Sections on today's Signs Page:
Signs Editorials
Editorial: Signs Economic Commentary for September 25, 2006
Donald Hunt
Signs of the Times
September 25, 2006
Gold closed at 594.90 dollars an ounce on Friday, up 1.5% from $586.00 at the close of the previous Friday. The dollar closed at 0.7817 euros Friday, down 1.0% from 0.7895 for the week. The euro closed at 1.2792, compared to 1.2666 at the end of the previous week. Gold in euros would be 465.06 euros an ounce, up 0.5% from 462.66 for the week. Oil closed at 60.28 dollars a barrel Friday, down 5.1% from $63.33 at the close of the previous Friday. Oil in euros would be 47.12 euros a barrel, down 6.1% from 50.00 euros for the week. The gold/oil ratio closed at 9.87, up 6.7% from 9.25 at the end of the week before. In U.S. stocks, the Dow closed at 11,508.10 Friday, down 0.5% from 11,560.77 at the close of the previous Friday. The NASDAQ closed at 2,218.93, down 0.8% from 2,235.59 for the week. In U.S. interest rates, the yield on the ten-year U.S. Treasury note closed at 4.59% Friday, down 20 basis points from 4.79% at the close of the Friday before.
The manipulated nature of the economy is becoming more obvious lately, with the U.S. election-related sharp drop in oil prices - a drop taking place amid swirling rumors of an imminent U.S. bombing attack on Iran, an attack that will surely interrupt Persian Gulf oil shipping. Interestingly, if letters to the editor and water cooler conversations are any guide, many people in the U.S. see the oil price drop as an election-season ploy by the Bush regime and its allies in Big Oil. And, since an illusionary improvement in the economy will not be enough to counteract the foreign policy disasters of the neocons in the public mind, rumors are swirling as well about an October Surprise. As the saying goes, that can't be good.
But the drop has had its intended effect:
Economy Fades as Election Issue on Falling Fuel Costs
By Matthew Benjamin
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Plummeting gasoline prices and a buoyant stock market may be weakening the power of the economy as an issue for Democrats less than seven weeks before U.S. congressional elections.
A majority of Americans -- 54 percent -- say the U.S. economy is doing well, according to a new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll. That's up 4 percentage points from the beginning of August, when the price of a gallon of gasoline was an average of 54 cents higher and the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index was 4 percent lower. President George W. Bush's approval ratings on handling the economy also rose.
Almost 1 in 3 poll respondents said lower gasoline prices have enabled them to spend more on other household items.
"If there's any way that voters link economic uncertainty with what they experience on a daily basis, it's through what they feel at the gas pump," said Amy Walter, an election analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report in Washington.
According to Gary Dorsch, oil traders' feeling that war with Iran is not going to happen has helped to bring about weak oil prices. These traders have been looking at Europe for indications of an attack on Iran
Unwinding the $15 per barrel Iranian 'War premium'
The most influential driver behind the CRB's plunge since August 8th however, was the unwinding of the Iranian "war premium" which had inflated the price of crude oil by as much as $15 per barrel this year. Iranian negotiators have skillfully split the British, French and the German coalition away from the Bush administration's hard-line stance for economic sanctions against Iran.
Iran's rulers have always relied on the Russian and Chinese veto to any economic sanctions, but now there are signs the Europeans are also seeking a way out, once the moment of truth had finally arrived. On Sept 13th, British Foreign office minister Kim Howells waved the white flag, "I can't see a military way through this, and I'm not sure that even there's an easy way for the UN to impose sanctions," he told parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee.
Economic sanctions against Iran would jeopardize more than 10,000 jobs, the German Chamber of Commerce said on Sept 1st. "Economic sanctions against Iran would solve none of the political problems. But the German economy would be hard hit in an important growing market." France's oil giant Total is interested in a 10-15% stake in Iran's Azadegan, seen as one of the largest unexploited oilfields in the world, said head of exploration Christophe de Margerie on Sept 12th.
On Sept 18th, Norwegian energy and aluminum giant Norsk Hydro, signed an oil exploration deal with the National Iranian Oil Company for the Khorramabad block in southwestern Iran. "If exploration proves to be successful, the period of the agreement will be 25 years," Hydro said.
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani reportedly offered a 2-month suspension of Tehran's nuclear enrichment program in talks with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, which sent crude oil plunging below $66 per barrel. Still, there are questions of whether or not Iran's internal debate is over, and if the concession by Larijani is fully backed by the Ayatollah Khameinei and president Amadinejad in Tehran.
Without the imposition of UN sanctions or the threat of military action against Iran, crude oil succumbed to the laws of supply and demand. US stockpiles of crude oil were 327.7 million barrels last week, or 18% higher from two years ago, when crude oil was trading at $45 per barrel. Unleaded gasoline prices tumbled 65 cents a gallon since August 1st, and boosted US President George Bush's approval ratings by 3% to 41% last week, with seven weeks left before mid-term US elections in Congress.
OPEC, which supplies 40% of the world's oil, has been pumping 28 million barrels per day (bpd), since November 2004, when crude oil first touched a record $50 per barrel, but was unable to stop the surge in crude oil to a record $78.40 /bl in July 2006. But with a bearish market mood and unwinding of the Iranian "war premium", crude oil traders seized upon OPEC's Sept 11th pledge to leave its output unchanged at 28 mil bpd, and dumped oil to as low as $62 per barrel on Sept 15th.
Crude oil traders are beginning to view the Bush team as a paper tiger in dealing with Iran. Other traders think the gloves will come off after the US Congressional elections on November 7th, when whispers of a US military adventure could grow louder. In any case, China's crude oil imports rebounded 15% to 11.8 million tons in August, which could put a floor under the market at $60 /barrel.
Of course, oil traders may have made the mistake of ascribing rational calculations to those who would be ordering the bombing of Iran. Colonel Sam Gardiner, in a recent paper for the Century Foundation reminds us that the Bush/Neocon decision-making process does not use the usual standards of self-interested diplomacy:
Unfortunately, the military option does not make sense. When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense - that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran.
We have written about the puzzling nature of gold in financial markets. Gold is both a commodity and a currency. Lately, since the U.S. dollar has been holding its value, gold has acted more like a commodity, dropping along with other major commodities. But the drop seems to have found its bottom lately with downward pressures from general commodity markets counterbalanced by upward demand pressures. Here's Gary Dorsch in "What's behind the Meltdown in the Commodity Markets:"
Gold Tumbles Under $600 /oz
Gold tumbled under $600 per ounce last week, in line with a weaker crude oil and CRB index, telegraphing lower headline inflation in G-7 oil importing countries in the months ahead. Gold has also been pressured by fears of by European central bank sales ahead of a Sept 26th fiscal year-end that limits sales to 500 tons per year. So far, European central banks have only sold an estimated 340 to 360 tons this year.
With central bankers coordinating their tightening moves, there has been little volatility in the foreign exchange markets to influence the price of gold. Instead, gold traders are focusing on crude oil and other key industrial commodities for clues about the future direction of inflation. Supporting the gold market however, is speculation of eventual Chinese central bank diversification into gold. Only 1% of China's $954 billion of foreign currency reserves are held in the yellow metal.
The US current account, the broadest measure of trade with the rest of the world, includes both trade in goods and investment flows, widened in the second quarter to $218.4 billion, and remains a major risk for the global economy. The US deficit totaled 6.6% of gross domestic output, the same as in the first quarter. That compares with China's current account surplus of 7% of GDP.
With pressure mounting on Beijing to revalue it yuan upwards, China could quietly build a gold position in a declining market. Fan Gang, a member of China's central bank monetary policy committee said on August 29th, "The US dollar is no longer a stable anchor in the global financial system, nor is it likely to become one, therefore it is time to look for alternatives."
We can probably expect weak gold and oil prices until the October Surprise, whatever it turns out to be and whoever is directing it. Be that as it may, if commodities are dropping in anticipation of reduced industrial demand, then why are stocks doing so well? According to Michael Nystrom stocks are reacting to one thing only: interest rates. Nystrom makes a useful distinction between the real economy (the economy of those who make things) and the financial economy. The real economy is doing very poorly in the United States, while the financial economy has been fine.
Imminent Decline Dead Ahead
A number of factors are converging this week that I think will lead to a substantial reversal. While I normally don't like to go out on such a limb, there are enough factors lined up this time that I think it is warranted, and if I am wrong, it should be immediately obvious. This week is do or die time for the market.
Ford's Example Let's start off by looking at the chart of the Ford Motor Company. Last Friday, Ford announced big news and the stock got killed - down almost 12% in one day! The price action in Ford, I think, is a preview of what we're going to see going forward in the general stock market.
Since mid July, Ford's stock rallied over 50%. It was an impressive gain, but the price action was purely technical: It was a standard short-covering rally with prices advancing steeply over a short period of time on very little volatility. There was a jittery drop in mid-August but a quick recovery and resumption of the steady upward progress, culminating in a two-day price explosion just before Friday's big bomb.
Why did Ford rally? For the past several years, and certainly through the entire recent rally, the situation at Ford was grim and getting worse: The company was/is/has been losing market share, losing money, has high costs, the wrong products, etc, and everyone knew it and had known it for years. There had been no change in Ford's fundamentals. The fuel for the brief, sharp rally was therefore provided by bears who were short and got caught in a typical short squeeze. In this case, the squeeze culminated in a mini buying panic that sent the stock up nearly 9% in just two days before the big drop on Friday.
The funny thing in this case is that Friday's sharp drop was precipitated by news that Wall Street usually likes: Ford is laying people off, slashing jobs, slashing salaries, cutting costs and closing plants. Under Wall Street's standard logic, what is bad a company's employees is usually good for its stock price. (In this instance, however, Ford is also suspending its dividend, which is very bad for shareholders and a sign that things are very grim indeed.)
Parallels to the General Market
Now I'd like to look at the lessons that Ford holds for the overall market, represented by the S&P 500 cash index. Like Ford, the SPX has had a decent rally from mid July to present - close to 8% - while the news for the real economy has been getting progressively worse. The housing market is really slowing down, the trade deficit just hit a record high, and corporate layoffs are surging. We've had no fundamental change in this story, and in fact things appear to be getting worse.
But while the real US economy - the economy that is involved in making things - seems to be on the ropes, the financial economy - the one that is involved in using money to make more money - seems to be doing just fine, as measured by a single indicator: Interest rates. They're coming down. And the most recent data indicates that the Fed is done raising them. This single factor is the primary impetus behind the current rally. It is what has gotten the ball rolling, and short covering is taking care of the rest. But to see how this one is going to end, just refer back to the Ford chart above.
Look at the shape of the most recent rally, from the July lows. From a classical technical analysis perspective, this is called a rising wedge. From p. 189 of Edwards & Magee's technical analysis classic, we learn that:
Once prices break out of the Wedge downside, they usually waste little time before declining in earnest. The ensuing drop ordinarily retraces all of the ground gained within the Wedge itself, and sometimes more (p.189)
From an Elliott Wave perspective, this is called a rising diagonal or an ending diagonal:
An ending diagonal is a special type of wave that occurs primarily in the fifth wave position at times when the preceding move has gone "too far too fast," as Elliott put it...In all cases, they are found at the termination points of larger patterns, indicating exhaustion of the larger movement." (EWP , page 36) Furthermore, "A rising diagonal is bearish and is usually followed by a sharp decline retracing at least back to the level where it began." (EWP, p.39)
To make matters even worse for the bullish case, the index is right at resistance provided by both the upper end of the diagonal, but also by the recent May highs. Sustaining an advance beyond this resistance will not be easy. And Friday's price action was weak: The market hit its high in the first hour of trading, then spent the rest of the day giving back its gains. Based on the indicators I look at, this market is overbought at multiple levels of trend: monthly, weekly, and daily. Like with Ford, all it needs now is a trigger to set it off.
Talk about a "trigger" brings us right back to the October Surprise.
... But what about the price of oil, you ask? Since it's falling, isn't that fundamentally bullish for the market? And since interest rates are falling, won't the housing bubble be able to reflate? The short answer is, no. Falling oil prices reflect falling demand, which signals a recession. And yes, the housing market may see a second wind due to falling interest rates, but it is likely to be no more than a dead-cat bounce. The top is already in.
CEO's, in their capacity as managers of the real economy, that is, and not as participants in the financial economy, see recession ahead:
CEOs grow pessimistic about outlook
Business Roundtable index falls to lowest mark in three years
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
Sep 18, 2006
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Chief executives at major U.S. corporations are more downbeat about prospects for the economy than at anytime in the past three years.
The Business Roundtable CEO economic outlook index fell to 82.4 in the third quarter from a reading of 98.6 in the second quarter. This is the lowest level since July-September 2003 for the survey, which had averaged 97.6 over the past year. Read full survey.
Seventeen straight interest-rate hikes engineered by the Federal Reserve as well as higher energy costs are beginning to slow growth, said Harold McGraw, chairman of the Business Roundtable and chairman and CEO of McGraw-Hill Cos.
Of those CEOs surveyed, 39% said they anticipate increasing their capital spending in the next six months, while half see no change in their spending plans and about 11% expect to cut their capital spending,
CEOs see "a much-slower second half that will logically continue into next year," said McGraw during a teleconference with reporters.
The nation's softening housing market has also been a burden, he said.
"The overall picture for the economy in the months ahead remains a bit unclear," in light of mixed variables, McGraw said.
Energy prices "remain the wild card." There has been some improvement in energy prices, but prices seem to be event-driven, he noted.
The biggest concern for big companies is the impact of energy costs and other inflationary pressures on profits.
There was a mixed response to a special survey question asking CEOs to assess if their companies are able to pass along higher energy costs.
Only about 21% of the companies said they have been able to pass increased energy prices to along their customers, while another 33% of CEOs said they were only partially able to pass along these increases.
The Mainstream Media also see problems ahead for stocks due to the clear bursting of the housing bubble:
Can Wall Street withstand weak housing?
Some experts say real estate slump may spell trouble for equities
Peter Coy
BusinessWeek Online
Sept 19, 2006
If your nest egg is made of 2-by-4s and you're watching the real estate slowdown with a mixture of fear and nausea, then this article is for you.
The question: If real estate tanks, will stocks follow? Or will the market ignore housing? Or maybe - just maybe - will a decline in housing trigger a rise in stocks? It's something you really ought to think about if you're trying to figure out where to put your money.
Conventional wisdom, and some historical evidence, suggests that a decline in housing is associated with a fall in stocks. Evidence of a slump continues to mount: On Sept. 18, the National Association of Home Builders said its monthly sentiment index fell to a 15-year low. And on Sept. 19, the Commerce Dept. said that housing construction fell 6 percent in August to its lowest level in three years - an annual rate of 1.67 million starts.
"If that's not meltdown, it's pretty close," Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist of High-Frequency Economics, said in a research note. The prospect of stocks plummeting at the same time housing falls into a slump is bad for homeowners, because it means no port in the storm. But the case isn't completely closed: There's some tantalizing counter-evidence that stocks might do just fine in a housing downturn, or even benefit from it.
Time lag
Let's start with the main, bearish case. Making the rounds of investment advisers is a chart prepared by Merrill Lynch showing the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index overlaid on an index of homebuilding activity from the National Assn. of Home Builders. The chart shows that the S&P 500 goes up one year after the homebuilding index goes up, and goes down one year after the homebuilding index goes down. (The correlation is 0.8, which means it's pretty strong.)
The scary part: The homebuilding index has plunged over the past year. If you believe that history repeats itself, the S&P 500 is about ready for a nosedive.
Another chart - this one from InvesTech Research - correlates changes in private residential construction with recessions. Going back to 1968, it shows that with just one exception, every time there has been a downturn in residential construction, a recession has occurred at the same time or shortly after. (The exception: 1995.) That indicator, too, is flashing red, because residential construction has shrunk over the past year.
"Being a student of history, I would think I would want to play it very cautiously from a stock standpoint," says Standard & Poor's Chief Investment Strategist Sam Stovall.
Wealth effect
It makes some sense that a housing slump would be bad for stocks. First, there's the direct effect on jobs in construction, real estate brokering, mortgage lending, and so on. Goldman Sachs estimates that housing and related industries account for nearly 10 million jobs (payroll and nonpayroll combined).
Second, consumer spending has been buoyed by the housing boom. People spent more freely because they felt wealthier and because they turned their homes into piggy banks through home equity loans, cash-out refinancing, and other means. Take away jobs and consumer spending, and it's no wonder that many experts expect a housing slump to hurt stocks.
By this view, stocks aren't a good choice right now. What, then? Barry Hyman, equity market strategist for EKN Financial Services, says that the same rising rates that have squeezed housing have given investors a nice alternative: money market accounts, which are yielding better than 4 percent, and bank certificates of deposit, some of which yield 5 percent or more.
'Down But Not Out'
Super-bears on housing have different advice. John Talbott, author of the none-too-subtly titled "Sell Now! The End of the Housing Bubble," recommends avoiding not only the stock market, but banks, too, since lots of banks could be hurt by lax mortgage lending standards.
But not everyone is convinced that housing will crush stocks. Why? Some figure that the housing slump won't be severe or prolonged. Robert DiClemente of Citigroup argues that the adjustment to a slower rate of sales is well under way. He says that the issuance of building permits is actually 10 percent below the rate of new-home sales. This process "will clear the overhang of houses within the next six to nine months," DiClemente predicts in a recent research note. The headline on his report: "Down But Not Out."
Others say it's too soon to declare the stock market dead because of housing. "Summing it up, I'm in the camp that says I don't know and the jury is still out," says Jeffrey Saut, equity strategist for Raymond James Financial.
Back to the future
Then there are the outright optimists. Bob Carey, chief investment officer for First Trust Advisors in Lisle, Ill., says that the stock market is 20 percent to 25 percent undervalued at current levels and should reach full valuation by sometime next year, which means: Get ready for a heck of a bull market. Carey says the demand for housing is driven by incomes and jobs, and since corporate profits are extremely strong, the outlook for income and job growth is good. Says Carey: "It's hard to imagine Corporate America doing well and somehow people not doing well on the employment side."
Carey has seen Merrill Lynch's chart showing a tight correlation between homebuilding and the S&P, but he says the pattern dates back only a decade or so. Before then, there was very little correlation, and he says the economy might return to that older pattern.
It's also possible that the housing slowdown could prod the Federal Reserve into cutting interest rates, which could boost stocks. Maybe, too, speculative investors will go back to dabbling in stocks instead of real estate, the way they did before the dot-com bubble burst and the real estate boom began.
Clearly the bulls have been vastly underestimating the consequences of a housing bust. Here's Michael Shedlock:
No Hard Landing
Monday, September 18, 2006
I have it on great authority that there will not be a hard landing in real estate.
Who told me that? It was none other than Mike Morgan at MorganFlorida. Please listen in to what Morgan has to say.
Mike Morgan:
Will there be a hard landing? No!
Will there be a crash landing? Absolutely!
Despite September's short covering of home builders and value buyers trying to cash in on low P/Es and stocks selling at or below book value, a hard landing is now out of the question. We're in for a market crash. Read between the lines, or read actual comments for content.
Here's what Robert Toll, CEO of Toll Brothers said at the Credit Suisse conference. "The market got ahead of itself in recent years, citing "greed on the part of buyers and sellers, and that the current level of speculative inventory is probably the largest ever."
And how about Don Tomnitz, CEO of D.R. Horton. "We have never seen housing prices and demand slow as quickly as they have during this down cycle."
Take it a step further and look at the statistics. Never before have we seen inventories at these levels. Recently NAR finally admitted home price are coming down. Never before have we seen home prices fall. And RealtyTrac just announced that foreclosures are up 53% from a year ago.
For those "value investors" buying the home builders because the P/Es are so low, I ask, "What happens when there are no earnings?" And for those "value investors" buying for the book value, I ask, "What happens when the builders take massive write downs to land, and burn up cash with carrying costs of unsold inventory?"
But that's not even the heart of the current problems. For the last two weeks I've been receiving daily calls from desperate mortgage brokers, real estate attorneys, insurance brokers, title companies and subcontractors looking for deals and work. This week I spoke with a real estate attorney closing his office and returning to the corporate world. And several of the smaller builders have called me offering triple commissions to entice sales of their inventory. It doesn't end there.
Who will the housing crash effect? Everyone. Real estate agents will be first. As a group, they've made a ton of money during the housing boom, and they've spent millions on new cars, vacations, restaurants, clothes, and everything else that comes with excessive discretionary income. That's over now. Agents are not buying the luxury items that helped feed the economic boom, and they are cutting back on business spending like advertising and marketing. That hits the vendors and newspapers revenues.
Take it a step further. With sales off 50% and more, all of the industries that have benefited from the boom, will suffer loss of revenue and jobs at accelerated rates and massive proportions. Home builders and condo developers have been announcing cancellations of projects and cut backs in spec building. The flippers fed the housing boom, and they're washed up right now. In fact, they are making the crash much worse than it should have been.
Many flippers bought multiple properties. When in the history of the world have we ever seen the housing industry conduct business like a stock exchange. We had bidding wars. We had lotteries on new developments, just like we had allocations for new tech offerings during the late 90's. And just like the tech boom, the buyers were not making decisions based on fundamentals. Take a look at the recent Vonage offering, where buyers don't want to pay for their stock, because the price dropped after the public offering. The same thing is happening in the housing market, with thousands of buyers walking away from deposits, refusing to close on homes. That adds to the woes of the builders.
And just like we saw a tech crash with everyone rushing to sell, we're now just starting to see flippers dump properties for 200-400% losses on their deposits. Add to the woes, the fact that interest rates are up and most flippers bought using creative financing and low rate ARMs.
But this is all old news for us. The other shoe is dropping now. Loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs created from housing will act like a virus and spread throughout our economy. As real estate agents, attorneys and mortgage brokers reign in their spending, it will effect restaurants, car dealers, advertising companies, jewelers, remodeling contractors, furniture manufacturers, bank profits, electronic retailers, clothing and the list goes on and on and on.
As the primary players are effected, and they cut back on spending, so will the secondary players in this market. These companies will be forced to lay off employees, and the cycle will grow like a virus. Is that it? Not a chance.
The housing market benefits most when rates are low and jobs are being created. With rates rising and job loss skyrocketing, the affordability index for homes drops in step. The buyers that are still in the market can not afford the same home they could a year ago. On average, with the rise in interest rates, the buyer that could afford a $500,000 home a year ago, can now only afford a $425,000 home. But with the loss of jobs growing, there are fewer buyers that can afford the $425,000 home and many existing homeowners that can no longer afford to make their monthly mortgage payments.
So now we have a third group of sellers scrambling for the ever dwindling buyers'
market. You've got the flippers desperate to sell. You've got the builders stuck with inventory of unsold homes, and now you have the group of sellers that are being foreclosed or simply decide to sell because they can no longer swing the monthly mortgage payments after losing their jobs.
Nonsense? Hardly. I spoke with a real estate agent the other day that has not sold a home in three months. His wife works for a title company and was just laid off. He's now sending out applications for a job in his former field of banking. Lots of luck. He's been out of the field for five years, and he's 54 years old. They have two kids in college and a hefty mortgage. Oh, by the way, did I mention they own three flip properties that they can't sell.
How about the attorney that is closing his office and returning to the corporate world. He's laying off six people in his office. And how about the builder that called me this week. He employs about a dozen people, as well as a small army of subcontractors. He's closing up, and he has unsold inventory that he cannot sell at a profit. That means the dozen employees are out of work, and his army of subcontractors are out of work for the first time in four years.
And how about my office. I've decided to lay off one of my team members. She's a single Mom, but as much as it hurts to break the news to her, I have no choice. If things don't pick up within the next 30 days, I will be forced to lay off a second team member. When you do the math, the choice is survival. It doesn't end there. Realistically, if things do not pick up within 90 days, I will close my office and concentrate on my other businesses. This is reality, and you're hearing it from the horse's mouth.
Multiply these four scenarios by thousands and you have a crash. A hard landing is out of the question at this point. The economists should be talking about how devastating the crash will be.
...When we last talked we were both laughing about the Senate Hearings on the Housing Industry. All of the negative comments were sugar coated. Both of us think this is the tip of the iceberg. This mess is going to spread to subprime lenders, mortgage companies offloading mortgages to pension plans, and all sorts of other fiascos that neither of us can clearly see at the moment. Senate hearings have just begun.
The USA Today is reporting More fall behind on mortgages.
Calls to the Homeownership Preservation Foundation, which provides free credit counseling, hit a record 2,464 in August, a 25% jump over July. More than half of the distressed callers had ARM loans.
"It's alarming. It really is," says Pam Canada, executive director of the NeighborWorks Homeownership Center in Sacramento. Her non-profit counseling center used to receive two or three calls a week from homeowners in financial quicksand; now, it's 20 a week.
More homeowners with shaky credit are falling behind on their mortgage payments, especially in such states as Ohio, Alabama, Tennessee, Michigan and West Virginia, where job losses have struck the local economies, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Wednesday.
The problem is the worst for those with subprime credit who pay higher-than-usual interest rates and who have adjustable loans that have been resetting to higher rates. About 12.2% of such borrowers were late paying their loans in April through June, the highest level since the end of 2003.
In Ohio, which has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs, the foreclosure process was already underway for 11% of homeowners with subprime ARMs - the nation's highest rate. In California, which had the nation's highest number of risky ARM loans, delinquency rates are still near historic lows. "There's no place to go but up," says Doug Duncan, the MBA's chief economist.
Foreclosures and delinquencies have "no place to go but up". That is the key message that Morgan, Duncan, and I have been saying for quite some time. No, there will not be a hard landing. We will crash.
Another major economic storm on the horizon is the future of the China boom.
Is China on the Brink? - and Why It Matters for the United States
September 18, 2006
Thomas Au
China is now feeling the strain of almost a decade of torrid growth. Although there are plenty of worrisome signs, the conventional wisdom is that things will be fine through the 2008 Olympics. I have a slightly different view of the timing of a pullback in that country's economy, which could be especially bad, given likely upcoming developments in the United States (and elsewhere in the world).
One example of prevailing opinion is that of James Jubak, a street.com guest columnist, who thinks that the Chinese economy is headed for "a train wreck," having just passed "the point of no return." Cheap U.S. money, operating through China's mammoth trade surpluses and dollar reserves, has fueled a steroidal double-digit GDP growth that has even the local authorities worried. The result is that key industries such as cement and steel are seeing profit plunges because of price pressures caused by overcapacity. This is spreading to a number of areas, mainly the commodity producers dominated by state-owned-enterprises (SOEs), many of which are bankrupt in all but name, and are propped up by outstanding bad loans from state banks.
I disagree with Jubak about one important thing though, in my belief that the crisis in the Chinese economy will not take place in 2009, after the Olympics as Jubak opines; it will take place before, in late 2007 or early 2008. What has been driving the Chinese economy is not the 2008 Olympics per se, but rather the anticipation of the Olympics, which will mostly end in 2007. The infrastructure buildup in advance of the hosting of the games has been giving a one-time artificial, and foreign-based, stimulus to the economy, creating a gap that domestic demand cannot fill. By early 2008 on the other hand, investment for the Olympics will be winding down, as attention turns to last-minute fine-tuning of the event itself, likely causing a sharp drop in aggregate demand at that time. And markets often move on anticipation of major events, not necessarily on the events themselves. ("Buy on rumor, sell on news.")
Jonathan Laing raised some related concerns in a recent Barron's article. Runaway development is creating massive environmental problems, including calling into question the safety of air and water in much of the country. China needs five to six times as much energy to produce a dollar of GDP as the United States, so its energy use is now starting to approach ours, despite the vastly larger GDP stateside. And more of China's energy is from pollution-creating coal. And there have already been spot shortages of essential commodities such as water and electricity. Given the country's overloaded infrastructure, it wouldn't take all that much to bring about a general shortage. Either this, or environmental problems, could quickly halt, rather than merely slow, growth.
In fact, one important question is how large is the size of the black hole of bad loans to SOEs, meaning how costly is it to keep the country more or less fully employed, thereby dampening social unrest. The official estimate of such bad loans is about $200 billion, an unpleasant, but manageable amount. But Ernst and Young did a study that initially pegged the true figure as closer to $900 billion, roughly the size of China's foreign exchange reserves (the world's largest), before the firm withdrew its findings under heavy pressure from the Chinese government. And as we learned from a painful experience with a company called Enron, America's accounting firms tend not to overestimate the magnitude of problems. My guess is that China's bad loans are north, rather than south of $1 trillion.
Moreover, there is widespread corruption at the banks that lend to the SOEs; officials at China's second and fourth largest state banks were recently arrested for embezzlement and fraud. Less dishonest, but only slightly less troubling problems include the lack of underwriting standards and regulatory oversight, because of the banks' social mission to prop up the SOEs, which provide the largest proportion of China's jobs (because the private sector is more efficient, and hence less labor intensive).
Moral hazard is clearly at work, as rapid growth encourages a "get rich quick" mentality, causing people to cut corners and bend the rules, creating widespread discontent among the hundreds of millions of people who are not participating in, and are fact harmed by, the recent "economic miracle." This is causing protests, riots, and other events that threaten social stability. In order prevent the details from getting out, China is passing laws forbidding the divulging of "government secrets," particularly those about natural or other disasters, especially when reports about bureaucratic incompetence are involved. Even printing a critical article like this one, while legal in the United States, might soon be illegal under evolving Chinese law. When a government goes out of its way to suppress the truth (as it did in the former Soviet Union), it is a sign that the truth is probably too bad to tell.
All this wouldn't seem so critical if it weren't for the fact that I believe that the United States will have a recession in 2007. This would be a result of our own, somewhat milder version of China's problems, which would start with the impending bursting of the consumer bubble (particularly in housing) caused by the Fed's earlier easing and more recent tightening. Under ordinary circumstances, the U.S. economy should begin a comeback in 2008, after a cleansing period, although whether that would be enough to elect a Republican President would be very much open to question. (The muted 1992 recovery from the 1990-91 decline was not enough to re-elect George Bush Sr.)
But the timing and degree of a prospective Chinese crash raises the stakes. In 1931, the United States was in a recession that then-President Herbert Hoover reasonably thought would soon end. The impending recovery was derailed by the collapse of the German economy, then the second most important in the world, not only because of its sheer size, but because of its connections to other countries in Europe. China's economy plays a similar "second most important" role today because of her ties in Asia and elsewhere, and because its swings are larger than those of other, nominally larger, economies such as those of Germany and Japan. If a collapse of the Chinese economy comes hard on the heels of a deep U.S. recession in 2007-2008, the result could be a prolonged slowdown of global growth such as we saw in the 1930s.
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: A Courageous Man Speaks Out - Hugo Chavez Was In Rare Form at the UN
by Stephen Lendman
Hugo Chavez chooses his authors, political and social thinkers well, and there's no one better than Noam Chomsky. In his dramatic and courageous speech yesterday to the 61st UN General Assembly, Chavez held up a copy of Chomsky's 2003 book Hegemony or Survival (which I've read and quoted from before). In the book, Chomsky cites the work of Ernst Mayr whom he describes as "one of the great figures of contemporary biology." Mayr noted that beetles and bacteria have been far more successful surviving than the human species is likely to be. He also observed that "the average life expectancy of a species is about 100,000 years" which is about how long ours has been around, and he went on to wonder if we might use our "alloted time" to destroy ourselves and much more with us. Chomsky then noted we certainly have the means to do it, and should it happen, which he says is very possible, we likely will become the only species ever to have made itself extinct.
Hugo Chavez also could have explained what Chomsky had to say about this possibility in his most recent book, Failed States, in which he addresses the three issues he feels are most important - "the threat of nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the fact that the government of the world's only superpower is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of (causing) these catastrophes." Chomsky goes even further raising a fourth issue that the "American system" is in danger of losing its "historic values (of) equality, liberty and meaningful democracy (because of the course it's on)."
Reflecting the thinking and spirit of Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez delivered an impassioned speech yesterday to the assembled delegates who came to hear him. It's one likely to be favorably remembered many years from now. At its end, the delegates showed their appreciation and support by giving him a standing ovation (the longest one of all the leaders addressing the Assembly) in contrast to the cool and polite reception given George Bush the previous day who chose not to attend to hear the Venezuelan leader. Too bad he didn't as he might have learned from it if he stayed alert and paid attention. Citing the language in Chomsky's book in his hand, Chavez said: "The hegemonistic pretentions of the American empire are placing at risk the very existence of the human species (and) We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head." He went on to explain that earlier the President of the US attended an Organization of American States meeting and proposed a NAFTA-type trade agreement in both regions that is the "fundamental cause of the great evils and the great tragedies currently suffered by our people. Neoliberal capitalism, the Washington Consensus....has generated....a high degree of misery, inequality and infinite tragedy for all the peoples on (this) continent."
Hugo Chavez called George Bush "the devil" several times and said he came here yesterday and "from this rostrum (talked) as if he owned the world." He denounced the President's talk, said he's responsible for all conflict in the Middle East, and that those opposed to these policies are resisting his imperial model of domination. Chavez predicted the US empire will fall, said "What we need now more than ever....is a new international order," and that he wants to see a reinvented UN be part of what can help achieve it. He said the UN under its current rules "does not work" and must be changed to bring more democracy to the organization. He called for the "foundation of a new United Nations" and proposed four fundamental changes including the "need to....suppress....the veto in the decisions taken by the Security Council (because) that elitist trace is incompatible with democracy, incompatible with the principles of equality and democracy." He also called for expanding the Security Council to include developing nations as permanent members and wants to strengthen the role of the Secretary General. He stressed that today the UN body is "worthless" and needs to be "refounded."
