Ah, another bin Laden tape! And this time, it includes special guests stars Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jarrah, two of the men accused of "spearheading" the 9/11 attacks! The tape was presented to us this weekend by the erstwhile Times of London with all the fanfare deserving of the "proof" that "only the flakiest of anti-American fantasists can go on claiming that Bin Laden, Atta, Jarrah and co had no hand in September 11". We'll come back to the weasel wording of this characterization later, but, for now, let's see what the Times is serving.
The article raises several points: that finally Atta and Jarrah have been seen together, that they are established as having been in Afghanistan in January 2000, a period long known as something of a black hole in the life of Atta (his whereabouts at this time long being unaccounted for), that Atta and Jarrah "had everything to live for" because "[u]nlike most of the other hijackers... Atta and Jarrah fitted easily into western society", and that, therefore, even the most promising, middle class, and potentially "American" of Arabs can become terrorists! Is Osama under YOUR bed? What about that Arab looking man down the street?
Be afraid! Be very afraid!
Dates and Places
The article in the Times states:
These images are part of a videotape, nearly an hour long, that was filmed at Osama Bin Laden's lair in Afghanistan 6½ years ago. They are revealed today for the first time, and they are a missing chapter in the searing story of the attacks on America on September 11, 2001.[...]
TEN days after Bin Laden's Eid speech, according to the date on the film, Atta and Jarrah read their martyrdom wills to the camera. This proof of their presence in Afghanistan at that time is just about the final main piece of the jigsaw: Atta, the man who decided zero hour on September 11 is for the first time on video, getting ready to record his "martyrdom" will.
Well, the unfortunate problem with the video is that the time code and date stamp are not reliable means of establishing dates and times. You might remember the images from the Pentagon parking security camera that show the explosion at the Pentagon and that were dated September 12. However, let's accept that the date for Bin Laden's appearance is correct.
The second point is that the video bears two different date stamps: January 8, 2000, when Bin Laden is addressing the gathering, and January 18, 2000, when we see Atta and Jarrah, individually and together. The coupling of the two parts together would appear to give the impression that Atta and Jarrah are in Afghanistan, but we only see them against a white wall that could be anywhere in the world. They might be in Afghanistan, or the camera could have been taken elsewhere, or video shot on two different cameras could have been edited together. Certainly from the video released on the Times' site, it is impossible to say with any authority that it shows more than that Atta and Jarrah knew one another.
But, again, we can also accept that they did know one another, and that they were together in Afghanistan when the video says. We aren't in a court of law here, and as we'll show below, it doesn't contradict the argument that 9/11 was an inside job.
They're Everywhere! They're Anyone!
The next point we wish to cover is the recurring theme in the article suggesting that if Mohammed Atta and Ziod Jarrah could become terrorists, then anyone could become a terrorist. Here are some relevant excerpts:
ATTA and Jarrah have never been pictured together before. Indeed, a key element of their tradecraft was that they steered clear of each other. They were leading figures in the September 11 story, not only because they flew the planes but also because they apparently had everything to live for. Unlike most of the other hijackers, who were mainly provincial Saudi fundamentalists, Atta and Jarrah fitted easily into western society.
To the Germans who knew them in Hamburg they seemed entirely normal. The tape explains this mistake. It would be hard to look less homicidal - until the camera pulls back and reveals that Atta is sitting next to an AK-47. [...]
So the tape not only fills a gap in the story of September 11 but also provides chilling proof of the difficulty of fighting Islamic terrorism: these two "normal", happy, unthreatening individuals turned out to have an explosive effect on the history of the 21st century. [...]
Unedited, the extraordinary footage also gives us a glimpse into the superficially ordinary character of the man who would later spearhead the devastating terrorist attack. [...]
THE significance of even a single frame of any of the September 11 pilots in Afghanistan could not be overestimated, let alone the sudden appearance of nearly 6,000 frames of the two most important and most puzzling hijackers.
Distinctively the black sheep of the whole lot - plotters and hijackers - Atta and Jarrah came from the two most liberal Arab countries, both from the heart of their respective communities, both from middle-class families, both intelligent, pleasant and trusted wherever they went, and both with impressive educational track records. Jarrah went to a Christian school in Beirut; Atta advanced his English at The American University in Cairo.
Then they both had ambitions beyond what they thought their countries could offer. [...]
If the appearance of this video solves one mystery, the big question about both Atta and Jarrah is still with us: how on earth did such impressive young men with everything to live for develop such a mindset? Neither was mad and neither was brainwashed. If anything at all they were both the antithesis of such naive and easy explanations.
One would confidently argue that someone of the calibre of Mohammed Atta would have been incapable of being brainwashed.
A reading of these excerpts should be disturbing to any Arab living in the real Axis of Evil: the United States and Britain. Obviously, Arabs living within reach of the third member, Israel, are already aware that their lives are worth nothing. Moreover, it should be disturbing to anyone who cares about freedom. It is apparent what message the author is attempting to convey: if someone gifted like Mohammed Atta or handsome like Ziod Jarrah, who were the most 'Westernized' of the alleged hijackers, who "had everything to live for" as defined by the material values of modern capitalist society, who come from the two 'most liberal' Arab countries, can become "terrorists", then it could happen to anyone, and 'we' have a really serious threat on our hands. In other words, he is peddling the zio-con lie about Arabs and Muslims. They are just not reasonable! You just can't talk to them or negotiate with them! See, they could have had it all!!!
The subtext of his message is clear, and that it can be published so brazenly in The Times should give us all pause to think.
Among the many lies and justifications given by the zio-cons and the globalists to justify the crusade against Islam and the 'war on terror', they are pushing the line that the spreading of the global market and the gradual development of Western style economies and governments will end 'terrorism' by making good consumers of us all. They know it isn't true, but that is what they want us to believe. They, in their hearts of gold -- that is, cold and pitiless -- can understand how the "provincial" Arabs could become 'terrorists'. They can be easily brainwashed! And if anyone knows anything about how to control populations through brainwashing, it is the pathocrats in the US, Britain, and Israel. The Times article is an excellent example.
But here we see 'modern' Arabs, those who should 'know better' refusing the bounty -- or the bribe. So it seems that the imposition of Western culture, economics, and government isn't going to stave off terror. Perhaps it encourages it?
Be afraid! Be very afraid!!!
And to top it off, the writer is described as "chief investigative reporter for Al-Jazeera Television Pictures"! My god! An Arab! He should know! Harriet, grab my gun! Didn't our neighbours say they were from...well, they aren't from here!
But reread this sentence:
"THE significance of even a single frame of any of the September 11 pilots in Afghanistan could not be overestimated, let alone the sudden appearance of nearly 6,000 frames of the two most important and most puzzling hijackers."
Do you see the subtle way this passage is worded? If the missing piece was whether or not Atta and Jarrah knew each other, then one picture of them together suffices to establish the fact. It makes no difference whatsoever that there are "6,000 frames". However, the impression Mr. Fouda is attempting to leave with the reader is that it is somehow 6,000 times more important, as if it makes the two men 6,000 times more guilty.
Such writing is the method of propaganda, not news reporting.
But, then again, we must ask ourselves whether or not Mohammed Atta and Ziod Jarrah were, in fact, 'terrorists', and, if they were, or they thought they were, were they in fact the people "spearheading" the 9/11 attacks?
The unedited video was passed to The Sunday Times through a previously tested channel. On condition of anonymity, sources from both Al-Qaeda and the United States have confirmed its authenticity. It has no sound - and lip-readers have failed to decipher it, according to a US source - but the images speak loudly for themselves.
Hmmm.... "passed to The Sunday Times through a previously tested channel"... "on conditon of anonymity... both Al-Qaeda and the United States have confirmed its authenticity". Not only have we "anonymity", we see unanimity! Both Al Qaeda and the US! That's some break-through!
Or is it?
It is part of the public record that the US was siphoning funds to bin Laden via Saudi Arabia during the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. There were reports that bin Laden met with a CIA official at a hospital in Dubai in June 2001. There are also reports of the use of 'Al Qaeda' members by the US during the war in Kosovo. So the idea that they are in opposition to one another should be taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, Jason Burke, in his book Al Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam, paints a picture of the organization that is much, much different than that depicted by the zio-cons, a view that was shared at one point by Mr. Fouda.
According to Wikipedia, Mr. Fouda has said, "I do not really believe there is such a thing as al-Qaida, the organization; there is al-Qaida, the mind-set."
But let us, for the sake of argument, accept, if only momentarily, that Al Qaeda and Uncle Sam are really enemies. In such a case, each has something to gain from insisting on the authenticity of the video, as well as on Al Qaeda's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. For the US, it inflates the threat and adds more fuel to the fires of fear that have been stoked in the 50 States since 9/11. For Al Qaeda, accepting the authenticity of the video, whether or not Atta and Jarrah were involved in the attacks, is good public relations. "Yes, we did it! Yes, we are the only force opposing US imperialism."
Which makes it curious that these 'Islamic terrorists' have been reticent to claim credit for them. The only time 'Osama' claimed credit for the attacks was via a very poorly done fake video 'found' by US soldiers after the invasion of Afghanistan. It was obvious that the man who we were told was Osama in the video was someone else. In other words, Osama has never claimed credit for the attacks.
The other "admission of guilt" from Al Qaeda comes, funnily enough, from an interview carried out by one Yosri Fouda, journalist for Al Jalzeera. Cooperative Research, in their profile of Mr. Fouda, has this to say about the interview:
It is originally reported that Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda interviews 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 9/11 associate Ramzi Bin al-Shibh at a secret location in Karachi, Pakistan, in either June [London Times, 9/8/2002] or August. [Guardian, 9/9/2002]
Details and audio footage of the interview come out between September 8 and 12, 2002. The video footage of the interview al-Qaeda promised to hand over is never given to Al Jazeera. [Associated Press, 9/8/2002]
Both figures claim the 9/11 attacks were originally going to target nuclear reactors, but "decided against it for fear it would go out of control." Interviewer Fouda is struck that Mohammed and bin al-Shibh remember only the hijackers' code names, and have trouble remembering their real names. [Australian, 9/9/2002]
Mohammed, who calls himself the head of al-Qaeda's military committee and refers to bin al-Shibh as the co-ordinator of the "Holy Tuesday" operation, reportedly acknowledges "[a]nd, yes, we did it." [Fouda and Fielding, 2003, pp. 38]
These interviews "are the first full admission by senior figures from bin Laden's network that they carried out the September 11 attacks." [London Times, 9/8/2002]
Some, however, call Fouda's claims into doubt. For example, the Financial Times states: "Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda's interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: 'I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape].
It could have been a script written by the FBI.'" [Financial Times, 9/11/2002]
Mohammed is later variously reported to be arrested in June 2002, killed or arrested in September 2002, and then arrested in March 2003. After this last arrest report, for the first time Fouda claims this interview took place in April, placing it safely before the first reports of Mohammed's capture. [Guardian, 3/4/2003; CTV Television, 3/6/2003]
Bin al-Shibh also gets captured several days after Fouda's interview is broadcast, and some reports say he is captured because this interview allows his voice to be identified. [CBS News, 10/9/2002; Observer, 9/15/2002]
As a result, Fouda has been accused of betraying al-Qaeda, and now fears for his life. [Independent, 9/17/2002]
As the Washington Post states, "Now Al Jazeera is also subject to rumors of a conspiracy." [Washington Post, 9/15/2002]
Yet after being so reviled by al-Qaeda supporters, Fouda is later given a cassette said to be a bin Laden speech. [MSNBC, 11/18/2002]
US officials believe the voice on that cassette is "almost certainly" bin Laden, but one of the world's leading voice-recognition institutes said it is 95 percent certain the tape is a forgery. [BBC, 11/18/2002; BBC, 11/29/2002]
So there is, let us say, reasonable doubt about the interview.
Moreover, the US, in spite of many assertions made after 9/11 that it would produce 'proof' of Al Qaeda's implication, has yet to offer the slightest shred of evidence. And that is five years after the event!
The FBI doesn't include 9/11 among the crimes for which bin Laden is 'wanted' because they admit that there is nothing that ties him to the crime. A conservative debunker of "conspiracy theories", responds to this point:
Another claim I hear is that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 because the "most wanted" poster description of him on the FBI web-site omits any mention of his role in that terrorist attack. That poster was originally done in June 1999 and refers specifically to his role in the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. However, it also refers to his involvement in other terrorist attacks.
