis Watson filed a sworn complaint as a police officer himself, and as City Manager he was the aggrieved party, as police commissioner he was his own boss and accepted the sworn complaint from himself and then instructed his subordinates on the police force to have me arrested! All along, he is the defendant in the elections lawsuit we filed!

RS: What did the Mayor have to say about all of this?



CG: The Mayor (Jean Calderwood) had been appointed in the past by Jeb Bush. Her husband was the treasurer of the James Lewis campaign. She's also a defendant in the case. She's come out publicly in the newspapers over the weekend saying that she was in constant communication with Clovis Watson to arrange my being arrested...She said Clovis Watson did not go out on a limb alone, he was in constant communication with her...She said that in a letter to the editor of the newspaper editor.

RS: Can you send me a copy of that editorial?

CG: Yes, I will scan in that and some other documents.

RS: When was the arrest and what's the status of your case now?

CG: I was arrested May 1st in City Hall. There are photos online www.freealachua.org. A judge ordered my release by 5:00 that day. Someone in sheriff's office decided to hold me over and we had to wake up another judge at midnight to have the original judge's order [upheld].

RS: Did you have to post bail?

CG: I was released on my own recognizance.

RS: What's happened since then?

CG: It only got worse from there. I tried to get the records I'd been seeking. The city put obstacles in our way and refused to turn over the documents. Michael Canney, a member of the Green Party, came as a witness and saw me arrested. He then began filing public records requests himself to get access to records they've denied me Slowly but surely we began getting some documents....One that we've been asking for and still haven't given us is a log of requests for all the absentee ballots. They think we are requesting the log to find out who cast ballots so we could interview them. We already know who cast ballots and are in the process of interviewing them. We have another reason....But the City officials, Clovis Watson sent out a memorandum accusing us of intimidating voters and threatened to arrest us for that!

RS: On what grounds?

CG: When Michael received a list of absentee ballot voters, not the one we requested but another one, Clovis Watson sent a certified letter warning him about how he uses that list. They then put an ad in the newspaper for the last two weeks telling people who voted absentee that if we contact them, they should contact the city so they can take legal action!


RS: How many people voted absentee ?

CG: There were about 120 requests for absentee ballots, of which 107 were counted. Without all the records we can't say for certain anything.



RS: Were there people who say they turned in an absentee ballot request but their ballots weren't counted? In other words, do you have reason to believe there was any destruction of ballots?

CG: There was destruction of ballots, but in a different context. Now on May 15th I went into the City Commission; it decided to try to pass the conclusions of election in a consent agenda item, which is illegal. I went to that meeting and attempted to have them follow rules and law. They threatened to have me arrested that night. After that meeting, the Mayor sent a memo to Clovis Watson asking him to have me arrested.

RS: On what grounds?

CG: Saying I violated conditions of my release from jail by attending a meeting, they called it disruption. Of course my "disruption" was to basically make points of order, formal motions under the rules. That they called disruptive.

RS: Were you arrested again?

CG: No, but they were threatening to; it came very close. Last week the city commission met again. They thought I would be there but I wasn't there for other reasons. But the City had arranged to have a local TV station there and they were going to arrest me that night on TV. Clovis Watson, when he arrested me the first time on May 1st , sent out press releases to the media so it was a very staged event.

RS: How is the media responding? Is there any outrage?

CG: The Gainsville Sun, which is the biggest paper in town, their coverage hasn't been the best but they did run an editorial and a great editorial cartoon and they are very concerned about it. Now Hugh Calderwood, the mayor's husband and Stafford Jones the chairman of the Republican Party for Alachua County and the Republican Party of Alachua County has put up a website designed to attack me and draw a line in the sand for Alachua County, which they designate as a model of how a city should be run. See links on the www.freealachua.org site. The High Springs Herald has done the best job so far of reporting this. They have been reporting it weekly. Another, the Observer is not online but we'll be putting it up online today.

RS: Has there been any national coverage?

CG: The first national was in LA CityBeat on Thursday, an article by Andrew Gumbel, who wrote the book Steal This Vote.


RS: What's happening now?

CG: This week the Sheriff's office and the Sheriff, a guy named Steve Oelrich, a Republican running for the State Senate right now, on Friday I was contacted by the Gainsville sun and informed (because they alerted the newspaper and not me) that the Sheriff's office is filing two further complaints against me for unlawful taping. They are accusing me of felony violations of the law and now filing two charges against Michael Canney for videotaping. The irony of this of course, is that when I contacted the television news with videotape of one of the incidents that they (the officials) claim Michael violated the law by videotaping, Michael videotaped me audio taping Clovis Watson. But the television station was there too, videotaping. They showed this on the news, yet Michael and I are being charged with videotaping while the television station isn't--and they were there doing the exact same thing at the exact same time. That's how absurd this whole thing is.

RS: When will these charges be heard?

CG: The State Attorney's office has not formally charged us, but they've refused to drop the charges, so they are playing this game of harassment. They know the minute they drop the charges we will go on the offense and bring false arrest and civil rights charges. To make matters worse, the former state attorney who many in state attorney office work for is Rod Smith, a Democrat running for Governor. Rod Smith is from Alachua and he wrote Clovis Watson's dual office-holding contact.