Hugo Chavez is dedicated to the principles and spirit of the Bolivarian Revolution he gave the people of Venezuela and wants to spread it to the developing world as a counter-force to the US model of global dominance of the developed North over the less-developed South with the US as hegemon-in-chief. He called on leaders from the developing world to unite and resist to build a new world model based on social equity and justice. Judging by the reception Chavez got yesterday, it looks like he made some progress toward that goal, especially in Latin America that's become an incubator of resistance against the unipolar world the US is beginning to lose its grip on and in support of the multi-polar one Hugo Chavez wants to help create.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: President Ahmadinejad's News Conference
CQ Transcripts Wire
September 21, 2006
Speaker: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President Of Iran
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I thank God, the almighty God, for giving me an opportunity to meet with my friends once again, and to speak about the important world affairs we face today.
At the outset, I'd like to seize the opportunity to thank the people of New York, the New York police and the security forces here for all their efforts.
I know it is not easy when world leaders arrive in New York. The regular life of New York City is disrupted. The movement with cars around the streets, and with the convoys, these people to stand behind traffic, and at times they even have to wait before being able to cross the green light on the street. So on my part, I'd like to apologize to the people of New York and thank them for accepting us.
I was hoping that on this trip I would have an opportunity to meet with people here in New York, to talk with them face to face, to speak with them and meet with them on the streets closely, to see them all and for them to see me and hear what we have to say.
But regretfully, though, pressure of our work program, and the current conditions that we face when we travel here, has not allowed me to do that. But I do hope in the future there will be an opportunity.
People in the United States, like all people around the world, are highly respected by us. They are good-willing people who seek justice. They care and understand the fate of humanity is important. And there are many people here who care. Many people in the United States believe in God and believe in justice.
At the U.N. General Assembly, I raised a new point. After covering problems facing mankind today, and just, sort of, reviewing them, talking about some conflicts and wars and the problems we face and the atmosphere of threats we face, I tried to touch of some of the root causes of our problems.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Some root causes of today's problems facing humanity has to do with the international system, a system that has remained with us since World War II, emanating from the concept of a group of victors emerging from a world war and ruling the world.
That is an old system, because it leads some to believe that they have more rights to rule the affairs of the world than others, to run world affairs. And as a result, justice is hurt as long as this system prevails in the world.
It is not possible for all humanity to taste freedom in the full sense of the word, as well as justice in the full sense of the word.
When we look at the Security Council, we see that some members of the council are, in fact, one party to many conflicts of the world. They are involved, in fact, in many conflicts around the world. They are a direct party to many conflicts and have created them. Nonetheless, they sit in judgment of world affairs at the Security Council when they're a party to the conflict themselves.
We think and feel that this system must change. We believe that all nations should enjoy equal rights for all human beings should be respected, all nations must be respected. All have the right to a dignified life and to enjoy justice and, more importantly perhaps, enjoy peace and tranquility.
International organizations must, therefore, pave the way and lead the way so that all nations can, without any pressure or imposition of political or economic nature, defend their rights and feel that they're able to do so.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The world system must be able to absorb the confidence and the trust of all nations around the globe in order to implement and enforce justice in the best manner.
Regretfully, there is a great mistrust among nations and people today because they feel they are unable to find and achieve their rights through international fora. We must find a solution for 60 years of past failed experience.
It's perhaps enough the world conditions have changed. Many governments and groups that had no role in World War II, regretfully, are impacted by the consequences of World War II. To this day they were dominated by other groups, their rights were ignored and repressed.
We, therefore, must strive to achieve a world filled with peace and freedom and brotherhood and humanity and justice. And for that, again, I emphasize that we do need justice, for justice creates love, and justice guarantees viable security, and justice paves the way for permanent stability.
This is what I like to say to you. And I hope that all those involved will be able to respect justice, to submit to justice, and to make every effort to help realize justice, because it will benefit all. Those who seek justice have more followers, are loved more and, therefore, can guarantee their long-term interests more.
Therefore, it's clear that all humanity seeks justice throughout the world, from the most southern corners of the world, whether in South America, to the eastern corners of the world, in the Pacific, to the west and north. Everyone wants justice. In Africa, over 52 countries are in search of justice, as well as in Asia and in Europe, in northern America too.
It is, therefore, incumbent upon world leaders to move hand in hand to help lead nations toward justice -- a true and complete justice.
And I believe the media have a very important role to play in this respect, for media upholds the rights of the people, for media supports peace and security, as well as stability.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And therefore media must call for peace and justice. For justice will benefit everyone.
Nobody, except people who are selfish, will benefit from injustice. The vast number of human beings in the world by nature seek justice.
I hope that in the very near future we will bear witness to the establishment of a true sense of justice in the international system, along with what will be followed by peace, love and permanent peace in the world.
Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
As is common practice in this house, the first question goes to the president of the U.N. Correspondents Association.
QUESTION: Mr. President, allow me to welcome you on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association.
And my question to you will be in the form that you are one of the highest-profile leaders over here in the United States now, at this point in time. And there are concerns, as you know, about Iran's nuclear power program. And Western powers believe that you are at the threshold of creating a bomb, which you have denied time and again.
And in the fact that you are talking about justice and fairness to everybody, what is it that you can do, at one point in time, to assure the international community, completely and totally, that this will not be the case, that you will not make a nuclear bomb, and that you will reach (ph) Iran, the country which is -- where justice and everything --will not seek to destroy any country, including Israel?
That is what is the perception, which has to be corrected. And I think it's very important that you tell the world community that this is what it is.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Thank you very much.
In addition to speaking on behalf of the press here in the United Nations, I'm sure that you've raised the question on the minds of many here.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The authorities in the United States, I believe, are aware that Iran's nuclear issue is a political one with no legal background.
For 27 years, United States government officials have been hostile with the Iranian government and, by default, against the development of our country.
For 27 years, spare parts or even airplane -- passenger airplanes -- have been denied to us. These will have no military usage but, nonetheless, we've been denied even such technology.
So it seems to us that the question is political.
Let us remember that for eight years, the United States supported an aggressor to attack Iran. We had just freed ourselves from a dictator who depended on the United States, who was violent toward his own people, who put down regular demonstrations and used guns to silence people.
We did not have any elections in his time. Our officials and authorities were chosen in other corners beside popular corners. And people rose to establish a republic to introduce freedom and democracy.
We expected that the United States government would support the initiative taken by the Iranian people, but from day one, hostilities arose.
There were, of course, acts of terror. There were confrontations in our country. And we had been under siege, including economic sanctions, from the first day of our revolution almost.
Almost from 1979, even before our government institutions were able to shape, we were in the initial stages of drafting a constitution, having parliamentary elections, we were placed under sanctions.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And not only that, this has continued for 27 years under various pretexts. Today the pretext happens to be the nuclear issue.
We have been, for many years, a member of the IAEA. We have been a signatory. We are a signatory to the NPT. And we've demonstrated the largest volume of cooperation with the IAEA. Iran has provided the IAEA the largest number of documents that any country has ever given.
Even in the past several years, all the works that we have done we have also seen that the IAEA has published many reports, numerous reports saying that they do not see any violation of the treaty requirements of NPT by the Iranian government.
So when we talk about concerns about Iran's nuclear issue, I want to say that it's not the nuclear bomb that the American government is afraid of, for there are countries in our region who are armed with a nuclear bomb and are supported by chance by the United States government. Now, how is this?
In Iran, we sees there are two skies over one ceiling, or two kinds of wind running over the same ceiling. It doesn't seem plausible.
They're not concerned about the bomb, but it seems to us they like to prevent the development of our country, as they have in the past.
We were ready for a dialogue. However, some countries believe that they can speak for the entire world community.
Let us recall that in a declaration that was very transparent, 180 member states of the non-coalition movement recognized Iran's right to nuclear technology.
I am at a loss in understanding what else we need to do to provide guarantees.
I have said to the dear gentleman here that there is no provision in the NPT that says that we do not have the right -- that perhaps it says that we need the vote or the confidence of the U.S. government to have peaceful nuclear technology.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): There's no such provision, especially coming from a country that not only has an immense nuclear arsenal, but is developing new nuclear bombs -- the second, third generation -- that are even more frightening than previous nuclear bombs, and that is even today supporting countries that produce nuclear bombs. Now, this, it seems to us, seems that it should be of more concern.
I*f we consider and accept that there is a logic behind what we are saying too, then we have to also ask the right questions. Should Iran shut down every technological development in the biological field and the medical field and the chemical field? Because in any of these fields, there's a possibility of dual usage, possibly a chemical bomb.
So when we speak of justice, we mean that everyone is equal when we act within the framework of international law and we follow the provisions of NPT.
Now, if the U.S. government submits a report, as a member of an NPT, I'd like to ask, what have they done to destroy their nuclear weapons? To what extent? Where are these weapons? And who inspects their weapons program? They, too, need to submit a report.
And it's also important for the IAEA to also publicize the extent of what they've done in Iran, for example, versus what they've done elsewhere, let's say the United States.
We've acted in a very transparent manner. I've even invited journalists and members of the press to visit our nuclear facilities with me. I opened the doors and let them see what we do.
So it's very important to make these nuclear facilities program a transparent one, for it is a technology for development and growth that should be used for agricultural growth, as well as growth in other industries.
There's no need to hide such development. Those who seek to violate the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty or nonproliferation international program are those who hide it.
But we've actually given information to the IAEA. We've invited international world community to visit our facilities.
Now, we are told by some that you have to gain our trust and confidence, but we don't have any criteria developed for confidence- building as such. It may take a hundred years or more for you to gain confidence in what we do.
What are we supposed to do, given the context that in the past 27 years you've demonstrated so much hostility towards our nation? And let us not forget, you're just a few countries talking like that with us.
Our logic is quite clear and simple. I think everybody understands what we're saying.
We say that nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes, granted if it's a good thing, should be good for everyone. And if it's a bad act, it should be bad for everyone. It should be banned for everyone.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Throughout our history, our country has not taken away the rights of any other country, has not initiated war against any other country, has not been an aggressor, has had no territorial claims over other countries. We love all nations and countries.
Last year, let us recall, when Katrina happened, my administration announced readiness to dispatch relief aid to the victims of Katrina. We suffered from the pain that the victims of Katrina suffered. When we saw bodies floating on waters, when we saw homeless people, we felt that we needed to help.
This comes, might I say, from our religion but also from our culture, from our beliefs. We believe in peace everywhere.
And so when we speak of Palestine, it's because we don't want to see war there. We don't want the continuation of displacement and death and destruction, the destruction of homes, the death of young people on their way to school, from school to home. We want people to feel safe and secure, not fear imprisonment.
So our proposals on Palestine are quite clear. We have proposed a referendum. We've had enough of an experience, over 60 years, all failed, tens and tens of solutions, simply because they did not give justice to all sides.
Justice means allowing, as well, the Palestinian people to decide over its own fate. It is a right they must enjoy. It is the right of all human beings. Why should some people not recognize such rights for the Palestinian people directly?
It seems to me that it's the Palestinian nation that it would be convenient if it is wiped off the map of the world. Why should a nation be destroyed as such?
They are human beings. They have children, women, daughters, men. They care for each other. They're human beings who have been living in that homeland for many years. They have been displaced, though.
On the other hand, there has been an effort to bring others from all over the world to place in that territory. Now, this is unprecedented in world history.
Where in the U.N. Charter is this allowable and permissible? Is there a law that endorses -- not so much permissible, but it might endorse the displacement of a whole nation and its replacement by another group and the establishment of a state by the second group to rule the fate of the first group?
Now, even if Ahmadinejad, even if I as a person would keep my silence, do you think that such injustice will go unnoticed, such aggression will go unnoticed?
This is a wrong assumption to make because nations are awake and they move forward. Nations will reawaken. And they have already, might I say.
So it's wrong to think that this is a problem with me, with Ahmadinejad as a humble person. No, it is a question for humanity.
You're facing public voices in Venezuela, in Argentina, in Brazil, in Sudan, in South Africa, in China, Indonesia, Japan and China. All across the world, people are upset by the aggression committed there.
Let us recall what happened recently in Lebanon. No matter what religion or belief people belong to, they condemned what happened in Lebanon because people are more aware.
Even yesterday, in New York, we saw that after a few days of heavy propaganda in the media there were even ads as long as a whole page -- 100 people, maybe, more or less, gathered (inaudible) support perhaps with the Zionist agenda. And the buses were all the same. It seems they had rented buses to all come here together, or maybe these buses were -- I mean, I don't even know, you know -- were these people paid?
But what I do want to say is that there are hundreds of millions of other people around the world who spend their own money to gather, demonstrate, publish and raise awareness about the aggression that happens in Palestine and condemn those acts.
Now, some people think, if they accuse me as being a terrorist, as a murderer, as being anti-Jew, that they can solve the problem that is in Palestine.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): No, I'm not anti-Jew. Jews are respected by everyone like all human beings. And I respect them very much.
Let us remember that in Palestine there are Muslims, Christians and Jews who live together. We speak of the Palestinian nation, of a people all in all embracing everyone. I never have said the Muslims in Palestine alone should decide about their fate.
They used to live freely together. But ever since the arrival of the British, with the imperialistic goals they had, and then the arrival of the Zionist system of thinking into that land, the problems were created.
So why not let the people there decide for themselves, and then let's see what happens? Let's give that a chance.
QUESTION: For 18 years, your country hid its nuclear program until it was revealed by a dissident. The IAEA says there are still many questions left with your nuclear program.
Mr. President, why should anyone trust what you say?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, I believe we need to put this in context.
For over 27 years, we feel under attack. And the U.S. government calls us a terrorist.
Now, let us recall that a large number of our government officials were assassinated by a group who are recognized as a terrorist here but nonetheless get to walk in the U.S. Congress and lobby against the Iranian government.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Many of my own friends lost their lives walking on the streets in Tehran with their wives and children. They were assassinated by these same terrorists that you're referring to. And they, let us recall, were then later supported by the U.S. government.
We have not hidden anything. We are working transparently. We are working within the framework of the NPT. And according to NPT provisions, every country has the right to enjoy the fuel cycle.
Six months before giving UF6 to centrifuge machines, we have to inform the agency. We've even taken that step, to inform them when uranium enrichment occurs, when the activities happen, six months in advance, according to provisions.
It's interesting that American officials should say that we're hiding things. Now, let us see. Will the American government allow the press to come and visit their nuclear facilities, their nuclear weapons arsenals? We've opened everything for everyone to see.
If you come to Iran, you can go and see for yourself. It's actually an open area. Students go and visit it. Teachers do. University professors go and see it. Even people who work in the farms (ph) or even people who graze their sheep there, I'm talking about villagers, people go and visit there. They know where everything is.
The bottom line is, we do not need a bomb, unlike what others think.
Regretfully, some believe that the nuclear bomb can be effective in international relations. They're wrong, because the time for nuclear bombs has ended. We know that. These nuclear arsenals will not benefit anyone.
They have to spend so much money destroying them. If the nuclear bomb could have saved anyone, it would have prevented the collapse of the Soviet Union. If the nuclear bomb could have created security, it would have prevented, perhaps, September 11th. If the nuclear bomb could have done anything, it could have, perhaps, stopped the Palestinian intifada.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Today is a time of thought and ideas. We know that and we felt that across the world.
And let me say that at the same time, we are Muslims. And based on a decree given by the leader of the Islamic republic, moving toward having a nuclear bomb is banned and forbidden. Therefore, no one has the right to move in this direction. In our country, it is not permissible.
Now, let me say again, I believe this all is a political issue. At least the politicians know it is. And, of course, they have an outlet to speak their views.
QUESTION: Mr. President, we all know how important your role is in Lebanon, in Syria and in the Middle East. Will you be ready to press the Hezbollah to disarm in order to get peace in Lebanon?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Iran is a large and powerful country. Its spiritual influence in the world is very effective. Naturally, given the long civilization of the country, we have an impact on the region.
I like to stress that Lebanon's internal affairs is its own affairs. We don't interfere in its affairs. We don't want to, because we believe that people in Lebanon, various groups in Lebanon are strong enough to discuss issues among themselves and resolve problems with each other.
We speak at an international level. We like to fix problems that are on an international level and do not involve ourselves, and would not like to, in internal affairs.
QUESTION: On Lebanon, I'm not sure I understood precisely your answer. Are you going to respect the resolution and not ship any weapons to Hezbollah, which you support?
And on Iran, could you give us any details on your meeting with Italian leader Prodi and whether you've come to any kind of agreement with the E.U.-3 on timing?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I responded to the first part of your question.
We give spiritual support to all those who want to uphold their rights, because even according to the U.N. Charter we believe that all countries have the right to legitimately defend themselves. When we support nations, it's a spiritual and cultural support. That is our position, and it is a clear position.
As far as the meeting with the Italian leader is concerned, it was a very good meeting. We both spoke about our viewpoints. Our relations with Italy are a very long and historical one that are also expanding and growing.
We are interested, I'd like to say, to have relations with all countries based on the framework of international law, including mutual respect, friendship ties. And Italy is a country that we are interested in having such relations with.
We know that in one session alone you cannot arrive at all forms of agreement, but the Italian and Iranian authorities are meeting on all levels, and we are interested in expanding relations on regional issues, as well as on international issues.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I understand the importance of the spiritual support that you have just spoken about toward Hezbollah and others, but there is a resolution called 1701, and there is a demand of countries to respect an arms embargo to anyone in Lebanon other than the legitimate government.
You have twice evaded saying clearly whether you plan to respect that resolution and implement it, so can you kindly be forward and say will you stop giving Hezbollah arms and will you implement that resolution?
And do you support, by the way, like you did last year, the tribunal of an international character for the assassinations in Lebanon, including the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri, which the president of France called crimes against humanity?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Thank you very much.
Are you a representative of the U.N., it seems? I mean, you are definitely very powerful in making sure that the resolutions here are enforced.
QUESTION: Yes, I am a journalist at the U.N.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Or are you against Hezbollah?
QUESTION: No, sir, I am asking whether you plan to respect a resolution that clearly demands of all countries to stop armament to any party in Lebanon other than the legitimate government.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Thank you very much.
Yes, we support, actually, peace and permanent stability in Lebanon, and we will fall short of no measure in promoting this goal. Whether it's in the cultural or spiritual support that we can render or whether it is the role that we can play in the international arena, we will do our best. And this is the fundamental principle of our foreign policy, and it does not preclude Lebanon.
QUESTION: The French president, Jacques Chirac, when he was here, offered for the E.U.-3 to resume negotiations with Iran, provided there are two good-will gestures from each side, would stop for the E.U.-3 requesting sanctions and for Iran, which would be a suspension of uranium enrichment.
What's your answer to that proposal?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As far as the nuclear issue is concerned, we have carefully examined the package given to us by the E.U.-3, by the European group. Some expected us to actually turn it down right away, but given the recommendation by the U.N. Security Council, we were determined to read it carefully, to give an appropriate answer.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And throughout the period that we were examining it, regretfully, a resolution was passed.
We didn't understand and couldn't understand why a resolution was passed in the midst of an examination of a package. We think it was probably under pressure by some powers who constantly want to place pressure on countries.
The secretary general told me to disregard what has happened for the time being, resort to diplomacy. And he's right to respond to the package.
In our response, we delineated a clear framework for the continuation of the negotiations, based on a legal framework as well as on the principle of justice. We maintain that that is a very good foundation for working together.
Mr. Chirac also proposed that we will talk until we arrive at a negotiation (inaudible) level.
Yes, we are talking. And we accept that. And negotiations, let us remember, needs a framework. And we need to know who the parties to the negotiation are and what the prerogatives and the responsibilities of each are and what guarantees there are on enforcement measures.
You see, we have some bitter experience from the past. We've talked on numerous occasions. We've been given promises on numerous occasions, but those promises fell short of happening.
We even had and have had nuclear agreements with the United States that were unilaterally abrogated and (inaudible). We have had similar agreements with Canada, with Europe, other places, that were unilaterally abrogated.
And so therefore we've decided to propose a framework within our legal responsibilities under international law so we know what that framework for negotiations is, so that it is clear who will support the decisions taken as a result.
You are quite aware that over 30 years ago we did have agreements to build the Bushehr reactor facility. However, the party to the agreement, which were the Europeans, unilaterally decided to disregard the agreement. And so the Bushehr reactor remains suspended. Its operations for completion have not gone through.
We have the right to criticize governments for falling short of rendering their side of their agreement. We want guarantees.
So we have, therefore, offered a framework and we are negotiating within that framework. And we believe that those negotiations are moving on the right track, unless, hopefully, others will not disrupt the work in small ways, perhaps. We think that it is a constructive path to take.
QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Mr. President, since the president of the United States has not responded to your letter, what is your message to the American people?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Our response is clear. We believe that all nations have the right to live in a dignified manner. And we believe that the American nation is a great nation. We've never had problems with the American people.
The problem comes from the American government directed toward the people of Iran, really. Our people don't have any problems with the American people because our people too seek justice and peace, just as people in the United States do.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We ask for peace around the world.
But we also stand up when there is tyranny against us, when there is repression, when people like to force their will on us, or to say we won't submit to that, never. And we like people here to understand that.
QUESTION: Yesterday, I approached you and asked you a question. And after you found out that I'm an Israeli reporter, you ignored me.
I want you to know I'm an authentic Palestinian Jew. My family arrived to this area in 1882, when the Turks ruled this area. So I think I deserve an answer from you, even according to your definitions.
One thing: Can you clarify once and for all, do you seek the destruction of Israel, or don't you seek the destruction of Israel?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We love everyone around the world: Jews, Christians, Muslims, non-Muslims, non-Jews, non- Christians. We have no problem with people.
What we object to are acts that are inappropriate against us, or acts of occupation, of aggression, of violence, of displacement of nations. We have no problem with regular people.
We have no problem -- everyone we respect. Everyone should enjoy their legitimate rights.
But, again, I repeat that we oppose aggression and violence and murder. And we say that loudly.
QUESTION: You're talking about negotiations. First of all, at what point during the negotiations do you foresee suspending enrichment of uranium?
And you had talked about guarantees just before that. What kind of security guarantees are you looking for in the negotiations?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We are not talking of getting security measures. We are able to protect ourselves and our security. The experience of the eight-year war should have shown that to everyone in the world.
You know, the world powers were behind Saddam. Our country was fighting with empty -- with no real arms, but it was the power of our young people that upheld the territorial integrity of Iran.
What we speak of are guarantees of enforcement of the provisions agreed upon. Well, we, for example, as I gave the example, had agreements in the past to -- nuclear agreements for peaceful purposes, building reactors, et cetera. Not only were those neglected, but they also neglected agreements to provide, say, helicopters to us; to provide spare parts for civilian aircraft. So we want to make sure that whatever we agree on has a guarantee of enforcement.
But speaking about suspension, our position on suspension is very clear. In the package given to the Europeans, we've discussed that. We have said that under fair conditions and just conditions, we will negotiate about it -- under fair and just conditions, I repeat. Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you and President Chavez did not really address the concerns of your own citizens in the speeches you gave at the General Assembly. Both of you primarily expressed your anger at the United States and American hegemony.
Since you just visited Venezuela, and both of your countries are large oil producers and members of OPEC, is this a new close relationship, an alliance between Iran and Venezuela?
As well, are the speeches you gave a type of alarm for the energy industry and a threat to the United States?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): No. Not at all. We do not seek to represent a threat to any country. We have relations with all countries, you must note, and we like to have friendly relations with all, as you must note.
I'd like to point out here that, despite the support of the American government of a former dictatorial regime in our country, after the victory of the revolution, the late Ayatollah Khomeini said that (inaudible) two countries that we consider are illegitimate are the apartheid system of South Africa first, and the occupying regime of Jerusalem.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We like to have friendly relations with all countries. Our imam and our people were saddened, but yet forget the support of the United States gratefully of the former regime in Iran, because we have practically sought good relations with everyone, and we still do.
Venezuela, let us not forget, is a large country with sincere people, with great people, with an independent government, let us not forget. And we must have relations, just as have relations with India, with Pakistan, with Algeria, with 195 countries in the world. We have relations that are sincere and friendly and close.
While the United States, let us not forget, cut its ties with us unilaterally. They look at us with hostility in a very unilateral way. If they change toward us, there, too, we can solve our problems.
The expansion of our ties with the rest of the world is based on the interest of nations and people, and toward the promotion of peace and justice worldwide.
QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The question I have, you speak of (inaudible) you suspended the enrichment as a precondition. Is it really possible for Iran to consider spending enrichment once negotiations begin (inaudible)? And if you give a positive answer to this, will the leader support that or not?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): You actually managed to get two questions in the form of one here.
You see, our position is very clear: We work within the framework of NPT. We seek to define our rights within that framework and nothing more.
I don't quite see why so many people are so sensitive about the "enrichment" word. It seems that this "enrichment" word has become the sort of lingua franca of our time and day.
But let's see, it looks to me that the problem is something else. It seems to me again that the United States government and some European countries should make some changes and alterations in the way they treat the Iranian government and speak with us.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): You see, they can't look at our nation as they have in the past 27 years (inaudible) trying to impose their views on us because that's not possible.
But if they recognize that we too, as a nation, have rights that they too recognize international law, well then many things are possible, and the concerns too will be removed.
Again, we have given another suggestion, too. Since they have bombs themselves, they know what bombs are. They're actually more afraid of it, I think.
(LAUGHTER)
They should destroy their arsenal, and I think they'll be less fearful about it. And they'll be less suspicious of others.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: India has always maintained it has a civilizational relationship with Iran. But at the same time, it does not want to see another country in the region develop a nuclear weapon and it's urging Iran not to produce a nuclear weapon.
What do you think of this position, also given India's blossoming nuclear relationship with the United States, your archrival right now?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, their suggestion is a good one, because we are not seeking the nuclear bomb. I mean, that's quite clear.
QUESTION: Your Excellency, I'm not a speaker of Farsi, but there is a debate going on as to what exactly you said at the conference on the World Without Zionism.
Did you say that Israel as a state should be wiped off the map or did you say something else? Could you just please specify this, because there is this debate going on?
And if you said Israel should be wiped off the map, that's very scary. If you said something else perhaps less alarming; perhaps you could tell us.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): It's quite interesting. I mean, it seems to me that there's a strong Zionist lobby. And it seems to me that I face this question wherever I go. And I have always been ready to answer.
I am not saying that you are a Zionist lobbyist, sir. I'm just saying that wherever I go I face questions like this.
But I'd like to say that we are opposed to aggression. We are opposed to occupation. We are opposed to murder and violence, whoever commits them -- does not matter -- whoever is an aggressor, whoever who is the source for disgracement or is a murderer.
I mean, I'm talking about aggression and occupation as an abhorrent act wherever it occurs, whether in Palestine that is occupied, whether in Lebanon, in Vietnam, in Iraq.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We oppose killing on such scale. And, you know, we have tried to offer some proposals on Palestine: the referendum that I discussed earlier, with the participation of everyone.
Now, when you speak of referendum, you're thinking of a process, naturally. You're not speaking of anything else. It's within the framework of the United Nations Charter.
We do believe that the Zionist role in creating conflict around the world should be thoroughly examined by the media. It is a responsibility. Let us not forget that they represent a complex group, a complex organizational system, that has been the source of many problems.
Now, we cannot force our will on the vast part of the world because there is a small group that has a certain interest related to wealth and power.
Let's not forget that Zionism is a party that, in fact, it has no religious affiliations. They might say that, "Well, we're Jews," but that's really not true and that's not the fundamental foundation of Zionism.
And let's not forget that after all, the prophet Moses, was a supporter of peace, was a supporter of justice. He opposed aggression and occupation, and he opposed war and the displacement of people. He saved the children of Israel, banning Israel from pharaohs of the time, from occupiers from aggressors of the time.
So how can the followers of Moses possibly destroy the homes of people over their heads in their homeland to take, and to kill, actually, an infant that is feeding in the arms of a mother?
These Zionists, I want to tell you, are not Jews. That's the biggest deception we've ever faced.
Zionists are Zionists, period. They are not Jews, they are not Christians, and they are not Muslims. They are a power group, a power party. And we oppose oppression and the aggression that any party that seeks pure power, raw power goes after.
AHMADINEJAD: And we announce and (inaudible) loudly that if you support that, you'll be condemned by the rest of the world.
If you usurp the rights of others, you'll be condemned by the rest of the world. If you displace people from their homeland, the rest of the world will condemn you.
And you too must condemn these acts. Everyone should. As a conscienced voice, we must.
Would you like to be displaced from your homeland and replaced by others and, when you raise objections, to be named a terrorist? I really doubt that anyone in the world would like that.
So this is an imposition on humanity.
QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In your remarks, you have mentioned that the leaders and presidents of the world should turn to justice and enforce justice.
You are the president of Iran and you have the opportunity to enforce justice. Reports coming from Iran seem to indicate that student movements are being repressed, that justice is not being served, as far as the followers of the Baha'i faith, as well as for women, who object to the Islamic laws that discriminate against them.
And this justice that you speak of in the political realm does not exist. So why are against justice?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In the meeting we had with the Foreign Press Council last night, it seemed to me that this was the main question on the mind of many people.
I want to give you two figures.
There are about 219 million people in the United States and in Iran we have about 68 million people.
Now, there are about 3 million prisoners in the U.S. There are about 130,000 -- there are exactly 130,000 prisoners in Iran, 90 percent of whom are illicit drug traffickers who have been arrested in direct armed conflict with our security forces, who were trying to prevent the transit of drugs from Iran into Europe and the United States.
Now, let's find out, and I think you should, what the composition of the backgrounds of prisoners in the United States is.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I asked this question yesterday, but nobody had an answer.
Now, let's see, a high percent of American people are in prison, whereas only 0.2 percent of the Iranian population is in prison. Let's just put these figures in proportion now.
You know, I like to speak of law as a framework. If you violate a traffic regulation, you will be governed (ph) by law. If not, there will be no rule of law.
Now, we do have law in our country. We have a judiciary system. And, in fact, our courts are quite independent because the president does not have the right by law to interfere in the judgments of the judiciary. It therefore represents an independent power, an independent branch of government. We have a judiciary, we have lawyers, we have judges, we have trials. There are violations under law.
Now, let me just clarify what the political situation in Iran is and for you to understand better.
There is a newspaper in Iran that is affiliated with the government and it's a voice, a podium for government position. Three months ago they had a violation under law and they were shut down. The president could not do anything.
Now, I mean, what happened there is really a concept of freedom, a dimension of freedom that we must examine, because if we are to allow insults to happen, if we allow violations of law to happen, then we are acting against justice, we're allowing those with power to tell others what to do.
The courts are set up to defend the rights of the people. A citizen might raise a complaint against me. The judge must consider and examine that and they might give a sentence against me and force me to leave office. This, to me, is a power given to our courts and is a dimension of freedom, it is a dimension of democracy that we've been attained.
Now, let us not forget that there is a possibility of failing to carry out law completely (ph) everywhere. It's in our country as well. Sometimes an enforcement official may not carry out his duties in the right way. But we are all involved, we are all responsible, we have to tell people not to do that, we have to make our efforts.
And everywhere in the world, when you look, such things do happen, and in Iran, too. But we believe that the freedom that we enjoy in Iran and the kind of justice we enjoy in Iran today is, sort of, self-grown, home-grown, and we made every effort to get to where we are, and we hope you respect that.
I thank you all. I know many of you had many questions. I am sorry that my time is limited. Our time is really tight. But if you coordinate with my friend Mr. Zaid (ph), inshallah, meet you in Tehran in the near future in a press conference.
Thank you for your time.
END
.ETX
Sep 21, 2006 13:21 ET .EOF
Source: CQ Transcriptions © 2006, Congressional Quarterly Inc., All Rights Reserved
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: The Five Pillars of the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex
by Rodrigue Tremblay
September 25, 2006
"Over-grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." George Washington (1732-1799), 1st US President
"[The] conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. ...In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th US President, Farewell Address, Jan. 17, 1961
"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear." General Douglas MacArthur, Speech, May 15, 1951
In the 1920's, President Calvin Coolidge said, "the business of America is business." Nowadays, it can be said that the Arms industry and permanent war have become a big part of American business, as the offshoot of a well-entrenched military-industrial complex. This is a development that previous American men of vision, men like President George Washington and President Dwight Eisenhower have warned against as being intrinsically inimical to democracy and liberty. However, the current Bush-Cheney administration is not afraid of such a development; its principal members are part of it and are instead very busy promoting it.
Wars, especially modern electronic wars, are very murderous, but they are also synonymous with big cost-plus contracts, big profits and big employment for those who produce the required military gear. Wars are the paradise of profiteers. -Wars are also a way for mediocre politicians to monopolize both the news and the media in their partisan favor by whipping up patriotic fervor and by pushing for narrow-minded nationalism. Indeed, to inflame patriotism and nationalism is an old demagogic trick used to dominate a nation. When that happens, there is a clear danger that democracy and freedom will be eroded, and even disappear, if that development leads to an exacerbated concentration of power and political corruption.
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were a bonanza for the American military-industrial complex. This was an event, a "New Pearl Harbor", that some had openly been hoping for. The reason? These attacks gave the perfect pretext to keep military expenses, which had been expected to fall after the demise of the old Soviet Empire, at a high level. Instead, they provided the rationale for dramatically increasing them, by substituting a "War on Terror" and a "War against Islamists" as a replacement for the "War against Communism," and the "Cold War against the Soviet Union". In this new perspective, the gates of military spending could be open and flowing again. The development of ever more sophisticated armaments could go forward and thousands of corporations and hundreds of political districts could continue to reap the benefits. The costs would be born by the taxpayers, by young men and women who die in combat and by remote populations who happen to lie under the rain of bombs about to fall upon them and their homes.
Indeed, in September 2000, when the Pentagon issued its famous strategy document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses", the belief was expressed that the kind of military transformation the planners were considering required "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor", to make it possible to sell the plan to the American public. They were either prescient or lucky, because one year later, they had the "New Pearl Harbor" they had been hoping for.