Rex Tomb, chief of investigative publicity for the FBI, is said to have commented, when asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the Bin Laden's Most Wanted Web page, that "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11." Dan Eggen of the Washington Post reported that "FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices."
"[M]erely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices"?!?! The author of this piece, Cliff Kinkaid from gopusa.com, leaves unasked the question, "Why, five years after the greatest criminal act ever perpetrated on the US, have no criminal charges been laid?"
A lack of 'hard evidence', perhaps?
So if there is a lack of 'hard evidence' that Osama himself was involved, then can we be certain that Atta and Jarrah had anything to do with it? An unpleasant question, one that might even get the person who poses it labelled a "terrorist sympathiser", subject to detention and the newly enshrined methods of torture, in the United States. But enquiring minds want to know.
Returning to the new video itself. Notice that it has no sound and that lip-readers have been unable to "decipher it"!
But "the images speak loudly for themselves", says Mr. Fouda.
Well, we thought the images in the video footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in 1983, even though it didn't have sound, spoke loudly for themselves. However, it was no secret at the time that the US was supporting Saddam, was his ally, and was selling to him the ingredients for the very same WMDs that later became such an issue. So we had more than the images to go in in order to come to some judgement.
In this case, in spite of what The Times and other mainstream papers would have us believe, the context is slightly more hazy. And that leads us into the crazy world of...
Conspiracy Theory
You knew it was coming, right? At some point we were going to have to deal with that crazy conspiracy theory, confront it head on, that 19 Arabs, guided by a fugitive in a cave in Afghanistan planned and carried off 9/11.
And, now we know. They weren't working from a cave, they were working from a "complex" near Kandahar airport! Writes Fouda:
In the background are the tall mud-red walls of an impressive compound. It is clear that the location is part of a complex of about 80 buildings called Tarnak Farm in the desert near Kandahar airport. It was Bin Laden's clan base during his Afghan sojourn - where he lived with his family and the inner core of Al-Qaeda.
American intelligence knew all about Tarnak Farm. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, "CIA officers were able to map the entire site, identifying the houses that belonged to Bin Laden's wives and the one where he himself was most likely to sleep".
Well, now it all makes sense, seems somehow possible, if not plausible, don't you think? There were cell phone connections, though whether they extended to in-flight capabilities, we aren't certain....
According to The Times article, an image putting Atta and Jarrah together, and linking them to Osama bin Laden, was the missing piece of the puzzle that 'proves' the three were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and by doing so, it debunks "conspiracy theorists" and "the flakiest of anti-American fantasists"!
[The lack of link] played nicely into the hands of conspiracy theorists, both in the Muslim world and in the West. Now the investigators have the proof, and only the flakiest of anti-American fantasists can go on claiming that Bin Laden, Atta, Jarrah and co had no hand in September 11.
Ouch!
That would have been a hard blow if it had been aimed at anything other than a straw man or had anything to do with reality.
Remember the Kennedy assassination? Remember Lee Harvey Oswald? He was the patsy, the one selected to take the fall so that the real perpetrators would get away. And then he was shot before he could open his mouth and testify at any sort of kangaroo trial they would have organized. The trouble with patsies is that they best serve their function when they are dead. Then they can't plead innocence, claim they were set up, or offer evidence that contradicts the official story.
Atta and his crew were very likely patsies, that is, if the intelligent Atta, the one for whom the attacks wouldn't have happened at all according to Fouda, wasn't a Western asset himself, one who was done away with after his usefulness was over.
One possibility is that Atta and the others were part of a planned Al Qaeda operation of some sort, much less impressive than the one staged on 9/11, and that they were used. Or they thought they were, and were being groomed by their handlers to take the fall. It is known that Israeli intelligence had them under surveillance. Why? Because they had been identified as 'terrorists', you say. Or because they were the perfect guinea pigs, the perfect group to take the fall? And the real operation had to be planned around their movements, or their movements had to be coordinated to match real events.
If Atta and his gang of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists had actually gotten on the planes, why is there absolutely no evidence showing this? Why are their names not on the manifests? Why are the manifests curiously short when the actual numbers of passengers are compared to the numbers claimed to have died when the "terrorists" are included?
In other words, where is the proof?
There is none. There is nothing that puts any of the hijackers on any of the planes. The phone calls from the planes were likely staged, as cell phones didn't work from those altitudes in 2001. So the people that received the calls were fed the information needed to 'seed' the conspiracy theory of 19 Arab terrorists.
So tying Atta and Jarrah doesn't prove anything at all in regards to their participation to 9/11. It does nothing to "debunk" the "conspiracy theorists". It is but one more piece in the veil being pulled over our eyes.
We leave the last word to Mohammed Atta's father.
"[Mohammed] was still alive after the attack. He called me twenty-four hours and forty-eight hours after the attack."
That was the last time. Because, after that, says the father, "they indeed killed him." [Inside 9-11: What Really Happened, Der Spiegel, p. 211.]
Zionist groupings like the ADL, AIPAC and the Israeli government regularly
regail Jews and non-Jews alike with fantastical claims that "anti-Semitism is on the rise" and that all Jews must quickly flee to the 'safety' of Israel. These groups never waste an opportunity to remind those of Jewish faith that they can never rest easy among non-Jews, going so far as to assert that "hatred of Jews simply because they are Jews" may
actually be an unconscious genetic trait of non-Jewish people.
I don't know about you, but I am somewhat unnerved by the idea that Zionist
leaders claim to know my mind better than me. Personally, the idea that anyone
would hate a person or group simply because "they are who they are" is a ridiculous
contention, which would seem to explain why Zionist leaders must resort to
an equally outlandish explanation of how such a situation could possibly come
about.
From the founding of Judaism, the small group of people that were coerced to adhere to its hardnosed teachings (as described in the all-too earthly Torah and Talmud) were destined (by way of the self-fulfilling prophecies of their leaders) to be a people apart and persecuted. Of course, there was no natural or divine law that could effect such a schism, so one had to be created (hence the separationist and persecutionist teachings of Talmud and the Torah).
Indeed, the term anti-semitism as applied to Jews is entirely inappropriate
given that most modern-day Jews are originally of Khazarian stock and therefore
Caucasian (literally) rather than Semitic origins. The claim (which has crept
into dictionaries) that someone is Semitic because they speak a Semitic language
(like Hebrew) is as nonsensical as saying an English-speaking African American
is Anglosaxon. The term anti-Semitism therefore has been hijacked by Zionist
leaders and forcibly re-defined as meaning a "hatred of Jews" when it cannot possibly be interpreted in such a way by any logical reasoning. The real reason for this radical redefinition is quite apparent: Zionist leaders wish to associate criticism of Zionist policies with a virtually non-existent "hatred of Jewish people because they are Jewish" and
at the same time, by way of this same unfounded fearmongering, swell the population
of the state of Israel with loyal Jewish subjects. To do so, they need a rallying
cry, and anti-Semitism is it.
A recent example of the opportunistic and far-fetched nature of Zionist claims
of a rise in anti-Semitism is provided by the reaction of the ADL to British
comedian Sasha Baron Cohen and his satirical Khazak character "Borat".
Popular entertainer Sacha Baron Cohen, more widely known as Ali G., has entertained audiences with his bombastic, push-the-envelope humor. However, his upcoming film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan based on one of his characters, Borat, has the Anti-Defamation League worried. Borat is a parody of an outlandish anti-Semite in a series of laughably inappropriate situations.
"The premiere of Sacha Baron Cohen's new film featuring his farcical character 'Borat' has raised anew concerns among some in the Jewish community about the character's notoriously boastful expressions of anti-Semitism and stereotyping of others," wrote the ADL in a press release Thursday.
The ADL worries that not everyone will understand the satirical nature of Cohen's sketch, fearing the humor to be dangerously too sophisticated for some. [...] We hope that everyone who chooses to see the film understands Mr. Cohen's comedic technique, which is to use humor to unmask the absurd and irrational side of anti-Semitism and other phobias born of ignorance and fear.
"We are concerned, however, that one serious pitfall is that the audience may not always be sophisticated enough to get the joke, and that some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry," the press release elaborated." [...]
The ADL believes that Cohen's intent is to "use humor to unmask the absurd and
irrational side of anti-Semitism and other phobias born of ignorance and fear," yet
the biggest promoters of the irrational side of anti-Semtism are Zionist organisations
like the ADL itself. Far from "reinforcing anti-Semitic bigotry", the antics
of Cohen's 'Borat' leaves one with the feeling that he is making light of the
very concept of anti-Semtism in terms of the Zionist claim that it a very real
threat to Jewish people everywhere.
It is important and interesting to note that, in general, Cohen uses his characters to expose extremist view points, including those found in various aspects of American and British life, and that most of 'Borat's' sketches make no reference to Jews at all. Cohen has, for example, mercilessly ribbed the British aristocracy including fox hunters and military men and in America the Christian right. It is more likely therefore that Cohen's traget was not any alleged anti-Semitim among ordinary people but rather the extremist views on anti-Semitism of Zionist groups like the ADL.
What is clear from their response is that the ADL were not prepared to allow Cohen to place Zionist claims of "a rise world-wide anti-Semtism" in the context in which they truly belong - farce - because 'G-d'-forbid that Israel would be robbed of the one piece of fear-based propaganda that it has used to great effect over the past 100 years to silence any criticism of the brutal actions of the state of Israel towards Middle Eastern Arabs, and at the same time corall ordinary Jewish people into what is, for them and Arab peoples alike, clearly the most dangerous place on earth.
'Borat's' most humorous take on the Zionist's irrational theory of anti-Semtism is perhaps best portrayed in a song he sang at an unknown southern US country and Western club. For the light-hearted entertainment of all normal people Jews Christians, Muslims and atheists alike, we reproduce it below:
Ignacius O'Reilly
3 October 2006
A Signs of the Times Exclusive
Click on image to see original
"Experience a dynamic and intensive eight day exploration of Israel's struggle for survival and security in the Middle East today."Israel Law Center
We know that Israel is beseiged. Facing a Palestinian population armed to the teeth with deadly rocks and rusting weapons, and Hizbullah to the north in Lebanon with its powerful katyusha rockets, a powerful techology dating back to the Second World War, Israel remarkably refuses to fall, backed solely by the strongest army in the Middle East, an arsenal of nuclear weapons, false flag operations, unlimited funding and arms from the United States whenever they are required, a permanent veto via the US on any UN Security Council resolution, and a compliant Western press.
The web site linked from the above image invites supporters of Israel to come and see Israel's 'weapons of mass security' for themselves. Included in the tour are a "Live exhibition of penetration raids in Arab territory" and a meeting with "Israel's Arab agents who infiltrate the terrorist groups and provide real-time intelligence". As you can see, the page offers an antiseptic language that whitewashes the true horrors of Israeli brutality.
Therefore, we decided to translate the Israel law center's explanation of the fundamental motivations of the state of Israel out of 'Zionish' security speak and into English. Judge for yourself which of the two descriptions more accurately reflect the situation on the ground.
Behold and bear witness to what has become of America, in this era of uncertainty and bewilderment, in this time of fear and intimidation, that since towers were brought down and demolished has methodically fallen into the viper pit of neocon decadence, becoming, as it stands today, an authoritarian's heaven and a corporatist's promised land, its people ignorant, as always, to the barrage of waves systemically eroding centuries of rights, freedoms and liberties. From sea to shining sea, despotism is what today those who pay attention see.
The road to fascism is being paved at a clandestine yet alarming velocity, across valleys, prairies and forests, surrounding cites, towns and states, from Atlantic to Pacific, immersing 300 million individuals into a fog of engendered tyranny, who without a care or whisper or concern remain trapped by comfortable surroundings born through perpetual indebtedness. Even as their rights and freedoms and liberties are made to disappear, even as their Constitution is burned, even as their nation hangs on the precipice of despotism, even as their collective destiny is being destroyed those residing inside the belly of the beast hear no evil, see no evil and feel no evil, preferring to gossip about pedophile politicians and celebrity failings than informing themselves to the last throes of the American republic.