RS: Is Clovis Watson a Republican?

CG: Clovis Watson is a Democrat who the Republican Party says on their website is coming over to the Republican Party. But Rod Smith is a player. There is another dimension to what's happening in Alachua County. The County of Alachua is one of the two Democratic voting areas in Florida; the rest of the state has gone Republican. The Republican Party has taken over the City of Alachua and basically opened it up for drive-through development. There are all kinds of land deals where these city officials and cronies are benefiting by development of land, including Rod Smith. We're talking a Wal-Mart distribution center, a Wal-Mart super-center and a Home Depot...They can't get these developed in Alachua County so they absolutely have control over some of these small towns. They are just opening doors for unrestrained growth and development - multi-millions of dollars changing hands.

RS: What is the party affiliation of the other key players?

CG: Henderson - I have no idea. He used to be a journalist I believe; ...I'm told he may have family relationship with one of key political players. Calderwood, the Mayor, is a Republican appointed by Jeb Bush; she also served on the water board which had to approve the development for all of this. Her husband, Hugh Calderwood, he and chairman of Rep. Party are putting all this stuff on the attack site openly under their own names now. It used to be done anonymously on blogs. Steve Oelrich, the Sheriff, is a Republican. Bill Cervone, State Attorney, is a Republican. He was assistant State Attorney under Rod Smith, the Democrat.


RS: So this is basically Republicans abusing power and causing these problems, except for Smith and Clovis, who's converting to become a Republican?

CG: There are some Democrats, old style southern Democrats who are very development oriented. As for Clovis being recruited by Republicans, I don't think there is any Democrat in the county who would miss him. If you see the free Alachua site, there are all kinds of charges of corruption within the police dept under Clovis, a number of allegations going on around that. When you start seeing the stories and documents it will blow your mind.



RS: How optimistic are you about the outcome of all of this, and what are the implications?

CG: If you can clean up one city, you can clean up the whole country. But if you can't clean up one city, we have no chance at the national level. I see a lot of significance in this one case, because it is a small example of what's going on nationally, and it's a lot easier to tackle corruption at the local level, which is the root and foundation of national problems. I'm confident in the end that in terms of justice, I know that what we are doing is on the side of justice. What these officials know is that they have the power and authority and they can abuse it with very little repercussions to themselves normally. They have a lot of power and resources. They are used to people being afraid to stand up....But as long as we keep fighting and pushing this issue, I believe in the end that we will prevail. But it's a struggle to do that. We have mounting legal bills and we are trying to raise money nationally to help with that. (see www.freealachua.org for how you can help).

RS: Do the officials there control the court system, too?

CG: It's very much a company town, and it all depends on what judge we get. Unfortunately, on our elections challenge case, we found that in another open records case a few months ago the judge completely ignored the law, and we've got that on appeal right now. This judge is Robert Roundtree, he is also a Bush appointee. He basically threw out with prejudice a lawsuit filed by the residents of the City of Alachua regarding this multi-million dollar land deal that was the basis of the Wal-Mart land deal with a company called Waco of Alabama. Their lawyer had medical problems at the time and missed a filing deadline and the judge, instead of reprimanding the lawyer, used that opportunity to throw out the case without ever hearing it on the merits, so we don't have a lot of faith in him. But there are other judges in town. The problem is that the more local you are, there is a culture among public officials...and they all have this unwritten rule to go after each other - so nobody polices the police and nobody holds to account public officials. They have nearly free reign in anything they do. There is one other factor. On the Alachua City Commission, and thus the boss of Clovis Watson, is a woman named Bonnie Burgess. She is running for the State House in the same State House race I am, as a developer-friendly Democrat. These people are supporting her run for that office as well - Clovis and the Calderwoods, the powers-that-be in the City of Alachua.


RS: When is your primary election:

CG: September fifth..

RS: Who else is in the race?


CG: There are three Democrats and one Republican, but this is a Democratic district, so they know that whoever wins the Democratic primary is going to win the race.

Ageis, which has a Pentagon contract in Iraq said to be worth £157m, said the film had been edited to mislead.

It said the man responsible for the film is now the subject of legal action.

Aegis said its own investigation, which was handed to the US Army's Criminal Investigation Division, had found that the incident shown on the film was within the rules on the use of force by civilian personnel.

The company says its rules of engagement "allow for a structured escalation of force to include opening fire on civilian vehicles under certain circumstances".

In the film, a man is seen leaning out of a speeding car with a machine gun, firing wildly at following civilian vehicles on a highway, hitting some of them.

The footage was posted on a website in November 2005 set up by contractors, but was eventually seen by a wider audience.

The US military investigation concluded that no-one should be charged with any criminal offence.

An Aegis spokesman said: "There was no evidence of any civilian casualties as a result of the incidents and the images published were all taken out of context."

Aegis head, Colonel Tim Spicer, said that it was "regrettable" that the contractor who filmed the event had "brought into question the high standards of behaviour achieved by our team in Iraq".

Its remit includes the protection of civilians and soldiers travelling in Iraq.