The military-industrial complex needs wars, many and successive wars, to prosper. Old military equipment has to be repaired and replaced each time there is a hot war. But to justify the enormous costs of developing ever more deadly weapons, there needs to be a constant climate of fear and vulnerability. For example, there are many reports, originating from medical and international observers, that the Israeli attacks against Lebanon and Gaza during the summer of 2006, allowed for the use of 'new American-made weapons'. Such weapons are reported to include depleted uranium (DU) bombs, 'direct energy' weapons and new chemical and biological weapons. These weapons not only make the act of homicide easier but they also contaminate the environment with radioactive DU particles for decades to come.
But, to build a compact strong enough to steer a democratic country on the path of a permanent war economy takes an alliance of interests between militarists, industrialists, politicians, sycophants and propagandists. These are the five pillars of the military-industrial complex, as can be found in the United States.
1. The U. S. military establishment
In 1991, at the end of the Cold War, the U.S. defense budget was $298.9 billion. In 2006, that budget had increased to $447.4 billion, and this does not include the $100 billion-plus spent in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It is estimated that American military expenditures represent, at a very minimum, close to half of total world military outlays (48 per cent of the world total in 2005, according to official figures), while the U.S. accounts for less than 5 per cent of world population and about 25 per cent of world total output. -As a percentage, the U.S. military expenses gobble up a minimum of 21 per cent of the total American federal budget (2006=$ 2,144.3 billion). Such a military budget is larger than the gross domestic product (GDP) of some countries, such as Belgium or Sweden. -It is sort of a government within a government.
In 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense employed 2,143,000 people, while it estimates that private defense contractors employ 3,600,000 workers, for a grand total of 5,743,000 defense-related American jobs, or 3.8% of the total labor force. In addition, there are close to 25 million veterans in the United States. Therefore, it is safe to say that more than 30 million Americans receive checks which originate directly or indirectly from the U. S. military budget. Assuming conservatively only two voting-age people per household, this translates into a block of some 60 million American voters who have a financial stake in the American military establishment. Thus the clear danger of a militarized society perpetuating itself politically.
2. The private defense contractors
The five largest American Defense contractors are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics. They are followed by Honeywell, Halliburton, BAE Systems and thousands of smaller defense companies and subcontractors. Some, like Lockheed Martin in Bethesda (Maryland) and Raytheon in Waltham (Massachusetts) draw close to 100 per cent of their business from defense contracts. Some others, like Honeywell in Morristown (New Jersey), have important consumer goods divisions. All, however, stand to profit when expenditures on weapons procurements increase. In fact, U.S. defense contractors have been enjoying big Pentagon budgets since March 2003, i.e. since the onset of the Iraq war. -As a result, they have posted sizable increases in total shareholder returns, ranging from 68 % (Northrop Grumman) to 164 % (General Dynamics), from March '03 to September '06.
It also has to be pointed out that private defense contractors play another social role: they are big employers of former generals and former admirals from the U.S. military establishment.
3. The political establishment
In the U.S., president George W. Bush, a former oil-man, and Vice President Dick Cheney, as former chairman and C.E.O of the large oil service company Halliburton in Houston (Texas), epitomize the image of politicians devoted to the growth and development of the military-industrial complex. Their administration has expanded the military establishment and they have adopted a militarist foreign policy on a scale not seen since the end of the Cold War and even since the end of World War II. Indeed, under the Bush-Cheney administration, the arms industry has become very profitable. Multi billion-dollar contracts to sell planes and tanks to various countries in an increasingly lawless world are going full swing. Close to two-thirds of all arms exports in the world originate from North America.
Congress, for its part, is indebted to defense corporations that operate military plants in each congressman's district or senator's state, besides owing some gratitude to the lobbies that provide funds and media support in election times.
4. The "think tanks" establishment
The brain-trust and the sycophants behind the war-oriented economy form an interlocking network of Washington-based so-called 'think tanks' that are financed by the rich tax-exempt foundations which have billions of dollars of assets, such as, for example, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Scaife Foundation or the Coors Foundation, etc. -Among the most influential and representative think tanks, whose mission is to orient American foreign policy, one finds the American Enterprise Institute
(AEI), the Heritage Foundation, the Middle East Media Research Institute, the neoconservative Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, the Center for Security Policy,
the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the Hudson Institute. -Such think tanks serve a double purpose: they provide government officials with policy papers on various topics, usually on the very conservative side; and, they serve as incubators for government departments, supplying them with already trained personnel and providing employment for public officials who are out of office.
The same revolving door that exists between the military establishment and defense contractors is also observed to exist between the Washington-based think tanks and U.S. government departments.
5. The "propaganda" establishment
The pro-war economy propagandists are to be found in the fundamentally right-wing American media industry. This is because the selling of war-oriented policies requires the expertise that only a well-oiled propaganda machine can provide. The most potent propaganda tool is television. And there, Rupert Murdock's Fox News Network
is unbeatable. There is no American media outlet more openly devoted to the neocon ideology and more committed to supporting new American wars than Fox News. CNN or MSNBC may sometimes try to emulate it, but their professionalism prevents them from even coming close to Fox News in being biased toward war and in unabashedly promoting U.S. global domination. Fox's propaganda efforts are closely coordinated with other Murdoch-owned print media, such as the Weekly Standard and the New York Post. The Washington Times, which is controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, the neoconservative New York Sun, and other neocon publications such as the National Review, the New Republic, The American Spectator, the Wall Street Journal, complete the main pro-war propaganda infrastructure.
In conclusion, it is the conjunction of these five pro-war machines, i.e. the bloated military establishment, the large American arms industry, the Neocon pro-war administration with Congress being strongly under the influence of militarist lobbies, the pro-war think tanks network and the pro-war media propagandists that constitutes the framework of the military-industrial complex, of which President Dwight Eisenhower wisely feared the corrosive influence on American society, forty-five years ago, in 1961.
Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@ yahoo.com.
He is the author of the book 'The New American Empire'.
Visit his blog site here.
Author's Website:www.thenewamericanempire.com
Comment on this Editorial
Bush's America
For Bush, War Anguish Expressed Privately
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 25, 2006
FALMOUTH, Maine -- They sat on two frayed chairs in a teacher's lounge, the president and the widow, just the two of them so close that their knees were almost touching.
She was talking about her husband, the soldier who died in a far-off war zone. Tears rolled down her face as she mentioned two children left fatherless. His eyes welled up, too. He hugged her, held her face, kissed her cheek. "I am so sorry for your loss," he kept repeating.
She told him she considers him responsible for her husband's death and begged him to bring home the troops. "It's time to put our pride behind us and stop the bleeding, for all of us," she recalled saying. The president demurred, unwilling to debate a mourning woman. "We see things differently," he said.
But Hildi Halley, a self-described liberal antiwar activist who met with President Bush in Maine last month, said she believes he felt her grief. "It wasn't just a crocodile tear," she said in an interview at her home. "I felt like I moved him. I don't think he's going to wake up tomorrow and say, 'Oh my gosh, I've been wrong this whole time and I'm going to change all my policies because of my meeting with this woman.' I just hope that with each soldier, he remembers my pain."
He has a lot of pain to remember. Now more than five years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush has served as a wartime president longer than any occupant of the White House since Lyndon B. Johnson. He has presided over more U.S. military casualties than any since Richard M. Nixon. While he travels the country defending his policy and arguing to stay the course in Iraq, he also confronts the human burdens of wartime leadership.
The two sides of Bush as commander in chief can be hard to reconcile. His public persona gives little sense that he dwells on the costs of war. He does not seem to agonize as Johnson did, or even as his father, George H.W. Bush, did before the Persian Gulf War. While he pays tribute to those who have fallen, the president strives to show resolve and avoid displays that might be seen as weak or doubting. His refusal to attend military funerals, while taking long Texas vacations and extended bicycle rides, strikes some critics as callous indifference.
Yet the private Bush comes across differently in the accounts of aides, friends, relatives and military family members who have met with him, including some who do not support him, such as Halley. The first question Bush usually asks national security briefers in the Oval Office each morning is about overnight casualties, aides say, and those who show up for the next round of meetings often find him still stewing about bad news from Iraq.
Bush seems to separate these aspects of war in his mind, advisers say. He expresses no regret even in private for his decision to invade Iraq, they say, while taking seriously the continuing consequences of doing so. "Removing Saddam, he never revisits that in his mind or his heart," said one adviser, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because Bush does not want them to discuss his feelings. "Sending troops into harm's way, that's something that weighs on him."
If he does not show that publicly, it's in keeping with a White House practice of not drawing attention to the mounting costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have killed more than 3,000 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of civilians. Advisers worry that sending the wrong signal would further sap public will and embolden the enemy and Bush's critics. Aides say that Bush does not attend military funerals because the presidential entourage would disrupt solemn events and that, out of respect, the media have been banned from photographing coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base. But they also know it would focus a spotlight on the price of the president's policies.
Bush is less reticent about public displays of grief for victims of Sept. 11. During the recent events marking the fifth anniversary of the attacks, he teared up several times and at one point had to concentrate just to finish a speech. "Your heart breaks for somebody who suffered," he later told Charles Gibson of ABC News. "Tears can get contagious as far as I'm concerned."
For those who have suffered losses in the wars he initiated, Bush prefers to offer comfort in private. He writes letters to families of those killed, visits soldiers at military hospitals and meets with relatives of the dead. Altogether, according to the White House, Bush has met with 1,149 relatives of 336 dead service members. These sessions generate little attention because the White House bars journalists, but some relatives have described them.
"It's absolutely painful for him," said Beth Karlson, 63, a retired school food-service manager whose son died in Iraq and who met with Bush in Wisconsin last month. The president hugged her and held her hand. "He's a genuine person. He wants to reach out to the families and let them know how he feels."
Not everyone agrees. Cindy Sheehan, who would later launch antiwar protests near Bush's Texas ranch, met with him in 2004 and left alienated. She said he came across as overly casual and immune to her pain, referring to her as "Mom," yet uninterested in stories about her dead son, Casey, and calling him "your loved one" instead of by name. When she later sought another meeting, Bush refused.
Said Missy Beattie, a fellow member of Gold Star Families for Peace whose nephew died in Iraq: "He only meets with people who support him. I don't know what I'd say to him. I almost feel like he's not worthy of time and thought because I don't think he cares. I don't think he has any human qualities. I don't think he would listen to me or anyone who's lost someone and feel any empathy."
Many presidents confront the burden of ordering troops into danger. Johnson was tormented by the Vietnam War, padding down to his war room in slippers and robe at night to check on casualty numbers. Taped telephone calls, published by historian Michael Beschloss, reveal the depth of anguish. "I want to be called every time somebody dies," Johnson declared. He took to bed, depressed. Aides consulted psychiatrists. "He suffered," biographer Robert Dallek said. "It certainly took a toll on him. You could see it in his face at the end of his term. He was so old and careworn."
George H.W. Bush wrote an angst-ridden letter to his children before the Gulf War: "I guess what I want you to know as a father is this: Every Human life is precious. When the question is asked 'How many lives are you willing to sacrifice' -- it tears at my heart. The answer, of course, is none -- none at all." He did not sleep well before the bombing began and prayed that an Iraqi child shown on television would not be hit. "There's no way to describe the pressure," he said in a diary entry, later published in a volume of personal correspondence. "I've been plagued with the image of body bags."
Warren Finch, director of the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, said the former president's service as a pilot shot down over the Pacific shaped his outlook. "The fact that he had served in World War II and lost two crewmen meant he experienced it firsthand. That weighed heavily on him."
His son never served in combat and gives no public indication that he anguishes like his father. White House spokesman Tony Snow said the president, like his predecessors, "lies awake nights asking himself the question: How can I get this done and get our people home?" But Bush controls his feelings around associates. "He keeps a lot of that very, very locked up inside himself," said a longtime friend. "I don't raise it with him. I just don't feel comfortable doing that."
Bush is more open with confidants about his aggravation over events in Iraq. "He's unbelievably candid in person," said another person close to the president. "Of course it frustrates him. You can't not be frustrated by four car bombs a day and that sort of thing. But I think he's confident it's going to work out. I think he also thinks there's not much of an alternative." Does the president confide much in his father? "Nobody knows," the person said. "It's a steel wall."
Bush deals with stress through vigorous exercise, working out six days a week. When he goes for long bicycle rides, he often invites others to join him, but he asks them not to ride in front of him so he can have the illusion of solitude. "Riding helps clear my head, helps me deal with the stresses of the job," he told reporters last month after an 80-minute ride.
To those angry over the war, that can seem cavalier. "It's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say," Bush said last year when Sheehan began her protest. "But it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life. . . . I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."
Aides see the impact on Bush after meetings with "families of the fallen," as the White House calls them. Bush typically meets each family separately, joined by one aide, often Deputy Chief of Staff Joseph W. Hagin. He offers commemorative coins, poses for photos or signs autographs. "I do the best I can to cry with them or, you know, laugh with them if they wanna laugh, and hug them," Bush recently told Katie Couric of CBS News.
Karlson, whose son, Staff Sgt. Warren Hansen, died in a helicopter crash in Iraq in 2003, asked Bush for help in obtaining an investigative report. "I just felt I was being stonewalled, I wasn't getting anyplace," she recalled. "He said it will be taken care of. And it was. The next Wednesday, the report was hand-delivered." In the end, the report confirmed what she had been told about her son's death. "It has brought some peace," she said.
After such meetings, aides said, Bush often seems drained. During a trip to Fort Bragg, N.C., last year, he spent three hours with dozens of relatives of troops who were killed. One of them, Crystal Owen, asked him to wear a metal bracelet in honor of her dead husband. He put it on, then went to deliver a nationally televised address. With the widows still on his mind, Bush seemed flat as he began to speak, aides said, and at one point his eyes became watery.
Halley, 41, lost her husband, National Guard Capt. Patrick Damon, also 41, in June in Afghanistan to what officially was ruled a heart attack. When Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) called to offer condolences and asked if she could do anything, Halley requested a telephone call from the president. Instead, when he came to Maine to visit his parents in Kennebunkport, the White House invited her to meet him at a school.
When Bush walked in, Halley told him about Patrick, how they had met at American University, moved to Maine and had a family. "After I spoke about my husband for quite some time, I said, 'And now he's dead. For what? Why? I've lost my soul mate.' " She asked her children, Mikayla, 14, and Jan-Christian, 12, to leave the room, then wept as she told Bush how hard life had become for them. "He started crying. I said, 'These two children do not like you and they have good reason for that. And I hold you responsible for the death of my husband.' "
Bush seemed surprised that she opposes even the war in Afghanistan, and he cited the Taliban. "And I said, 'Who put them in power?' And he got a little defensive and said, 'I'm really not here to discuss public policy with you.' And I said, 'That's probably wise, and I'm not here to talk about public policy, either.' "
Bush said he hoped their meeting helped her healing. "You know what would help my healing?" she recalled responding. "If you change your policies in the Mideast." Bush smiled, she said, but did not reply.
Halley said the meeting did not change either of their minds. She would still vote against him. But she said she appreciated that he opened himself up to her. "I don't think he's a heartless man," she said. "I think he's pulled in a lot of different directions by very intelligent people. . . . I don't think it's going to change his policies, but I hope it does make him think about it. I hope I'm in his dreams."
Comment: Gosh, is there an election coming up or something?? In any case, you see, Bush sees things differently than this widow and the thousands of other widows and soon-to-be-widows in America. For Bush, there is no problem with the fact that their husbands died, or will die, for no good reason. For sure, he understands their stance, but the point they are missing is that he simply doesn't care.
Comment on this Article
Will The Next Election Be Hacked?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.
Rolling Stone
October 5, 2006
Fresh disasters at the polls -- and new evidence from an industry insider -- prove that electronic voting machines can't be trusted
The debacle of the 2000 presidential election made it all too apparent to most Americans that our electoral system is broken. And private-sector entrepreneurs were quick to offer a fix: Touch-screen voting machines, promised the industry and its lobbyists, would make voting as easy and reliable as withdrawing cash from an ATM. Congress, always ready with funds for needy industries, swiftly authorized $3.9 billion to upgrade the nation's election systems - with much of the money devoted to installing electronic voting machines in each of America's 180,000 precincts. But as midterm elections approach this November, electronic voting machines are making things worse instead of better. Studies have demonstrated that hackers can easily rig the technology to fix an election - and across the country this year, faulty equipment and lax security have repeatedly undermined election primaries. In Tarrant County, Texas, electronic machines counted some ballots as many as six times, recording 100,000 more votes than were actually cast. In San Diego, poll workers took machines home for unsupervised "sleepovers" before the vote, leaving the equipment vulnerable to tampering. And in Ohio - where, as I recently reported in "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" [RS 1002], dirty tricks may have cost John Kerry the presidency - a government report uncovered large and unexplained discrepancies in vote totals recorded by machines in Cuyahoga County.
Even worse, many electronic machines don't produce a paper record that can be recounted when equipment malfunctions - an omission that practically invites malicious tampering. "Every board of election has staff members with the technological ability to fix an election," Ion Sancho, an election supervisor in Leon County, Florida, told me. "Even one corrupt staffer can throw an election. Without paper records, it could happen under my nose and there is no way I'd ever find out about it. With a few key people in the right places, it would be possible to throw a presidential election."
Chris Hood remembers the day in August 2002 that he began to question what was really going on in Georgia. An African-American whose parents fought for voting rights in the South during the 1960s, Hood was proud to be working as a consultant for Diebold Election Systems, helping the company promote its new electronic voting machines. During the presidential election two years earlier, more than 94,000 paper ballots had gone uncounted in Georgia - almost double the national average - and Secretary of State Cathy Cox was under pressure to make sure every vote was recorded properly.
Hood had been present in May 2002, when officials with Cox's office signed a contract with Diebold - paying the company a record $54 million to install 19,000 electronic voting machines across the state. At a restaurant inside Atlanta's Marriott Hotel, he noticed the firm's CEO, Walden O'Dell, checking Diebold's stock price on a laptop computer every five minutes, waiting for a bounce from the announcement.
Hood wondered why Diebold, the world's third-largest seller of ATMs, had been awarded the contract. The company had barely completed its acquisition of Global Election Systems, a voting-machine firm that owned the technology Diebold was promising to sell Georgia. And its bid was the highest among nine competing vendors. Whispers within the company hinted that a fix was in.
"The Diebold executives had a news conference planned on the day of the award," Hood recalls, "and we were instructed to stay in our hotel rooms until just hours before the announcement. They didn't want the competitors to know and possibly file a protest" about the lack of a fair bidding process. It certainly didn't hurt that Diebold had political clout: Cox's predecessor as secretary of state, Lewis Massey, was now a lobbyist for the company.
The problem was, Diebold had only five months to install the new machines - a "very narrow window of time to do such a big deployment," Hood notes. The old systems stored in warehouses had to be replaced with new equipment; dozens of state officials and poll workers had to be trained in how to use the touch-screen machines. "It was pretty much an impossible task," Hood recalls. There was only one way, he adds, that the job could be done in time - if "the vendor had control over the entire environment." That is precisely what happened. In late July, to speed deployment of the new machines, Cox quietly signed an agreement with Diebold that effectively privatized Georgia's entire electoral system. The company was authorized to put together ballots, program machines and train poll workers across the state - all without any official supervision. "We ran the election," says Hood. "We had 356 people that Diebold brought into the state. Diebold opened and closed the polls and tabulated the votes. Diebold convinced Cox that it would be best if the company ran everything due to the time constraints, and in the interest of a trouble-free election, she let us do it."
Then, one muggy day in mid-August, Hood was surprised to see the president of Diebold's election unit, Bob Urosevich, arrive in Georgia from his headquarters in Texas. With the primaries looming, Urosevich was personally distributing a "patch," a little piece of software designed to correct glitches in the computer program. "We were told that it was intended to fix the clock in the system, which it didn't do," Hood says. "The curious thing is the very swift, covert way this was done."
Georgia law mandates that any change made in voting machines be certified by the state. But thanks to Cox's agreement with Diebold, the company was essentially allowed to certify itself. "It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state," Hood told me. "We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from Urosevich. It was very unusual that a president of the company would give an order like that and be involved at that level."
According to Hood, Diebold employees altered software in some 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties - the state's largest Democratic strongholds. To avoid detection, Hood and others on his team entered warehouses early in the morning. "We went in at 7:30 a.m. and were out by 11," Hood says. "There was a universal key to unlock the machines, and it's easy to get access. The machines in the warehouses were unlocked. We had control of everything. The state gave us the keys to the castle, so to speak, and they stayed out of our way." Hood personally patched fifty-six machines and witnessed the patch being applied to more than 1,200 others.
The patch comes on a memory card that is inserted into a machine. Eventually, all the memory cards end up on a server that tabulates the votes - where the patch can be programmed to alter the outcome of an election. "There could be a hidden program on a memory card that adjusts everything to the preferred election results," Hood says. "Your program says, 'I want my candidate to stay ahead by three or four percent or whatever.' Those programs can include a built-in delete that erases itself after it's done."
It is impossible to know whether the machines were rigged to alter the election in Georgia: Diebold's machines provided no paper trail, making a recount impossible. But the tally in Georgia that November surprised even the most seasoned political observers. Six days before the vote, polls showed Sen. Max Cleland, a decorated war veteran and Democratic incumbent, leading his Republican opponent Saxby Chambliss - darling of the Christian Coalition - by five percentage points. In the governor's race, Democrat Roy Barnes was running a decisive eleven points ahead of Republican Sonny Perdue. But on Election Day, Chambliss won with fifty-three percent of the vote, and Perdue won with fifty-one percent.
Diebold insists that the patch was installed "with the approval and oversight of the state." But after the election, the Georgia secretary of state's office submitted a "punch list" to Bob Urosevich of "issues and concerns related to the statewide voting system that we would like Diebold to address." One of the items referenced was" Application/Implication of '0808' Patch." The state was seeking confirmation that the patch did not require that the system "be recertified at national and state level" as well as "verifiable analysis of overall impact of patch to the voting system." In a separate letter, Secretary Cox asked Urosevich about Diebold's use of substitute memory cards and defective equipment as well as widespread problems that caused machines to freeze up and improperly record votes. The state threatened to delay further payments to Diebold until "these punch list items will be corrected and completed."
Diebold's response has not been made public - but its machines remain in place for Georgia's election this fall. Hood says it was "common knowledge" within the company that Diebold also illegally installed uncertified software in machines used in the 2004 presidential primaries - a charge the company denies. Disturbed to see the promise of electronic machines subverted by private companies, Hood left the election consulting business and became a whistle-blower. "What I saw," he says, "was basically a corporate takeover of our voting system."
The United States is one of only a handful of major democracies that allow private, partisan companies to secretly count and tabulate votes using their own proprietary software. Today, eighty percent of all the ballots in America are tallied by four companies - Diebold, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic. In 2004, 36 million votes were cast on their touch-screen systems, and millions more were recorded by optical-scan machines owned by the same companies that use electronic technology to tabulate paper ballots. The simple fact is, these machines not only break down with regularity, they are easily compromised - by people inside, and outside, the companies.
Three of the four companies have close ties to the Republican Party. ES&S, in an earlier corporate incarnation, was chaired by Chuck Hagel, who in 1996 became the first Republican elected to the U.S. Senate from Nebraska in twenty-four years - winning a close race in which eighty-five percent of the votes were tallied by his former company. Hart InterCivic ranks among its investors GOP loyalist Tom Hicks, who bought the Texas Rangers from George W. Bush in 1998, making Bush a millionaire fifteen times over. And according to campaign-finance records, Diebold, along with its employees and their families, has contributed at least $300,000 to GOP candidates and party funds since 1998 - including more than $200,000 to the Republican National Committee. In a 2003 fund-raising e-mail, the company's then-CEO Walden O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush in 2004. That year, Diebold would count the votes in half of Ohio's counties.
The voting-machine companies bear heavy blame for the 2000 presidential-election disaster. Fox News' fateful decision to call Florida for Bush - followed minutes later by CBS and NBC - came after electronic machines in Volusia County erroneously subtracted more than 16,000 votes from Al Gore's total. Later, after an internal investigation, CBS described the mistake as "critical" in the network's decision. Seeing what was an apparent spike for Bush, Gore conceded the election - then reversed his decision after a campaign staffer investigated and discovered that Gore was actually ahead in Volusia by 13,000 votes.
Investigators traced the mistake to Global Election Systems, the firm later acquired by Diebold. Two months after the election, an internal memo from Talbot Iredale, the company's master programmer, blamed the problem on a memory card that had been improperly - and unnecessarily - uploaded. "There is always the possibility," Iredale conceded, "that the 'second memory card' or 'second upload' came from an unauthorized source."
Amid the furor over hanging chads and butterfly ballots in Florida, however, the "faulty memory card" was all but forgotten. Instead of sharing culpability for the Florida catastrophe, voting-machine companies used their political clout to present their product as the solution. In October 2002, President Bush signed the Help America Vote Act, requiring states and counties to upgrade their voting systems with electronic machines and giving vast sums of money to state officials to distribute to the tightknit cabal of largely Republican vendors.
The primary author and steward of HAVA was Rep. Bob Ney, the GOP chairman of the powerful U.S. House Administration Committee. Ney had close ties to the now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose firm received at least $275,000 from Diebold to lobby for its touch-screen machines. Ney's former chief of staff, David DiStefano, also worked as a registered lobbyist for Diebold, receiving at least $180,000 from the firm to lobby for HAVA and "other election reform issues." Ney - who accepted campaign contributions from DiStefano and counted Diebold's then-CEO O'Dell among his constituents - made sure that HAVA strongly favored the use of the company's machines.
Ney also made sure that Diebold and other companies would not be required to equip their machines with printers to provide paper records that could be verified by voters. In a clever twist, HAVA effectively pressures every precinct to provide at least one voting device that has no paper trail - supposedly so that vision-impaired citizens can vote in secrecy. The provision was backed by two little-known advocacy groups: the National Federation of the Blind, which accepted $1 million from Diebold to build a new research institute, and the American Association of People with Disabilities, which pocketed at least $26,000 from voting-machine companies. The NFB maintained that a paper voting receipt would jeopardize its members' civil rights - a position not shared by other groups that advocate for the blind.
Sinking in the sewage of the Abramoff scandal, Ney agreed on September 15th to plead guilty to federal conspiracy charges - but he has already done one last favor for his friends at Diebold. When 212 congressmen from both parties sponsored a bill to mandate a paper trail for all votes, Ney used his position as chairman to prevent the measure from even getting a hearing before his committee.
The result was that HAVA - the chief reform effort after the 2000 disaster - placed much of the nation's electoral system in the hands of for-profit companies. Diebold alone has sold more than 130,000 voting machines - raking in estimated revenues of at least $230 million. "This whole undertaking was never about voters," says Hood, who saw firsthand how the measure benefited Diebold's bottom line. "It was about privatizing elections. HAVA has been turned into a corporate-revenue enhancement scheme."
No case better demonstrates the dangers posed by electronic voting machines than the experience of Maryland. As in Georgia, officials there granted Diebold control over much of the state's election systems during the 2002 midterm elections. (In the interests of disclosure, my sister was a candidate for governor that year and lost by a margin consistent with pre-election polls.) On Election Night, when Chris Hood accompanied Diebold president Bob Urosevich and marketing director Mark Radke to the tabulation center in Montgomery County where the votes would be added up, he was stunned to find the room empty. "Not a single Maryland election official was there to retrieve the memory cards," he recalls. As cards containing every vote in the county began arriving in canvas bags, the Diebold executives plugged them into a group of touch-screen tabulators linked into a central server, which was also controlled by a Diebold employee.
"It would have been very easy for any one of us to take a contaminated card out of our pocket, put it into the system, and download some malicious code that would then end up in the server, impacting every other vote that went in, before and after," says Hood. "We had absolute control of the tabulations. We could have fixed the election if we wanted. We had access, and that's all you need. I can honestly say that every election I saw with Diebold in charge was compromised - if not in the count, at least in the security."
After the election, Maryland planned to install Diebold's AccuVote-TS electronic machines across the entire state - until four computer scientists at Johns Hopkins and Rice universities released an analysis of the company's software source code in July 2003. "This voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts," the scientists concluded. It was, in fact, "unsuitable for use in a general election."
"With electronic machines, you can commit wholesale fraud with a single alteration of software," says Avi Rubin, a computer-science professor at Johns Hopkins who has received $7.5 million from the National Science Foundation to study electronic voting. "There are a million little tricks when you build software that allow you to do whatever you want. If you know the precinct demographics, the machine can be programmed to recognize its precinct and strategically flip votes in elections that are several years in the future. No one will ever know it happened."
In response to the study, Maryland commissioned two additional reports on Diebold's equipment. The first was conducted by Science Applications International Corporation - a company that, along with Diebold, was part of an industry group that promotes electronic voting machines. SAIC conceded that Diebold's machines were "at high risk of compromise" - but concluded that the state's "procedural controls and general voting environment reduce or eliminate many of the vulnerabilities identified in the Rubin report." Despite the lack of any real "procedural controls" during the 2002 election, Gov. Robert Ehrlich gave the state election board the go-ahead to pay $55.6 million for Diebold's AccuVote-TS system.
The other analysis, commissioned by the Maryland legislature, was a practical test of the systems by RABA Technologies, a consulting firm experienced in both defense and intelligence work for the federal government. Computer scientists hired by RABA to hack into six of Diebold's machines discovered a major flaw: The company had built what are known as "back doors" into the software that could enable a hacker to hide an unauthorized and malicious code in the system. William Arbaugh, of the University of Maryland, gave the Diebold system an "F" with "the possibility of raising it to a 'C' with extra credit - that is, if they follow the recommendations we gave them."
But according to recent e-mails obtained by Rolling Stone, Diebold not only failed to follow up on most of the recommendations, it worked to cover them up. Michael Wertheimer, who led the RABA study, now serves as an assistant deputy director in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. "We made numerous recommendations that would have required Diebold to fix these issues," he writes in one e-mail, "but were rebuffed by the argument that the machines were physically protected and could not be altered by someone outside the established chain of custody."
In another e-mail, Wertheimer says that Diebold and state officials worked to downplay his team's dim assessment. "We spent hours dealing with Diebold lobbyists and election officials who sought to minimize our impact," he recalls. "The results were risk-managed in favor of expediency and potential catastrophe."
During the 2004 presidential election, with Diebold machines in place across the state, things began to go wrong from the very start. A month before the vote, an abandoned Diebold machine was discovered in a bar in Baltimore. "What's really worrisome," says Hood, "is that someone could get hold of all the technology - for manipulation - if they knew the inner workings of just one machine."
Election Day was a complete disaster. "Countless numbers of machines were down because of what appeared to be flaws in Diebold's system," says Hood, who was part of a crew of roving technicians charged with making sure that the polls were up and running. "Memory cards overloading, machines freezing up, poll workers afraid to turn them on or off for fear of losing votes."
Then, after the polls closed, Diebold technicians who showed up to collect the memory cards containing the votes found that many were missing. "The machines are gone," one janitor told Hood - picked up, apparently, by the vendor who had delivered them in the first place. "There was major chaos because there were so many cards missing," Hood says. Even before the 2004 election, experts warned that electronic voting machines would undermine the integrity of the vote. "The system we have for testing and certifying voting equipment in this country is not only broken but is virtually nonexistent," Michael Shamos, a distinguished professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University, testified before Congress that June. "It must be re-created from scratch."
Two months later, the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team - a division of the Department of Homeland Security - issued a little-noticed "cyber-security bulletin." The alert dealt specifically with a database that Diebold uses in tabulating votes. "A vulnerability exists due to an undocumented backdoor account," the alert warned, citing the same kind of weakness identified by the RABA scientists. The security flaw, it added, could allow "a malicious user [to] modify votes."
Such warnings, however, didn't stop states across the country from installing electronic voting machines for the 2004 election. In Ohio, jammed and inoperable machines were reported throughout Toledo. In heavily Democratic areas of Youngstown, nearly 100 voters pushed "Kerry" and watched "Bush" light up. At least twenty machines had to be recalibrated in the middle of the voting process for flipping Kerry votes to Bush. Similar "vote hopping" was reported by voters in other states.
The widespread glitches didn't deter Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell - who also chaired Bush's re-election campaign in Ohio - from cutting a deal in 2005 that would have guaranteed Diebold a virtual monopoly on vote counting in the state. Local election officials alleged that the deal, which came only a few months after Blackwell bought nearly $10,000 in Diebold stock, was a violation of state rules requiring a fair and competitive bidding process. Facing a lawsuit, Blackwell agreed to allow other companies to provide machines as well. This November, voters in forty-seven counties will cast their ballots on Diebold machines - in a pivotal election in which Blackwell is running as the Republican candidate for governor.
Electronic voting machines also caused widespread problems in Florida, where Bush bested Kerry by 381,000 votes. When statistical experts from the University of California examined the state's official tally, they discovered a disturbing pattern: "The data show with 99.0 percent certainty that a county's use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004." The three counties with the most discrepancies - Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade - were also the most heavily Democratic. Electronic voting machines, the report concluded, may have improperly awarded as many as 260,000 votes to Bush. "No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained," said Michael Hout, a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Charles Stewart III, an MIT professor who specializes in voter behavior and methodology, was initially skeptical of the study - but was unable to find any flaw in the results. "You can't break it - I've tried," he told The Washington Post. "There's something funky in the results from the electronic-machine Democratic counties."
Questions also arose in Texas in 2004. William Singer, an election programmer in Tarrant County, wrote the secretary of state's office after the vote to report that ES&S pressured officials to install unapproved software during the presidential primaries. "What I was expected to do in order to 'pull off' an election," Singer wrote, "was far beyond the kind of practices that I believe should be standard and accepted in the election industry." The company denies the charge, but in an e-mail this month, Singer elaborated that ES&S employees had pushed local election officials to pressure the secretary of state to accept "a software change at such a last minute there would be no choice, and effectively avoid certification."