The waves of autocracy are upon the shores of America, the demons of the past find themselves resurrected once again, free to unleash fear, intimidation and enslavement onto hundreds of millions of human beings. The high tide of tyranny has returned from the unlearned lessons of history, again engulfing humankind with human wickedness and Machiavellian rule, soon to subjugate the masses in the slavery endemic throughout man's brief - yet thoroughly destructive - reign over Earth.
Authoritarianism has woken from its dormant slumber, ready to terrorize yet one more human generation, for while it meticulously rises and stretches out its arms, ready to spread its omnipotent disease, it has lived and thrived since the dawn of man, accompanying humankind wherever we might go, since man alone creates and grants it life. Indeed, it is those who have seen it rise before that today see it birthed again. Its symptoms are apparent, its dangers known; the stages of tyranny are remembered, for they are never forgotten. It is those who have been witness to and victims of its malevolence that see the approaching storm clearest; it is they whose experienced eyes and mature minds that are sounding alarms. Fascism, under the guise of protection, freedom and security, is upon us.
To those paying attention, the evolution of the coming tyranny has been apparent since 9/11, when the Twin Towers, America's Reichstag Fire, were pulverized into nothingness by demolition explosives, in a declaration of psychological war upon the American people. On 9/11 the Earth stood still, as if the collective consciousness of the world awoke to a most ominous catastrophic and catalyzing event that would send the world entire down a vicious circle of death, destruction and despotism. On that day, the future course of human civilization was altered, spawning the birth pangs of authoritarianism rising, freedom dying, and of perpetual warfare breathing its devastating repercussions onto the realities of six billion human beings.
Almost immediately after those in power had imploded and brought down the World Trade Center towers upon their own footprints the initial stages of imposing authoritarianism upon the people were implemented, beginning first with a Patriot Act whose sheer volume and length betray its existence pre-dating 9/11. Brought out of the fascist closet and dusted, it was rushed through the Congress even as the Twin Towers still smoldered and, for good measure, in the terrifying wake of the still unsolved anthrax attacks that served both to threaten legislators into compliance and scaring the populace even further into obedience. The assault on the lives of Americans had begun and, out of the bowels of our collective fear, despotism once more breathed life.
In Enemies Tyrants Find Life
What was 9/11 but a direct declaration of war against the freedoms, rights and liberties of America's most cherished documents and principles? What was it if not the death throes of the Bill of Rights? The New Pearl Harbor was as much an opportunity to wage war in the Middle East as it was to eradicate tyranny's impediments in America. The complete assault on the U.S. Constitution and on 200 years of laws has been possible by the inside job of 9/11, for it became the catalyst needed to introduce fear into the populace and authoritarianism into government.
What was the passage of the original Patriot Act if not the first shots fired in the half-decade long war against our rights and liberties and freedoms? Make no mistake, for the last five years we have been shocked and awed into remaining passive and acquiescent automatons as the fascists in power eradicate - slowly but surely - what was once a plethora of enumerated and implied rights, freedoms and liberties. A government concerned with preserving freedoms and liberties would not try to eradicate them under the rubric of fighting terrorism. A government wanting to protect our way of life would not try its hardest to destroy it as well.
Conveniently, then, in typical fascist behavior, it is the Bush cabal that tells us terrorists hate us for our freedoms and rights, that they want us destroyed for our way of life, even as it is the cabal itself that hates us for our freedoms and rights, wanting to destroy our way of life. By imputing their desires and wishes onto the fictional barbarian horde, an unknown dark-skinned entity of alien religion, and knowing the ignorance and gullibility of the American masses, the fascist cabal can at once generate fear and hatred among the people while acting to devastate the nation's freedoms and liberties under the guise of fighting the evildoers.
In reality, terrorism is but the excuse used to curtail our rights; the dismantling of the Constitution is justified by the fictional threat of dark-skinned bogeymen, and explains why the government, as well as its corporate media collaborators, has been relentless in the perpetual dissemination of propaganda trying to convince us of our imminent peril. The tyrants and their collaborators depend on the fear of the masses to grant sustenance to the momentum used to demolish the foundations of the republic. The emotional fortification created by fear thus ensures that the primitive human brain will cease to think logically and analytically, enabling the wisdom of reason to be usurped by the reptilian and mammalian desire for survival. Without some semblance of thinking by the masses, who by fear are relegated to the role of sheep, the authoritarians in power are free to pursue the evisceration of all burdensome rights and freedoms that interfere with their long-held goals.
Under the guise of fighting terrorism - a terrorism the government itself creates, perpetuates, expands, nurtures and helps grow - the Constitution as we know it is being dismantled, not by terrorist evildoers intent on destroying us, but by our own government intent on destroying our way of life. For a government need not eviscerate a nation's laws, protections, guarantees, rights, freedoms and liberties to guarantee security. It need not introduce a police state that destroys the way of life for 300 million individuals. This government is pursuing the dismantling of the Constitution and our laws not for fighting terror but to fight the American people. It is doing this in a methodical, some would say obsessive, desire to erode rights and freedoms, grant unlimited powers to the executive and silence dissent because in doing so it is removing the barriers that have for decades impeded authoritarians and corporatists from implementing their vision of the world. As such, the last remaining vestiges of American freedoms and rights are all that stand between fascists and their despotic nirvana. With the relative ease by which they have eviscerated so many laws and rights since 9/11, it is these few liberties left that will be targeted next, becoming easy pickings on the road to full fledged American tyranny.
Already, the government has been granted the right to enter our homes without a warrant and without our knowledge. It can ask for and get library records when it chooses. It has the right to pick us off the street and take us into custody without probable cause. It can wiretap any phone it wants, as well as listen in to any voice message in the country, monitoring our private conversations. Today we are regularly surveilled upon, our histories deciphered, our lives dissected. Our Internet activities are frequently monitored, our emails read and scrutinized. Technology has allowed the government the capacity to overlook our movements using the ever-expanding public cameras, as well as each and every activity we do using our credit or debit cards. It can track our financial records as well as our purchases, all the while gathering files with our complete, bio-metric information. It can do all this in secrecy, without transparency, without accountability, without needing the color of law as a guiding instrument nor the legality of honest governance for inspiration. Activists and dissidents are spied upon and harassed, their activities monitored. Enemies of the state have their names placed on various lists, prohibiting them from enjoying the daily rights afforded to millions.
Free speech is oftentimes relegated to small corrals, called free speech zones by the fascists. The right to assemble is oftentimes denied, as the state tries to prevent the people from protesting and massing in numbers. More and more, to question the actions of governance is to be called a traitor, treasonous, an abettor of the enemy, a terrorist appeaser. To dissent and protest is to risk being labeled unpatriotic, un-American, an enemy of freedom. Yet it is those few thousands, out of a total population of 300 million, scattered in small clusters throughout the vast lands that comprise America, that are the true patriots, the true Americans, fighting for their nation, their rights and freedoms, fighting the real evildoers and terrorists. They are the real brave heroes of the republic, escaping the culture of cowardice, sacrificing beautiful minds full of Kool-Aid and comfort in order to confront the distressing truths of emerging tyranny. It is they fighting evil, trying to stop its carnage upon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, trying to prevent it from triumphing, from destroying everything we hold dear, and take for granted. It is they who are Americans and they who are the new patriots. Yet it is also they who will be first to suffer the ramifications of a despotic America, for authoritarians hate dissent, protest and truth.
For those paying attention to the reality of America today and not to the distractions of a 500 ring circus saturated with distraction, gossip, celebrity, inconsequential political news of typical Republican debased behavior, and mind-numbing entertainment, the road to tyranny has continued on its seemingly unstoppable momentum, with each new year since 9/11 presenting new attacks on civil liberties, human rights and our cherished freedoms.
Every year has seen an attempt at expanding the powers of the executive, to the point where the President is today, for all intents and purposes, a dictator. He is free to interpret the law as he sees fit, using the over 700 signing statements to ignore laws passed by the legislature. He has reigned over an era of untold secrecy, where the state is no longer transparent and accountable. He has expanded greatly illegal wiretaps, warrants and domestic spying, increasing the mechanisms needed by a budding police state to thrive and grow. Congress has become but a rubber stamp legislature, as has the Supreme Court, itself now controlled by Bush yes-men. Using the presidential bully pulpit, he has transformed millions of Americans into quasi-authoritarians, followers one and all, ready to follow tyrant's folly straight into human wickedness.
Today, the president claims himself the unitary executive, the Dictator in Chief, possessing absolute power, doing what he wants, when he wants and without a care in the world that he will ever be held to account. This is dictatorship. This is the end of America as we knew her and the birth of an America we wish never to know.
Tyranny Nurtured Through the Bosom of Lady Liberty
Such is the power of the president that the corporate media - today's Ministry of Truth - serves his every wish, protecting him from truth being exposed, incompetence being discovered and his authority being questioned. The executive branch has not seen this level of unfettered and untouched power since the establishment of the republic. Indeed, it is the executive branch that has facilitated the rise of fascism since 9/11, from the Department of State to the Attorney General to the Department of War, through the CIA, NSA and FBI, with authoritarians at the helm prevalent in the various departments pursuing the establishment of despotic policies.
It is inside the executive branch where tyranny is being nurtured and raised, where it is feeding off the bosom of Lady Liberty, making her weaker by the day, growing ever stronger from its parasitic usurpation of governance, protected and guided until that time when its strength and maturity is ready to extend its power into omnipresent perpetuity. In the halls of power fascism rises; throughout Washington the last vestiges of freedom are under direct assault. Despotism is being set in motion, it is being prepared and orchestrated, slowly yet surely being implemented throughout the mechanisms of the state. It is being molded according to American culture, according to American thought, growing at its own pace and under different conditions, evolving like organisms do, differing from other forms of despotism according to blood and environment, according to time and place. Yet approaching it remains, like a gathering storm of unnerving energy ready to strike relentlessly throughout the landscape, transforming an America we knew into a nation of wickedness and malevolence, of the worst in the human condition. Its tentacles are now in place, freedoms and rights have been made weak, it is now only a matter of time before what has arrived makes itself fully known and what is about to be made fully known eradicates an America that has only existed in the delusions and dreams of the brainwashed.
Unlike Hollywood reality and events move at their own accord and pace, possessing the patience fictional movies cannot afford, developing fully in time and through the magic of fantasy, their creation almost never the perfection portrayed by acting and editing. As we can see, American fascism is both completely different than its Nazi counterpart yet eerily similar in its characteristics. No two forms of tyranny are crafted out of the same mold. No two systems are born under the same stars, and each takes into history's cauldron its own personality and traits, its own crimes and punishments. Yet under the guise of "freedom and democracy," under the illusion of the so-called "war on terror," tyranny is being birthed inside America, born through the hemorrhaging of the World Trade Center and reared by the incessant fear of hundreds of millions of American citizens. In the death of 3,000 humans, fascists found new life; in the demolition of two 110 story monoliths to the nadir of Ground Zero, criminals and murderers reached the zenith of their power. From Reichstag Fire to World Trade Center demolition, the more things change the more things stay the same, and again and again New Pearl Harbors will be orchestrated from which to usurp power from the People and once again granting sustenance to tyranny.
Despotism arrives in many forms, under many disguises, and in America, along with all previous carriers of the disease, the virus has infiltrated into the consciousness of the ignorant masses under the rubric of waging peace, bringing security, and under the false assumption that scapegoat enemies must be defeated in battle, lest they destroy everything we stand for. That tyranny fails to achieve each measure is never discussed, nor the fact that authoritarians rely on waging war, fostering insecurity, concocting ever-newer enemies and destroying everything the people stand for in order to assure for themselves of greater and absolute power. It is fascism, after all, that enables authoritarians to control entire populations through the oppression and subjugation of the citizenry, usually at the behest of the state and usually using the intimidating presence of the barrel of the gun and the brute force of the omnipresent police state.
At no point have American freedoms, rights and liberties been under such duress than in the last five years, as the Bush cabal has taken full advantage of 9/11 to wage perpetual, preemptive, illegal and immoral war upon both Afghanistan and Iraq, the former with its geostrategic location and pipeline accessibility, the latter with its vast petroleum fields and geopolitical circumstance, each of vital importance to the Pax Americana in its pursuit of imperial hegemony, their conquest a long held goal of the military-energy-industrial complex. Of course, using 9/11 as the perfect Pearl Harbor-like event from which to launch imperial invasions in lands deemed vital and strategic, the fascists and corporatists in power lay claim to both nations under the rubric of the fictional war on terror.
The invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with fighting terrorism - since 9/11 was an inside job - and everything to do with American controlled oil and gas pipelines running through Afghan territory. In the same way, Iraq's decimation and occupation by America's military had nothing to do with WMD or with bringing freedom or democracy - to give just two of the myriad number of lies to justify invasion - and everything to do with control of Iraq's petroleum, Israel's hegemony and strategic gamesmanship.
Just as Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were brought to fruition based on lies, deceptions, manipulations and distortions, so too has the erosion of American rights and freedoms been implemented based on lies, manipulations and cynical deceptions of the American people, with the lies of war and the lies of authoritarianism oftentimes intertwined in an enormous knot of convenience. Thanks to the two invasions and subsequent occupations of Arab and Muslim lands, the executive branch has been able to expand its power in the homeland through the methodical erosion of rights and liberties, both of citizens and foreigners, using as pretext the prosecution and imprisonment of captured or kidnapped "unlawful enemy combatants," as well as all ambiguous yet unfound evildoer terrorists, to destroy the basic tenets and principles of the American republic.
Under the rubric of the so-called war on terror, therefore, the executive has laid claim to supreme powers in the detention, treatment and prosecution of those deemed "unlawful enemy combatants," invariably dismantling the freedoms and rights and liberties of the American people. For in lowering and ultimately altering the rights of so called enemy combatants, the executive branch has in essence also destroyed those same rights afforded American citizens. In pursuing the so called enemy combatant, who in any civilized society invariably must, in his prosecution by the state, be afforded the same rights and privileges as any suspect charged in the nation, the Bush cabal has instead ignored the rule of law as well as the central tenets of the Bill of Rights. This, of course, is not by accident.
In the last five years, Bush and his cabal of corporatists have triumphed, legislatively and through the sheer powers of the executive, to rewrite the laws of the nation enumerated for two centuries in the founding documents of the republic, as always arguing that the Constitution stands in the way of prosecuting enemy combatants and waging the perpetual war on terror. It has argued that to maintain security, to protect the American people from the Arab evildoers, the laws of the land, the cherished rights and liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the precedent of the judiciary, must all be altered according to the vision of the executive. The Bill of Rights, after all, interferes severely in the successful waging of war against the terrorists. It has thus rewritten laws and regulations, ignored statutes and rules, created new standards of law and enforced, without opposition, any and all opinions and laws it has unilaterally decided to enact. The Bush cabal has used the prosecution of enemy combatants to both erode the Bill of Rights as well as to give life to its totalitarian mechanisms for dealing with enemies of the state.
Once the "unlawful enemy combatant" excuse to destroy the Constitution is complete, all done in the name of national security, what is left of the Bill of Rights and of the freedoms and rights Americans once had will be insignificant, leaving it anemic and impotent, and what was once considered a vital "tool" for fighting the so called terrorist will fall like a gauntlet at the neck of the American people, severing at once the last vestiges of an America we once thought everlasting. For what is being done today to prisoners in the vast American gulag system will tomorrow be done to Americans themselves. The experiment is first perfected upon the guinea pigs, then it is unleashed upon the intended victims.
For the last five years the Bush cabal has successfully conditioned the population to its "New Normal," the new America. It has manipulated both society and laws to accept gross violations of human rights, a suppression of liberties, and an authoritarian paradigm of disturbing wickedness. It is preparing us to incorporate into American law and culture the mechanisms used in totalitarian states. Using the incomprehensible ignorance and apathy of the American people against us, it has clandestinely destroyed the foundation of our principles and virtues. Using its vast power, its legions of authoritarians, its army of stenographers and it great arsenal of tools at its disposal, it has inexplicably made the American people tolerant and even acceptant of torture, rape, humiliation, illegal imprisonment, disappearances and criminal malfeasance, something thought unthinkable just years ago. The New Normal has become a reality, the new America now routinely tortures and inflicts horrible pain and suffering on human beings, all to the indifference and acceptance of the American people.
Without the notice or attention of the vast majority of Americans, most too busy addicted to the television and its 500 ring circus, the Congress, being the bunch of idiots, prostitutes, pedophiles and criminals that they usually are, have granted the executive, and by consequence the state, the unfettered power to make extinct the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. In one giant swoop of criminal culpability, in one hypnotized vote during a fascist's wet dream, our so-called representatives eviscerated habeas corpus, the centuries old right to challenge the state regarding imprisonment, as always under the fictional guise of protecting national security from enemy combatants, as well as destroying the judicial review needed to fight and appeal detention. In an orgy of despotic glee, our elected leaders gave the Bush cabal the ability to detain suspects or "enemy combatants" into perpetuity, without ability to challenge incarceration, and to keep in ignorance those it chooses to detain, without ever divulging any information. Of course, the executive itself decides who and what is an "enemy combatant".
Due process and right to counsel have been thrown into the heap of waste, as has the right to question and analyze the state's evidence. Evidence based on hearsay, forced confession and torture can now be used against the accused, even, as likely, it has no merit in truth. Trials must be held in military tribunals, using only military attorneys. Regarding the Geneva Convention, that stalwart monument protecting human rights, the executive now has complete discretion in deciding what constitutes torture as well as cruel and unusual punishment. The president, it appears, can now torture when he wants, whoever he wants, whenever he wants, without concern or transparency.
The Decider in Chief has become the Torturer in Chief. Suspects deemed enemies of the state can, for all practical purposes, be sent to rot in the dungeons of the Commander in Chief, without ever seeing the light of day, without ever challenging their imprisonment and without ever to hear or fight the charges against them. In short, enemies of the executive can be made to disappear.
American Enemy Combatants
In an even more ominous development, the definition of "enemy combatant" has been expanded to include those who "have purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." As has been mentioned in many other recent articles, this devolution into classifying those hostile to the executive branch, or to the policies of the state, as possible enemy combatants, in many cases regardless of citizenship, is the weapon the fascists need to silence dissent, protest and debate throughout the nation. The threat of new ideas and opinions, which tyrants abhor, can now be managed and controlled, for in the broad language of the law virtually anyone can now be imprisoned and disappeared, forever. Since the executive branch determines who is being hostile against the United States, or who materially supports these so-called hostilities, it is easy to see that anyone at odds with the president, his administration or the government of the United States can be persecuted for expressing views no longer protected. Under this provision, any speech or activity deemed hostile to the state can be used to permanently imprison a person indefinitely.
This new interpretation and expansion of police powers virtually assures that American dissent and opposition to the state's policies will be seen as hostile to the national security of the nation. What other reason exists to include such broad language into this provision other than to declare a war on dissent and on the opposition. Ostensibly this law is being marketed by the Ministry of Truth as a necessary tool to fight the evildoers, but in reality, can the imprisonment of dissenters and protestors, activists and intellectuals be far behind?
This gigantic step in the direction of totalitarianism is clear evidence the direction the Bush cabal is heading towards, with the American people being hijacked straight into despotism, our ankles slowly being shackled to the instruments of oppression. Already dissent is equaled to treason and of being unpatriotic in an age when being patriotic is almost compulsory. In certain authoritarian circles dissent and activism is seen as rendering aid and comfort to the enemy, while in others challenging the state is seen as wrongfully aiding the enemy. Activists seeking accountability and the truth are labeled terrorists, while others are seen as appeasers of terror. With such exaggerated language being used, oftentimes under complete levels of seriousness, can the accusations of supporting hostilities against the state be far behind, possibly leading to now legal and permanent imprisonment and torture?
The road less traveled is being paved with the concrete tablets of tyranny, and slowly, but most certainly surely, the caravan of authoritarians is approaching our towns and cities, eager to unleash their chained beast of oppression onto the most powerful nation on Earth. The momentum is theirs, as is the power and control to determine events and circumstances that can accelerate the approaching storm. Our destiny is in their hands, for they can do as they wish, counting the days when their plans and goals can be fully implemented. America as we once knew her is no more, thanks to the tyrants in power, thanks to our own ignorance and indifference.
Soon it will matter not that 9/11 was an inside job, for any talk of its truth will be severely punished, even banned, to be whispered in closets or over the sound of loud music. In fact, so much momentum is the movement gaining, so much traction among the People is its truth creating, that sooner rather than later the authoritarians may begin imprisoning truth seekers under the guise of "purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States." Such is the threat of exponentially growing numbers of Americans taking the red pill of reality, that the state's handlers may very well deem the entire movement a terrorist organization, the easier to suppress and intimidate the truth from ever being exposed. It is only a matter of time until tyranny unleashes its instruments of repression against both truth seekers and America's real patriots, dissenters and activists.
Already the Constitution has been dealt a death knell, meaning it has no more significance or worth. The Constitution has become, for all intents and purposes, just "another god damn piece of paper," a relic of history, an obstacle overcome by America's authoritarians. It will soon be said, as it always is, that at first the state came for the scapegoats, the marketed enemy, the chalice used to make drunk the masses, the bread used to destroy the system. Later it will come for its citizens, its threats, its People. Once everything is in place, once all the kinks have been ironed out, once all obstacles have been erased, the totalitarian evisceration of the Constitution will devastate a population conditioned to follow the letter of the law, now left unprotected, bewildered and condemned for the gross negligence it has allowed itself to perpetuate. Ironically, the People's anger and hatred at the enemy scapegoat are themselves the catalysts for its own decimation, oppression and enslavement. In the end, we are our own worst enemies, both our Judas and our cyanide, not knowing what we do to ourselves, and each other.
When the masses finally see what has transpired in their country, when they finally wake to the morning fog, unable to see beyond the limits of their existence, they will see a landscape dark and ominous, a police state under the control of tyranny, a nation under the grip of repression. The America of their past and present gone, ignorant as any society has ever been, the masses will evolve to their new reality, their new normal. Most will welcome authoritarianism, for most are followers. The brainwashed will become tools of despotism, adapting to the brave new world of sheep oppressed and subjugated. Many will never really notice that freedom and rights and liberties no longer exist. Millions will teach their children to be good Americans, as fate has decided tyranny should rule. Imprisoned in their own minds, the masses will inevitably be conditioned to follow and obey the dictates of their masters.
Those who question authority, those who use their mind and those who see the slavery and oppression that has been birthed at the expense of liberty will become enemies of the state, threats to the system of tyranny, dissidents aiding and abetting the enemy, commissioned to never see light again. These dissidents the state will imprison and make disappear, to be erased from memory and time, their quest for truth and accountability buried six feet underground. To the obedient sheeple whose blind faith guides them in myth and state, totalitarianism will come naturally, becoming a nirvana to life-long followers; to free thinkers, independent minds, progressives and those who have escaped the incessant brainwashing from birth, it will be hell on Earth.
The approaching storm has reached the warm waters of America, rapidly gaining speed, ready to unleash its torrent of tyrannical laws and regulations upon our shores, its police state arriving with the sudden flash of thunder and lightning. The giant tempest has been building for over five years, granted life through death, rising high and mighty thanks to destruction and demolition, our own ignorance and sheer indifference granting it oxygen, our fear giving it power, our hatreds helping seal our own fate. America the Tyranny has risen to be born, the wickedness of humankind once more resurrected from the annals of history, free to repress and subjugate, eager to shackle and control. The destruction of the World Trade Center has made tyranny a reality; our continued impotence will allow it to flourish.
We Reap What We Sow
Perhaps it is fitting that a People that has cared not an ounce for systemic torture, preemptive war, illegal invasion, brutal occupation, mass murder, depleted uranium use, incessant rape, constant humiliation of human beings, destruction of Iraqi and Afghani society, renditions, illegal detentions, disappearances and untold levels of suffering should be made to suffer the realities of living in totalitarianism, under a police state, under constant paranoia and fear of both the state and your neighbors. Perhaps it is fitting that a People possessing such levels of ignorance, indifference and comfort be made to experience a reality that afflicts hundreds of millions of human beings. Perhaps in time we will learn humility and suffering, wisdom and the virtues of honor and peace.