Despite such reports, Texas continues to rely on ES&S. In primaries held in Jefferson County earlier this year, electronic votes had to be recounted after error messages prevented workers from completing their tabulations. In April, with early voting in local elections only a week away, officials across the state were still waiting to receive the programming from ES&S needed to test the machines for accuracy. Calling the situation "completely unacceptable and disturbing," Texas director of elections Ann McGeehan authorized local officials to create "emergency paper ballots" as a backup. "We regret the unacceptable position that many political subdivisions are in due to poor performance by their contracted vendor," McGeehan added.
In October 2005, the government Accountability Office issued a damning report on electronic voting machines. Citing widespread irregularities and malfunctions, the government's top watchdog agency concluded that a host of weaknesses with touch-screen and optical-scan technology "could damage the integrity of ballots, votes and voting-system software by allowing unauthorized modifications." Some electronic systems used passwords that were "easily guessed" or employed identical passwords for numerous systems. Software could be handled and transported with no clear chain of custody, and locks protecting computer hardware were easy to pick. Unsecured memory cards could enable individuals to "vote multiple times, change vote totals and produce false election reports."
An even more comprehensive report released in June by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank at the New York University School of Law, echoed the GAO's findings. The report - conducted by a task force of computer scientists and security experts from the government, universities and the private sector - was peer-reviewed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Electronic voting machines widely adopted since 2000, the report concluded, "pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state and local elections." While no instances of hacking have yet been documented, the report identified 120 security threats to three widely used machines - the easiest method of attack being to utilize corrupt software that shifts votes from one candidate to another.
Computer experts have demonstrated that a successful attack would be relatively simple. In a study released on September 13th, computer scientists at Princeton University created vote-stealing software that can be injected into a Diebold machine in as little as a minute, obscuring all evidence of its presence. They also created a virus that can "infect" other units in a voting system, committing "widespread fraud" from a single machine. Within sixty seconds, a lone hacker can own an election.
And touch-screen technology continues to create chaos at the polls. On September 12th, in Maryland's first all-electronic election, voters were turned away from the polls because election officials had failed to distribute the electronic access cards needed to operate Diebold machines. By the time the cards were found on a warehouse shelf and delivered to every precinct, untold numbers of voters had lost the chance to cast ballots.
It seems insane that such clear threats to our election system have not stopped the proliferation of touch-screen technology. In 2004, twenty-three percent of Americans cast their votes on electronic ballots - an increase of twelve percent over 2000. This year, more than one-third of the nation's 8,000 voting jurisdictions are expected to use electronic voting technology for the first time.
The heartening news is, citizens are starting to fight back. Voting-rights activists with the Brad Blog and Black Box Voting are getting the word out. Voter Action, a nonprofit group, has helped file lawsuits in Arizona, New York, Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Mexico to stop the proliferation of touch-screen systems. In California, voters filed suit last March to challenge the use of a Diebold touch-screen system - a move that has already prompted eight counties to sign affidavits saying they won't use the machines in November.
It's not surprising that the widespread problems with electronic voting machines have sparked such outrage and mistrust among voters. Last November, comedian Bill Maher stood in a Las Vegas casino and looked out over thousands of slot machines. "They never make a mistake," he remarked to me. "Can't we get a voting machine that can't be fixed?"
Indeed, there is a remarkably simple solution: equip every touch-screen machine to provide paper receipts that can be verified by voters and recounted in the event of malfunction or tampering. "The paper is the insurance against the cheating machine," says Rubin, the computer expert.
In Florida, an astonishing new law actually makes it illegal to count paper ballots by hand after they've already been tallied by machine. But twenty-seven states now require a paper trail, and others are considering similar requirements. In New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson has instituted what many consider an even better solution: Voters use paper ballots, which are then scanned and counted electronically. "We became one of the laughingstock states in 2004 because the machines were defective, slow and unreliable," says Richardson. "I said to myself, 'I'm not going to go through this again.' The paper-ballot system, as untechnical as it seems, is the most verifiable way we can assure Americans that their vote is counting."
Paper ballots will not completely eliminate the threat of tampering, of course - after all, election fraud and miscounts have occurred throughout our history. As long as there has been a paper trail, however, our elections have been conducted with some measure of public scrutiny. But electronic voting machines are a hacker's dream. And today, for-profit companies are being given unprecedented and frightening power not only to provide these machines but to store and count our votes in secret, without any real oversight.
You do not have to believe in conspiracy theories to fear for the integrity of our electoral system: The right to vote is simply too important - and too hard won - to be surrendered without a fight. It is time for Americans to reclaim our democracy from private interests.
>>This article is from the October 5th, 2006 issue of "Rolling Stone" magazine.
Comment on this Article
Leaked intelligence report rocks Bush election stance
by David Millikin
AFP
September 24, 2006
NEW YORK - US spy agencies dropped a political bombshell six weeks before national elections, with the leak of a classified report concluding that the war in Iraq has spawned a new wave of Islamic radicalism and increased the global threat of terrorism.
The intelligence document rocked a central pillar of the Republican Party's campaign platform ahead of November elections: that the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ouster of
Saddam Hussein made America safer, not weaker.
With opinion polls showing President George W. Bush's party possibly losing control of both houses of Congress in the the mid-term polls, in large part due to unhappiness over the war in Iraq, the report stating categorically the opposite will make for painful reading at the White House.
Bush has argued repeatedly in pre-election speeches that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism and that demands for a US troop withdrawal from the country by the opposition Democrats underscores why the center-left party should not be trusted with the nation's security.
"The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq," Bush said in one speech on August 31.
Such assertions were looking decidedly shaky Sunday after The New York Times and The Washington Post released details of the classified National Intelligence Estimate, the most comprehensive assessment yet of the war, based on analyses of all 16 of America's intelligence agencies.
The report, Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States, says "the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," an official familiar with the document told The Times.
The Washington Post said the report described the Iraq conflict as the primary recruiting vehicle for violent Islamic extremists.
While the US has seriously damaged Al-Qaeda and disrupted its ability to carry out major operations since the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, it noted, radical Islamic networks have spread and decentralized.
Democratic leaders were quick to jump on the report's conclusions as clear evidence of the failure of Bush's policies.
"This intelligence document should put the final nail in the coffin for president Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war," Senator Edward Kennedy said in a statement Sunday.
"The fact that we need a new direction in Iraq to really win the war on terror and make Americans safer could not be clearer or more urgent -- yet this administration stubbornly clings to a failed 'stay-the-course' strategy," he said.
The White House, while reiterating its traditional stance of not commenting on classified reports, said The New York Times story "isn't representative of the complete document."
"We've always said that the terrorists are determined. Keeping the pressure on and staying on the offense is the best way to win the war on terror," a White House spokesman added.
But the leaked intelligence report is hardly good news for Bush and the Republicans, coming on top of a messy revolt by top Republican senators against a Bush plan for legitimizing how the US interrogates and prosecutes terrorist suspects.
The Senate rebels, who included possible candidates to succeed Bush in 2008, reached a compromise agreement with the White House late this week.
But the unseemly row already diverted attention from Republican efforts to present a unified front on the issue of national security during the final stretch of the election campaign.
Republican leaders tried to brush aside the intelligence document, which they said they had not yet seen.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed confidence US voters would not be swayed by the intelligence report.
"I think the American people, when they read an article like that ... say, 'Listen, just keep me safe -- I just want to be safe in Nashville, Tennessee, I want to be safe in Memphis, New York City, Washington, DC,' that's what they want."
However, one moderate Republican, Arlen Specter, told CNN, "The war in Iraq has intensified Islam fundamentalism and radicalism."
"There is a much more fundamental issue as to how we respond. And that is, what we do with the Iraq war itself," he said.
"That's the focal point for inspiring more radical Islam fundamentalism, and that's a problem that nobody seems to have an answer to," Specter said.
Comment on this Article
U.S. spy agencies say Iraq War amplifies terror threat
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-25 04:05:24
WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 (Xinhua) -- U.S. spy agencies have concluded in a new report that the Iraq war has amplified overall terror threat by giving rise to a new wave of extremism, U.S. mainstream media reported Sunday.
The report said rather than contributing to eventual victory in the war on terror, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, both The Washington Post and The New York Times reported, quoting government sources.
Completed in April, the 30-page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," is the first formal assessment of global terrorism by U.S. intelligence community since the Iraq war began in 2003 and represents a consensus view of the 16 different spy services.
The report believed that the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the insurgency that followed, have become the leading inspiration for new extremist groups and cells that are united by little more than anti-Western agenda.
The conclusions of the NIE appeared to contradict starkly with repeated claims by U.S. President George W. Bush that Iraq holds the key to the final victory of war on terror.
The report did not make specific predictions, like when will be the next attack on U.S. soil, but said the overall terror threat has increased since the 9/11 attacks.
However, White House spokesman Peter Watkins rejected the tone of media reports about the NIE, saying they are not "representative of the complete document," though he did not mention any content of the classified report.
Comment on this Article
US spy agency CIA paid Pakistan for al-Qaeda suspects: Musharraf
AFP
September 24, 2006
LONDON - The US Central Intelligence Agency paid Pakistan millions of dollars for handing over more than 350 suspected al-Qaeda terrorists to the United States, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has reportedly said.
The assertions come in the military ruler's upcoming memoir "In the Line of Fire," serialized in The Times newspaper.
Musharraf does not reveal how much Pakistan was paid for the 369 Al-Qaeda suspects he ordered should be handed over to the United States, the newspaper said, noting, however, that such payments are banned by the US government.
The newspaper does not, however, print or quote the excerpts which make the allegations.
In response a US Department of Justice official was quoted as saying: "We didn't know about this. It should not happen. These bounty payments are for private individuals who help to trace terrorists on the FBI's most wanted list, not foreign governments."
The Pakistani's leader's claims come after he said last week that former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage had threatened to bomb Pakistan if it did not back the United States in the so-called "war on terror" in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, described by Musharraf as "what has to be the most undiplomatic statement ever made."
"Our relationships with international leaders is not something we are prepared to talk about," a CIA official told The Times.
Musharraf also writes that he was so angered by American demands in the wake of the September 11 attacks, which he calls "ludicrous," that he "war-gamed the United States as an adversary."
"There would be a violent and angry reaction if we didn't support the United States," an excerpt from his book reads.
"The question was: if we do not join them, can we confront them and withstand the onslaught? The answer was no."
He said that two days after the attacks, the US Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain brought to him a set of seven demands including "blanket overflight and landing rights" and "use of Pakistan's naval ports, air bases, and strategic locations on borders."
Musharraf said Pakistan gave no "blanket permission" for anything.
The military leader also says that he decided to make the revelations to counter claims that Pakistan had not done enough to combat Al-Qaeda in the war on terror.
Comment on this Article
The legal status of fighters
By Meron Benvenisti
Sun., September 24, 2006
Haaretz
The Israeli legal system, stretched to the limit by cases of private and public corruption, still finds the time and the resources to provide massive support for spreading and deepening Israel's image as a country suffering from terrorism and fighting for its existence. It is an image of a country threatened by traitors from within (Arab Israelis, hoping for a victory of the Axis of Evil whose center is in Damascus), by Hamas operatives (who aspire to destroy it) and by murderous Lebanese (Hezbollah).
On Tuesday, the trial of three Hezbollah fighters started. They are charged with murder, weapons possession, undergoing military training and membership in a terrorist organization. On the same day, a military court extended the remands of 21 Hamas ministers and legislators, who have been charged with membership in a terrorist organization. And also on that day, police began questioning a Balad member who visited Damascus - the "capital of terrorism" - and praised Hezbollah's victory.
The ideological basis for these legal steps is the definition of the suspects as terrorists. In other words, criminals. Their supporters are defined as traitors. Israel has taken it upon itself to define what legitimate violence is, and it is claiming a monopoly on the use of force, demanding that others accept its unilateral definitions. If they do not, they will be accused of being hostile, or worse. All practical resistance to Israel, whether violent or political, is an act whose purpose is illegitimate. Therefore, the definition of a "terrorist act" is not limited to the murder of innocents; it includes any use of "illegitimate" force. This definition encompasses "incitement" and "abetting the enemy." One could say, on the basis of this mainstream outlook, that a person can be either a Zionist or a terrorist.
The need to entrench this view, and thus to justify violent, deterrent, consciousness-searing action - and to reject all other definitions that are critical and unflattering - is highlighted by the absurdity of filing criminal charges. It is clear that the elected officials from Hamas were arrested and jailed only to serve as hostages for the release of Gilad Shalit, the abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier, and that the charge of belonging to a terrorist organization is just a pretext, as has already been determined by one court proceeding, which ordered the Hamas officials released.
Is the continuation of the trial supposed to serve as a means of pressure? Against whom? Is it meant to make it more difficult for the government to release Palestinian prisoners, or perhaps to undermine the diplomatic process that may emerge upon the creation of a Palestinian national unity government? When the exchange of prisoners does take place, and the Hamas officials are released, the sanctimonious cry will be heard: How could we undermine the rule of law in such a way? But the rule of law did not object when its dignity was exploited for cynical ends.
The trial of the Hezbollah fighters only heightens the absurdity and stains the legal system, which is ready to subserviently serve a military establishment that aims to humiliate an imprisoned enemy. According to the state's representative, "these are not prisoners [of war], because Hezbollah does not abide by the rules of war." Does Israel strictly adhere to the rules of war? Whoever denies his enemies the status of prisoners of war exposes his own imprisoned soldiers to the same treatment.
The United States invented the status of "unlawful enemy combatants" for such prisoners, and thus denied them the benefit of the Geneva Convention. However, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this argument and applied the convention's content to them as well. Israel, however, was not moved by this. Nor is it moved by the implied humiliation of the IDF, which fought a difficult war against Hezbollah. After all, if the enemy fighters are criminals, murderers and terrorists, but they still managed to successfully withstand the onslaught of Israel's might, what does that say about the IDF's abilities as a fighting force? The attempt to describe the second Lebanon War as a police action, in which a number of criminals were caught and are now being tried for murder and attempted murder, is so pathetic that it should be abandoned immediately. In any case, its wretchedness will be revealed once the negotiations for an exchange of prisoners are completed.
The prosecution, in its eagerness to serve an inflamed public opinion at the expense of the Arab MKs - who dared to praise Hezbollah's successes - appears about to be caught up once again in the heat of the moment and investigate the Arab MKs over their statements in Damascus.
Thus the circle is complete: The whole world is against us. Our neighbors, citizens of the state, are a fifth column; the Palestinians in the territories want to wipe us out; Hezbollah is a forward division of Syria and Iran; our very existence is threatened; but our fearless legal system will protect us against all our enemies and bring justice to light. And afterward, we will be able to continue our "deterrence" work with a clear conscience.
Comment on this Article
The ordeal of Mullah Zaeef
By Ayaz Amir
September 22, 2006
Dawn
WE know, to our lasting shame, how our overlords, dazzled by American power, and afraid of God knows what, handed over the ex-Taliban ambassador, Mullah Abdus Salam Zaeef, to the Americans in January 2002 - in violation of every last comma of international law.
But until now we have not been privy to the details: how exactly did the handing-over take place? Now to satisfy our curiosity, and perhaps outrage our feelings, comes Mullah Zaeef's own account, published in Pashto and parts of which have been translated into Urdu by the Express newspaper.
To say that the account is eye-opening would be an understatement. It is harrowing and mind-blowing. Can anyone bend so low as our government did? And can behaviour be as wretched as that displayed by American military personnel into whose custody Zaeef was given?
On the morning of January 2, 2002, three officials of a secret agency arrived at Zaeef's house in Islamabad with this message: "Your Excellency, you are no more excellency." One of them said, no one can resist American power, or words to that effect. "America wants to question you. We are going to hand you over to the Americans so that their purpose is served and Pakistan is saved from a big danger."
Zaeef could have been forgiven for feeling stunned. From the "guardians of Islam" this was the last thing that he expected, that for the sake of a few "coins" (his words) he would be delivered as a "gift" to the Americans.
Under heavy escort he was taken to Peshawar, kept there for a few days and then pushed into his nightmare. Blindfolded and handcuffed, he was driven to a place where a helicopter was waiting, its engines running. Someone said, "Khuda hafiz" (God preserve you).
There were some people speaking in English. "Suddenly I was pounced upon and flung on the ground, kicked and pummelled from all sides. So sudden was the attack that I was dumbfounded... My blindfold slipping, I saw a line of Pakistani soldiers to one side and some vehicles including one with a flag...My clothes were stripped from my body and I was naked but 'my former friends' kept watching the spectacle. The locks on their lips I can never forget... The (Pakistani) officers present there could at least have said he is our guest, in our presence don't treat him like this. Even in my grave I will not be able to forget that scene."
Zaeef suffered unspeakable tortures at the hands of his American captors. He was kept in Bagram, then taken to Kandahar and from there flown eventually to Guantanamo. He was released from Guantanomo and flown to Kabul in September 2005, charged with nothing, nothing having been proven against him. He remained in American captivity for close to four years.
I have read accounts of KGB prisons but to the best of my knowledge the KGB, while no collection of innocents, did not keep prisoners in metal containers and metal cages. This seems to be a method perfected by our American friends.
In the Second World War the German army confined itself to fighting, leaving the dirty work of prisoner detention, abuse and torture to the Gestapo and SS. But in Afghanistan and Iraq it is the American military involved in the most despicable acts of torture. Abu Ghraib was an American military facility as is the prison system in Guantanomo Bay. In Basra soldiers of the British army have been involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
These are the standard-bearers of human rights and freedom from whom we are supposed to take lessons in democracy. Why does the Bush administration and its acolytes in Britain so loath President Ahmedinejad of Iran and President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela? Because they look America in the eye and are not afraid of speaking the truth.
It is hard to fault Hugo Chavez when before the UN General Assembly he calls Bush a devil and the Bush administration the greatest threat to world peace. From the shores of the Mediterranean to the Hindukush mountains on our western border this entire region is in strife, all because of the evil - there is no other word for it - flowing from the US. The 'evil empire' is very much here and its capital is Washington.
The Nazis dabbled in lies as a matter of policy. They said - Goebbels being the prime exemplar - that the bigger the lie and the more it was repeated, the more it would be taken as the truth. But the Nazis did not prevaricate. They were bold enough to call their lies lies. The Yanks and the Brits are less honest. They want us to applaud their lies as the truth.
The US covered itself in a garb of hurt innocence when the Sep 11, 2001, attacks took place. But using those attacks as a pretext, it has done so much harm around the world, especially in the Middle East and our region, that its hands are covered in blood.
We can only thank our stars that American aggression has not gone unchecked. If Iraq had been a cakewalk, if the US had not met its second Vietnam in the killing fields of Iraq, there is no telling what the Bush war administration would have done, what further conquests it would have embarked upon. Redrawing the map of the Middle East would not have remained a mere slogan. It might actually have happened.
Complementing Iraq is the developing situation in Afghanistan where the anti-American resistance is gaining strength and growing stronger by the day. In Lebanon Israeli designs have received a severe check. Iran is defiant and standing up to pressure. In Latin America Chavez looks set to don the mantle of Castro.
What a dramatic change has been wrought in a mere five years. The US was unassailable at the beginning of this period. But thanks principally to the Iraq fiasco, it looks less invincible now. Its material power has not diminished but its moral worth stands degraded. It remains a colossus but with feet of clay.
This is not the end of history. This looks very much like the beginning of a new history. The free-market model American-style is not the crowning achievement of human existence.
Indeed, if we are at all interested in sustainable development, we'll have to think of something better and less destructive than unbridled capitalism. And something less arrogant than the new imperialism to which our region is being exposed.
Spare a thought for our military rulers who take such pride in supping with the devil. Indeed, closeness to the Bush administration is the ultimate yardstick by which they like to judge themselves. Whatever the mess in domestic affairs, it means nothing if their equation with Washington remains strong.
Did the Pakistani officers present at the scene of Zaeef's humiliation feel nothing when the Americans were laying into him? Did the thought not cross their minds that more than Zaeef's humiliation it was their humiliation?
And who was the senior officer, with a flag on his jeep? My course-mate Ehsan - 41st PMA - was then heading ISI, the organization in overall command of such sensitive matters. Maybe he throws some light on this incident if he sits down to write his memoirs.
There is no shortage of sages who, in relation to Pakistan's post-Sep 11 capitulation before the US, still ask: what would you have done? They miss the point altogether. From cravenness and appeasement no good can come, none whatsoever. And a country which proves itself to be craven in one sphere can do nothing right or bold in any other sphere.
If toadyism is to be our second nature, we will be swayed this way and that by every shifting wind. Our national endeavours will lack conviction and purpose and democracy and the rule of law will remain distant dreams. We will have to master our fears and our perennial tendency to vacillation before we can hope to master anything else.
Comment on this Article
UK suspects in new claims of torture at Guantanamo
The Independent
By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent
The extent of the torture and abuse that British residents held at Guantanamo Bay claim to have suffered is revealed for the first time in a series of recently declassified interviews between the detainees and their human rights lawyers.
Documents submitted to the American courts allege that one of the detainees was strapped to a chair by prison guards and beaten and tortured to the point of death.
Other British suspects are still being held in solitary confinement, four years after their capture, where they are subjected to extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation and the confiscation of the most basic necessities, including lavatory paper and blankets.
None has been charged with any crime.
Some of the most serious allegations of torture concern the treatment of Shaker Aamer, a Saudi national who until his arrest four years ago had been living in London with his wife and four children.
In June this year, Mr Aamer claims he was badly beaten and tortured because he failed to provide a retina scan and fingerprints to the camp authorities. He says he was strapped to a chair, fully restrained at the head, arms and legs.
The habeas corpus motion filed in the court of the District of Columbia states: "The MPs [military police] inflicted so much pain, Mr Aamer said he thought he was going to die. The MPs pressed on pressure points all over his body: his temples, just under his jawline, in the hollow beneath his ears. They choked him. They bent his nose so hard he thought it would break.
"They pinched his thighs and feet constantly. They gouged his eyes. They held his eyes open and shined a Maglite [torch] in them for minutes on end, generating intense heat. They bent his fingers until he screamed. When he screamed, they cut off his airway, then put a mask on him so he could not cry out."
Mr Aamer, who had been resident in Britain since 1996, was used as key negotiator on behalf of the prisoners during recent hunger strikes.
But when a settlement between the prisoners and the guards broke down last year he was sent to solitary confinement. This month he was visited by his lawyer from the human rights charity Reprieve. Mr Aamer told the lawyer that he had not seen the sun for 79 days and had had no meaningful contact with the outside world.
In a harrowing account of his torture he said: "At any moment, they can strip you naked. They will put your head in the toilet in the name of security. It is all about humiliation. They are trying to break me."
Bisher al-Rawi, another British resident captured by the Americans in Gambia after alleged collusion between the CIA and MI5 officers, is also being held in solitary confinement at another detention centre known as Camp V.
Mr al-Rawi has stopped co-operating with his interrogators because they are still seeking answers to the same questions they were asking when he was first arrested in 2002.
His resistance has cost him the few privileges he had and led to his interrogators using torture lasting for weeks. The most common form of torture he has been forced to endure is the use of extreme temperatures in the cells. During the day the guards let the temperatures reach 100 degrees and in the night take away his sheet and use the air conditioning system to create freezing conditions
Zachary Katznelson, the Reprieve lawyer who interviewed the men in Guantanamo, said the torture had been so severe that Mr Al Rawi had suffered wheezing and loss of consciousness.
The evidence relating to Mr al-Rawi is to be used to support an appeal already lodged at the High Court in London. Two other British residents, Omar Deghayes and Ahmed Errachidi, are also being held in Camp V.
Ahmed Belbacha and Abdennour Sameur are in Camp II. Jamil al-Banna is in Camp IV, the lowest security rated part of the prison. An eighth man, Binyam Mohamed, is due to appear before a military commission. All the men remain defiant and protest their innocence.
Reprieve, the British based human rights charity representing the men, says their detention is a gross breach of international law and an infringement of the Geneva Conventions.
Comment on this Article
Attacks spark tougher Guantanamo jail
By ANDREW SELSKY
Associated Press
Sat Sep 23, 2006
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - The military is toughening a new jailhouse for suspected al-Qaida and Taliban militants to protect guards after a spate of attacks and evidence that detainees have organized themselves into groups to mount uprisings, officials said.
The hardening comes as U.N. human rights investigators are calling for closing the entire detention center on this remote U.S. base. But with the war against terror groups dragging on, commanders say they have no choice in dealing with men deemed enemy combatants.
Events in recent months have made Guantanamo officials extremely wary:
- Detainees lured guards into a cell in the prison's Camp 4 by staging a suicide attempt in May, then attacked with fan blades and broken pieces of fluorescent light fixtures, the military says. Defense attorneys say the clash was sparked when guards tried to search prisoners' Qurans.
- On June 10, three detainees in Camp 1 committed suicide. Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris, commander of the jail, described it as a coordinated protest action - "not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us."
- Guards recently discovered detainees in Camp 1 were dismantling faucets on sinks, removing long, sharp springs and reinforcing them into stabbing weapons, Army Lt. Col. Mike Nicolucci said. Camp 1 has been emptied of detainees while new faucets are installed, with inaccessible springs.
From July 2005 through August, the military recorded 432 assaults by detainees using "cocktails" of bodily excretions thrown at guards, 227 physical assaults and 99 instances of inciting or participating in disturbances or riots.
"What we have come to assess is these detainees - these terrorists - are still fighting a battle," said Army Brig. Gen. Edward A. Leacock, deputy commander of the detention operation. "They're not on the battlefield but ... they're still continuing to fight to this day."
Leacock said hard-core al-Qaida and Taliban detainees have established a hierarchy of "military guys, religious guys ... the muscle guys, and they all have a role inside the camps."
The goal is to coordinate attacks on guards or organize disturbances, Leacock said in an interview with journalists from The Associated Press and three foreign news organizations Wednesday.
"There are people in the camps - we have identified them - that continue to try to foment problems within the camp," Leacock said. "Our effort is trying to preclude them from developing the plans that will cause ... any kind of uprising."
Leacock did not identify the leaders but insisted extra security measures were called for, even before 14 top detainees, including alleged Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were recently transferred to Guantanamo.
Human rights attorneys contend detainees are treated harshly, including enduring solitary confinement for months. The lawyers also say that among the roughly 460 Guantanamo detainees are men who were swept up by U.S. forces in
Afghanistan and elsewhere who never intended to do the United States harm.
Underscoring the military's toughening stance, a jailhouse in the final stages of construction on a cactus-studded plateau overlooking the Caribbean is being "hardened" into a maximum-security facility. Camp 6 was to have opened in August as a medium-security lockup.
The modifications have pushed back the completion date of the $37.8 million jailhouse, which has a capacity for 220 inmates, to Sept. 30. It will take its first detainees in mid-October, Army Capt. Dan Byer said.
As a medium-security jail, inmates would have had common areas where they could talk and share meals. The eight common areas, with gleaming metal tables and stools, still exist, but will be off limits to detainees under maximum security.
"Anti-jump fencing" is being added to second floor tiers, and a high-tech control room will allow guards to monitor the facility while sitting at computers.
Shower doors have been specially made for the modification. Inmates will be escorted to showers, shut in and escorted back to their cells when they are finished washing. As a medium-security jail, inmates would have been able to walk unescorted across the common area to the showers.
Camp 6 underscores the prison's increasing permanence, standing in stark contrast to the cages that housed detainees when they began arriving in January 2002. Vines now entwine the cages at the abandoned Camp X-ray, standing in knee-deep weeds and grass.
The United States has determined that about 130 of the current detainees are eligible for release or transfer, but the timing will depend on negotiations with their home countries.
"I think what we have here is an orange. What we're doing is squeezing out the juice and what we're left with at the end of the day is pulp that will just stay here," said Navy Capt. Phil Waddingham, lead officer here for the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants.
"We have dangerous men here who should not be allowed back to the battlefield," he said.
Last year, Guantanamo's former warden held talks with "the council," an ad hoc group composed of six detainees aimed at easing prison conditions and conflicts. One of the things they agreed on was having traffic cones placed in hallways during Muslim prayer time, so guards would know not to interrupt praying detainees.
The council has been disbanded amid suspicions it was coordinating resistance efforts. Defense attorneys say some council members have been in solitary confinement for months. Guantanamo officials refuse to discuss individual detainees, but say no one is denied all human contact.
Leacock said that while the prayer cones are still used, the experiment of allowing a detainee negotiating group is definitely over.
"The council of six is no longer in session," he said.
Comment: "I think what we have here is an orange. What we're doing is squeezing out the juice and what we're left with at the end of the day is pulp that will just stay here," said Navy Capt. Phil Waddingham, lead officer here for the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants.
That about says it all, doesn't it?
Comment on this Article
Bush Gets His Way
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, September 22, 2006; 12:42 PM
Pay no attention to the news stories suggesting that the White House caved in yesterday.
On the central issue of whether the CIA should continue using interrogation methods on suspected terrorists that many say constitute torture, the White House got its way, winning agreement from the "maverick" Republican senators who had refused to go along with an overt undoing of the Geneva Conventions.
The "compromise"? The Republican senators essentially agreed to look the other way.
Once again (see Monday's column ) there was so much disingenuousness flying through the airwaves that straight news reporting simply wasn't up to the task of conveying the real meaning of the day.
So let's go to the editorials and opinion columns.
Editorials and Opinions
The Washington Post editorial board writes: "Mr. Bush, as he made clear yesterday, intends to continue using the CIA to secretly detain and abuse certain terrorist suspects. He will do so by issuing his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in an executive order and by relying on questionable Justice Department opinions that authorize such practices as exposing prisoners to hypothermia and prolonged sleep deprivation. Under the compromise agreed to yesterday, Congress would recognize his authority to take these steps and prevent prisoners from appealing them to U.S. courts. The bill would also immunize CIA personnel from prosecution for all but the most serious abuses and protect those who in the past violated U.S. law against war crimes.
"In short, it's hard to credit the statement by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) yesterday that 'there's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved.' In effect, the agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent. . . .
"[T]he senators who have fought to rein in the administration's excesses -- led by Sens. McCain, Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.) -- failed to break Mr. Bush's commitment to 'alternative' methods that virtually every senior officer of the U.S. military regards as unreliable, counterproductive and dangerous for Americans who may be captured by hostile governments. . . .
"Mr. Bush wanted Congress to formally approve these practices and to declare them consistent with the Geneva Conventions. It will not. But it will not stop him either, if the legislation is passed in the form agreed on yesterday."
The New York Times editorial board writes: "The deal does next to nothing to stop the president from reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions. While the White House agreed to a list of 'grave breaches' of the conventions that could be prosecuted as war crimes, it stipulated that the president could decide on his own what actions might be a lesser breach of the Geneva Conventions and what interrogation techniques he considered permissible. It's not clear how much the public will ultimately learn about those decisions."
David Ignatius 's Washington Post opinion column today chronicles the administration's astonishing and undercovered torture-related legal wranglings, which date back to the decision to rough up terror suspect Abu Zubaida in 2002.
"From the outset the CIA officers wanted written assurance that what they were doing was legal. The Justice Department prepared an initial (and now infamous) August 2002 memo from Jay S. Bybee, head of the Office of Legal Counsel, with the chilling advice that techniques were permissible if they didn't produce pain equivalent to that caused by 'organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.' The Bybee torture memo was withdrawn, but the Justice Department offered a broad assurance in 2002 that because the program would operate outside U.S. jurisdiction, at secret sites abroad, interrogators would not be subject to U.S. law. Justice officials also argued that because captives were illegal 'enemy combatants,' they didn't have protections under the Geneva Conventions. That didn't satisfy the CIA officers running the program, especially after the uproar over Abu Ghraib, so they pressed Justice for a more detailed written opinion. It finally arrived in spring 2005.
"The real crunch came when McCain began pushing in mid-2005 for a law that would explicitly ban harsh interrogation methods. The initial response of some CIA officers staffing the program was to accept the McCain amendment, since Justice had ruled that the techniques they were using were legal. But Vice President Cheney preferred to fight McCain, and several months of bitter negotiation produced a legislative history that in CIA officers' minds removed any ambiguity -- McCain viewed the program as illegal under his new statute.
"What came next remains murky, even to those most closely involved. Rep. Duncan Hunter, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, demanded an assurance that the McCain amendment wouldn't harm the CIA's anti-terrorism efforts. He received a letter of assurance from John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, even though CIA officers had advised Negroponte that the amendment would undermine the existing program. Meanwhile, President Bush signed the law but appended a signing statement that said it didn't alter the president's inherent powers, which in Cheney's view included the right to authorize the program. The administration, in other words, wanted it both ways.
"Without clear legal guidance, CIA officers suspended interrogations in December 2005. . . .
"The administration began tinkering with the program this spring, discarding some of the most extreme techniques, in an effort to make it comply with the McCain amendment."
Rosa Brooks writes in the Los Angeles Times: "[T]ake any of the 'alternative' methods that Bush wants to use on U.S. detainees and imagine someone using those methods on your son or daughter. If the bad guys captured your son and tossed him, naked, into a cell kept at a temperature just slightly higher than an average refrigerator, then repeatedly doused him with ice water to induce hypothermia, would that be okay? What if they shackled him to a wall for days so he couldn't sit or lie down without hanging his whole body weight on his arms? What if they threatened to rape and kill his wife, or pretended they were burying him alive? What if they did all these things by turns? Would you have any problem deciding that these methods are cruel? . . .
"[T]hough the word 'accountability' isn't in the White House dictionary, there's a long entry under 'CYA -- covering your ass.'
"Bush isn't stupid. He understands that it's far too late for him to leave a legacy that won't be a source of shame to future generations. So he's going for second best: a congressionally delivered 'get-out-of-jail-free' card."
Questions the Press Should Ask
Members of the traditional press were paying scant attention to the issue of state-sanctioned torture until a rift appeared within the Republican party itself. That, in Washington, qualifies as high drama.
And now that the rift has been papered over, most reporters' tendencies will be to cover the issue mostly from the angle of its effectiveness as a political cudgel in the mid-term elections.
But the American public deserves to hear a full and open debate on this important moral issue. And if Congress won't host it, then it's up to the Fourth Estate to rise to the challenge.
Step one would be some actual reporting into the CIA interrogation program, including aggressive truth-squadding of the assertions coming from the White House. President Bush, for instance, yesterday called the program the "most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks."
Can he back that up? What little investigative reporting I've seen on the program thus far, by Ron Suskind among others, suggests that Bush's assertion is exaggerated or just plain wrong -- and that in fact the use of torture or near-torture has produced little or no valuable information. It's imperative that the media give the public a better sense of whether Bush is credible on this issue.
Here's a question reporters should be asking: If, as Suskind has alleged, the administration is aware that those harsh CIA interrogation tactics don't really work -- and no one is currently in CIA detention anyway -- then why is this such an important issue for the White House? One possible answer: That this has nothing to do with the future; that it's about giving them cover for their actions in the past.
Here's another question reporters should be asking: Have the senators been assured that Vice President Cheney won't get Bush to attach a "signing statement" to this bill, asserting his inherent powers, as he did the last time he signed torture legislation?
Finally, as the White House gears up to use detainee policy as a political issue, it is incumbent on the press to remind the public that there are not only two choices: Doing it Bush's way and letting terrorists go free. Even if the Democrats aren't coherent about other alternatives, the press should be.
The Coverage
It's the penultimate paragraph of R. Jeffrey Smith and Charles Babington 's article in The Washington Post this morning that tells the story in a nutshell: "A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said in an interview that Bush essentially got what he asked for in a different formulation that allows both sides to maintain their concerns were addressed. 'We kind of take the scenic route, but we get there,' the official said."
(Interestingly enough, Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, gave a nearly identical quote on the record to the New York Times .)
Smith and Babington write: "Yesterday's final marathon talks occurred in Vice President Cheney's little-known office on the second floor of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. . . .
"The agreement coalesced around two crucial issues: the GOP senators' insistence that Bush not be allowed to reinterpret the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, and the White House's insistence that CIA agents not be subject to prosecution for aggressive interrogation techniques -- tactics that did not constitute torture but were more aggressive than 'simple assault.'
"The biggest hurdle, Senate sources said, was convincing administration officials that lawmakers never would accept language that allowed Bush to appear to be reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions. Once that was settled, they said, the White House poured most of its energy into defining 'cruel or inhuman treatment' that would constitute crimes under the War Crimes Act."
Rick Klein writes in the Boston Globe: "Unlike the Geneva Conventions, the War Crimes Act is an American law that applies only to U.S. officials and is not part of an international treaty. Rewriting the War Crimes Act to outlaw specific acts -- and implicitly permitting others -- does not erode the Geneva Conventions, which broadly state that countries can't engage in 'outrages upon personal dignity,' said Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican of South Carolina."
Margaret Talev writes for McClatchy Newspapers that Graham "said he believed the compromise would prohibit simulated drowning, or 'water-boarding' as a CIA interrogation technique.
"But Graham didn't rule out other aggressive techniques such as sleep deprivation or playing loud music. He said the legislation wouldn't spell out which 'alternative interrogation techniques' are permitted and which are prohibited. . . .
"Eugene Fidell, the president of the National Association of Military Justice, which serves as a watchdog over military prosecutions, said details of the deal were too scant to render an analysis. He sharply criticized the closed-door negotiations, saying the terms should have been the subject of public Senate hearings."
Julian E. Barnes and Richard Simon write in the Los Angeles Times (in a story headlined, "Bush Bows to Senators on Detainees"): "A Senate staffer involved in negotiations said [the language of the accord] would ban the most outrageous of CIA methods, including water boarding -- a tactic in which detainees are made to feel as if they're drowning -- and mock executions."
And here's precisely the kind of story to watch out for:
Anne Plummer Flaherty writes for the Associated Press: "Republicans hope that an accord reached between the Bush administration and GOP senators on the treatment of terror-war detainees means the party can go on a campaign-season offensive on the issue of protecting the country. . . .
"The agreement was hailed by human rights groups and seen by many as the president caving in when his usual Republican support crumbled."
Hadley Speaks
Here's the transcript of an extraordinarily unhelpful telephone briefing from national security adviser Steve Hadley yesterday afternoon.
He expressed delight about the accord and how "all Republicans coming together," and repeatedly referred to a new legal "clarity" -- that he wouldn't clarify. Among the questions he dodged:
* "Does that mean that every single technique used in interrogation up until now is, as you see it, permissible under this agreement?"
* "Just to follow up, is it conceivable that a technique that was used in the past would not be permissible henceforth after this process is finished?"
* "What did the administration give up in this negotiation? Because it seems like you got everything that you asked for."
ACLU Watch
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington office released this statement : "This is a compromise of America's commitment to the rule of law. The proposal would make the core protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions irrelevant and unenforceable. It deliberately provides a 'get-out-of-jail-free card' to the administration's top torture officials, and backdates that card nine years. These are tactics expected of repressive regimes, not the American government.
"Also under the proposal, the president would have the authority to declare what is -- and what is not -- a grave breach of the War Crimes Act, making the president his own judge and jury. This provision would give him unilateral authority to declare certain torture and abuse legal and sound. In a telling move, during a call with reporters today, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley would not even answer a question about whether waterboarding would be permitted under the agreement."
Lederman Watch
Georgetown Law School professor and blogger Marty Lederman has the complete language of the accord, and concludes: "It's not subtle at all, and it only takes 30 seconds or so to see that the senators have capitulated entirely, that the U.S. will hereafter violate the Geneva Conventions by engaging in cold cell, long time standing, etc., and that there will be very little pretense about it. In addition to the elimination of habeas rights in section 6, the bill would delegate to the president the authority to interpret 'the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions' 'for the United States,' except that the bill itself would define certain 'grave breaches' of Common Article 3 to be war crimes. Some Senators apparently are taking comfort in the fact that the Administration's interpretation would have to be made, and defended, publicly. That's a small consolation, I suppose; but I'm confident the creative folks in my former shop at [the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel] -- you know, those who concluded that waterboarding is not torture -- will come up with something."
Remember Habeas
Warren Richey writes in the Christian Science Monitor: "In a significant but little-discussed move, the Bush administration is asking Congress to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by Guantánamo detainees challenging the legality of their confinement. . . .
"Legal analysts say the measure has sparked surprisingly little debate among lawmakers. For example, the main alternative to the administration's bill, legislation sponsored by Sens. John Warner (R) of Virginia and Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina, also calls for withdrawing federal court jurisdiction to hear such cases.
"Nonetheless, there is opposition.
"'We are told this legislation is important to the ineffable demands of national security, and that permitting the courts to play their traditional role will somehow undermine the military's effort in fighting terrorism. But this concern is simply misplaced,' writes a group of prominent retired federal appeals court judges, in an open letter to members of Congress. . . .
"The judges say the proposed legislation may violate the Constitution's mandate that 'the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'
"The so-called Great Writ is a bedrock principle of liberty dating to 1215 and the Magna Carta. It entitles a prisoner to demand to be brought before a neutral judge to force the government to prove the legality of his or her detention or be set free. It is the quintessential check on executive power."
A New Battle Cry
Jim Rutenberg writes in the New York Times: "President Bush began a blistering new political offensive on Thursday, asserting that if Democrats won control of Congress from Republicans it would mean higher taxes, less money in the pockets of working families and damage to the economy.
"The speech by Mr. Bush here, in which he belittled Democrats as 'the party of high taxes,' signaled what Republicans described as a new phase of the White House's fall campaign, as Republicans begin to combine their emphasis on national security with a tough new emphasis on the issue that unites them more than any other, taxes."
October Surprise?
Ronald Kessler writes for the right-wing Newsmax Web site: "In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an 'October surprise' to help win the November congressional elections. . . .
"Rove is not saying what the October surprise will be."
Rove told Kessler: "I'd rather let the balance [of plans for the elections] unroll on its own."
Poll Watch
The White House that officially doesn't give a hoot about polls . . . sent out an e-mail to reporters this morning trumpeting Bush's bump in approval ratings.
"Presidential Job Approval Ratings Continue To Rise" says the release from the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives.
Graymail Watch
Could a Scooter Libby graymail attempt work? His legal team won a potentially significant legal victory yesterday, over his ability to use classified materials in his trial in the CIA leak case.
Matt Apuzzo writes for the Associated Press: "Prosecutors have said Libby is trying to torpedo the case by demanding documents that are too sensitive to be released at trial. It's a tactic known as 'graymail' and the goal is to get a case dismissed. . . .
"Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald proposed a strict legal test that would have forced Libby to prove that his need for the records outweighed the government's need to keep them secret.
"U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton rejected the prosecutor's proposal. When considering what classified information should be admissible at trial in Libby's defense, Walton said he'll apply the standard rules of evidence, which generally provide defendants documents that are relevant and helpful. . . .
"Walton . . . said the government must weigh the importance of prosecuting the case against the need to keep state secrets.
"If secrecy is more important, the government can withhold any documents it chooses, Walton said, even though that might mean the case is dismissed."
Clinton Watch, Part I
Former president Bill Clinton on Iraq, in an interview with CNN's Larry King Wednesday night:
"KING: Vice President Cheney said, knowing all he knows, he'd still go back. Would you?
"CLINTON: Of course he would. No, I never was in favor of doing it before the U.N. inspectors finished. I had a totally different take on this. I . . . .
"KING: Why would you say 'of course he would'?
"CLINTON: Because they didn't -- because the evidence has made clear now that he and the other proponents of the Iraq war did not care whether he had weapons of mass destruction, did not care whether he was involved with Sept. 11, did not care whether the evidence showed any of this or not, that they had made their mind up in advance that this was the thing to do, that it would help to make a new Middle East, it would strengthen America's leverage against Iran; it would, you know, shake up the authoritarian regimes and increase our leverage to create peace between the Israelis and the Pakistanis -- Palestinians.
"And I think they thought it might clean their own skirts a little, since most of what Saddam did that was really terrible he did when he had the full support of the Republican administration of the '80s, of which Dick Cheney was a part."
Clinton Watch, Part II
Glenn Thrush writes for Newsday: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is daring President George W. Bush to stump in New York for her Republican opponent -- joking that Clinton would even consider paying for Bush's airfare if he stumped in Dubya-phobic Gotham. . . .
"White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore responded, 'There are a number of places we're confident that Republican candidates would be willing to pay for Hillary to campaign.'"
Comment on this Article
America And Israel's War Of Terror
Christian Fundamentalism And American Empire
By Yoginder Sikand
24 September, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Little talked about in the media, Western Christian fundamentalism is today a potent threat to global security. With George Bush and several of his top advisors being Christian fundamentalists, this is but to be expected. Today. American foreign policies, as in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran, are powerfully shaped by the Christian fundamentalist agenda of global conquest for Christ and Capital.
Christian fundamentalists believe that Christ alone is the way to salvation, and that the entire world must be brought to heel before him, by force if necessary. In the past, this doctrine was used to bless bloody Crusades and wars of imperial plunder. The doctrine serves the same purpose today, as the bombing of Afghanistan, the destruction of Iraq, the unreserved support for Israeli terrorism and so on indicate. Although these acts are sought to be justified by America as a 'civilising' mission or as part of its 'war on terror', the underlying white Christian supremacist vision behind American imperialism, a continuation of the logic of European colonialism, is unmistakable.
What, then, is the Christian fundamentalist vision that is driving Bush and his key advisors to world conquest, even if this could possibly mean destruction and chaos on a global and unprecedented scale? Stephen Mansfield's recently published 'The Faith of George W. Bush' [Jeremy Tarcher/Penguin, New York, 2004], a hagiographic account of the American President, provides a deeply disturbing, account of Bush's personal commitment to Christian fundamentalism. The book's cover describes it, obviously exaggeratedly, as a 'national bestseller' and quotes the Wall Street Journal as commending it as 'a story of spiritual awakening'.
Referring to the enormous clout that Christian fundamentalism now enjoys in American decision-making circles, Mansfield writes with unconcealed glee that, 'More than any other presidency in recent years, George W. Bush's presidency is faith based'. 'He has often said', Mansfield approvingly mentions, 'that faith saved his life, nurtured his family, established his political career and helped form the destiny of the nation'. Bush, so Mansfield claims, 'incorporates his faith and belief in God into every detail of life [...] The President relies upon his faith to direct his actions and goals'. Mansfield does not conceal his delight at the growing influence of Christian fundamentalists in the corridors of power in Washington under Bush's patronage. 'In no previous administration', he says, 'has the White House hosted so many weekly Bible Studies and prayer meetings and never have religious leaders been more gratefully welcomed'.
Bush's Christian commitment that Mansfield fervently endorses is not the world-renouncing faith of a Christian hermit. Rather, it is a vengeful, hate-driven creed rooted in the notion of the notion of the triumphalist Church that desperately seeks to subjugate the entire world and expand the borders of Christendom till the ends of the earth. It is this vision of Christianity that informs the worldview of Bush's spiritual mentor, the American televangelist Billy Graham, at whose hands, Mansfield tells us, Bush experienced a re-conversion to Christ more than two decades ago. Mansfield tells us that Graham is driven by a visceral hatred of Islam, and quotes him as having declared that Islam is 'wicked, violent and not of the same God [as Christianity]'.
It is entirely possible that Graham's deep-rooted Islamophobia has rubbed off on his disciple Bush. Graham's Christian fervour has certainly been instrumental in developing Bush's firm belief that 'Jesus is the only way to God', although Mansfield does admit that Bush 'has been hesitant to say' this, adding that once when he did so to a Jewish reporter it 'ignited a powder keg of controversy'. Mansfield also dwells at length on Bush's close bonding with other notorious American Christian fundamentalists, most notably Jerry Fawell and Pat Robertson, who insist that Christianity alone is the way to salvation and that all other religions are limited, false or even Satanic.
Bush's agenda of imposing global American hegemony cannot be understood without taking into account his commitment to the doctrine of Christian supremacy, Mansfield makes clear. 'From the tragedy of September 11 to the conflict in Iraq', he informs us, 'President Bush has learned to use his faith to help him live in public and private life' and to 'shape the affairs of his administration'. Bush, Mansfield says, sees himself as having been appointed by [the Christian fundamentalist] God to serve His divine purposes in the world. Bush is convinced, he remarks, that he is the President of America because he has been specially chosen by God for the post. 'I am here because of the power of prayer', Mansfield quotes Bush as proclaiming.
His faith makes Bush, or so Mansfield claims, a 'better man'. This 'better man', Mansfield says with passionate approval, has been inspired by his faith in Christ to invade Iraq, ostensibly 'to root out a terrorist threat and remove Saddam' and also to 'make it a Midland of the Middle East, not so much as an exact cultural and industrial parallel but as the model of how human beings ought to live together'. Bush's hopes for a post-war Iraq, Mansfield piously proclaims, 'are safety, family, benevolent political leaders, good schools, sports, friends and love'. 'All men should live this way, he believes. It is what he wants America to be and for America to model in the world'. This nauseating defence of American terrorism, the killings of thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere by American troops, is thus blessed as a grand civilising mission to be thrust down the throats of unwilling non-white and non-Christian people, no matter what the cost in human terms.
True to his passionate commitment to the doctrine of Christian supremacy, Bush sees the world in stark Manichaean terms. In the Christian fundamentalist world-view, God and Satan, are engaged in a cosmic struggle that will culminate in the grand war of Armageddon that will engulf the world, heralding the Second Coming of Jesus. Seated on a throne in Jerusalem, Jesus will rule the world. All knees will bow before him and all unbelievers will be dispatched to eternal damnation in Hell. Christian fundamentalists believe that the end of the world is near, and for this suitable preparations, including unleashing bloody wars against Christianity's supposed enemies, must be made.
Christian fundamentalists see America as being actively engaged in this struggle, which might entail, among other things, waging war for the glory of Christ. As a Christian fundamentalist, Bush, Mansfield suggests, sees complex questions in the most simplistic terms, as simply a battle between 'good' and 'evil'. Blind to the reality of brutal Western imperialism, economic, cultural, political and military, that is at the root of widespread distress and anti-Western sentiments among many Muslims, as well as other non-Western peoples, Bush, Mansfield says, is apparently convinced that Islamist militants and many other Muslims are opposed to America simply because, as he believes, America is 'freedom's home and defender'. 'It is the price we pay for being good', Bush piously proclaims, It is as if anti-Western feelings, including Islamist militancy, stem from a congenital Muslim/non-white/non-Christian madness or barbarity that can only be cured through military bombardment or else through the 'civilising' mission of Christianity. It is as if Muslims are inherently opposed to the 'freedom' and 'democracy' that Bush believes the American Empire represents.
Fired by a seemingly irrepressible zeal for the cause of Christian fundamentalism, Mansfield writes that Bush has actively sought to marshal Christian theological legitimacy for his imperialist wars, seeking to invoke the 'Just War Theory' developed by the Church to bless the anti-Muslim Crusades, expand the boundaries of Christendom and to subjugate the 'benighted heathen'. This, indeed, is how Bush and his cohorts see the wars that they are currently waging in the Muslim world and elsewhere, a restatement of the arguments used to sanction the numerous bloody wars that America and its European allies sponsored during the Cold War against the 'atheistic' communists.
Bush's fiery commitment to the Christian fundamentalist agenda also explains his fervent support to Israel. Although the Christian Church for centuries provided religious sanction to anti-Jewish hatred, many Christian fundamentalists are today vociferous supporters of Israel, Zionist expansionism and the brutal suppression of the Palestinians.
Accordingly, the close nexus between America and Israel appears to have received a tremendous boost under Bush, who makes no effort to conceal his belief that his version of Christianity demands that he unabashedly support the Zionist state. Bush's commitment to Israel, Mansfield tells us, is widely recognised in Zionist circles.
Like other forms of religious fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism is a dreaded doctrine of supremacy, a cult of hatred and a recipe for disaster. And with an avowed born-again Christian at the helm of affairs in America who claims to be appointed to that position by God and to be dictated by what he claims to be divine communication, one shudders to think of what more brutalities are in store for the world if Christian fundamentalism is allowed to remain unchallenged.
The author works with the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia. He moderates an online discussion group called South Asian Leftists Dialoguing With Religion, which can be accessed on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saldwr/
Comment on this Article
Western nations foil bid to declare Israel nuke 'threat'
Mon Sep 25 12:55:10 2006
Kuwait Times
VIENNA: Western nations have foiled a bid by Arab and Islamic states to declare Israel's reputed nuclear arsenal a threat that must be removed in a politically charged vote at a UN atomic watchdog meeting. Canada sponsored a 45-29 "no-action" ballot that prevented International Atomic Energy Agency member states from voting on a motion demanding Israel use atomic energy only for peaceful purposes and help set up a Middle East nuclear arms-free zone.
But the gathering voted 89-2 for a milder resolution on Israel, also initiated by Arab states, "affirming the urgent need for all states in the Middle East to accept full-scope IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear activities". Israel neither admits nor denies having atomic weapons but most experts believe it has about 200 nuclear warheads. Feverish negotiations failed to dissuade Arab delegates from pushing the two resolutions to a vote due to heightened resentment over Israel's battering of south Lebanon in war with Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas. Diplomats said many Arabs were fuming at the West's perceived slowness to stop Israel's heavy bombing of Lebanon that killed mainly civilians before an Aug 14 ceasefire imposed by a UN Security Council resolution.
"The (Western) blocking manoeuvre is astonishing when innocent blood has not yet dried in Lebanon," said Syrian delegate Ibrahim Othman. He said Israel's exclusive nuclear might in the region caused a destabilising imbalance of power. The United States, European and other Western allies combined to stifle the "threat" resolution. They said it was politically divisive and undermined the IAEA's traditional consensual approach.
Israel said a regional nuclear arms-free zone was a noble idea in principle but dangerous for it so long as some neighbours continued not to recognise the Jewish state, with Iran openly calling for its destruction. "Current realities in the Middle East force Israel to entertain no illusions. The fundamental goal as in other regions is attaining peace with security and stability, not arms control per se," said Israel Michaeli, Israel's envoy to the IAEA. US foes such as Venezuela and Cuba and some developing nations like South Africa joined the unsuccessful Arab-Islamic effort to put it to a floor vote. Arab and Islamic anger also simmered over "double standards" seen in Western pressure on Iran to shelve its fledgling nuclear energy programme while Israel faced none despite a batch of UN resolutions urging it to scrap its alleged atomic warheads. Nineteen nations, including India and Russia, abstained over the "threat" measure, and three in the safeguards vote. Israel and its closest ally the United States were the sole "no" votes on the IAEA safeguards resolution.
Comment on this Article
Sept. 11 inscriptions spark outrage
By Beth Lucas
East Valley Tribune
September 23, 2006
Inscriptions etched into Arizona's Sept. 11 monument - meant to inspire and capture the horror of the terrorist attacks - sparked the beginnings of a political blog battle this week.
The monument was unveiled at Phoenix's Wesley Bolin Memorial Plaza near the state Capitol on the fifth anniversary of the attacks.
A timeline and record of key events and quotes are etched onto a giant angled ring reflected by sunlight in what designers said was intended to capture how Arizona and the nation responded to the attacks, and to remember the strong emotions.
But this week, blog visitors have said they're shocked at some of the inscriptions, which they describe as political statements against the Bush administration and its war on terror.
One inscription states, "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles." Another: "Congress questions why CIA and FBI didn't prevent attacks." And another reads, "Erroneous US air strike kills 46 Uruzgan civilians," referring to a wedding reportedly hit by mistake in Afghanistan.
"It's a worldview that is critical of America, and in many cases cheapens 9/11," said Greg Patterson, a lobbyist and consultant who operates the EspressoPundit blog, where he and his readers have been critical of the memorial. "It is bent on attacking the Bush administration's take on the war, at the expense of the memory of 9/11."
Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said he was stunned to learn of the inscriptions. "To politicize it to me is absolutely outrageous, instead of a memorial to remember those who have sacrificed their lives," he said.
Tempe resident Donna Bird, whose husband Gary was killed in the attack, was among the 30-member Arizona 9/11 Memorial Commission created by former Gov. Jane Hull in 2002.
She said all the inscriptions were found factual by an Arizona State University history professor. She added that she wouldn't have helped design the memorial, which names her husband, if it were political.
Comment on this Article
Russia warns against Iraq-style 'proof' in Iran nuclear standoff
ATHENS, Sept 24 (AFP) Sep 24, 2006
The United Nations must not rely on the kind of evidence used to justify slapping sanctions on Iraq ahead of the 2003 US-led invasion when considering Iran's nuclear programme, Russia said Saturday.
In an interview published in Saturday's edition of Greek newspaper Kathimerini, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said the UN should only consider sanctions if presented with "concrete and incontrovertible evidence that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons and clear evidence that it is supporting international terrorism."
Ivanov added that it would be "unacceptable to repeat the scenario of Iraq which had sanctions applied against it without complete evidence," he said.
One of the reasons the United States and Britain gave for supporting sanctions against Iraq and invading was that Baghdad under former dictator Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
Over three years after the invasion no serious evidence of WMDs has been found in the country.
Ivanov insisted that the standoff over Iran's nuclear programme "could only be solved by taking the diplomatic and political route" with "closer co-operation between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."
Moscow is opposed to the idea of imposing sanctions on Iran, despite the fact that Tehran ignored a August 31 UN Security Council deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.
Referring to the US take on the current crisis, Lavrov on Thursday criticised what he called "the obsession with sanctions."
Asked separately about US sanctions slapped on two Russian arms companies that have contracts with Iran, Ivanov said the measures "would not lead to a revision" of his country's technical and military agreements with Tehran.
Lavrov meanwhile on Sunday called for the sanctions against the two firms -- Sukhoi and Rosoboronexport -- to be lifted.
Comment on this Article
Bush sends corporate team to Lebanon
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Monday, September 25, 2006
US President George W. Bush on Saturday named a delegation of corporate leaders to visit Lebanon in order to explore ways of helping the country rebuild following the devastating month-long war between Israel and Hizbullah. The group, which includes Intel chairman Craig Barrett, Cisco chief executive John Chambers and Ray Irani of Occidental Petroleum, will also lead a public fundraising drive to help finance Lebanon's reconstruction, the White House said in a statement.
It said the aim of the campaign was to demonstrate US private-sector support for Lebanon's reconstruction and development" by seeking individual and corporate donations for the rebuilding effort.
"This effort will highlight the generosity of the American people," it said.
"This effort will highlight the generosity of the American people," it said.
Israeli artillery and aerial bombardments during the month-long conflict caused widespread devastation, destroying villages in Southern Lebanon and urban neighborhoods as far away as Beirut, and knocking out key infrastructure.
The fighting stopped on August 14 after adoption of a UN Security Council cease-fire resolution that led to the deployment of Lebanese Army troops.
Since the truce, Hizbullah has played a leading role in reconstruction efforts in the worst-hit areas of Southern Lebanon, a development seen as undermining the national government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Siniora has said the government needs billions of dollars to recover from the destruction. A donor conference in Stockholm on August 31 netted pledges of $940 million in aid.
In announcing the US aid initiative, the White House indicated its concern for the future of Siniora's administration.
"The United States believes it is important that Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Lebanon's young democracy succeed," it said.
The Bush administration was widely criticized for refusing to join international calls for an immediate cease-fire during the fighting, a stance seen as giving its Israeli ally more time to damage Hizbullah.
Since the war ended, Bush has announced $230 million in assistance to Lebanon, about $40 million of it to bolster the Lebanese army and the rest to provide emergency assistance to affected populations and begin the rebuilding process.
The White House said private sector funds to be raised by the new corporate initiative would be used to help the Lebanese people "rebuild their homes and lives by restoring bridges and roads, repairing damaged schools, and supporting other humanitarian aid efforts."
The delegation will be headed by Assistant Secretary of State Dina Habib Powell and also includes Yousif Ghafari, chairman of Ghafari Incorporated, an engineering and architecture firm.
The group will visit Beirut and areas hardest hit by the recent conflict to assess "where funds are most needed, and how those resources will be most effectively distributed," the White House said.
They will also meet with Siniora and Lebanese business leaders and then discuss their findings with Bush, it said. The group is setting up a fund to seek private donations from Americans for the rebuilding.
This came as Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia could send a small contingent of military construction experts to the country if the Lebanese authorities agree.
During a summit Saturday with his French and German counterparts, Jacques Chirac and Angela Merkel, in their talks about Lebanon, the Russian president said the contingent would not be part of the UN peacekeeping force.
Comment on this Article
Hundreds of thousands show up for 'victory rally'
By Nada Bakri
Daily Star staff
Saturday, September 23, 2006
BEIRUT: Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah told hundreds of thousands of supporters gathered for a "Divine Victory" rally Friday that Hizbullah would not disarm until the right conditions were in place - and demanded a national unity government in a blow to Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and the international community.
In his first public appearance since the recent month-long war with Israel sparked on July 12 by the capture of two Israeli soldiers, Nasrallah said the resistance would only hand over its weapons once Lebanon becomes "a strong, just and capable country."
"There is no army in the world capable of making us drop our weapons as long as there will be people who believe in this resistance," he said. "We don't want to keep our weapons forever and they will never be used against anyone inside Lebanon. These are not Shiite weapons but the weapons of all the religions and the Lebanese and will protect Lebanon's independence and sovereignty."
Nasrallah said disarming Hizbullah "under this government ... means leaving Lebanon exposed before Israel to kill and detain and bomb whoever they want, and clearly we will not accept that."
"When we build a strong and just state that is capable of protecting the nation and the citizens, we will easily find an honorable solution to the resistance issue and its arms," he added.
"Tears don't protect anyone," Nasrallah said in a barbed refer-ence to Siniora, who openly wept several times when describing the destruction of Lebanon during the war.
The resistance leader also claimed that his party now possesses 20,000 rockets, despite having fired more than 4,000 of them at northern Israel during 34 days of fighting.
Nasrallah vowed to the hundreds of thousands of supporters gathered in Beirut's southern suburbs that a beefed-up United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) would not affect Hizbullah's ability to stock weapons.
"Blockade the borders and the seas and the skies," he said. "This will not weaken the will of the resistance or the weapons of the resistance."
He also warned UN peacekeepers who are deploying in Southern Lebanon as Israeli forces withdraw not to seek a confrontation with Hizbullah.
"Your mission is not to spy on Hizbullah or to disarm the resistance," he said.
One of Israel's stated aims in the war was to eliminate Hizbullah's capacity to fire rockets into its northern territory.
"We were ready for a long war," Nasrallah said. "The resistance in a few days was able to rearm itself and is now stronger than it was on July 12."
Nasrallah also lashed out at Siniora and the March 14 Forces, who want Hizbullah to disarm and integrate into the Lebanese political scene.
The sayyed described Siniora's Cabinet as weak and incapable of protecting and defending Lebanon against Israel and doubted its ability to reconstruct what Israel has destroyed.
"We don't want to eliminate the presence of anyone from public life. What we are calling for is a national unity government. This is not a slogan; this is a serious project we will work for very hard," said the leader of Hizbullah, which has two representatives in the Cabinet.
Former President Amin Gemayel, a harsh critic of Hizbullah, said portions of Nasrallah's speech were "dangerous."
"He is linking giving up Hizbullah's weapons to regime change in Lebanon and ... to drastic changes on the level of the Lebanese government," Gemayel told the Associated Press. "This is very surprising and dangerous, and leads us to ask, what kind of government does Sayyed Hassan want for what kind of Lebanon?"
Gemayel said Nasrallah on the one hand "extended his hand" to various Lebanese parties, but on the other hand was "confrontational and made some very serious statements."
A short statement issued by Siniora's office said Nasrallah's focus "on the dialogue in his speech is a good and constructive thing and opens future horizons." It did not elaborate.
Fares Soueid, a Christian politician and former MP close to Siniora, insisted that the government would not bend to Hizbullah pressure.
"It will not scare the government of Fouad Siniora," he told Al-Arabiyya television. "It will not fall, not in the street and not because of political speeches."
Siniora has rejected calls from both Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic Movement for the government to resign.
Meanwhile, Israel responded quickly to Nasrallah's speech, saying he had issued a challenge to the Lebanese government and the international community.
"The international community can't afford to have this Iranian-funded extremist spit in the face of the organized community of nations," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.
In reply to Nasrallah's claim that Hizbullah now possesses over 20,000 rockets, Regev said that according to the UN-backed cease-fire, Hizbullah "shouldn't have any rockets."
UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which secured the cessation of hostilities put into effect on August 14, calls for Hizbullah to eventually be stripped of its weapons.
Friday's rally filled a vast lot in the capital's southern suburbs, a Hizbullah stronghold where entire blocks were leveled by Israeli strikes during the war.
Comment on this Article
President: Syria willing to make peace with Israel
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-25 13:29:04
BERLIN, Sept. 24 (Xinhua) -- Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has told the media that Syrian people "want to make peace with Israel", instead of striving to "wipe the Jewish nation off the map."
In an interview with the weekly Der Spiegel magazine released on Monday, Assad said that Syria welcomed the U.S. intervention in the Middle East, but Washington must "listen to" the aspirations of the people in the region.
He added that only when Washington took into account the interests of individual nations in the Middle East could positive changes be witnessed in the region.
Calling for "peace with Israel," Assad said he did not hold the same views on the nation as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, although the two countries maintained close ties.
Concerning the war on terror, Assad said that the United States had not latched on to the essentials in the fight against terrorism, comparing its approach to the problem to that of a doctor hacking away at a tumor instead of eradicating it surgically.
Syria was also a victim of the ever-growing terrorism problem, but the United States would not "cooperate with us," he added.
Comment on this Article
Musharraf's 'Stone Age' revelation shows weakness: analysts
23 September 2006
ISLAMABAD - President Pervez Musharraf's disclosure of a US threat to bomb Pakistan if it did not back the war on terror may have been meant as a sop to domestic opponents, but made him look weak instead, analysts say.
Experts said they were baffled why military ruler Musharraf had brought up the five-year-old alleged warning shortly before a crucial meeting Friday with US President George W. Bush.
'It is a bad reflection on the Pakistani leadership that it buckled to pressures despite the fact that we are a powerful nation with a strong army and nuclear power,' former army chief General Mirza Aslam Beg told AFP.
'America threatened Iran with dire consequences -- but have they succumbed to the pressure?' asked Beg, who now runs his own think-tank.
Musharraf, who supported the US-led ousting of Afghanistan's Taleban regime after the September 11, 2001 attacks, said former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage made the threat to Pakistan's then head of intelligence.
'The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age',' Musharraf said in the CBS interview.
'I think it was a very rude remark,' Musharraf says in the interview due to be broadcast Sunday.
Armitage has denied making the comment, saying only he had warned Pakistan that it was either with the United States or against it as it went after the perpetrators of the 2001 suicide plane attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
Analysts suggested Musharraf may have been explaining the pressure he was under to his domestic audience in this Islamic republic of 150 million people, where anti-American sentiment is widespread.
Muslim hardliners and opposition parties in Pakistan regularly accuse Musharraf of being a US lackey. Islamic extremists have tried to kill him three times primarily because of his ties to Washington.
But if the statement was meant for Pakistanis it was 'poor management of public relations', defence analyst Talat Masood said.
The public would ask how the United States could be so 'rude and aggressive' when it was meant to be an ally, he added.