America is a land so arrogant it calls itself and usurps as its own the name belonging to two entire continents; it is the country whose ego has been so aggrandized that it thinks itself the only nation blessed by the Christian god; it was a nation once cherished now thoroughly reviled; the land of the free now a land of tyranny, the home of the brave now nothing but the culture of cowardice, its bowels putrid with the smell of authoritarianism; its people enraptured by ignorance and fear, its moral foundations crumbling under the weight of pervasive corruptions and the evils of capitalism. The gluttony of comfort and the greed of excessiveness have made the American people the laughing stock of the world, our inability to escape the bubble of grandeur condemning us to be the spoiled child of wealth, unwise, unlearned and arrogant, never forced to confront suffering or trouble, condemning us to be the mirror image of our President.
The shining beacon on a hill has had its bright light extinguished, becoming in the span of half a decade a banana republic rotting from within, governed by incompetent dictatorship, its national elections routinely manipulated through the systemic impulses of blatant fraud, with representatives now nothing more than prostitutes bending over to receive the full gyrating assault of the corporate world, cannibalized by its own people addicted to consumerism and materialism, an army of ignorant sheep unaware of the future destiny they have helped chart, a population betraying their children's future happiness for their short-term gratification.
The land of freedom and rights has ceased to exist, replaced by ever-growing authoritarianism. Perhaps, in the cosmic laws of the universe, where karma intertwines with fate, we are entering into the other side of midnight, journeying into exactly what we deserve, a taste of our own medicine, a taste of what we have exported to tens of dozens of other nations. We are reaping what we have sowed, and upon our shores now stands America the Tyranny, perhaps meant to suffer through another Hitler, another Stalin or Mao, or perhaps simply another Pinochet, Shah, Suharto or Saddam. America has entered its darkest hour, and as the clock approaches midnight the nation we once knew vanishes from the grip of the People. Nobody knows where we are headed, yet we do know in which direction we go, for the path has been paved, the pattern has begun to emerge, and through the horizon, no salvation can be found.
Instead of the world confronting the evil emblem of the swastika we must realize that it is the emblazoned red, white and blue that now represents despotic thinking and tyrannical rule. It was Old Glory that sprung up like a giant field of weeds in the aftermath of 9/11, flowing from every vehicle and every home, every business and every street, giving America the aura of jingoism and nationalism undoubtedly similar to 1930's Germany, giving it the appearance, to anyone who cared to look and think, of what Germany's streets in the 1930's certainly looked like, right before society turned into barbarism. Perhaps this orgy of fanatical and jingoistic revelry was but the first sign of things to come, the birth pangs of America the Tyranny.
Five years later, the red, white and blue still flows proudly in the minds of followers and quasi-authoritarians, with knuckle dragging proto-patriots brainwashed to stand behind it in fear and terror of concocted enemies, their blind loyalty to anybody in power, even a little man with even smaller understanding. The stars and stripes has become the new symbol of jingoism, nationalism, xenophobia and blind loyalty and faith in tyrants, just as the swastika once did, even as it stands smeared in the blood of thousands, protecting torturers, rapists, war criminals, murderers and human rights violators, even as it has been besmirched by the destruction of innocent life and that of entire societies.
Old Glory now stands for the worst abuses of human rights, representing Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Bagram, the destruction of the Constitution and of Lady Liberty, the loss of habeas corpus and of the Geneva Convention. The red, white and blue, sadly enough, has become the symbol of what we most hate, of what we swore to never become. It has become a flag hijacked by tyrants, with the American People unconcerned and unwilling, to the point of embarrassment, to free it from its dungeon, with most too lazy or apathetic to care, most too ignorant to know. As a result, it has become, like the wretched symbol of the Nazis, a most reviled and despised emblem, an image of tyranny rising, wickedness growing and criminality evolving. Only Americans know how much more reviled and hated it will become in the coming years.
On December 8, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt addressed the US Congress the day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He said that "date....will live in infamy" because of what the naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan did. Two and one-half months later on February 19, 1942, FDR himself committed an infamous act signing into law Executive Order 9066 which authorized the internment of 120,000 Japanese civilians, two-thirds of whom were US citizens. These Americans committed no crimes and were only "guilty" of being of Japanese ancestry and thus by presidential edict were judged potential enemies of the state. Because of FDR's action, these otherwise ordinary peace-loving Americans lost all their sacred constitutional protections including habeas corpus and their rights of trial by jury and to own and keep their property. They also lost all their other freedoms and were treated like criminals. They were sent against their will to concentration camps where they were interned for the duration of the war until 1946.
It should be noted no similar action was taken against white German Americans. It seems the Japanese then were more guilty of their skin color and race than their country of national origin. The US Supreme Court agreed in their 1944 landmark Korematsu v. United States decision in which a Court majority ruled military necessity justified their internment. Justice Frank Murphy and two other Justices disagreed denouncing the decision. In Justice Murphy's dissent, he said this act amounted to the "legalization of racism." It took until 1988 for the US Congress to undue this presidential act of infamy and High Court approval of it. It then passed Public Law 100-383 apologizing to those internees still living and their families, provided reparations for them (too late and far too inadequate), and created a public education fund to "inform the public about the internment of such individuals so as to prevent the recurrence of any similar event (ever again)."
Dare anyone suggest members of the 109th Congress have an immediate and urgent need for an industrial strength dose of its own re-education program. On two late September, 2006 days of infamy, the US House and Senate passed and sent to President Bush for his certain signature the Military Commissions Act of 2006 appropriately called "the torture authorization bill." This clear unconstitutional act gives the administration extraordinary powers to detain, interrogate and prosecute alleged terror suspects and anyone thought to be their supporters. The law grants the executive branch (specifically President Bush) the extraordinary right to label anyone anywhere in the world an "unlawful enemy combatant" and gives him the legal right to arrest and incarcerate them indefinitely in military prisons. Persons liable will include anyone who even innocently contributes financially to a charitable organization thought to be associated with any nation or group the US believes supports terrorist or hostile actions against the US. On September 27 and 28, 2006, freedom and justice effectively died in the US, and no one will be secure anywhere in the world as long as this act is the law of the land. One day it will be repealed - if the republic survives long enough to do it which now is very much in question.
US citizens are not exempted from this law with one important exception - for now at least. Because of the June, 2004 Supreme Court Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision, citizens of this country legally still retain their legal right to file a writ of habeas corpus if arrested and detained. This means they must be charged with a crime, be tried and allowed the right to appeal any conviction in a US court of law. But even this remaining right now hangs by a weak thread as the case of Jose Padilla shows. He's a US citizen who was seized at Chicago's O'Hare Airport having no weapons, declared an "enemy combatant" and held in military confinement with no ability to challenge his confinement in court. The Supreme Court refused to hear his case effectively giving the president the power to seize other citizens, subject them to the same abuse with no redress and thereby neutralize anyone's habeas rights.
But it may get even worse than that if, or more likely when, another major "terrorist" attack occurs on US soil, which some experts believe is a certainty. Congress could then suspend habeas rights for everyone or the president could do it by executive order in the name of national security. If it happens, democracy will likely give way to martial law, the suspension of the constitution, and echos of Benjamin Franklin's words at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 will be heard. At that time, he reportedly said in answer to whether the nation now had a republic or a monarchy: "A republic, if you can keep it." We hardly need wonder what he'd say today.
Provisions in the Military Commissions Act
Some of the key elements of the Military Commissions Act are as follows:
-- It annuls the right of habeas corpus for all non-US citizens and applies it retroactively to all current detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution specifically says: "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." This provision is now constitutionally null and void for all non-US citizens and nearly so for those of us who are.
-- It empowers the president with authority to decide what constitutes torture, effectively legalizing this act of barbarism henceforth against any detainee anywhere including US citizens.
-- It grants US officials, including CIA operatives, retroactive immunity from prosecution for having authorized the use of torture or directly committed acts of it.
-- It prohibits detainees from invoking the protections of the Geneva Conventions or using them in any US court. These conventions are binding international laws and thus the supreme law of the land. No longer with the passage of this act.
-- It gives the chief executive authority to interpret and apply the Geneva Conventions according to his sole judgment.
-- It grants the president the right to convene military commissions to try "unlawful enemy combatants" and gives the chief executive broad latitude to decide on his sole authority whomever he wishes to so-designate and for whatever reason.
-- It allows civilians to be tried by military commissions and not in a civilian court of law and limits the rights of detainees to be represented by the counsel of their choice.
-- It allows no guarantee trials will be conducted within a reasonable time.
-- In violation of binding international law, it permits torture-extracted evidence to be used against the accused in a trial.
-- It allows the use of classified evidence to be used but not to be made available to be challenged by defendants.
-- It permits hearsay evidence and coerced testimony to be used.
-- It allows military commissions to impose death sentences.
-- It allows indefinite and secret detentions.
On September 21, 2001, Amnesty International faxed a letter to George Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. It urged the president to respect human rights and the rule of law in whatever response was to be undertaken. Specifically it said: "In the wake of a crime of such magnitude, principled leadership becomes crucial....We urge you to lead your government to take every necessary human rights precaution in the pursuit of justice." Five years later, Amnesty concluded "its appeal fell on deaf ears. The past five years have seen the USA engage in systematic violations of international law, with a distressing impact on thousands of detainees and their families." Amnesty cited the following violations:
-- secret detentions
-- enforced disappearances
-- the use of torture and other cruel and degrading treatment
-- outrages of personal dignity including humiliating treatment
-- denial of habeas rights
-- indefinite detentions without charges or trials
-- prolonged detentions incommunicado
-- arbitrary detention
-- unfair trial procedures
Amnesty accused the Bush administration of hypocrisy saying that while claiming the US is a "nation of laws" adhering to the "rule of law," it practices the very policies it condemns. It said this administration's "interpretation of the law has been driven by its policy choices rather than a credible postulation of its legal obligations." It cynically interprets US and international law any way it chooses and as such acts outrageously and in contempt of all legal standards and norms. Amnesty also stated that by having passed the Military Commissions Act, the Congress has allowed thousands of detainees to remain in indefinite detention without charge or trial and to be legally subjected to the worst kinds of abuses. It said "Congress has failed these detainees and their families. Those defending human rights should be prepared for a long struggle."
The Long Struggle to Save the Republic Has Begun
By its legislative action prior to recessing for the November congressional elections, the 109th Congress will forever live in infamy. It shamelessly sunk to its lowest yet depths in pledging its fealty to a morally depraved president who believes no one has the right to challenge his authority, champions the use of torture, defies constitutional and international laws and norms, (law or no law) conducts secret surveillance through warrentless wiretaps or any other means, and believes dissent is an act of terrorism. In brazen defiance of over 200 years of governance under the rule of constitutional law, this Congress and president have made a mockery of every norm and standard the Founders stood for and handed down to us for posterity - if we could keep it.
By their actions, this body has shaken the very foundation of the republic. It gave the president near-unlimited authority to act as he chooses in the name of national security as he defines it. It simply means the rule of law effectively has been abolished and ordinary people no longer have constitutionally protected rights. For now, US citizens still have the right of habeas corpus, but it, too, may be taken from us in the name of national security. How low we've now sunk in coming so far.
In his 1935 novel, It Can't Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis showed it most certainly can happen here. He wrote about a charismatic senator who becomes president, claims to be a reformer and a champion of the common man. It's all cover to hide his alliance with the corporate interests of his day and the support of religious extremists he appeals to. Instead of serving the people he denies them their rights. He then takes full advantage of the Great Depression economic crisis to support a strong military and pass unconstitutional laws during a national emergency. He further convenes military tribunals for civilians and calls dissenters unpatriotic and even traitors. Sound familiar?
Anyone reading this book will be scared wondering if it really can happen here. Anyone living in the surreal age of George Bush and his out-of-control extremist neocon administration knows it already has, and we haven't yet found a way to stop it. This is no time for complacency. We're all now "enemy combatants."
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 The 'Chosen People'
LABBOUNEH, Lebanon - Lebanon has deployed its army on its southern border with Israel for the first time in almost 40 years, vowing to reassert control in the area by stopping attacks and arms smuggling.
At a ceremony to mark the occasion on Monday, army commander Brigadier General Michel Sleiman called on his troops to confront any violations of an August 14 UN-brokered ceasefire that ended Israel's 34-day war against Hezbollah.
The deployment "to monitor the southern borders and the maritime and territorial borders is meant to prevent aggressions as well as the smuggling of weapons and other prohibited items," he said. "I call on you to confront any Israeli aggressions and violations," Sleiman told conscripts during the ceremony in which the Lebanese flag was hoisted on a hilltop in the border village of Labbouneh for the first time since 1970.