Musharraf's anti-terror alliance with Washington is already strained.
Bush told CNN on Wednesday he would 'absolutely' send US troops into Pakistan if he knew Osama bin Laden was there. Musharraf quickly rejected the idea.
Islamabad has also brushed off months of carping by US and other officials that it is failing to stop Taleban militants based on its soil from launching attacks in neighbouring Afghanistan.
'Musharraf's statement (on the bombing threat) reflects the fragile nature of our relations with Washington,' Masood said.
He said it may be a fact that Musharraf had acted in his country's interests by bowing to US pressure after the attacks 'but what Musharraf will achieve by saying so, I am baffled.'
Columnist and political analyst Mohammad Afzal Niazi also described Musharraf's statement as 'confusing' but suggested that it could be to gain publicity for his autobiography, which is due to be published soon.
'It is just before the launch of his book,' Niazi said.
Musharraf's revelation would also increase anti-US feelings here, he said. 'It obviously does not make America very popular. For many it would mean the US is a bully.'
Beg said Musharraf's so-called revelation on US television was especially puzzling as the alleged threat been already been reported in Pakistani papers soon after the 2001 attacks.
'This news is five years old,' he said. 'He probably wants to remind his bosses in Washington how obediently he followed their diktat.'
Comment on this Article
British commander in Afghanistan says Army sustaining higher casualties than official figures suggest
Daily Mail
25/09/2006
British soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are being denied vital assistance because the Government is stubbornly refusing to reveal a list of casualties, it has been claimed.
Insiders at charities offering help to injured servicemen say the Ministry of Defence will not pass on their contact details to them - citing data protection laws.
But opposition MPs and charity sources accuse officials of in fact being determined to hide the true number of casualties in the two highly controversial conflicts.
A British commander in Afghanistan has already warned the Army there is sustaining higher casualties than official figures suggest.
The row over charities being thwarted in their attempts to assist the injured will reignite a simmering row over the level of official information on British casualties.
Limited figures are published, giving the numbers of seriously injured and those flown home for treatment. But no figures exist for minor wounds and there is no breakdown of the types of injured suffered, or information on those suffering psychological damage.
Some serving soldiers claim men who have their wounds patched up in the field are being ignored in published statistics, though some are seriously hurt.
Tony Blair and his ministers have faced criticism for not paying enough attention to wounded servicemen flown home from Afghanistan and Iraq, with only one Cabinet minister - Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt - having visited any in hospital this year.
One source close to the Army Benevolent Fund, the highly-respected veterans' charity, claimed the MOD's culture of secrecy 'frankly disgraceful, and very frustrating.'
The insider told the Daily Mail: 'We want to get the message across to people that the Army Benevolent Fund is here to help, but that's difficult if we don't know who they are.
'For reasons best known to the Government, they won't give us details of those injured or wounded who may need help.
'We would like to go and see each of these people, or get our local reps to see them so they know we're here.'
The insider described seeing one young wounded soldier complaining in the media about the lack of support he had received, adding: 'We didn't even know about him. If only the MoD would tell us more we could help these people.'
Although wounded soldiers were given information about the Army Benevolent Fund, he said, many were in no state to take it in properly, and the charity was often 'frustrated' to find those in need were unaware of the help available.
Another former Army officer told the Mail yesterday: 'Somebody somewhere doesn't want us to know how many British soldiers have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.
'Many are all spread out in hospitals across the country, or have been medically discharged, and they're difficult for anyone to count.'
The Army Benevolent Fund was set up in 1944 as a 'safety net' to support soldiers, former soldiers and their families in times of need.
It is supported by the Queen as patron and each year gives out more than £4million in grants to those with disabilities or mental illness, veterans struggling with homelessness or unemployment, and elderly veterans or dependants.
It works closely with individual regimental associations and the Royal British Legion, and last year gave grants to 2,500 individuals and groups.
Help includes payments for the elderly struggling on pensions, help with care home fees, retraining for younger injured soldiers and grants for wheelchairs, stairlifts or special beds.
This weekend the Army Benevolent Fund is raising money through a spectacular music and light show at the Sandhurst Royal Military Academy.
The 'Music on Fire!' event features tons of fireworks, seven military bands and a host of stars, and is set to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds for the charity.
Tory security spokesman Patrick Mercer, an ex-infantry commanding officer, said: 'The Army Benevolent Fund is close to the hearts of many, many servicemen and women.
'The Government needs to give it a square deal. There must be some sensible accommodation that the Ministry of Defence can come to allow the ABF to do its job effectively and properly.
'This is another damaging blow to Army morale. If the MoD was withholding information as part of any attempt to obscure the number of casualties, it would be a scandal and offensive to servicemen and women who have put their lives on the line for their Government and their country.'
Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said: 'It is clear the MoD wants to play down the whole issue of injuries.
'They have seen the strong public reaction to fatalities there have been in Afghanistan and Iraq, and think that if the newspapers were also full of stories about injuries the impact on public opinion could be quite dramatic.
'Serving officers have told me there is an obvious reluctance to acknowledge the reality, the scale and the nature of the injuries that are being sustained.
'In America, there is a much greater awareness and acknowledgement of injured servicemen. They are regarded as part of their war legacy - but here, there's no mention of it.'
Mr Harvey said he had held discussions with the Royal British Legion, which was also finding it 'very difficult' to get adequate information about injured servicemen.
'The MOD really ought to allow these organisations who want to contribute help to do so,' he added.
'There should be complete openness with what are clearly organisations with an appropriate and legitimate interest.'
Publicly, senior officials at the Fund were yesterday anxious to avoid criticising the Ministry of Defence.
While they acknowledged there had been 'frustrations', they claimed the situation was improving.
Paul Cummings, director of grants and welfare at the Fund, said: 'In the early days it was not good. I would accept that the MOD system hasn't been as good as it might be.
'But with experience they're getting better at advising people where they can go for help. They're working hard to get it right.
'Perhaps it is a problem for our local volunteers wanting to know who in their county has been injured and needs help.
'But we work closely with the regimental and corps associations, and we are getting on and trying to resolve the problems.'
So far 40 British servicemen have been killed in Afghanistan and 118 have died in Iraq.
Latest figures for Afghanistan show that 125 people have been medically evacuated to the UK, of whom 37 were wounded in action and nine were seriously or very seriously hurt - although those figures only cover the period until the end of July.
Detailed figures for Iraq only cover 2006, with no records kept for some field hospitals during the 2003 invasion, and incomplete figures on non-combat injuries.
Data available show more than 7,000 people have been treated in military hospitals in Iraq, with almost 5,000 evacuated to the UK. An estimated 260 have been injured in combat, with around 50 suffering life-threatening injuries.
According to the Ministry of Defence personal details can only be released to third parties with the consent of those injured.
Earlier this year ministers admitted more than 1,300 British troops have developed serious psychiatric problems after serving in Iraq, not including those diagnosed after leaving the service, and charities have voiced grave concerns over the care available to those who develop problems later.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: 'We advise all injured personnel how they can access all Armed Forces charities including the Army Benevolent Fund, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association and Combat Stress.
'As such these individuals can, if they so wish, contact these organisations directly.'
Comment on this Article
U.S. to Relax Air Travel Restrictions
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press
Sep 25, 2006
WASHINGTON - The government is relaxing its ban against carrying liquids and gels onto airliners, instituted after a plot to bomb jets flying into the United States was foiled, an administration official said Monday.
A Homeland Security Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the announcement had not yet been made, said that most liquids and gels that air travelers purchase in secure areas of airports will now be allowed on planes.
That means that after passengers go through airport security checkpoints, they can purchase liquids at airport stores and take them onto their planes, said the official. Announcement of the new rules was being made at an 11 a.m. EDT news conference at Reagan National Airport.
The tougher airport screening procedures were put in place in August after British police broke up a terrorist plot to assemble and detonate bombs using liquid explosives on airliners crossing the Atlantic Ocean from Britain to the U.S.
At the time, the Homeland Security Department briefly raised the threat level to "red," the highest level, for flights bound to the United States from Britain. All other flights were at "orange" and will remain at orange, the second-highest level, for now.
New procedures also were being announced for products like lip gloss and hand lotion that passengers bring to the airport. Previously, those liquids have been confiscated at security checkpoints. Now, the official said, those products will be put in clear plastic bags at the checkpoint, screened and returned to the passenger if they pass screening.
Comment on this Article
Israel - Destroyer Of Nations
Jewish rabbi calls for extermination of all Palestinian males
IMEMC & Agencies
Monday, 18 September 2006
A Jewish rabbi living in the West Bank has called on the Israeli government to use their troops to kill all Palestinian males more than 13 years old in a bid to end Palestinian presence on this earth.
Extremist rabbi Yousef Falay, who dwells at the Yitzhar settlement on illegally seized Palestinian land in the northern part of the West Bank, wrote an article in a Zionist magazine under the title "Ways of War", in which he called for the killing of all Palestinian males refusing to flee their country, describing his idea as the practical way to ensure the non-existence of the Palestinian race.
"We have to make sure that no Palestinian individual remains under our occupation. If they (Palestinians) escape then it is good; but if anyone of them remains, then he should be exterminated", the fanatic rabbi added in his article.
Falay is not the first to have called for such extreme measures. Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Kach movement, called for "the transfer of Israel's Arab population to Arab (or other) lands." (As it states on the group's website). Followers of Kahane have been connected to a number of murders of Palestinians, particularly in the Hebron area in the southern West Bank. In the most well-known of such attacks, 29 Palestinians praying in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron were gunned down by Baruch Goldstein, a follower of Kahane, in 1994, with Israeli soldiers looking on and allowing the gunman to reload his automatic machine gun and continue killing innocent civilians. In response to that massacre, the Israeli authorities punished the Palestinian victims by taking over the Ibrahimi mosque and turning half of it into a synagogue, where Israeli settlers go to pray each week. And each year, on the anniversary of the massacre, Israeli settlers in Hebron dress up like Baruch Goldstein and parade through the streets of Hebron, firing guns in the air.
The Kach movement recognizes the 'transfer' of 750,000 Palestinians that took place in 1948 in order for the state of Israel to be created on their land, but argues on their website that this 'transfer' was incomplete, and that all Palestinians must be sent away, or killed, in order for Israel to remain a 'Jewish state'. Their platform reads, "In a genuinely 'JEWISH State', how can an Arab be an equal when that State has an Independence Day celebrating his defeat. Its flag isn't that of its people. He isn't trusted to serve in the army. His cousin born in Haifa [sic] and fled during the 1948 War of Independence cannot return... yet any Jew who never lived there before is welcomed with open arms. In short, Israel is his enemy's country, not his. So how can an Arab truly be a loyal citizen in a Jewish State? Simply, they cannot, and they must go!"
The idea of extermination of Palestinians, or their 'transfer' into other countries, is not only a view held by extremists on the fringes of society. Prominent Israeli politicians have also made calls for a 'transfer', or ethnic cleansing, based on race. Just last week, on September 11, 2006, an Israeli member of Parliament called explicitly for the transfer of Palestinians (whow he referred to as 'Arabs') from the West Bank (which he referred to as 'Judea and Samaria', the biblical name for the region where the majority of Palestinians now live).
"We have to expel most Arabs from Judea and Samaria," Eitam said at a memorial service for Lt. Amihai Merhavia, a soldier who was killed in South Lebanon in July. "We can't deal with all these Arabs, and we can't give up the territory, because we've already seen what they do there. Some of them might have to stay under certain conditions, but most of them will have to go." Despite a law that would strip Israeli parliament members of their immunity to prosecution if they are found make explicitly racist statements, no investigation of Eitam has occurred on this matter, and there was no condemnation of his statement by the Israeli government.
Comment: Extremist? Maybe, but he is not alone in his beliefs when you consider the actions of Israeli governments over the past 60 years.
Comment on this Article
IDF kills five in two Gaza Strip incidents
Haaretz
22/09/2006
Five Palestinians, including a woman and three teenagers, were killed by the Israel Defense Forces fire yesterday in two separate incidents. The IDF says the teens were killed while picking up Qassam rocket launchers in Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip. (Writen for idiots who have no clue about size of the launchers!)
Comment on this Article
War crimes 'need to be redefined'
BBC News
2006/09/13 15:38:17 GMT
UK Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells has said the definition of what a war crime is may need to be reviewed after Israel's invasion of Lebanon.
He said the nature of the conflict meant a redefinition was needed, referring to actions by both sides.
Hezbollah's tactics in hiding weapons in civilian areas had gone to "new depths", he said.
He declined to call Israel's actions "disproportionate", but said they had been ineffective against Hezbollah.
Mr Howells, who visited the region in July to oversee the evacuation of UK nationals, was cross-questioned by MPs of the UK Parliament's influential Foreign Affairs Committee.
The minister alleged that Hezbollah had hidden caches of arms in schools and mosques, and rockets in apartment blocks in southern Lebanon.
"What I saw out there begs many questions about the way we try to define what constitutes a war crime in the future. I think we have to do a huge amount of reassessment in the future about how we define this kind of warfare," he said.
"Every time the Israelis responded... and smashed a building down, every picture of a burnt child and every picture of a building that had housed people [where] there was now pancake on the ground was propaganda for Hezbollah.
"And if an organisation like Hezbollah is ruthless enough to exploit those tactics, then one wonder how it can ever be possible in the future to, if you like, win the justice on your side against such an enemy."
Israeli tactics
Kim Howells has a reputation for plain speaking, says BBC correspondent Rob Broomby.
In front of the parliamentary committee, Mr Howells defended his government's handling of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and its initial reluctance to call for a ceasefire.
He said they had wanted one that would last and he claimed they had now been "vindicated", although their position had generated hostility in Arab countries.
He called it a "horrific and terrible conflict", but he rejected suggestions the UK and US governments had stood back to allow the Israelis time to destroy Hezbollah.
On the question of the effectiveness of Israeli tactics against Hezbollah, he said:
"They assumed that an airborne assault would probably draw down upon them less international criticism than if they tried to reorganise that territory and that's obviously my assessment of what was going on.
"I thought it was the wrong tactics - not because of some notion of disproportionality, which I find a very difficult concept, but because I think it was not effective in reducing the ability of Hezbollah to survive.
"And in the end of course... Hezbollah emerged stronger for it."
During a trip to Lebanon during the 34-day conflict Mr Howells appeared to criticise Israel's military tactics, saying they were "very difficult, I think, to understand".
"The destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children and so many people... You know, if they're chasing Hezbollah, then go for Hezbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation," he said.
Comment: Sounds like the Minister was called on the carpet after his initial remarks in Lebanon. Now he is certainly parroting the Zionist line, justifying Israeli bombing of civilians and blaming Hizbullah. With this logic, you know where his redefinition of war crimes is going: the war crime is a group like Hizbulloh putting a poor country like Israel into the position of having to bomb civilians!
Comment on this Article
We're back to zero, Abbas admits
Sunday September 24, 2006
The Observer
Efforts to form a Palestinian government acceptable to the West have gone 'back to zero', Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said, in a major setback for peace in the Middle East.
His remarks came a day after Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh from the Islamic militant Hamas group declared that he would not lead a coalition that recognised Israel.
The Palestinian President's Fatah Party and Hamas had agreed earlier this month in principle to form a national unity government, having made a deal that said the government would seek to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel, which implies recognition.
Last Thursday Abbas addressed the United Nations saying that a national unity government would recognise the Jewish state.
Comment on this Article
Persecuted Majority
By Neri Livneh
Haaretz
Via Israel Shamir
A short piece - probably an apotheosis of antisemitism, published in Haaretz and naturally not translated into English. Have a look, what Israelis think of Jews...
Jewish organisations cross every red line
Like many innocent persons I've thought that as I have left Jerusalem for Tel Aviv, I'll be able to live without Jewish interference, and will never have to use the Jewish services. I'll be able to fuck during my periods, and with great pleasure, I've thought. And I erred twice.
At first, let me tell you of my neighbour Etti. She was born and brought up in Jerusalem, in Bukhara neighbourhood, a free one in those days. When the neighbourhood was Jewified, Etti moved to Ramoth, and Ramoth became Jewified, so her mother moved to Ramath Eshkol. Believe it or not, now Etti's mother is the only non-Jewish person in the building. Etti ran away to Tel Aviv, to light, and she lives for 20 years in Arnon st, as non-Jewish as it can be. The tenants are middle-aged bourgeois non-Jews, but now there is an invasion of Moroccan Jews in noticeable amounts!
"On a corner of my street, there was a small prayer-house, usually visited by nice respectful Germans during feasts. - told me Etti. During last two-three years, the Moroccan Jews took over the prayer house, and they changed everything. Now it looks like Bukhara neighbourhood that I escaped so many years ago. People come there even on the weekdays. Now we see women in shabis and bearded men who pray loudly. An opera singer in our house decided to act against them, and he turned on his stereo system from his balcony. Now they play music softer, but there are so many Jews hanging around, that surely in short time they will rent flats around here. It's not that I hate Jews, but can't they go elsewhere? After all, I can't move into a house they live in. Why they are permitted to intrude into our goyish life?
If it is not enough, in 200 meters away, they build up a Center for Spirituality, and there they bring in - Russians, and turn them into Jews, for God's sake! Only that we were short of!
P.S. For Jews - read religious Jews; but anyway these are the only Jews the Germans and Russians, Spaniards and Poles had to deal with for centuries, until they came to the conclusion of Ms Livneh: one can't live with them!
Comment from Israel Shamir: For Jews - read religious Jews; but anyway these are the only Jews the Germans and Russians, Spaniards and Poles had to deal with for centuries, until they came to the conclusion of Ms Livneh: one can't live with them!
Comment on this Article
The Clenched Fist of the Phoenix
September 20, 2006
By ARTHUR NESLEN
What made Israel burn Lebanon again? The decision to go to war hurled Israel's economy into a wall, smashed the deterrent' power of the country's army, plunged its northern population into misery, and magnified the hatred felt towards it in the region - all without achieving Tel Aviv's stated goals.
Mishandled, the July 12th Hezbollah raid that seized two Israeli soldiers could certainly have brought down the government. But the incident was no unprecedented failure of Israeli deterrence. Hezbollah had been trying to capture Israeli soldiers in cross-border raids all year. Israel's government had a choice in how they responded this time.
Why the choice for war?
Some say it was responding to a message from its sponsor. Charles Krauthammer, the doyen of U.S. neo-cons wrote in the Washington Post of Israel's rare opportunity to demonstrate what it can do for its great American patron'. Washington's green light for Israel was no favour, he said. America wants, America needs, a decisive Hezbollah defeat'.
But why pursue this objective by force of arms, at the cost of hundreds of lives, before even considering the diplomatic option that was available from day one?
Partly because Israeli society holds a longstanding inclination towards overwhelming force preferably involving collective punishment whenever an Arab force militarily defies it. But where does this prejudice come from, and why has it proved so pernicious?
A hint of the answer came on June 26th, a day after the Shin Bet brutally squashed a religious peace initiative aimed at resolving Israel's other 'existential' crisis in Gaza (see
Then, Amir Peretz, Israel's Defense Minister, explained why a military response to the seizure of Corporal Gilad Shalit in Kerem Shalom was needed. 'I will not permit the blood of our citizens to be shed,' he growled. 'Our hand is open for peace, but closed into a fist in the face of terror.'
Peretz' use of the 'clenched fist' metaphor was telling. In Jewish lore, it traces back to a song the Jewish Partisans sang as they marched through the forests towards Warsaw:
'We strike like the wolf strikes,
We come like the wind and are gone,
And the fascist feels our clenched fist,
Our clenched fist, our clenched fist...'
The clenched fist allegory evokes two defining characteristics of Israeli Jewish identity, eternal victimhood and its Zionist riposte, the 'new Jew'. Early Zionist leaders such as David Ben Gurion, Ze'ev Jabotinsky and Arthur Ruppin were anxious to construct Israeli national identity around this unyielding and aggressive prototype. Nordau called it 'muscular Judaism'.
Revulsion at the victimhood of the 'trembling ghetto Jew', weak, stooped and debased by two millennia in exile, fed its modish alter-ego: a robust and virile Israeli, implacable, resolute, and tied to the soil by blood.
Zionist groups had not been distinguished in their physical resistance to anti-Semites in Europe but they were gladiatorial in their assaults on Palestinian communities. Moshe Dayan was frank about it: 'We are a generation of settlers and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house."
The settlers' houses and allotments mushroomed - at the expense of a people without a land who, forced from their homes and denied civic rights, were to be holed up behind ghetto walls or else exiled into an Arab Diaspora, there, perhaps, to live as rootless cosmopolitans.
Those who resisted learned how Moshe Dayan's steel helmets and gun barrels provided their housing insurance. 'If we try to search for the Arab it has no value, but if we harass the nearby village,' Dayan said, 'then the population there comes out against the [infiltrators]. The method of collective punishment so far has proved effective.'
Today, it is a common sense notion for most of the world that collectively punishing civilians is more of a provocation than a deterrent. But historically, the practice was effective in bowing the heads of one ethnic group: the Jews of old.
During the 1648 Chmielnitzki pogroms, which claimed around 250,000 Jewish lives, for instance, the Jews of Tulczyn refused to even attack the Polish nobles who had betrayed them to the Cossacks. Their community elders had told them: 'We are in exile among the nations. If you lay hands upon the nobles, then all kings of Christianity will hear of it and take revenge on all our brethren in the exile.'
Eventually, the Zionist movement placed the blame for such catastrophes on the lack of any European territory from which to organise self-defence. But no Arab can get with their liberation programme in Palestine because the only roles it offers them are stand-in victims in someone else's psychodrama. The programme's mitigating plea, the narrative of a Phoenix state rising from six million ashes, came at a heavy price - for Jews too.
As successive waves of migrants arrived in the holy land, the "new Jew trope required them to prove their worth as Israelis. Holocaust survivors became the most merciless warriors of 1948; Arab Jews, the most fearful anti-Arab racists. The meek Orthodox establishment won their spurs as gun-toting hilltop bigots, while Russians today flock to Avigdor Liebermann's Yisrael Beitenu party of ethnic cleansing. They marched there all with fingernails piercing their palms.
Soon, the memory of anti-Semitic persecutions will dim. In Israel they have already merged with 1948, 1967 and the country's subsequent wars as battles for the survival of the Jewish people. Together they now form a powerful assumed collective memory, with its own tabloid shorthand that can be invoked at will.
On July 12th, for example, the mass-circulation Israeli newspaper Maariv compared Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah to Hitler, saying that it left Israel with 'one choice: To respond with might, in one fell swoop, unless it does not wish to live!' The resonance with Menachem Begin's justification for carpet bombing Beirut in 1982 was unavoidable. Then, Begin had compared Yasser Arafat to Hitler, hiding in a bunker surrounded by civilians.
For most of the 34 days of war, Israel's political leadership was sophisticated enough to speak the lingo of US soundbites. As torn bodies were pulled from the Lebanese wreckage, Ehud Olmert talked of a national moment 'of transcendence, of purification' while the chief of the Northern Command, Major General Udi Adam, suggested not counting the dead.
But on the bus stops of Tel Aviv, the posters bellowed a simpler message: 'Together we will win'. The catch is that even victory would not staunch the pain of the new Jew, whose raison d'etre is a misplaced fight against terrifying ghosts that remind him from whence he has come.
Safer to say the phoenix will prevail, and each time more barbaric. For the poisoned bird of prey feeds on the hatred it creates as it hovers above the ruins, unable to fly, its talons clenched and bloody, its screech of 'a nation's right to self-defence' an agonised cry for help that might better translate as 'Stop me before I kill again'.
Washington listens, and sends more bombs.
Arthur Neslen is a journalist working in Tel Aviv. The first Jewish employee of Aljazeera.net and a four-year veteran of the BBC, Neslen has contributed to numerous periodicals over the years, including The Guardian, The Observer, The Independent and Red Pepper. His first book, Occupied Minds: A journey through the Israeli psyche, was recently published by Pluto Press.
This piece originally appeared in Tikkun.
Comment on this Article
Hamas will not recognise Israel, backs 10-year truce: adviser
09-22-2006, 00h42
GAZA CITY (AFP)
The next Palestinian government will not recognise Israel but is instead prepared to back a 10-year truce with the Jewish state, an adviser to the Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya said.
The suggestion was rejected immediately by Israel which insisted that any Palestinian government recognise Israel, renounce violence and abide by past agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority.
"The national unity government does not recognise Israel in its political programme. The government and the Hamas movement will be against recognising Israel," Ahmed Yussef, Haniya's political adviser, told AFP.
"Our position to solve the crisis is a 10-year truce which will be good for stability and prosperity," he added, calling on the Israelis to withdraw from Palestinian territory occupied in the 1967 Middle East war.
Yussef said a "third party" should be responsible for mediating the truce without specifying who he thought should be involved in possible negotiations.
Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas told the UN General Assembly on Thursday that any new Palestinian government will recognise Israel.
"I would like to reaffirm that any future Palestinian government will commit to all the agreements that the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority have committed to," he said in a speech.
Hamas, which won landmark parliamentary elections in January, and Fatah, the party led by Abbas, have agreed to set up a unity government, based on a national reconciliation document drawn up in June which implicitly recognises Israel.
Hamas leaders say, however, the accord does not include recognition of Israel and Abbas froze negotiations before leaving for New York.
Yussef said a new Palestinian government "will respect the agreements (signed with Israel) if they do not contradict Palestinian rights and principles".
Haniya's adviser told AFP that Abbas could arrive in Gaza as early as Saturday to meet Haniya to finalize the national unity government, although no confirmation was immediately available from Abbas's office.
Comment on this Article
Is Israel America, or Is America Israel?
Meet the $1m-an-hour man
Scotsman
24/09/2006
WHEN Forbes first rated the United States' richest in 1918, there was just one billionaire. Today, and for the first time, the magazine's annual list of the richest 400 Americans is made up solely of billionaires.
Rising star of the list, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who is placed third, boasted astonishing earnings of about $1 million (£530,000) an hour.
When it began, the list reflected the oil and steel fortunes of America's great families such as the Rockefellers, Carnegies and Vanderbilts, but today's roll-call of the rich was topped predictably by hi-tech industries, with the Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates in first place for the 13th straight year with a fortune of $53 billion (£28 billion).
In comparison, John Rockefeller, the richest at the end of the First World War, was worth $1.2 billion, or about $15 billion (£8 billion) in today's prices.
Mr Gates has continued the US's great families' philanthropic traditions, recently pledging billions of his personal fortune to tackle malaria and AIDS in Africa through his charitable foundation.
Warren Buffet, the international currency speculator and chairman of investment group Berkshire Hathaway, placed second with a total of $44 billion (£23 billion). He has pledged 85 per cent of that sum to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and four personal charities.
But perhaps the most startling statistic related to the extraordinary earnings of Mr Adelson, who was third with a fortune of $20.5 billion (£10.8 billion).
Forbes estimated that in the last two years he had earned about $1 million per hour, which equates to $277 (£147) a second.
His fortune has been bolstered by his company, Las Vegas Sands, in which he owns a 60 per cent stake, opening an upmarket gambling resort on the island of Macau, off south-eastern China.
Perhaps understandably, a second resort also on Macau is in the works. He operates one of Las Vegas's most prestigious casinos, the Venetian.
Zhiwu Chen, professor of finance at Yale School of Management, told The Scotsman: "Macau's gambling industry in the last five to ten years has grown very much. It has a lot to do with new wealth that mainland Chinese have. China's economy has been growing fast, so a lot of people have money.
"Tourism, especially overseas travel for well-to-do Chinese, has increased exponentially. Macau is an immediate destination."
Google co-founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, were also impressive earners - they were estimated to have made $13 million (£6.9 million) a day for the last two years, as Google's share price has risen on the stock market. They placed 12th and 13th with fortunes totalling $14.1 and $14 billion (about £7.4 billion) respectively.
Paul Allen, Mr Gates' partner in founding Microsoft, was fifth on the list with $16.5 billion (£8.8 billion), behind another software pioneer, Larry Ellison, of Oracle, whose fortune was $19.5 billion (£10.4 billion).
Michael Dell, of the computer chain, fell from fourth last year to ninth, with a net worth of $15.5 billion (£8.2 billion).
Walter Friedman, of Harvard Business School, said: "People look for a single business model type but if you look at Carnegie or Frick, they're different types of people to Gates or Buffet."
He added: "It's interesting that people like Carnegie, who founded free libraries, late in their lives turned to philanthropy once they'd conquered their business ambitions, entering a bigger stage once they'd accumulated a vast fortune."
Other sectors were well represented on the list, with media mogul Rupert Murdoch, on $7.8 billion (£4.1 billion), filmmakers George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg on $3.6 billion (£1.9 billion) and $2.9 billion (£1.5 billion) respectively, and entrepreneur Donald Trump also on $2.9 billion.
A total of five members and heirs of the Walton family, of the Wal-Mart supermarket chain, made the list. Christie Walton was America's richest woman, at number seven with wealth of $15.6 billion (£8.3 billion), followed closely by her mother Helen, the wife of founder Sam, in 11th place.
Martha Stewart, America's favourite domestic diva, dropped out of the list, having lost almost $400 million (£212 million) in the last year though her company, Omnimedia.
The collective net worth of the wealthiest people rose $120 billion on last year's figure to $1.25 trillion (£663 billion).
The list features only eight Americans aged under 40, with Sergey Brin and Larry Page, of Google fame, the youngest at 33. Ninety of the 400 billionaires live in California, while 44 are based in New York.
Currently, the richest Americans pay a third less tax than they did 25 years ago: about 40 per cent compared with 60 per cent.
Back in 1918, after several tax hikes following the 1916 Revenue Act, the wealthiest Americans paid 77 per cent.
Comment: From Jewishvegas.com
Jews flock to Las Vegas to get more bang for their buck.
Las Vegas isn't exactly the holiest place on earth. Hotels on the Strip have dumped the family-friendly approach in favor of European-style topless shows, and much of the praying takes place at craps tables and roulette wheels. But in this decadent city, synagogues, kosher restaurants and mikvot seem to be springing up quicker than Krispy Kremes to cater to America's fastest growing Jewish community.
About 600 Jews relocate to the Las Vegas metropolitan area every month, according to research by the Jewish Federation of Las Vegas. Lured by affordable homes within walking distance of synagogues, a thriving Jewish community, a business-friendly environment and a high median income, Vegas has become a Jewish boomtown. "It's an emerging community," said Beth Miller, Federation director of public relations. "It's exciting because this is the last frontier that's being built."
From the Jewish Tribal Review:
Sheldon Adelson, chairman of the Sands Hotel, is also the owner of the Venetian, a new Las Vegas complex built in 1999 at a cost of $1.6 billion. Adelson is "one of richest men in America," in 1998 worth about $600 million. [STOLL, I., 1-7-00, p. 1] Adelson, noted the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "is one of the country's largest donors to Jewish groups and he has influence in the national Jewish community." [RALSTON] Adelson, notes the (Jewish) Forward, "has paid for 75 congressmen to visit Israel with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [the pro-Israel lobbying organization]." [STOLL, I., p. 1] As Joe Gelman noted in 1999, "A number of these sin-palace operators are Jewish and strong supporters of Israel." [GELMAN, p. 15B] [Author Gelman complains about the use of this citation
From Craigslist:
Sheldon Adelson: casino mogul, one of four foreigners named by the Jerusalem Post as contributing over $100,000 to the Likud's 1996 election campaign (the other three were Ronald Lauder, Joseph Gutnick, and Irving Moscowitz). Sheldon and Mervyn Adelson are not related.
Sheldon Adelson bought out the Las Vegas Sands Hotel, pioneered by Lansky, Moe Dalitz and Bugsy Siegel. Adelson developed the massive Venetian Hotel/casino, its themes carefully modeled on the historical center of oligarchy, tyranny and corruption, Venice. He has fought a long, bitter battle against the workers and labor unions in Las Vegas, and is a central player in the casino domination of politics-ownership of politicians-in Nevada.
Sheldon Adelson has poured huge sums into Israeli politics. He has sought approval to build casinos in Israel itself-as did Meyer Lanksy-but has so far not succeeded. Adelson finances the Lubavitcher cult, which operates a right-wing political and dirty-money empire from Russia to New York's diamond district, to Israel. The Lubvitchers, who agitated against the Oslo peace accords, are emerging as the dominant force in the Jewish community in Las Vegas-despite mainstream Jewish revulsion at their tactics and politics.
Last year Adelson was granted one of three gambling licenses (Steve Wynn also got one) in Macao, China, the former Portuguese colony near Hong Kong. Adelson says what Macao needs is a Vegas-style Strip, which he envisions building.
The Dirty Millions for Armaggedon
Irving I. Moscowitz: casino owner, Likud funder and warmonger. Time magazine's Sept. 29, 1997 issue profiled Moscowitz as a major danger to the Middle East peace process, in the article entitled "The Power of Money: American Millionaire Irving Who?? Sets Off Seismic Jolts in Israel": "It was his [Moscowitz's] bingo-parlor proceeds that financed the Jewish zealots who set up house in an Arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem, nearly provoking violent confrontation with the Palestinians and casting a blight over the peace process.... His money helped prompt the opening of a new exit to an archeological tunnel in East Jerusalem a year ago that sparked a bloody three-day gun battle between Israeli and Palestinian security forces in which 76 people died. Trust between Israeli and Palestinian leaders has never recovered."
Moscowitz made money selling hospitals to conglomerates, and in 1968 set up the Irving I. Moscowitz Foundation, which funds groups dedicated to expanding Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel after the 1967 war. This dollar stream increased markedly after 1968, when officials in Hawaiian Gardens, California, asked his Foundation to take over a failing bingo hall that was a crucial source of local tax revenue. Within three years the take on the parlor grew to $33 million a year. While Moscowitz paid some to the impoverished company town, most of the money went to the Jewish settlers. He launched a movement called the Third Way, which subsequently became a political party in the Likud's ruling coalition 1996-1999. The head of the Third Way, Public Security Minister Avigdor Kahalani, was the man through whom Moscowitz negotiated the opening of the tunnel in which 76 died. In an Israeli newspaper interview in August, 1997, Moscowitz said he had helped Netanyahu financially, stating: "Yes, not much, and in the framework of the law, from my private funds." He added: "Every time Netanyahu asked for advice, I helped. We are friends."
The current Intifada started after Sharon made a visit to al-Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) and other holy sites in East Jerusalem, where Moscowitz had funded the building of a 132-unit apartment building for Jewish settlers in Ras al-Amud. Sharon fully backs this project, and he had himself, in October 1987, rented a flat in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City. Sharon draped an Israeli flag on the building, sparking a riot as he entertained 700 prominent Israelis. And when tension was further increased through a Panamanian front company purchasing St. John's Hospice in the Old City's Christian quarter so that 150 settlers could take possession of it, Sharon paid them a visit.
Behind both these incidents was Ateret Cohanim, which is training the priesthood for the apocalyptic Third Temple with major funding from Moscowitz. In 2000 alone, the Irving I. Moscowitz Foundation gave $85,000 to Ateret Cohanim; $90,000 to Old City Charities, for settlers in the Muslim Quarter of East Jerusalem; $105,000 for the Hebron Fund (a hotbed of Kach Party terrorism, as in the case of mass-murderer Baruch Goldstein); and similar large sums to U.S.-based political groups (such as the American Enterprise Institute, and the Zionist Organization of America) promoting war with Muslims.
Comment on this Article
Israeli man freed after taking photos of Baltimore Tunnel
Metro Briefs
The Washington Times
September 24, 2006
An Israeli man has been released after he was questioned about taking pictures during his drive Friday night through the Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore. The man was stopped by state troopers outside of Laurel after he turned around on Powder Mill Road and headed north on Interstate 95 toward Baltimore.
The man told police he took the pictures because there's nothing in Israel like the tunnel, which runs under Baltimore's harbor. The man was in the area to spend the Rosh Hashana holiday with friends. His passport indicates he's been in the United States for about six weeks.
A state police spokesman said the man was released after authorities checked out his story. They spoke with the Connecticut owner of the Dodge minivan he was driving. The man was allowed to leave the agency's College Park barracks at about 11:30 p.m.
Comment on this Article
A Tribe of Candidates Leads Drive To Retake House for Democrats
Jennifer Siegel | Fri. Sep 22, 2006
Forward
More than a half-century ago, when Akiba Hornstein, the son of a Lithuanian rabbi, made his way from New York to the sunny desert of southern Arizona, he found himself, like many Jews in the hinterlands, in need of a name change. Soon, the state had a Gifford Hornstein. When, presumably, that moniker failed to give the desired effect, he tried a more creative combination: Gifford Giffords.
Times have clearly changed.
Today, Giffords's granddaughter, a Democratic state senator named Gabrielle Giffords, is running for Congress in Tucson, and feels comfortable enough to list her synagogue affiliation on her campaign Web site, along with photos of herself on horseback and with her motorcycle.
The candidate - who is in the midst of one the country's most competitive races - is one of at least a dozen Jewish challengers working to capture Republican-held seats in the House of Representatives. Many of these candidates are seen as having a decent chance at victory, in a year when Democrats need to pick up just 15 seats to take back the lower chamber.
The number of Jewish members of the House reached its peak at 33 in the early 1990s, but the Republican sweep in 1994 brought that figure down to 24 and gave control of the House to the GOP. This year, according to several observers, a Democratic tide could usher in a sizeable crop of new Jewish legislators, particularly in the House, where 26 Jewish members currently serve.
"If Democrats take the House, we're going to see a huge influx" of Jewish lawmakers, said Ira Forman, the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. "But even on a disappointing night, I think we'll see a few more Jewish Democrats in the House."
According to NJDC, there are 13 Jewish Democratic challengers in total running for Republican-held seats in both the House and Senate seats this November, but only one Jewish Republican challenger.
In addition to Giffords - who is the second cousin of Oscar-winner Gwyneth Paltrow - the list of Jewish Democratic upstarts running for House seats includes Ellen Simon, a daughter of Holocaust survivors who is also running in Arizona, as well as Gary Trauner and John Yarmuth, who would become the first Jewish representatives from Wyoming and Kentucky, respectively, if they win.
Several of the Jewish candidates are among the most competitive of November's Democratic hopefuls. Giffords's campaign in Arizona's eighth congressional district, one of the most closely watched nationwide, has been rated as one of 19 "toss-up" races by the non-partisan Cook Political Report.
Gifford - a member of Tucson's Congregation Temple Chaverim, a Reform synagogue, who originally returned to the Tucson area to help run her family's retail tire business - is favored to beat conservative Republican Randy Graf, who was not backed by his party in the primary, for the open seat of retiring Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe.
In a signal of growing momentum, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced last week that Giffords's campaign was chosen, along with those of seven others, as a "red to blue" priority race.
The program, which includes a total of 42 campaigns this year, provides additional financial support and expertise to strong challengers.
In addition to Giffords, two other Jewish challengers were chosen last week to participate in the program: Paul Hodes, who is mounting his second campaign against six-term Rep. Charlie Bass in New Hampshire's second congressional district and Steve Kagen, a doctor from Appletown, Wisconsin, who is running against Republican state representative John Gard for the eighth district seat being vacated by Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Green.
Both races are among the 15 rated by the Cook report as "leaning Republican"- a category that is slightly less competitive than a "toss-up," but still seen as a place where a Democratic challenger has a solid chance at winning.
The report also includes Yarmuth's bid against Rep. Anne Northrup in Kentucky's third district in that category.
But the most closely-watched Jewish House candidate, besides Giffords, is likely Florida State Sen. Ron Klein, whose race to unseat Rep. Clay Shaw in the 22nd congressional district, has been rated a toss-up by the Rothenberg Political Report, and was chosen to be in the first class of the DCCC's "red to blue" candidates.
Unlike the districts of many of the other Jewish challengers, Klein's area, which includes parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties, has one of the highest concentrations of Jewish voters - about 25% of likely midterm voters, according to an NJDC estimate - of any congressional district with a Republican incumbent.
These days, the Jewish background of candidates is far less important than it once was, said Rabbi Kurt Stone, the author of "The Congressional Minyan: The Jews of Capitol Hill." For example, the first Jewish member of Congress, David Levy Yulee, was known as "the Jew Senator," though he insisted that he was merely Moroccan. "Today, the people who might have upset races, it will probably be absolutely incidental the fact that they are Jewish," Stone said in an interview with the Forward. He added that in many cases, when Jews run in areas with few Jewish residents, many voters are not aware of the candidates' religious background.
Several candidates who spoke with the Forward did say that they would be strong advocates for Israel in Congress.
This is "an opportunity to send someone to Congress who's going to work for Israel," Giffords told the Forward, during a conversation in which she stressed familiar Democratic talking points on the war in Iraq, health care and the environment. "My concern is that what we've done in Iraq has left the region less secure and less safe," Giffords said. "We've taken our eye off the ball."
When asked about the recent war in Lebanon, Giffords defended Israel's use of force.
"Obviously we cannot allow foreign countries to come over onto other countries and kidnap soldiers," Giffords said. "When you think about the real challenges that we have in Israel it is incredibly difficult because you have a country that is surrounded by other countries that don't recognize Israel, that aren't interested in working with Israel in a comprehensive fashion to strengthen and stabilize the whole region."
Comment on this Article
New Pro Israel Lobby will be created in Europe
Israel Today
07/09/2006
A gala event in Brussels next week will celebrate the creation of a new pro-Israel lobby in Europe, similar to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) operating in the United States.
The organization, "European Friends of Israel," already has 150 members from the European Parliament. The body is backed financially by Jewish businessmen.
Lobby members decided to make their activities as a pan-European lobby official and to network Israel supporters among members of the European Parliament and in national parliaments where no such lobby currently exists. The organization also aims to strengthen ties between existing pro-Israel groups across the continent and to help to improve Israel's image in Europe.
The opening event will host Knesset members from Israel. The Israeli Foreign Ministry gave its blessing to the formation of the organization and instructed its European embassies to assist and cooperate with it. Officials in the Foreign Ministry said that it is an important initiative in light of the current relationship between Israel and the European Union.
Michel Gur-Ari, head of the organization, said that the lobby intends to help transform Europe into an ally of Israel.
Comment on this Article
Jewish writer's answer to Israel's question
REVIEW BY KIM BULLIMORE
Green Left Weekly, September 20, 2006.
My Israel Question
By Antony Loewenstein
Melbourne University Press, 2006
340 pages, $32.95
Australian Jewish writer and journalist Antony Loewenstein has set the cat among the pigeons with his first book, My Israel Question. Loewenstein has been variously accused of being "a self-hating Jew", who is part of "the pro-Hezbollah cheerleading squad", an ally of deceased Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi and a part of a cluster of "dumb leftist Jews who vilify Israel", while suffering from a "Demidenko-Darville" disorder. His work, according to Zionist detractors, is an "ill-informed rant", a work of "vanity" that should "lie in the tip alongside such other works as Mein Kampf and the Protocols of Zion".
Loewenstein's book was always destined for controversy. In August 2005, federal ALP MP for Melbourne Ports Michael Danby called in the Australian Jewish News for Melbourne University Press to "dump the whole disgusting project". Danby exhorted AJN readers, "If, God forbid, it is published, don't give them a dollar. Don't buy the book." Unfortunately for Danby and others, My Israel Question is a hot item, selling out of its first print run within a week.
The book is as much a personal journey as it is an examination of the relationship between diaspora Jews and Israel, and the influence of the pro-Israel/Zionist lobby. Loewenstein was originally inspired to write the book as a result of the Israeli lobby campaign to strip Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi of the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize. When Ashrawi was announced as the winner of the prize, the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) went into hyperdrive in an attempt to discredit Ashrawi and to get the award revoked.
According to Loewenstein, "within weeks virtually every mainstream Jewish organisation was expressing its opposition to the award". Loewenstein notes that the AIJAC campaign against Ashrawi backfired, spotlighting the arrogant, aggressive antics of the pro-Israel lobby. For Loewenstein, the Ashrawi affair was an awakening, leading him to question the ability of the Australian Jewish community to rationally debate the Israel-Palestine question.
In the wake of the Ashrawi affair, Loewenstein travelled to Israel to experience for himself the occupation of Palestine. In the first section of My Israel Question, Loewenstein reveals many of the dissenting voices in Israel: Uri Avnery, Amira Hass and Gideon Levy. While these voices are a welcome inclusion, Loewenstein unfortunately gives little space to a critique of the contradictory nature of "left Zionism" in either Israel or Australia.
Loewenstein's heartfelt account of his journey into the Occupied Palestinian Territories reveals the shock that many have experienced, including myself, when you first travel into the region. Nothing can prepare you for the way Palestinians are treated at the hands of the Israeli military. Nothing prepares you for the vicious racism of many, but not all, Israeli soldiers and settlers and other Israelis against the Palestinian people.
It is, however, the second half of Loewenstein's book that is the most valuable, as it examines in depth the pro-Israel lobby in the USA and Australia. Loewenstein notes that the reason why lobby groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee(AIPAC) have a strong influence on government policy in the US is because their "aims tend to coincide with the superpower's own perceived strategic interests in the Middle East". He notes that other factors also shape the US support for Israel, including "the politics of oil; the arms industry and its influence in Congress; the sentimental attachment of US liberals to Israel's internal democratic institutions; the Christian right's messianic beliefs; racist attitudes to Arabs and Muslims; and the failure of progressive movements to challenge US policy on Israel successfully".
While these factors no doubt have some influence on US policy, Loewenstein fails to identify the root cause of US support for Israel. What is missing is a solid analysis of the role of US imperialism in the Middle East and the strategic role that Israel plays. Israel is US imperialism's chief ally in the region, with the US-Israel alliance based on shared political interests - opposition to any form of Arab radicalism that would threaten Western economic domination of the region.
In his examination of the Israel lobby in Australia, Loewenstein particularly focuses on the shock troops at the forefront of the public relations war waged in Australia by Zionists, the AIJAC. Loewenstein's exploration of how the AIJAC works, especially in relation to the Australian media, is essential reading.
Loewenstein notes that despite anti-Palestinian bias being prevalent in the Australian media, AIJAC constantly lays charges of anti-Israel bias. According to Loewenstein, "In AIJAC's opinion, any news story that portrays Israel in a critical light is biased, irresponsible" and a sign of anti-Semitism.
Unable to prove any real systemic anti-Israel bias in the media, AIJAC resorts to filing complaints that are "narrow, nitpicking" and focuses "on the use of single words in coverage", Lowenstein argues. He notes this is a key characteristic of the pro-Israel lobby in the US and Australia - the relentless challenging of matters of fact such as the use of the words "occupation", "settlement" or "Occupied Palestinian Territories". The use of such words, which are descriptions of fact, are regarded as a sign of bias.
In trying to discredit My Israel Question, the AIJAC and its fellow travellers have sought to utilise the same tactics against Loewenstein as revealed in the book. Ted Lapkin (AIJAC), Andrew Bolt (the Herald Sun) and Jeremy Jones (AIJAC) focus on a number of small errors in the book rather than actually engaging with the arguments put forward by Loewenstein.
In My Israel Question, Loewenstein achieves what he sets out to do. Whether you agree with all his arguments or not, it does act as a catalyst for debate. It brings into public view dissident Jewish voices that are often crowded out and shouted down by the Zionist lobby.
And while Jeremy Jones' review of the book in AJN urges readers "not to waste your money buying it or your time reading it", I would encourage readers of Green Left Weekly to do both. It will be a valuable addition to your bookshelf.
[Kim Bullimore is a member of the Melbourne Palestine Solidarity Network and the Socialist Alliance. In 2004, she lived in the West Bank, where she worked with the International Women's Peace Service.]
Comment on this Article
Bin Laden Dead? Duh!
France Looks Into bin Laden Death Report
Sep 23, 7:43 AM (ET)
PARIS (AP) - The French defense ministry on Saturday called for an internal investigation of the leak of an intelligence document that raises the possibility that Osama bin Laden may have died of typhoid in Pakistan a month ago but said the report of the death remained unverified.
"The information defused this morning by the l'Est Republicain newspaper concerning the possible death of Osama bin Laden cannot be confirmed," a Defense Ministry statement said.
The daily newspaper for the Lorraine region in eastern France printed what it described as a confidential document from the French foreign intelligence service DGSE citing an uncorroborated report from Saudi secret services that the leader of the al-Qaida terror network had died.
The contents of the document, dated Sept. 21, or Thursday, were not confirmed by French or other intelligence sources. However, the DGSE transmitted the note to President Jacques Chirac and other officials, the newspaper said.
Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie "has demanded an investigation be carried out of this leak," a ministry statement said, adding that transmission of the confidential document could risk punishment.
Defense Ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau, clarifying the statement, said that the DGSE document exists but that its contents - that bin Laden is allegedly dead - cannot be confirmed.
The DGSE, or Direction Generale des Services Exterieurs, indicated that its information came from a single source.
"According to a reliable source, Saudi security services are now convinced that Osama bin Laden is dead," said the intelligence report.
There have been periodic reports of bin Laden's illness or death in recent years but none has been proven accurate.
According to this document, Saudi security services were pursuing further details, notably the place of his burial.
"The chief of al-Qaida was a victim of a severe typhoid crisis while in Pakistan on August 23, 2006," the document says. His geographic isolation meant that medical assistance was impossible, the French report said, adding that his lower limbs were allegedly paralyzed. On Sept. 4, Saudi security services had their first information on bin Laden's alleged death, the unconfirmed document reported.
In Pakistan, a senior official of that country's top spy agency, the ISI or Directorate of Inter-Service Intelligence, said he had no information to confirm bin Laden's whereabouts or that he might be dead. The official said he believed the report could be fabricated. The official was not authorized to speak publicly on the topic and spoke on condition of anonymity.
U.S. Embassy officials in Pakistan and Afghanistan also said they could not confirm the French report.
Comment on this Article
Coalition, NATO troops in Afghanistan cannot confirm reported Laden's death
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-24 23:23:13
KABUL, Sept. 24 (Xinhua) -- NATO and the U.S.-led coalition troops in Afghanistan could not confirm the widespread reports which said al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had died of illness, the military said on Sunday.
"About the reported death of Osama bin Laden, this is what we will say: coalition forces could not confirm the reports," Marcelo Calero, a coalition spokesman, told Xinhua.
Meanwhile, Maj. Luke Knittig, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), told a press conference here that "I have read the interesting reports about bin Laden's death, but I have no information about this issue."
On Saturday, a French regional newspaper, L'Est Republican, quoted a French secret service report as saying that Saudi Arabia is convinced that bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan last month.
The report, which is dated Sept. 21 and has been shown to French President Jacques Chirac, said, "According to a usually reliable source, the Saudi services are now convinced that Osama bin Laden is dead," according to L'Est Republican.
This has caused the media's wide attention to the current condition of bin Laden, who is believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and is the United States' most wanted man with an award of 25 million U.S. dollars.
About 20,000 coalition forces are being deployed in eastern Afghanistan to hunt down al-Qaeda, Taliban and other anti-government militants there, while some 21,000 ISAF soldiers are staying in other regions to keep security and facilitate reconstruction.
Saudi-born bin Laden had been harbored in Afghanistan until the U.S.-led Afghan War toppled the Taliban regime in late 2001.
Since then, the al-Qaeda chief has been widely believed to hide in the mountainous border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Comment on this Article
Bin Laden Dead: The Threat to Musharraf
by Tom Heneghan
September 22, 2006
Yesterday's story leaked by U.S. Media that Bush threatened to bomb Pakistan after 9-11 is a diversion from the real story.
The real story is that Musharraf, Pakistani President, knows that Bin Laden is dead and knows where he is buried. And knows that the bogeyman has gone to his maker aka kidney failure, Jan. 2002.
It can now be reported that Bushfraud threatened to bomb Pakistan just one week ago when Musharraf threatened to tell the world that Bin Laden has been dead for three years.
P.S. It should be noted that when Khalid Muhammad was arrested in Pakistan, the alleged mastermind of 9-11, a U.S.intelligence officer, aka a Gary Best employee named Spelezio was allowed to escape interrogation by the FBI on orders directly from Bush himself.
Spelezio had been linked to the operationals of the 9-11 script aka cell phone calls. Pakistani officials were also concerned that Spelezio had compromised their own Intelligence services.
P.P.S. When Khalid Muhammad is tried in Bush's Kangaroo Courts will Muhammad be allowed to call Spelezio as a witness or will the rules of evidence forbid Spelezio, a national security asset and a 9-11 co-conspirator from testifying?
Comment on this Article
Clinton: "At least I tried" to kill bin Laden
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-25 14:14:55
BEIJING, Sept. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- Political sparring between Democrats and Republicans leading up to the Nov. 7 congressional elections intensified Sunday when former President Bill Clinton accused the Bush administration of neglecting the threat from al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden until after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Clinton said he came "closer to killing" bin Laden than anybody, citing a 1998 missile strike on terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.
"No, I didn't get him but at least I tried," Clinton said in an interview broadcast on "Fox News Sunday." "That's the difference between me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now.
"If I were still president we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton claimed, referring to U.S. attempts find bin Laden along the mountainous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. "Now I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But you do know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq."
Clinton was referring to the 21,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. has more than 140,000 troops in Iraq.
"The record paints a very different picture than what President Clinton is suggesting," White House spokesman Peter Watkins said. "Looking forward, we will fight the war by staying on the offense."
In defending his record on terrorism from conservative critics, Clinton said America did not have a "comprehensive anti-terrorism operation," until his administration took office. Clinton said he authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to kill bin Laden after the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi.
"We took vigorous actions after the African embassies," Clinton said. "We probably nearly got bin Laden."
The USS Cole, a U.S. Navy ship, was bombed in a Yemeni port in December 2000. Clinton said he had plans drawn up to attack Afghanistan, oust the ruling Taliban regime and hunt for bin Laden.
Clinton said that plan was never put into effect because the CIA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to certify that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the Cole.
"I tried and I failed to get bin Laden," Clinton admitted. "I regret it, but I did try."
Comment on this Article
The Coming Storm
Ukraine sells Kolchuga to Iran
By Robert Karniol JDW Asia-Pacific Bureau Chief
Bangkok
Iran's KOCHULGA antenna device passively detects stealth planes 800 Km away, making the billions of Dollars spent on stealth technology and the AWACS planes (600km detection range) utterly useless. In addition, being passive, it cannot be detected, so the targeted plane(s) are unaware of detection and have nothing to home in to destroy the equipment made by Ukraine....
The Kolchuga is intended to detect the take-off and formation of aircraft groups at ranges beyond those of existing radar, as well as determine the course and speed of targets while designating them for air-defence systems. It can identify aerial targets through their emissions and identify the mode of aircraft weapon control systems.
Three Kolchuga stations would normally operate along with a command vehicle to provide accurate triangulation on a target. The system is claimed to have a range of 600 km (narrow beam) or 200 km (wide beam) along a front of 1,000 km.
It is not known how many Kolchuga stations Iran has acquired. However, sources told Jane's that each costs about USD25 million, with deliveries either recent or imminent.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jd...0922_1_n.shtml
When the newly independent Ukraine that had only just survived a severe economic crisis, developed an advanced passive radiolocation complex, it was a severe blow to the Americans, who were so sure of their domination in the air thanks to their stealth planes. On the one hand, the advantages of the attacker's "invisibility" were reduced to zero. On the other, passive radiolocation, i.e., the absence of the radar's own radiation, radically reduced the disadvantage of insufficient secrecy. Besides, an attacking object detected by a passive radar is never aware of its detection and so has no reasons to activate its own defenses. It means that the most important advantage is now in the hands of the air defense, especially considering the impression produced on experts by the latest Kolchuga modification.
- A complex consisting of three Kolchuga radar stations makes it possible to spot ground and surface targets and trace their movement within a radius of 600 km (air targets at the 10 km altitude - up to 800 km), which makes an effective early warning air defense system;
- The Kolchuga station is equipped with five meter-, decimeter-, and centimeter-range aerials, which provide for high radio sensitivity within a 110dB/W - 155 dB/W swath, depending on the frequency;
- A parallel 36-channel preset receiver makes it possible to spot instantly, identify, and classify signals from any source with unlimited input density within the entire frequency range from 130MHz to 18,000MHz;
- All radio objects are spotted and identified automatically, a powerful computer digitizing and identifying targets by comparing their parameters with the available databank, results being shown on a field display;
- Special inhibitory sorters omit up to 24 interfering signals, and tracking sorters make it possible to synchronously sort out and track signals from 32 targets;
- All normal operations require only one operator (two other operators work on a shift basis for 24-hour duty), who controls the station through dialog with a PC.
Since the whole U.S. non-nuclear military power hinges on stealth technologies, the prospect of worldwide proliferation of the unique Ukrainian radar systems definitely runs counter to U.S. interests. They were first demonstrated at the SOFEX-2000 arms expo in Jordan. That is, probably, why such close interest, especially from the United States, catalyzed the notorious "Kolchuga scandal".
The Ukrainian scientific, engineering, and design solutions in the field of passive radiolocation, embodied in the Kolchuga complex, are what is eating U.S. designers and government functionaries, who are responsible for stealth technologies in modern armaments. Such technologies are meant to fulfill every general's dream: to make his aircraft, ships, tanks, and other hardware invisible to enemies. The geometrical shape may be changed (like in the F-117 or B-2) to disperse a reflected signal from active radars, or there may be various wave-absorbing coatings to transform active signals into heat energy. But no modern military aircraft, tank, or ship can exist without its own radar. Without a radiating aerial it is simply "blind". That is why every aircraft, ship, and ground-based radar complex has active radiolocation devices. These devices are always on, emitting radio signals. Each specific type of hardware emits signals within different parameters. Consequently, a machine on which an emitting radar is mounted can be identified.
Competitors Lagging Far Behind
Such a promising trend as passive radiolocation is certainly of great interest to highly developed countries. But the Ukrainian Kolchuga radar, with all its technical and operational characteristics taken together, has no analogs anywhere in the world. And in its basic parameters it surpasses all known means of the same or similar purpose.
The 800-km detection range has been achieved only by the Ukrainian Kolchuga. The best the U.S. AWACS can do is 600 km, while the ground-based complexes Vera (Czech Republic) and Vega (Russia) can reach out up to 400 km - half what the Ukrainian complex can reach. The Kolchuga's lower limit of the working frequency range is 130MHz and is the lowest of all analogs. For the AWACS it is 2,000 MHz, for the Vera it is 850MHz, for the Vega it is 200MHz.
But where the Kolchuga has the greatest advantages is its ability to identify accurately radio objects thanks to unique algorithms and hi-tech equipment. In particular, the mean square deviation in frequency measurement - the most informative parameters for identifying types of spotted radio objects - is 0.4MHz in the Kolchuga. It is 0.5MHz - 1.0MHz in the Russian Vega, 1.0MHz in the U.S. AWACS, and as much as 3.6MHz - 21.0MHz in the Czech Vera. The maximal duration of detected impulses, measured by the Kolchuga, is 999.0 microseconds, versus 99.9 microseconds for the AWACS and 200 microseconds for the Vera. And the impulse repetition period can be measured by the Kolchuga up to the maximum of 79,999 microseconds, while no analogs can perform such measurements longer than 10,000 microseconds. As a result, the number of detected radio objects that the Kolchuga can classify is practically unlimited, which can not be said about any known analogs. The Ukrainian station has advanced algorithms and software programs for analyzing, systematizing, generalizing, and storing information about all radio objects and parameters of their signals. And the data already collected in the database can be used to identify newly detected radio objects and can be correlated with data obtained from other reconnaissance sources.
It should be noted that the Kolchuga's undeniable advantages are not accidental or temporary. The Ukrainian product is head and shoulders above all American, Russian, French, Czech, or Brazilian developments in this field. But those who developed and made this unique product aren't resting on their laurels. They continue to work.
Several contracts for exporting Kolchuga complexes have been fulfilled, but that is well below the export potential of this product, which already has numerous prospective buyers.
Comment on this Article
Arsonists torch Islamic school on 1st day of Ramadan
Last Updated: Monday, September 25, 2006 | 8:27 AM ET
CBC News
Ottawa police say a fire at a private Islamic school in the city's west end early Saturday morning was not a hate crime - but the chairman of the school's board disagrees.
The fire at Abraar School on Grenon Avenue broke out around 3 a.m. ET on the first day of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month.
The fire caused $100,000 in damages and destroyed part of the roof. There were no injuries.
Police said the fire was the work of arsonists but added that they found no indication it was motivated by hate.
"At this time, we haven't got any evidence pointing towards a hate crime," Det. Will Hinterberger of the Ottawa Police Hate Crime Unit told the Ottawa Sun.
But Abdala Kheireddine, the chairman of the school board, told the paper he disagreed with the police assessment.
"As far a we're concerned, it's still under investigation [as a hate crime]," he said.
"In my time [at the school], neighbourhood kids would disturb some of the playground toys and things like that but never anything of this magnitude."
Abraar School made headlines in 2005 when two teachers were suspended after allegedly praising a student for an anti-Semitic essay he wrote. The story was about revenge on Israel for the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the leader of the Hamas militant group.
School officials said they expected classes to run as usual on Monday.
Comment on this Article
Oil below $60 as supply grows, U.S. economy worries
By Peg Mackey
Reuters
Mon Sep 25, 2006
LONDON - Oil dropped under $60 to a six-month low on Monday as abundant supplies in top consumer the United States and fears that slower U.S. economic growth would stunt demand for fuel extended a price retreat.
U.S. crude has fallen nearly $19 from its mid-July peak of $78.40, its biggest slide in more than 15 years. The 24 percent decline was set off as investors' concern faded over Iran and the Atlantic hurricane season proved unexpectedly mild.
The rout deepened last week as speculators fretted over slowing economic growth in the world's top consumer and hedge fund Amaranth Advisors registered billions of dollars in losses.
U.S. crude was trading down 74 cents at $59.81 by 1027 GMT. London Brent was 86 cents lower at $59.55.
"You have summer support unwinding, very bad product market support and on top of that the U.S. economic slowdown is becoming more compelling," said Eoin O'Callaghan of BNP Paribas.
BP's move to restore output at its Alaskan oilfield earlier than expected added to a sense of healthy supply.
The UK major said on Friday it will add 150,000 barrels per day (bpd) of output to Prudhoe Bay in about a week, lifting total production to 400,000 bpd less than two months after it was forced to halve flows due to a corroded line.
Prices have been under pressure as U.S. inventories of distillates climb to their highest in nearly eight years and natural gas stocks swell to record-high levels, assuring consumers of ample winter fuel supplies.
At the same time, investors have begun to fret over the pace of U.S. economic growth -- a worry heightened last week after a key business activity index turned negative for the first time since April 2003, indicating a decline in manufacturing.
But Goldman Sachs cautioned the market's weakness may be fleeting, as a severe winter could eat into comfortable stocks while delays to new oilfields and refineries may put renewed strain on global capacity by the end of this year.
Even those who say the market may struggle to rebound warn that further losses are likely to be checked soon by members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), many of whom say $50-$60 is a desirable price level.
Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said last week that prices were "reasonable", a shift from calling prices "high" that some analysts read as a signal for potential output action.
"OPEC has a very difficult decision to make because if they try and maintain a price support to high then they will exacerbate the downturn for the world next year that we are forecasting," said O'Callaghan.
Geopolitical worries remained on the backburner, with major powers at the United Nations still trying to reach consensus over sanctions on Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter.
Comment on this Article
Two mosques vandalized in France
Reuters
Sun Sep 24, 2006
RENNES, France - Vandals scrawled swastikas and racist slogans on the walls of two mosques in France and set fire to one of them on Sunday, the day French Muslims started celebrating Ramadan.
In the town of Quimper in western France, 6 swastikas were painted in green on the walls of the Penhars Mosque.
Local government official Philippe Paolantoni said a neighbor spotted the fire inside the mosque at around 4 a.m. and firefighters were called to the scene.
"The community is well known and well integrated," he said, adding that several dozen people regularly attended prayers in the mosque.
French television and radio reported that racial insults and swastikas were also scrawled on the walls of a mosque in Carcassonne in southern France.
The Movement against Racism (MRAP) condemned the attacks and said they were a consequence of a link that was increasingly being made between Islam and terrorism, as well as talk of the "Islamisation" of France by far-right politicians in the run up to next year's presidential election.
"MRAP plans to take legal action over this Islamophobe act," the group said in a statement.
"It calls once again for more vigilance and a significant mobilization to stamp out this worrying increase of racism against Arabs and Muslims."
The Quimper mosque had already had been vandalized several times since it was built in February 2003.
Five million Muslims live in France, the largest Muslim minority in Europe.
Comment on this Article
Venezuelan Foreign Minister Illegally Detained at JFK Airport and Strip-Searched
by Stephen Lendman
Sunday, September 24, 2006
VHeadline.com broke the news early Saturday evening that Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Madura was prevented by airport officials from departing the US from JFK airport on a commercial flight on Saturday following the UN General Assembly meeting. He said officials demanded he surrender his ticket and boarding pass claiming his name was on a so-called "red list." He was then illegally detained, taken to a small room and strip-searched despite his strong protests after having clearly identified who he was. He explained once he did, his treatment only got worse.
This was a clear Bush administration attempt at harassment and deliberate Gestapo-like thuggery as well as a gross violation of international protocol. It was also an irrational act of retaliatory muscle-flexing by an administration losing control and reacting like a schoolyard hoodlum in response to President Hugo Chavez having had the courage to denounce George Bush's corrupted neoliberal policies on a world stage at the UN and to publicly call the US president the devil everyone knows he is. The Foreign Minister told Venezuelan reporters police officers threatened to handcuff and beat him physically if he resisted. They then held him in detention for 90 minutes before he was released denying him at any time any outside contact or legal help.
The reason given by airport officials for his detention was the allegation that he was involved in an aborted coup in Venezuela - 14 years ago in 1992 in which Hugo Chavez as an army officer was involved. It was directed against then President Carlos Andres Perez who happened to be a personal friend of GHW Bush. Perez at the time was extremely unpopular. During his 1988 winning presidential campaign, he promised vitally needed reforms for his people. Then after taking office in 1989 he adopted the same destructive neoliberal policies as before in violation of everything he said he would do. In 1993 Perez was impeached and jailed on multi-million dollar corruption charges but later was given asylum in the US where he now lives in a luxurious Manhattan apartment in New York city. This kind of treatment is a common practice by many US administrations as a show of gratitude to former deposed friendly dictators and former criminals in their employ or in service to their interests. They're allowed to come to the US to enjoy a permanent home in luxury out of the reach of authorities at home that wish to prosecute them for their crimes.
The situation with Minister Maduro is now resolved as inadequate as it is to say that. The Venezuelan government, of course, demands a full apology for this inexcusable act of abuse and effrontery. So far the only statement of apology has come from a low-level US State Department spokesperson, and it was a mealy-mouthed one that may have been intended to continue the insult against the Minister, his government, and, of course, Hugo Chavez above all others.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Comment on this Article
Unfriendly forces brewing in Latin America: US
Monday, September 25, 2006
WASHINGTON: The US military's top general warned on Friday that forces unfriendly to the United States are brewing in the Americas, arguing that "together we need to do something about it."
General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, singled out Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez who this week attacked President George W. Bush as the "devil" in a speech to the UN General Assembly.
"There have been increases in government actions that are not friendly to us," Pace said in a question-and-answer session with Pentagon employees. "President Chavez is clearly not a friend to the United States."