The Lebanese army did not deploy in the area for decades because of fighting between Israel and Palestinian militants and subsequently Lebanese fighters, mainly from Hezbollah.
The deployment comes a day after Israel's near-complete withdrawal of several hundred soldiers who had remained in south Lebanon for almost seven weeks after the ceasefire.
A Lebanese army officer told AFP Monday that at least 12 Israeli soldiers were still deployed on the Lebanese side of the Ghajar border zone in the east.
The Jewish state has said it will keep its troops there until security arrangements in the divided village are agreed with UN and Lebanese forces.
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon commander General Alain Pellegrini said Sunday that he expects the last troops to have pulled out of Ghajar this week, in keeping with the UN ceasefire resolution.
But Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salukh charged that Israel "wants to provoke fresh trouble in south Lebanon" by holding on to Ghajar, inhabited by Syrian Alawites and which is a reputed bastion of drug smugglers and spies.
Prime Minister Fuad Siniora expressed more confidence in a swift Israeli withdrawal.
"The United Nations is dealing seriously with the issue of Ghajar and I believe it will achieve its objective, given our determination" to recover Lebanese lands expropriated on the edges of the village, he said.
In separate comments to his cabinet, Siniora welcomed the departure of "disappointed" Israeli troops.
"The occupier has left disappointed," Siniora said.
"But we still have tasks to complete: recover the Shebaa Farms, free Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails and the enemy still refuses to hand over maps of the landmines they left behind" after leaving in 2000, he said.
Army spokesman Major General Saleh Sleiman told AFP that "by Monday afternoon, the government plan to deploy 15,000 troops in the south up to the border will be complete, except for the area of Ghajar."
Troops had already taken up positions along the border, mainly in Marwaheen, Marun Ar-Ras, Adaysseh and Kfar Kila where about 100 soldiers backed by 10 armored vehicles deployed on the Fatima Gate sealed passageway, he added.
Security Council Resolution 1701, which put an end to the war, called for Israel's complete pullout from Lebanon in tandem with the deployment of Lebanese army troops backed by additional UN peacekeepers, as well as the disarming of all militias.
While Hezbollah has agreed to abide by the mid-August ceasefire, it has resolutely refused to lay down its arms until it is satisfied Israel has ended its occupation of Lebanese territory.
After the end of the war, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said his group's arsenal had increased to more than 20,000 rockets.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who along with regional ally
Iran is a main backer of Hezbollah, has dismissed efforts to stop the flow of contraband arms to the Shiite militant group as "a waste of time."
"If a real will exists to introduce illegal weapons, neither UN resolutions nor military deployment will be able to stop" their entry, he told Spain's El Pais newspaper.
"What's missing (in Lebanon) is a state in which all Lebanese consider themselves represented. If that's accomplished, it will then be possible" to disarm Hezbollah, he said.
Analysts say plenty of room remains for disputes, with Hezbollah maintaining its arsenal and the Israel air force continuing flyovers of Lebanese territory and keeping a small number of soldiers there.
MARJAYOUN, Lebanon (Reuters) - Israeli warplanes flew over Lebanon on Tuesday two days after Israeli forces withdrew from virtually all of south Lebanon, witnesses said.
At least two jets flew in from Israel at medium altitude and headed north toward central Lebanon, the witnesses said.
Israeli forces pulled out from south Lebanon on Sunday except from the small village in line with a U.N. truce that ended a war between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas.
Lebanon says overflights violate Lebanese sovereignty and breach a U.N. resolution that halted the fighting on August 14.
Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin told Reuters in Jerusalem that the overflights would continue to help ensure that arms supplies do not reach Hizbollah from
Syria.
"Israel's redeployment along the international border does not negate Israel's right to self-defense and to assist in the implementation of the arms embargo, especially when it comes to the Syria-Lebanese border, an issue that has not yet been resolves as part of the Security Council resolution," she said.
(Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem)
Saed Bannoura
International Middle East Media Center
October 2, 2006
Palestinian medical sources in the Gaza Strip reported that one resident was killed after the Israeli Naval forces fired at residents at the beach in Khan Younis, in the southern part of the Gaza Strip.
The resident was identified as Hani Ibrahim Al Najjar, 27, a resident of Al Shaty' refugee camp, in Gaza City.
Medical sources at the Al Aqsa Martyrs hospital, in Dir Al Balah, reported that Al Najjar was hit by a live round in his head.
The Israeli Naval forces repeatedly fires at Palestinian residents and fishermen at Gaza beaches in at attempt to bar them from fishing under the pretext of stopping arms trafficking into Gaza.
The Gaza Strip is also under sever land, sea and aerial blockade imposed by the Israeli forces since the abduction of an Israeli soldier in a cross-border raid at an Israeli military base adjacent to the Gaza Strip.
Two soldiers and two Palestinian fighters were killed in the attack.
Palestinian fighters demand the release of child, female and sick detainees from Israeli prisons in exchange for the release of the captured soldier, Israel rejected the demands, rejected to hold any direct talks with the fighters and launched its "Summer Rains" offensive.
Over 250 Palestinians, mainly civilians and children, were killed since Israeli started its Summer Rains offensive on June 27.
GAZA, Oct. 2 (Xinhua) -- Hamas-led Palestinian government spokesman Ghazi Hamad said Monday that Hamas didn't accept the Arab peace initiative because it calls for recognizing Israel, asserting they would never recognize the Jewish state.
Moreover, Hamad hinted that Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) would never meet any pressure to recognize Israel, and it prefers to give up governing than recognizing the Jewish state.
"The issue of sitting on power is not a victory and Hamas has no intention to recognize Israel regardless the results," said Hamad.
Hamad was defying international demands to recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by regional peace deals.
The Middle East Quartet urged Hamas to accept these demands in order to get an embargo and Western sanctions on the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) lifted.
"Hamas movement will not comply with interior or exterior pressures to accept the Quartet's conditions," added Hamad.
The Palestinian factions, including Hamas, agreed on a plan of two-state solution in a bid to overcome international pressure, but the issue of recognizing Israel still forming a point of disagreement. The same controversial point also delayed the formation of a national unity government.
"We agreed on all Prisoners' Document except the issue of Arab Peace initiative because it asked all factions to recognize Israel before joining the government of national unity," Hamad clarified.
Late last month, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said talks with the governing Hamas to form a coalition government have gone back to zero.
But Hamad denies, saying that "we can't say talks have declined to zero," he added that "great efforts were being made to establish the new government." However, he didn't give a time when the government would come into existence.
"Calling for urgent understandings between Hamas and Fatah movements to tackle internal problems," Hamad warned from increasing levels of poverty, unemployment and disorder in the occupied Palestinian Territories.
Hamad, meanwhile, criticized the one-month long public strike by unpaid governmental employees and chaotic actions by striking security members which sparked deadly clashes that left nine Palestinians killed.
The employees have not been paid regularly since Hamas-led government took office in last March. Instead, the government paid loans and partial advanced payments.
Furthermore, Hamad dismissed threats by Israel to unleash a large-scale military operation in Gaza Strip if the Palestinians didn't free the Israeli soldier they captured last June. "The military solution will not be useful for the state of occupation, and Israel has to meet the conditions of the factions that seized Corporal Gilad Shalit in order to restore him back," said Hamad.
Captors of Shalit, led by Hamas, demand a prisoner swap to exchange him with a number of the 10,000 Palestinian prisoner sheld in Israel.
After the capture of Shalit, Hamad said Israel has turned Gazain to a large prison, devastated vital facilities and bridges, and killed hundreds of Palestinians without getting their objectives done.
The International Committee of the Red Cross says it has distributed emergency household kits to more than 400 families in Gaza since the end of June.
These are families whose houses have been destroyed or damaged; either in air strikes or for other reasons.
People in Gaza dread receiving a telephone call from the Israeli Defence Force.
It usually means they are being warned to leave their house, before it is destroyed by an Israeli warplane.
The Israeli Defence Force says all houses targeted in this way are "carefully identified as terrorist infrastructures" and that it is committed to preventing harm coming to people not involved in terrorism.
The International Committee of the Red Cross says it has distributed emergency household kits to more than 400 families in Gaza since the end of June.
These are families whose houses have been destroyed or damaged; either in air strikes or for other reasons.
The kits are made up of tarpaulins, mattresses, blankets and other essential household items.
One man who lost his house to an Israeli air strike, retired NGO worker Abdel Rahman Salem Thabet, describes what happened:
On 24 August, at 23.30, someone from the Israeli army called me on the phone and ordered me to leave my home quickly.
There are 12 people in our family. The officer also told me to tell all my neighbours to leave their homes at once.
Then, at midnight, the Israeli army bombed my home. Half an hour after the phone call.
An F16 destroyed my home with two rockets. They demolished the four-storey house completely.
The reason they gave was that one of my sons is planning attacks against Israel.
But this son hasn't lived with me since 2004. He lives in the middle of Gaza, between Gaza City and Khan Younis, in Nasiriya Camp.
My home is near Jabaliya camp, much further north.
The Israeli army punished my entire family because of one person - my son - who is not even living in our area.
Until now, no-one has agreed to rent me a home for the 12 people in my family.
They say I am working against Israel and they think the Israeli army will destroy the buildings they rent to me.
We have all been living in one tent since our house was destroyed. The Red Cross gave us the tent.
JERUSALEM (AFP) - With media attention focused on the Lebanon war, Israeli wildcat settlement outposts in the occupied
West Bank have mushroomed in recent months, a watchdog group has said.
Some 31 outposts sprang up in the West Bank as work on developing infrastructure, access routes as well as the installation of new mobile homes has steamed ahead in violation of the internationally backed roadmap for peace, the anti-settlement Peace Now watchdog said Tuesday.
"In the past months, the government of Israel has continued to evade its responsibility to evacuate the unauthorized outposts in the West Bank," a report said.
"It appears that the summer of 2006, marked by the fighting in south Lebanon, provided a golden opportunity for the settlers to deepen their hold on the land without the media being available to cover it," it said.
In 12 illegal outposts, the construction of permanent homes has likewise continued without hindrance from the authorities, it said.
"The extremist settlers took advantage that attention was concentrated on the Lebanon war to entrench themselves," Dror Etkes, the author of the report, told AFP.
"The situation in Lebanon has likewise furnished the government with an alibi that it didn't need to proceed with the evacuation of wildcat outposts and to proceed with the development of other settlements," he said.
The report was slammed as "lies" by the main settler organization, the Settlers Council in Judea and Samaria, the biblical name by which the West Bank is called in Israel.
"This report is full of lies," Emily Amrussi, a spokeswoman for the group, told AFP. The report, which was published a day before US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is due in Israel, was aimed "at creating a diplomatic crisis out of nothing."
Washington, Israel's main ally, has repeatedly called on the Jewish state to dismantle illegal outposts in the West Bank.
Amrussi also vehemently denied that settlers took advantage of the war in Lebanon, saying "it is mostly the settlement cemeteries that increased (during the offensive) with the death of 11 (settler) soldiers" out of a total 121 troops killed.
Separately, the nation's second-largest daily Maariv reported that, contrary to declared government policy, the army plans to guard all illegal outposts in 2007.
National Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told public radio that he was not aware of the outposts. "If that's the case, we have to react in the quickest possible manner and dismantle them, since their existence cannot but complicate things," he said.
During the first nine months of 2006, the government has invited bids for construction of 952 new units in illegal settlements, compared with 235 such bids solicited in the year-earlier period.
According to official data, there are 105 wildcat outposts in the occupied West Bank.
Under the terms of the roadmap, Israel was meant to freeze all settlement construction in the West Bank. The plan, however, has made no progress since its launch three years ago, and Israel says it will not be bound by its commitments until the Palestinians put a halt to attacks.
The number of Israelis living in the occupied West Bank, excluding annexed east Jerusalem, has increased by 2.7 percent to 260,042 during the past six months, according to statistics published by the interior ministry last month.
Israel dismantled all 21 settlements built in the Gaza Strip and withdrew all its troops and settlers from the territory in 2005.
In late June, however, troops were initially returned to the territory at the start of a prolonged offensive to stop militants firing rockets and recover a captured soldier. Israel also continues to hinder traffic in and out of Gaza.