He said it would be interesting to see what impact Chavez's speech would have on Venezuela's quest for a seat on the US Security Council.
"He has also been sending money to other countries in South America to try to destabilize them or get elected those who he believes would follow in his footsteps," Pace said. Noting that Cuba's Fidel Castro is ill, Pace suggested his passing would be an opportunity for political change there. "Sooner or later, just like me, he's going to die," he said. "And then the Cuban people will have an opportunity again to state who they are and establish the kind of a government they want to have," he said.
Pace described Latin America as "a large family" with common goals and aspirations. "But we need to be alert to the fact that there are forces brewing right now that are not friendly to the United States and not friendly to other freedom-loving countries in this hemisphere. And together we need to do something about it," he said.
Comment on this Article
Strange And Disturbing World
Man stabs toddler, wife in La. traffic
AP
Sat Sep 23, 2006
BATON ROUGE, La. - A man repeatedly stabbed his toddler and estranged wife along an interstate while horrified people watched from their cars in rush-hour traffic Friday night, police and witnesses said.
The 2-year-old girl was in a car with her parents when her father started stabbing his wife with a kitchen knife along Interstate 110 near the Governor's Mansion, said Cpl. L'Jean McKneely, a Baton Rouge Police spokesman.
When the 26-year-old woman got out and ran for help from an East Baton Rouge Parish sheriff's deputy in squad car just ahead of them, her husband stabbed his daughter, McKneely said.
"He kept stabbing her until the knife was stuck in her head," witness Gloria Spears told WAFB-TV.
The man then put the girl on the highway and drove off, side-swiping the deputy's car and striking his wife, police said. He sped into downtown Baton Rouge and knocked down at least three utility poles before his car hurtled through the air and overturned on top of another vehicle.
All three were taken to Our Lady of the Lake Medical Center. The child was in "extremely critical" condition, with a cut "along her midsection and a kitchen knife lodged in her head," McKneely said.
Her mother, who was thrown 20 to 40 feet by the impact of the car, also had numerous stab wounds, he said. She was expected to live. The man was being treated for minor injuries, McKneely said.
He said police will not release the man's name until he is released from the hospital and booked into jail; the woman's and child's names were withheld because they are victims, he said.
McKneely said the couple, who was not identified, has been married for about six years but were currently living apart. It was not immediately clear what led to the stabbings.
Comment on this Article
Police arrest 263 after clashes in Copenhagen
Reuters
September 24, 2006
COPENHAGEN - Danish police arrested 263 people on Sunday after violent clashes during a protest over the closure of a youth center in Copenhagen.
Protesters hurled bottles and stones at several dozen riot police and set fire to park benches and rubbish bins, a police spokesman said. One or two demonstrators were injured in the violence, but no police were hurt.
About 500-600 young people had joined a protest over plans to evict left-wing activists and members of the city's squatter movement from a building they have been using as their base.
Police said it was not clear how many people would face charges after the protests.
Comment on this Article
Circumcision reduces HIV risk: study
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-25 06:41:55
HARARE, Sept. 24 (Xinhua) -- Women partnered with circumcised men have been found to be at lower risk of contracting HIV, according to initial results of a two-year study carried out in Zimbabwe and Uganda released on Sunday.
The study, which was instituted by local medical researchers, is aimed at looking at whether male circumcision decreases the risk of transmission to women, the researchers said.
A total of 4,448 women, 2,248 in Zimbabwe and 2,200 in Uganda, were involved in the study. The women were recruited mainly from family planning clinics, and in Uganda some of the women were those classified as "higher risk" women.
At quarterly visits for up to two years, participants received HIV tests and standardized interviews about their contraceptive and sexual behavior.
The researchers said they use cox proportional hazards modeling to compare time to HIV infection for women with circumcised primary partners to women with uncircumcised primary partners, controlling for sexual behavior and demographic variables. Analytic techniques permitted predictor to change over time.
Recently, a joint United Nations program on HIV also noted with considerable interest results of a trial carried out in Gauteng province in South Africa among men aged between 18 and 24.
Preliminary results of the study showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent, a level of protection far better than 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.
Comment on this Article
Mystery Surrounds Deaths of Coast Guard Divers
By GENE JOHNSON, AP09:22 AM EDT
SEATTLE (Sept. 24) - Five hundred miles north of Alaska, a group of shipmates from the Coast Guard cutter Healy tossed a football on the blue-and-white, diamond-hard Arctic ice.
Others snapped panoramic photos and took walks during the two-hour break, stretching their legs after a month aboard the 420-foot icebreaker.
Lt. Jessica Hill and Boatswain's Mate Steven Duque seized the chance for a training dive and slipped into a patch of open water near the Healy's bow. A team held ropes attached to the divers, lest they become disoriented under the ice. Several research scientists watched from the deck.
But no one knows what happened on the other end of those ropes on that cold, brilliant summer day - except that both divers died.
The Coast Guard has started two investigations, relieved the Healy's captain, pulled all diving equipment off the ship and suspended all polar diving. But nothing has been said about what might have killed Hill, 31, and Duque, 22, on Aug. 17, or when the investigations will conclude.
"We can get no word whatsoever, and that's tough," Hill's father, William Hill Jr., said. "We can't even get the death certificates."
Most Popular Stories
* - Mystery Surrounds Deaths of Coast Guard Divers
* - Bill Clinton Clashes With Fox Anchor in Interview
* - Alaska Man Offers Friend His Kidney
* - Rare Woodpecker Sends Town Running for Chain Saws
* - Father Stabs Wife, Toddler in Rush-Hour Traffic
The Healy was on a research mission backed by the National Science Foundation. On board were three dozen scientists collecting data that would help them map the ocean floor and study the Earth's crust to better understand earthquakes, tsunamis and plate tectonics.
Hill, the ship's marine science officer and a native of St. Augustine, Fla., was an experienced civilian diver before she joined the Coast Guard about four years ago. Her shipmates described her as a fun-loving officer who, during a trip to the North Pole last year, posed on the ice in a bikini by a red and white striped pole.
Duque, whose responsibilities included keeping the Healy's decks in order, operating machinery and driving launch boats, was from Miami. Colleagues said he was exceedingly professional and inspired others to take their jobs seriously.
Both attended the Navy's dive school, which is required of all Coast Guard divers.
The pair had been underwater for about 10 minutes, estimated Harm Van Avendonk, a University of Texas geophysics researcher, and something appeared to be wrong.
"I saw people from the bow looking intently down on the ice, and I sensed immediately that they didn't look relaxed," he said. "It was taking a long time for the divers to reappear."
In a blur, the crew's training took over, several witnesses said.
The divers were pulled up by the ropes. Blankets and stretchers were rushed onto the ice, and EMTs immediately began performing CPR.
The divers were carried to the ship's sick bay, where they were pronounced dead roughly two hours after the dive.
"What I can tell you is this: These people were very well trained. Every time we did something we had to have a safety briefing," said Steve Stevenoski, a high school teacher from Wisconsin Rapids, Wis., who was videotaping the frozen seascape when he heard shouts from the dive support team.
"There was an accident that was completely unforeseen," he said.
According to Coast Guard protocol, they would have created a "dive profile," detailing who was diving, how far down they were going and how long they would spend at various depths.
Typically such plans are drawn up by a ship's dive officer, though the captain is ultimately responsible for the safety of divers. That could explain why Capt. Douglas Russell was relieved of command less than two weeks later. Vice Adm. Charles D. Wurster, commander of the Coast Guard in the Pacific, said he had lost confidence in Russell.
The only signs of the tragedy during a recent tour of the ship were a grief counseling pamphlet on a table in the scientists' lounge and the locked and empty room where dive equipment was stored. The equipment was shipped to the Navy's dive school in Panama City, Fla., for examination.
One Coast Guard investigation is focusing on the root cause in hopes of preventing future accidents; the other is a broader administrative investigation that could result in findings of responsibility.
One investigator, a lieutenant, said Hill and Duque were the first Coast Guard divers to die under water since the 1970s.
The Coast Guard described the dive as routine, but any dive in frigid waters beneath 4-feet-thick ice poses serious dangers. The cold can numb the extremities. Divers typically wear dry suits, which use air to help determine buoyancy. Such suits can balloon during ascents as pressure decreases - if the diver doesn't release the air quickly enough, he or she can shoot toward the surface and crash into the ice.
They also must use equipment that can handle the cold, such as breathing regulators outfitted with rubberized covers filled with antifreeze.
The deaths were hard on the Healy's crew of 75, said Ensign Stephen Elliott, who was on the ice as part of the dive support team that day.
"These are people you watch movies with, eat with, joke around with," he said. "It's hard to explain to someone who doesn't live on a ship what it's like to be a shipmate. They were incredible shipmates."
Comment on this Article
Foreign prostitutes, 12, for sale in Scotland
Scotsman
24/09/2006
FOREIGN prostitutes as young as 12 are being forced to work in brothels as part of Scotland's rocketing human trafficking problem, a senior police officer has revealed.
Detective Sergeant Mike McCormack, who heads Strathclyde's organised immigration crime team, said intelligence has emerged of a disturbing new trend of children from Slovakia and other countries being sold for sex for as little as £10 a time - a fraction of the price of local prostitutes.
Click to learn more...
McCormack warned that the nature of Scotland's sex industry is undergoing a sinister change, with Scots men now buying sex from "good-looking" foreign underage teenagers rather than older local drug-addicted women.
But he has levelled criticism at other forces for failing to deal with the problem and warned of a lack of resources to tackle human trafficking.
Scotland on Sunday can reveal that police are gathering shocking new evidence of children targeted by gangs overseas and brought into the UK, sold between brothels and taken to private flats and houses in Glasgow, where they are forced to work as prostitutes.
McCormack said: "We can see the trend is changing. We have intelligence that Chinese and Slovakian girls from the age of 12 are being prostituted in the south side of Glasgow.
"We have heard of a 12-year-old girl being prostituted for £10. Others cost £20-£30. They are good looking. Half of the local prostitutes are junkies charging £60. The punters are anyone - people coming out of pubs are offered girls. There is a huge child prostitution issue."
McCormack said they had intelligence Glasgow was being used as a dumping ground for trafficked girls. Most were sold in London airports and put into London brothels, he said. But they were moved on when the police started investigating. "The Albanians have contacts in Scotland through the Albanian community. Glasgow is just a place they come to," he said.
McCormack added: "There is evidence that children from Slovakia are coming through the country with no problems, because there's no visa needed. The traffickers can make millions from girls in brothels.
"We know the Scottish Executive is interested, but we need more staff and more money. We only have two staff at the moment working on this in Strathclyde and we are the experts for the whole of Scotland. We do not have enough police officers to look at this problem.
"Police in Edinburgh have said they don't have a human trafficking problem, but that's impossible. I don't think they know what's happening in their areas. No one is asking the questions, and if they don't look at it they won't find it."
An Executive spokeswoman said: "We are working with the Home Office to make sure the law on human trafficking is as robust as possible. Last month, responses to a Home Office and Scottish Executive consultation on human trafficking were published, and they will inform a UK action plan on preventing, arresting and prosecuting offenders and helping victims."
Comment on this Article
The Natural World
Strong earthquake shakes northwest Argentina, no injuries reported
The Associated Press
Published: September 24, 2006
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina A strong earthquake shook northwestern Argentina on Sunday evening. There were no immediate reports of injuries.
The 5.7-magnitude quake was centered 225 kilometers (140 miles) northeast of the city of Mendoza, in the Guayaguas mountains of San Juan province, according to the U.S. Geological Survey in Golden, Colorado.
Fans watching a soccer match in Mendoza reported feeling the Malvinas Argentinas stadium shake, but the game was not interrupted, the Argentine daily newspaper Clarin said in its online edition. The stadium is about 1,000 kilometers (640 miles) west of Buenos Aires.
Civil defense officials told the independent television news network Cronica that the quake was felt in the provinces of San Juan, San Luis, La Rioja and Cordoba. It occurred at 6:08 p.m. local time (2108GMT), at a depth of 140 kilometers (85 miles).
It was the third quake above a 5.0-magnitude to strike the region in four weeks, none of which caused injury or damage.
On Sept. 17, a 6.1-magnitude quake sent panicked residents fleeing from homes close to the epicenter near Pampa de las Salinas, 1,400 kilometers (745 miles) northeast of Buenos Aires. That quake was also felt in the provinces of Mendoza, San Juan and La Rioja.
On Aug. 24, a 6.4-magnitude quake struck about 110 kilometers (70 miles) west of San Salvador de Jujuy, near the border with Chile.
Comment on this Article
Severe weather kills 1 in Arkansas
By DAVID LIEB
Associated Press
Sat Sep 23, 2006
ST. JAMES, Mo. - Severe thunderstorms spawned tornadoes, large hail and lightning in parts of the Midwest on Friday, killing a boater trying to get to shore.
Two tornadoes swept through south-central Missouri Friday afternoon, damaging more than 100 homes and tearing off part of a roof at a middle school moments after a tornado drill. No deaths had been reported.
A firefighter videotaped two twisters moving through St. James, said Phelps County emergency management director Bruce Southard. He estimated the tornadoes were on the ground for 10 minutes.
"It's devastating," he said. "We've got nice houses that are just tore to pieces."
In northwest Arkansas, Deborah Massey, 51, died when her boat was struck by lightning as she and Preston Starritt, 36, both of Prairie Grove, were on Bob Kidd Lake, Washington County Sheriff Tim Helder said. Starritt was injured and treated at a hospital.
Several tornadoes were reported in the region, where power was knocked out, trees broken and at least one home damaged.
"I've seen storms come through, but nothing that's taken down poles like this," Springdale police Sgt. Billy Turnbough said flagpoles bent sideways.
In Missouri, 12-year-old Devin Wilburn said students at St. James Middle School had just completed a tornado drill. Thirty seconds later, they interrupted their science test to rush back into the hallway for the real thing. The children knelt down and put their hands over their heads, he said.
"I just heard a bunch of thunder and ripping, because the top of the roof came off," Devin said.
No teachers, children or staff members were injured.
Preliminary information indicates a tornado warning was issued about 30 minutes before the storm hit, said Gino Izzi, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Springfield.
A tornado also destroyed about half of the Manchester Packaging Co. plant, which makes polyethylene film and bags, according to its Web site. Southard said the twister ripped 70-foot-by-70-foot holes in the main building of a Wal-Mart distribution center and another Wal-Mart building used to service trucks.
Devin's father, Chuck Wilburn, was sleeping when he was awakened by a "roaring wind noise." Wilburn, 42, said he ran to let the dogs in from outside.
"I opened the door and saw the barbecue grill flying across the yard," Wilburn said, whose house lost a window and some siding.
Southard estimated between 100 and 125 homes were damaged. He said most the damage was to roofs but some porches also collapsed.
The storm also ripped down trees, blocking traffic and leaving about half the city of about 6,000 people without power. St. James is 86 miles southwest of St. Louis.
Authorities also reported that two other small tornadoes downed trees and took off shingles in rural parts of southeast Missouri. Tornadoes and hail were also reported in northern Arkansas.
In Illinois, high winds destroyed three mobile homes and a log home in Massac County, and about a dozen homes were damaged in Jackson County, said Patti Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Emergency Management Agency.
About 15,000 Commonwealth Edison customers in the Chicago area were without electricity after a storm downed trees, the utility said.
In western Kentucky, state police dispatcher Shari Clapp said weather spotters in Livingston County had reported three unconfirmed sightings of tornadoes near the Ohio River.
Some highways in Livingston and Henderson counties closed because of fallen trees and flash flooding, authorities said.
Comment on this Article
170 dead in South Asia storms
Reuters
Sat Sep 23, 2006
DHAKA - Storms in eastern India and Bangladesh have killed more than 170 people and left around 375,000 homeless over the past four days, officials said on Saturday.
The storms, caused by a depression in the Bay of Bengal late on Tuesday, have brought heavy rains and strong winds to the region, destroying fishing boats, crops and homes.
Most of the deaths occurred in Bangladesh where rescuers have recovered nearly 100 bodies of fishermen whose boats were caught up in the rough seas.
"So far nearly 100 bodies have been retrieved from the sea at half a dozen spots," said an official in the badly hit coastal district of Barguna.
Authorities say that while many boats have managed to return to shore, the navy and coastguard are still looking for hundreds of fishermen who remain unaccounted for.
Surviving fishermen said they had been caught off guard as weather authorities had failed to warn them of the impending storm. Dhaka's weather office denied this, saying an alert was issued well in advance.
The storm also left around 10,000 people in coastal areas homeless, and flash floods inundated crop fields.
In the eastern Indian state of West Bengal, the incessant rains and flooding have killed around 30 people, and forced 350,000 living mainly in coastal areas from their homes.
"People have been killed mostly from houses collapsing, lightning, trees landing on them," said Mriganka Biswas from the state's relief department.
"Victims are now living under tarpaulin sheets provided by the government," he said, adding that around 70,000 homes had been destroyed in the state.
In West Bengal's capital, Kolkata, police used boats on Friday to rescue hundreds of families stranded in low-lying slums.
"The situation will be very grave in Kolkata if rain continues," said Sourav Chakraborty, a police officer involved in the rescue operations.
The storms also killed more than 40 people and left nearly 15,000 homeless in Andhra Pradesh state on India's east coast.
Comment on this Article
Is there anybody out there? How the men from the ministry hid the hunt for UFOs
James Randerson, science correspondent
Monday September 25, 2006
The Guardian
The Ministry of Defence went to extraordinary lengths to cover up its true involvement in investigating UFOs, according to secret documents revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The files show that officials attempted to expunge information from documents released to the Public Records Office under the "30-year rule" that would have revealed the extent of the MoD's interest in UFO sightings.
In particular, the ministry wanted to cover up the operation of a secret unit dedicated to UFO investigations within the Defence Intelligence Staff. UFO conspiracy theorists have likened the unit, called DI55, to a sort of "Men in Black" agency for defending the Earth against invasion but the released documents show this is far from the truth. One 1995 memo from DI55 to the MoD's public "UFO desk" said: "I have several books at home that describe our supposed role of 'defender of the Earth against the alien menace' - it is light years from the truth!"
Article continues
The files were made public following FOI requests by David Clarke, a lecturer in journalism at Sheffield Hallam University and his colleague Andy Roberts.
"These documents don't tell us anything about UFOs but they do show how desperate the MoD have been to conceal the interest which the intelligence services had in the subject," said Dr Clarke.
The trail begins with a request, in 1976, from a UFO enthusiast called Julian Hennessy for access to the MoD's records on UFO sightings. A note from the UFO desk to the MoD's head of security on March 23 shows that officials intended to refuse him access on the grounds that the files contain confidential information and "very little of value to a serious scientific investigator".
But the note continues: "This is not to say that the investigation is not taken seriously. The branches have their own methods - and [the public UFO desk] has no 'need to know' about them - but we are aware that DI55 for example sometimes makes extensive inquiries.
"It is undesirable that even a hint of this should become public and we are currently consulting the [Air Historical Branch] on ways of expurgating the official records against the time when they qualify for disclosure [at the Public Records Office]."
Hearing of the background to his fob off 30 years ago Mr Hennessy, who is a local magistrate, was not surprised. "Everything led me to believe there was a major cover up going on," he said."They didn't want to let the public know just how interested they were in these phenomena."
Attempts to alter the public record went on into the 90s. In a note dated April 28 1993 from DI55 to the public UFO desk the unnamed author argued the unit's involvement should be excised from records due to be released under the 30-year rule. But the cat was already out of the bag. A clerical error in 1983 had meant that the distribution list was incorrectly left on a publicly released UFO-related document, so UFO enthusiasts were already asking questions.
"Since then they have obviously been bombarded by people saying who is this DI55, what do they do, what is the extent of their involvement," said Dr Clarke.
Eventually, DI55 decided to allow its involvement to be made public. A note from DI55 to the public UFO desk on 5July 1995 said: "I see no reason for continuing to deny that the [Defence Intelligence Service] has an interest in UFOs. However, if the association is formally made public then the MoD will no doubt be pressured to state what the intelligence role/interest is. This could lead to disbelief and embarrassment since few people are likely to believe the truth that lack of funds and higher priorities have prevented any study of the thousands of reports received."
At this point someone, presumably from the public UFO desk, has scribbled "ouch!" in the margin.
"The lengths they went to to remove any mention of the Defence Intelligence Staff's central role in investigating sightings suggests they had something to hide," said Dr Clarke. "But what they were hiding was not evidence of ET visits but embarrassment at the fact they were never allowed to spend public money on investigating the subject in any depth." The full extent of DI55's involvement has subsequently been made clear by a report released to Dr Clarke in May and reported in the Guardian. That threw up a 500-page document which brought together everything the unit knew about UFOs, or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) as the MoD prefers, including more than 10,000 sightings. It said the existence of UAPs was "indisputable", but blamed the most vexing sighting on airborne "plasmas" formed during "more than one set of weather and electrically charged conditions", or during meteor showers.
Sighting aliens or otherwise?
August 10 1965 A man reported seeing a crimson ball fly out of the side of a hill in Warminster, Wiltshire. A fortnight later, another man photographed a UFO in the centre of Warminster. In 1994 it was claimed the photo was a hoax and the object was made from a cotton reel and a button.
Boxing Day 1980 A UFO reportedly crash landed in Rendlesham forest, Suffolk, near the Woodbridge US air force base. The incident was nicknamed Britain's Roswell in a reference to the famous UFO sighting in New Mexico in 1947. Witnesses said the craft was covered in markings similar to Egyptian hieroglyphs and aliens emerged from it. An airman later confessed the incident was a hoax.
November 28 1980 Policeman Alan Godfrey reported seeing a six-metre wide dome-like object hovering in the air in Todmorden, West Yorkshire. He returned to the site with colleagues and they found the area where the object had supposedly been hovering was dry even though the rest of the road was wet because of earlier rain.
Early 1990s A string of sightings by residents in north Scotland of a UFO regularly flying overhead at great speed. Documents released earlier this year suggested the aircraft was a spy plane called Aurora, designed by the Americans to take covert pictures of the Soviet Union.
May 2006 The MoD released details of Project Condign, a four-year secret study into possible explanations for UFOs. The report concluded that many sightings could be explained as by glowing "plasmas" of gas created by charges of electricity.
Comment on this Article
Breeding Seeds In Space, Hate Speech, Fundie Speech and Priorities
China's seed breeding satellite returns to earth
www.chinaview.cn
2006-09-24
CHENGDU -- China's seed-breeding satellite, Shijian-8, successfully landed in Sichuan Province, southwest China, at 10:43 a.m. Beijing time on Sunday after a 15-day flight in space.
The recoverable satellite was launched from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in the northwest China desert on Sept. 9.
The satellite's return capsule was recovered in Suining, Sichuan Province. The orbital module will continue to orbit the earth and carry out more experiments until its battery gives up the ghost.
The satellite carried 215 kilograms of seeds of vegetables, fruits, grains and cotton, the largest payload of this kind since 1987.
After being exposed to cosmic radiation and zero gravity, some seeds may mutate and produce higher yields and improved quality when planted back on earth, scientists said.
Scientists from the Space-breeding Center of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science used the mission to carry out experiments aimed at discovering what happens to the germination and sprouting of plants when they are exposed to zero gravity.
During its flight, the satellite sent back high-definition digital images of sprouting vegetables, according to the Institute of Plant Physiology & Ecology with the Shanghai Institute for Biological Sciences under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which is conducting the experiment.
An official from the Ministry of Agriculture said the ministry will ask research institutes to use the seeds returned from space to develop new seeds featuring high yields, good quality and high efficiency.
Since 1987, China has carried out seed breeding tests on nine satellites and a number of new species of plant seeds have been bred in space by Chinese scientists.
Over the past four years, new types of crop developed with space-bred seeds have been planted in a total of 567,000 hectares of farmland, producing 340 million kilograms of grain and direct GDP of 500 million yuan (62.5 million U.S. dollars).
The United States and Russia are also capable of breeding seeds in space.
The Shijian-8 is the 90th space flight made by Long March rockets and the 23rd time China has launched a recoverable satellite. China has chalked up 48 successful space launches in a row since October 1996.
The Xi'an Satellite Control Center is responsible for monitoring, controlling, and recovering the Shijian-8.
According to official sources, China's recoverable satellites will compete on the international market.
China launched its first recoverable satellite for science and technological experiments in 1975.
Comment on this Article
Internet Hate-Speech Ban Called 'Chilling'
Michelle Madigan, Medill News Service
WASHINGTON--As European leaders move to ban Internet hate speech and seek support from the United States, civil liberties groups charge that the proposal would violate free-speech rights.
The Council of Europe--not to be confused with the European Union--comprises 44 European countries, plus a handful of non-European nations. Canada, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, and the United States have observer status only, but their comments are sought.
The council recently voted to outlaw "acts of a racist and xenophobic nature conducted through computer systems." The measure was added to the Convention on Cybercrime, criminalizing hacking, intellectual property violations, and use of computers to commit fraud. The first set of rules was signed in November 2001. The non-European members are being asked to endorse the hate-speech provision at a meeting in late January. Broad Ban 'Terrifying'
The Justice Department has indicated it will not support the broader restrictions because of concern that it is incompatible with First Amendment rights to free speech. The agreement defines racist and xenophobic material as "written material, images or other representations of ideas or theories advocating, promoting or inciting hatred, discrimination or violence against individuals or groups, based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin, or religion."
"It's a terrifying prospect," says James Gattuso, a research fellow for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "It's inherently dangerous for governments to define what appropriate speech is. You can't define or limit speech without chilling speech." The protocol is subject to interpretation, he notes. "If you have a cartoon criticizing French foreign policy, would the French government have recourse?" he asks. "I don't see anything that would exclude that." The Electronic Privacy Information Center suspects that the protocol is aimed at right-wing racist speech, says Sarah Andrews, EPIC's research director. She thinks it targets white supremacist or antiabortion groups. A separate proposal on revisionism would prohibit speech about Holocaust denials, she notes. But either ban is drastically contrary to the U.S. practice of protecting even hate speech. For example, an antiabortion group ran a Web site called the Nuremberg Files, which listed doctors who performed abortions. As antiabortion activists killed these doctors, they were crossed out on the Web site. Critics said the Web site incited violence, and a lower court agreed; but upon appeal the Web site was declared to be protected by the First Amendment. Under the Council of Europe protocol, the Web site would be illegal, Andrews says. "At the very extreme, historians or journalists writing about these people or [about] Holocaust denials would be prohibited," says Andrews. 'Cultural Clash'
The Council of Europe's original Convention on Cybercrime in 2001 also contained a hate-speech measure, but it was dropped at the last minute to gain support from the United States, which signed the treaty along with 29 other countries. However, for the treaty to become reality, the members must enact laws in their own countries. Nations have been slow to ratify the treaty, says Barry Steinhardt, director of technology and liberty programs for the American Civil Liberties Union and cofounder of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign. Only two Council of Europe members--Albania and Croatia--have executed the treaty's provisions from one year ago. Ratification in the U.S. requires action by the Senate, which has not happened. While few countries have taken action, civil liberties groups say the protocol has a chilling effect and are tracking the Council of Europe's actions. "The U.S. has always maintained that they won't sign on to this protocol, and it would be very shocking if they did so in the end," EPIC's Andrews says. If European countries find unacceptable material on an American-based Web site, they cannot expect American courts to block access to the material because it would be protected here by the First Amendment, says Paula Bruening, staff counsel for the Center for Democracy &
Technology. "As disturbing as this kind of speech is, it is protected by the First Amendment," Bruening says. "Our vision of the Internet is a free exchange of ideas, but Europe takes a different approach. What we're seeing here is a cultural clash." Who's Responsible?
The treaty says Internet service providers would not be held responsible for simply hosting a Web site or chat room containing hate speech. However, if the Council of Europe member countries adopt laws that make it a crime to distribute such material to the public through e-mail or Web sites, this may negatively impact privacy and Internet use by Americans, say some civil liberties groups. The proposals would require governments to take invasive measures to prosecute individuals, says the ACLU's Steinhardt. He says the United States would have to cooperate in such a case. American Internet service providers could potentially be forced to shut down their interactive components because people may engage in speech that is offensive in Europe, says Steinhardt. Some members of the European parliament called for an "unlawful hosting" provision that would have increased the liability of U.S. companies, says Sarah Deutsch, vice president and associate general counsel for Verizon Communications.
The Council of Europe rejected that proposal as problematic, but ISPs are still concerned because Internet jurisdiction is largely unsettled, Deutsch says. Recurring Concerns
When French organizations brought Yahoo to court for allowing Nazi-oriented auction items on its Web site, a French court said Yahoo was liable, but did not enforce the judgment. A U.S. court said later that the ruling could not be imposed in the United States. Some U.S.-based Web sites have chosen to voluntarily block access to some information in respect of other countries' laws, which also raises concerns among civil liberties organizations.
But a Yahoo executive could be arrested when traveling in France because that judgment still stands, says Deutsch. "Some countries hold you liable because citizens can access your Web site," says Deutsch. "Countries need to adopt a common set of principles."
Comment on this Article
Mel campaigns for new movie, against war in Iraq
Reuters
Sun Sep 24, 2006
LOS ANGELES - Mel Gibson has returned to the spotlight to promote his upcoming movie "Apocalypto," and to criticize the war in Iraq, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
Almost two months after he railed against Jews when he was arrested for driving drunk in Malibu, the actor made a surprise appearance Friday at Fantastic Fest, an event in Austin, Texas, devoted to new science fiction, horror and fantasy films, the trade paper said in its Monday edition.
He presented a work-in-progress screening of his Mayan adventure tale, and then took questions. About one-third of the full house gathered for the film gave him a standing ovation. The film is scheduled for a December 8 release via Disney.
In describing its portrait of a civilization in decline, Gibson said, "The precursors to a civilization that's going under are the same, time and time again," drawing parallels between the Mayan civilization on the brink of collapse and America's present situation. "What's human sacrifice," he asked, "if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?"
Appearing alongside Rudy Youngblood, one of the film's actors who hails from the Austin area, Gibson said he plans to make further trims in the film, which ran more than two hours. The print shown did not include sound effects and score, and some visual effects have not yet been added.
Gibson's appearance at the festival, co-founded by Harry Knowles, was reminiscent of a similar appearance he made at Knowles' Butt-Numb-a-Thon, which offered one of the first public previews of "The Passion of the Christ."
Comment on this Article
Pets orphaned by war in Lebanon to be airlifted to U.S. for adoption
Last update - 22:50 24/09/2006
By The Associated Press
They endured a summer of war - ground-shaking airstrikes, and abandonment by their owners who fled the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Now Lebanon's unlikely victims of war - its pets - are being airlifted to the United States on Monday for adoption.
For Mona Khoury, who has helped take care of the animals for the past few weeks, the rescue operation is tinged with sadness.
"I've grown attached to them and I'm very, very sad that they're leaving. But I know they'll be in good hands and have a better life there," she said.
Khoury is co-founder of BETA, the humane society Beirut for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which partnered on the project with the American animal society Best Friends.
BETA has gathered up many pets left behind by the tens of thousands of foreigners, or Lebanese with foreign passports, who fled the country in July and August. Many left on the recommendations of their governments, which organized evacuations by land and sea.
But the U.S. Embassy and others told evacuees that pets would not be allowed on the ships and helicopters carrying them to safety, and many families were forced to abandon their animals or leave them with friends who later got rid of them. Some 300 of those dogs and cats, including a few stray animals, will be flown out Monday.
"This is certainly the largest animal airlift operation we've ever done overseas," says Michael Mountain, president of the Utah-based Best Friends, America's largest refuge for abused and abandoned pets. In a telephone interview, he said the homeless pets from Beirut would be airlifted on a special Emirates cargo plane Monday to the U.S.
There will be two refueling stops - one in Manchester, England, and another at New York's JFK Airport - before arriving in Las Vegas, where the orphaned pets will be put on Best Friends trucks for the 3.5-hour ride to temporary housing at the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Kanab, southern Utah.
"Once there, the pets will undergo a final health and behavior evaluation before they're off to their new, permanent homes," Mountain said. "We've already had a lot of offers to adopt these cats and dogs," he added.
He said their entire Middle East operation is costing around US$250,000, most of it from donations raised by animal activists.
Volunteers at the sanctuary have been hard at work building temporary houses for the pets arriving from Lebanon.
"This is for the animals," said Alberto Nunez, one of the construction team. "When I think of their situation over there, it makes me so sad. I want to work for them," he said, according to the Best Friends Web site.
Best Friends arranged a similar operation just a year ago in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when it brought more than 6,000 animals out of the disaster-stricken zone and to new homes. The society has also been assisting animal groups in Israel, where people were also evacuated without their pets.
But the major crisis for animals has been in Lebanon.
On July 12 at the start of the 34-day war, BETA had to move dogs and cats from a shelter near a Hezbollah stronghold in Beirut that was repeatedly hit by Israeli warplanes. The animals took refuge in an abandoned hilltop pig farm in Monteverde, in the hills overlooking Beirut. Other BETA shelters were also damaged.
At the height of the war, they were featured on ABC's "Good Morning America," after which adoption offers from the U.S. "started coming down on us by the hundreds," said Khoury.
Jutta Sold, a 36-year-old animal activist who is also a BETA volunteer, said the airlift to the U.S. is "a very good thing."
"It's sad for me, I knew some of these dogs when they were just puppies, but I'm very hopeful that their chances for adoption are much better over there," said the Germany citizen who adopted one of the canines herself.
She said people in Lebanon don't have much connection with animals. "The attitude here is very different from Europe or the United States. A lot of people are afraid of animals, they kick them around."
She also noted there are no laws to protect animals, and chances of them being adopted were much higher in the West.
Comment on this Article
Remember, we need your help to collect information on what is going on in your part of the world!
Send your article suggestions to: sott(at)signs-of-the-times.org