Does it seem implausible that one might actually feel sympathy for a professor at the University of Chicago? So I would have thought; but as John Mearsheimer got the waterboard treatment from Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross last night at New York's Cooper Union, there was something undeniably poignant in his situation. Mearsheimer, an earnest, polite, owlish gent, had the bemused air of a man trying to reason with a pair of rabid Dobermans.
The occasion was a "debate," hosted by the London Review of Books, on the question, "The Israel Lobby: Does it have too much influence on US foreign policy?"
Noam Chomsky observes somewhere that "debates are one of the most irrational institutions that humans have devised," because they "demand irrationality" on the part of the combatants. He neglected to add that they also often bring out the worst in the spectators. And when the subject is Israel, and the debate takes place in New York, where this topic usually evokes irrationality on a titanic scale -- well, the ensuing spectacle is likely to delight a misanthrope's heart.
My high misanthropic hopes were greatly reinforced, while we waited for the program to start, by my immediate neighbors, who were solemnly, and approvingly, discussing the ideas of that mighty thinker, Thomas Friedman. Aha, I thought, mentally rubbing my hands, this is going to be good.
The prosecution team consisted of professors Mearsheimer, Rashid Khalidi from Columbia, and Tony Judt, from NYU. Appearing for the defense were Israel lobbyists Indyk and Ross, both of whom also served Israel's cause as prominent members of the Clinton administration. They were joined by redundant Israeli labor party politician Shlomo Ben-Ami. (Why, you ask, was a former Israeli cabinet minister invited to discuss a question of American politics? That's a very good question, and I wish you had been there to ask it at the time.)
The debate was "moderated" by Ann-Marie Slaughter, who is dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs at Princeton. (The name of this institution always makes me laugh -- as who should say, the Henry VIII School of Women's Studies, or the Lester Maddox Institute for Racial Amity.)
The beleaguered Mearsheimer, of course, is one of the authors, with Stephen Walt, of the succès-de-scandale paper "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," which created quite a stir when it appeared last spring. The sound of carpet-chewing from Alan Dershowitz's Cambridge house reportedly gave many Harvard faculty a week's worth of sleepless nights.
What became known as the "Mearsheimer-Walt thesis" is, to paraphrase bluntly the authors' careful formulations, that the Israel lobby has been successful in "distorting" American foreign policy in Israel's interest. In particular, Mearsheimer and Walt argue, we would not have had an Iraq war without the Lobby's contribution. These are, to say the least, fighting words.
Indyk and Ross showed up in fighting trim, and Slaughter threw them a slow soft one in her first question: Was the Mearsheimer-Walt paper anti-Semitic?
Well, more or less, yes, was the predictable answer from Israel's defense bench. Mearsheimer, said the imposing, silver-maned Indyk, postulates a sinister "cabal" (he must have used this word a hundred times over the next two hours) that includes "anyone who has a good word to say about Israel." With regard to the Iraq war, Indyk's trump card was that the Israel lobby couldn't have made that happen, since the Israel lobby really wanted to go after -- Iran! Mearsheimer, who has presumably heard this sort of thing quite a lot lately, watched Indyk with an unblinking, curious, naturalist's gaze, as though he had discovered a new subspecies of E. Coli.
But there was a slightly tired, perfunctory, pro-forma quality about Indyk's obligatory insults and falsehoods. None of the defenders seemed to have his heart in it, really -- and the audience, to their credit and my surprise, wasn't buying it, either. The defense team had to say these things -- that's how the game is played -- but their threadbare invective evoked groans and hisses from the groundlings, and in any case, the trio had other, more important, fish to fry.
The other fish in question, it appears, is that all these guys would very much like to be back in office. And on this point, sadly, they seemed to have much of the audience with them.
Judt, and Mearsheimer, and Khalidi, don't have this problem. They all have tenure at good universities -- or, in Khalidi's case, at a university that suburban parents still think is a good one. They get published, and people cite them. They're at the pinnacle of their profession, and only death or Alzheimer's can knock them off it. But Indyk, and Ross, and the Woody-Allenish Ben-Ami, wielded state power once, and now they don't. They're on the outside looking in, and would love to have their helicopter rides, and their bodyguards, and their sense of importance back again.
So the burden of their song, last night, was that the Lobby is not the problem. Rather -- they sang, in close three-part harmony -- rather, the problem is that we have these awful Republicans in power here in the US, and the awful Likudniks -- now wearing a centrist smiley-face -- in power back in the Promised Land. Want to make things better? Throw the rascals out, and put us back in.
The rodentine Ross put it most crassly: "If Al Gore had been president, we would not have had an Iraq war." The crowd, I'm sorry to say, loved it. Ben-Ami took up the same tune and modulated into a slightly different key: "One thing that doesn't exist in your analysis," he thundered, "is Israel!" -- a line which, depressingly, may have nudged the applause-meter up to its maximum for the evening. "Israel's behavior is the responsibility of its elected leaders!" More applause, and sage murmurs of "he's very intelligent!" from my neighbors in the peanut gallery.
The defense team indignantly rejected the idea that a US administration should ever "force" Israel to do anything -- while strenously claiming, in the next breath, that Bill Clinton, to his everlasting credit, had put the screws to Israel in a way that made Torquemada look like a bleeding-heart. So... if you have a problem with the Israel lobby, then your best bet is to elect a Democrat. Now there is an original idea.
If you've read Clayton Swisher's remarkable book, The Truth About Camp David, then the picture that Indyk and Ross and Ben-Ami were painting of an assertive Clinton holding Israel's feet to the fire will look a little strange. In fact, last night was something of a reunion for Indyk and Ross and Ben-Ami, who were all participants in the Clinton "peace process" -- and all working for the same side, though Indyk and Ross held US passports and Ben-Ami an Israeli one. As Aaron Miller, Ross' former deputy from that period, famously observed later, "far too often, we functioned in this process, for want of a better word, as Israel's lawyer."
But the rewriting of history, and the retrospective rose-tinting of Democratic and Labor administrations, is a favorite liberal game, and the Manhattan congregation largely approved. Indyk, Ross and Ben-Ami were able to put over the virtuoso turn of denying, in one breath, that the Israel lobby has any power, and promising, in the next breath, to neutralize that power if they could only get back into their helicopters.
They have a point, of course. Neither Israel nor its Lobby are monoliths. The Likudniks are now in the ascendant in both, and our tuneful trio are, relatively speaking, sidelined. There are different ideas about tactics and strategy, priorities and alliances, among different elements at both ends of the Washington-Jerusalem axis.
But of course -- as Mearsheimer came close to saying, at one point -- the best proof of the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis was sitting in front of us all night, in the form of Ross and Indyk themselves. These two have spent their careers alternating between organizations like AIPAC and WINEP on the one hand, and guarding the Middle East henhouse in government on the other. The twists and turns of tactics and diplomacy, as one faction replaces another, don't conceal an underlying, essential continuity.
If I weren't such a misanthrope, I might be tempted to say that nevertheless, the glass is half full. Twenty years ago, such a discussion, in this venue, would have been unthinkable; any attempt to raise the topic at all would have been shouted down by a coalition of JDL thugs from Brooklyn, and tough little old ex-Communist ladies from the Upper West Side. Twenty years ago, you would not have seen Establishment figures like Mearsheimer and Walt saying such things. Twenty years ago, a New York audience would have received Indyk's cheap demagogy with thunderous applause rather than groans and boos.
So the times they are a-changin'. But we still have a ways to go. If I correctly assessed the temper of last night's crowd, they mostly still want to find a way to divide the baby -- to support and vindicate Israel, but without all these awful wars and walls. They would like to cajole the Palestinians into playing nice -- without giving them anything that Israel might want. They would like to bring Iran to heel, without putting any boots on the ground, if I may borrow the buzzword-du-jour.
In other words, I fear most of them want Bill Clinton back. And when I contemplate that idea, the glass looks a lot more than half empty.
Michael J. Smith lives in New York City. When his busy social schedule permits, he works at undermining the Democratic Party on his blog, stopmebeforeivoteagain.org.
Andy Coghlan
30 September 2006
New Scientist Print Edition
EATING fish contaminated with mercury could put people at risk of developing diabetes. That's because methyl mercury, the form of the metal that accumulates in fish, can kill the cells in the pancreas that make insulin.
At least, this is what Shing-Hwa Liu and colleagues at the National Taiwan University in Taipei discovered when they exposed beta and islet cells to methyl mercury at levels typically found in contaminated fish (Chemical Research and Toxicology, vol 19, p 1080). Methyl mercury is a powerful oxidant, and this seemed to explain the effect: Lui's team was able to protect the cells from damage by adding the antioxidant N-acetyl cysteine.
Diabetes is on the rise in many countries, and has doubled in the US over the past 30 years. While obesity is thought to be the major cause, suspicion is also falling on pollutants. In July, a South Korean team revealed a connection between persistent organic pollutants and diabetes. They found that people with diabetes tended to have elevated concentrations of pollutants including dioxin in their blood, although they have failed to find any link with mercury.
Vivian Fonseca, a diabetes specialist at Tulane University in New Orleans, points out that very little of the methyl mercury found in fish actually makes it into the human bloodstream, which means the Taiwanese findings could overestimate the risk to human health.
"There might be many chemicals besides methyl mercury which kill pancreatic cells in experimental settings, but might not cause diabetes in humans," says Duk-Hee Lee of the Kyungpook National University in Daegu, who led the South Korean study on persistent organic pollutants. Liu agrees that researchers will need to carry out further studies in humans to confirm a link between mercury and diabetes. However, he has already discovered that mice fed low levels of methyl mercury for just a month produce less insulin, have higher blood glucose levels and sustain more oxidative damage to their fat cells.
"I think people should eat less fish," Liu says, restricting themselves to perhaps two servings of fish a week.
Lee's studies have also shown that the links between pollution and diabetes can be subtle and complex. In people in the US, blood concentrations of persistent organic pollutants have declined over the past few decades. However, Lee's team found that the association between diabetes and levels of pollutants in the blood was strongest in obese people (Diabetes Care, vol 29, p 1638). This may be because pollutants like dioxin are retained more readily in fatter people.
Fonseca argues that the epidemic of obesity is the main reason why more and more people are developing diabetes, but agrees that pollutants may be a subsidiary factor. "Additional factors such as pollutants may be playing a subtle role in some individuals," he says.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 18
Gaia Vince
29 September 2006
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
Lying back, exhaling: usually the last thing a person does before leaving this world. Only in this case it is the world that is leaving me.
A few minutes ago I smoked a pipe of Salvia divinorum, a powerful hallucinogenic herb that I bought openly and legally from a shop near my home. Of the £25 I handed over, more than £4 will find its way into government coffers in the form of sales tax. And salvia was just one of dozens of powerful but entirely legal psychoactive substances that I could have chosen.
All that was far from my mind as the salvia took me on a consciousness-expanding journey unlike any other I have ever experienced. My body felt disconnected from "me" and objects and people appeared cartoonish, surreal and marvellous. Then, as suddenly as it had began, it was over. The visions vanished and I was back in my bedroom. I spoke to my "sitter" - the friend who was watching over me, as recommended on the packaging - but my mouth was awkward and clumsy. When I attempted to stand my coordination was off. Within a couple of minutes, however, I was fine and clear-headed, though dripping with sweat. The whole experience had lasted less than 5 minutes.
My salvia trip was part of a journey into the world of "legal highs", a new generation of powerful mind-altering substances that are growing in popularity across the world (see Table). Accurate figures are hard to come by, as these substances are rarely monitored by drug-enforcement agencies. But the proliferation of online and high-street retailers suggest they are an increasingly lucrative business, and one company specialising in legal drugs recently reported an annual turnover of $16 million.
The reasons for their rising popularity are not hard to fathom. Not only are they legal and openly available in many countries, they work. Whether or not they are a good thing, however, is more difficult to decide. Supporters argue that legal highs are a bit of fun with a social conscience - a harm-reduction measure that allows people to experiment safely with psychoactive substances while separating drug use from criminality. Others say no one should be allowed to take such powerful drugs: the risks are too great. Some of the disagreement is down to the dearth of information about the short and long-term health effects of most of these substances, their potential for abuse and their addictiveness. But legal highs are also a battleground between those who see the use of mind-altering drugs as a human right and those who think it is plain wrong.
Faced with growing use and an information vacuum, governments are playing catch-up. Some, notably the US and Australia, are clamping down on each new substance as soon as they encounter it. Some are doing nothing. Others are commissioning research into the drugs and their effects before deciding what action to take.
And this is just the beginning. With hundreds of synthetic drugs on their way, not to mention traditional herbs that are being introduced to western consumers for the first time, some believe that cheap, easily available, legal highs could render the street drugs market redundant. So what do we know - and not know - about legal drugs?
Legal highs are nothing new. Paul Anand, manager of Shiva, the shop in Greenwich, London, where I bought my salvia, has been selling them for 15 years, starting with a stall at the Glastonbury festival. "Back then, I was selling guarana, damiana and wild lettuce," he says, "basically poor imitators of cannabis." There was a small market for the stuff, but among experienced drug users they were regarded as a joke, with few discernable effects.
That all changed with the arrival of new, reliable and effective substances, beginning in the UK at least with magic mushrooms. At the end of the 1990s, vendors started taking advantage of a legal loophole that permitted the sale of fresh mushrooms as long as they were not prepared in any way. Business boomed. In the year to April 2004 the number of shops selling magic mushrooms in England and Wales rose from a handful to over 400, according to the British Crime Survey. In the same period 260,000 people bought mushrooms - an increase of 40 per cent on the previous 12 months.
In July 2005, the government closed the loophole, outlawing the sale of fresh mushrooms containing the hallucinogens psilocybin and psilocin, but by then it was too late. The demand for legal highs had been established, and high street and internet vendors rushed to fill the void with an assortment of alternatives. These include another type of magic mushroom, the fly agaric (Amanita muscaria), which does not contain psilocybin or psilocin but is packed with other hallucinogens including muscimol. Salvia is another. And then there is an astonishing assortment of psychoactive herbs, pills and potions designed to mimic the effect of pretty much every illegal drug going.
No dodgy dealers
Inside the shop, the cornucopia of offerings cannot be exaggerated. Vials and bottles crammed with herbal extracts, tinctures, seeds and powders jostle for attention with packets of "party pills". There are hallucinogens, relaxants, aphrodisiacs, trippy highs, "loved-up" pills and euphorics. All entirely legal, at least in the UK.
So why the sudden explosion? Anand says that his customers are attracted by the safety and quality of his products. "People are confident in what they're buying - that it's not cut with rat poison. They enjoy coming into the shop. They're not forced to meet a dodgy git in a UV-lit disco to buy an aspirin."
Vendors also make a selling point of legality. With drug testing increasingly routine at workplaces, 30 and 40-somethings are switching to highs that don't put them on the wrong side of the law, Anand says. And with legality comes, if not official approval, then at least an imprimatur of safety.
The majority of Anand's customers are aged between 20 and 30, he says. Most have tried street drugs and are now looking for something safer, more reliable, legal and affordable. And they're part of a growing movement: one leading vendor of legal highs, Stargate of Auckland, New Zealand, recently reported an annual turnover of NZ$24 million (approximately US$16 million).
Among the most popular legal highs are "party pills" made from compounds called piperazines, which are chemically similar to Viagra but with an amphetamine-like action. Known by various brand names such as PEP and Bliss, their main active ingredient is BZP (benzylpiperazine) - the "Z" pronounced US-style to rhyme with the "B". Originally developed as a drug to treat parasites in livestock, piperazines have been sporadically used on the dance scene for many years but began to seriously take off about three years ago - though not in the US, where they have been strictly illegal since 2002. Anand started selling them in January 2006 and says that every month they grow more popular.
The BZP story started in the late 1990s, when the drug was "discovered" by New Zealand entrepreneur Matt Bowden. The former musician and recreational drug user became hooked on illegal amphetamines in the 1990s during an epidemic of methamphetamine - "crystal meth" - addiction that swept the country. He had already lost a family member to ecstasy when, in the mid-1990s, he witnessed a friend on meth commit a horrific suicide - disembowelling himself with a samurai sword - at a party.
Bowden became determined to kick the habit. His efforts to quit led him to experiment with legal alternatives and he sought out a professor of neuropharmacology to tutor him and work alongside him on the project.
"I said, let's find something which is like methamphetamine but non-addictive and has an extremely low risk of overdose or death," Bowden says. They searched through the scientific literature and came across a piperazine which occasionally cropped up as an ecstasy alternative called A2.
"We looked at a US study and found that one part of the molecule caused liver damage in rats, but the other part appeared to be perfectly safe. That part was BZP," he says.
In 2000, Bowden used the compound to break his addiction to methamphetamine and then began giving it out for free to friends. By 2002, companies had begun making and selling BZP. The move led Bowden to set up his own company, Stargate, to market safe, legal alternatives to street drugs.
Stargate now produces and sells a range of pills based on piperazine blends. BZP is often combined with another piperazine, TFMPP (trifluorophenylmethylpiperazine), which gives the pills a relaxing, euphoric effect that has been compared to ecstasy.
Both drugs activate the 5HT serotonin receptor in the brain - the same receptor targeted by amphetamines and MDMA - and cause the release of dopamine (Neuropsychopharmacology, vol 30, p 550). This is responsible for the "high" associated with the pills, though it can also lead to anxiety, overheating and dehydration. In one survey, only half of people who had used BZP said they would describe its effects as "good"; 16 per cent said it was "good early but bad later", 10 per cent "bad" and 14 per cent "neither good nor bad". My own experience of using BZP was mixed, with some enjoyable effects but also a bout of paranoia, insomnia and a bad hangover the next day.
Worldwide, Bowden sells a million pills a year and, all told, New Zealand's legal party pills industry is worth around NZ$50 million a year. As these figures suggest, a lot of New Zealanders take BZP. In June, researchers at Massey University in Auckland released the results of a survey of more than 2000 people, commissioned by the New Zealand government. "We expected that no more than 5 per cent of those questioned would have tried BZP, but we actually found that 20 per cent of people had tried the drug, and 1 in 7 of 15 to 45-year-olds had used BZP in the past year," says study leader Chris Wilkins.
Wilkins says that the highest usage was by those in their 20s, as he had expected, but he also discovered high levels of use by people in their 30s and 40s.
A separate survey of around 1000 people carried out in Hamilton, New Zealand's seventh-largest city, yielded similar figures. It found that 12 per cent of the city's total population, and 30 per cent of 14 to 25-year-olds, had taken BZP at some point (Emergency Medicine Australasia, vol 18, p 180).
The popularity of BZP, along with anecdotal reports of adverse reactions, withdrawal symptoms and psychotic episodes, has led some politicians and doctors to start campaigning for a ban. Bowden, however, argues that his products are "harmless fun" and actually reduce demand for street drugs and the damage they cause; the pills are even labelled as "drug-harm minimisation solutions". He and other vendors have an agreement to sell them only to adults and in outlets where alcohol is not available.
"If we accept that people have the right to experiment with their minds, just as they try paragliding or drag racing, then it is the responsibility of governments to ensure that they have access to well-designed drugs," Bowden says.
There is some evidence in support of Bowden's argument that BZP reduces the demand for street drugs. In the Hamilton survey, 44 per cent of the 15 to 45-year-olds who had tried BZP said they had stopped taking illegal drugs as a result. In 2005, the head of the New Plymouth Criminal Investigation Branch, Grant Coward, said that the use of ecstasy had dropped after BZP became available. It also appears that the relatively low price of BZP diverts people away from illegal drugs. An ecstasy pill in New Zealand costs up to NZ$80; the same amount will buy you up to 12 BZP tablets. "Most users said that they would rather take ecstasy than BZP because the effect is preferable and the hangover not as bad, but they're priced out of it," Wilkins says. What is not clear, however, is whether BZP acts as a gateway to illegal drugs among people who would otherwise never have taken them.
Wilkins also points out that the drug seems to have less abuse potential than amphetamines. "It gives you quite a bad hangover, so people tend to limit their usage of it," he says. Overall, however, Wilkins says it is too early to conclude that BZP reduces harm.
Health worries
Worries are also emerging about the health effects of the drug. According to emergency doctor Paul Gee from Christchurch Hospital, BZP-related admissions were almost unheard of two years ago but are now commonplace. Between April and September 2005, his team dealt with 80 users complaining of nausea, vomiting, anxiety and palpitations. Some had seizures; two cases were life-threatening (The New Zealand Medical Journal, vol 118, p U1784). And while there have been no deaths directly attributed to BZP, in 2001 a woman died in Zurich after taking it with MDMA.
One of the biggest worries is that, because BZP is advertised as a "safer alternative", it fosters the belief that it is completely harmless and encourages people to take more than the recommended dose (about 200 milligrams). In the Hamilton survey, around a third of 14 to 25-year-olds who had taken BZP said they did not read the instructions on the packaging. Nearly half took more than the recommended number of pills, and 66 per cent drank alcohol at the same time, which is not advisable as alcohol exacerbates the dehydrating effects of BZP.
The non-addictiveness and limited abuse potential of BZP have also been called into question with a study showing that rhesus monkeys will intravenously self-administer the drug at rates as high as they would for cocaine (Drug and Alcohol Dependence, vol 77, p 161). What's more, work due to be published in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology shows that adolescent rats given BZP grow up into anxious adults.
With the doubts about BZP growing, it is no surprise that governments are sitting up and taking notice. In 2002 the US temporarily placed the drug on its schedule 1 rating, the same category as MDMA and heroin, and confirmed this in 2004. BZP has recently been made illegal in Japan, Denmark, Greece, Sweden and, as of 1 September, Australia. In the UK, BZP remains legal but is on the agenda for discussion at the government's advisory council on the misuse of drugs meeting on 2 November, where a decision will be taken as to whether BZP needs to be monitored further.
New Zealand, however, has taken a different and arguably more enlightened approach. In 2001 Bowden approached the government to ask for its help in regulating the new industry. In response the government introduced a new class of drug called "non-traditional designer substances", also known as class D. This class is a repository for new and little-researched drugs, such as BZP, pending further information. Class D drugs are legal, though there are some restrictions on them; in BZP's case that means a ban on sales to under-18s and in places that sell alcohol.
The government also commissioned three studies into BZP. One, the Hamilton prevalence study, has already been published. The other two concern the drug's health effects and are due out in November; Wilkins expects both to be critical. The outcome of these studies will heavily influence the legal status of BZP in New Zealand.
Whatever the fate of BZP, party pills won't be the last legal high to occupy government time. Thanks to the efforts of Bowden and like-minded individuals, new psychoactive substances - both natural and synthetic - continue to enter the market.
The next craze is likely to be for a legal high called kratom. This extract of a tree native to south-east Asia has been dubbed the "herbal speedball" for its euphoric and energising properties. Kratom's main active ingredient, mitragynine, binds to the same opiate receptor (mu) as opium, heroin and cocaine. There are no documented overdoses or fatalities and proponents claim it is non-addictive, although last year a team from Josai International University in Togane, Japan, published evidence to the contrary (Life Sciences, vol 78, p 2). It is legal almost everywhere except Thailand and Australia. In high doses it is supposed to produce hallucinogenic effects. However, when I tried it - boiling the leaves to make a nauseating tea - it merely made me sick and sleepy.
According to a US National Drug Intelligence Center report published in 2005, kratom is cheap and widely available in the US and has "high abuse potential", though up to now there have been no moves to ban it. That is sure to change. Arguably, drugs such as kratom are legal not because they have official approval but by default: they have yet to become popular enough to attract the attention of lawmakers. Once that happens - as with magic mushrooms in the UK - governments are quick to clamp down.
Another high that appears to be on the brink of losing its legal status is salvia. Also known as diviner's sage, "magic mint" or "Sally D", Salvia divinorum is a white-and-blue-flowered sage plant that grows in the Oaxaca mountains in Mexico. It has been used for centuries by the Mazatec people in shamanistic rituals and in healing.
The first westerner to experience salvia's powerful hallucinogenic effects was anthropologist Brett Blosser, now of Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. In the late 1980s, he was invited to take part in a Mazatec shamanic ceremony in which the participants rolled up salvia leaves and chewed them. The effect was profoundly psychedelic, Blosser reported.
Inspired by Blosser's account, Daniel Siebert, an independent ethnobotanist from Los Angeles, distilled the plant's juices to produce white, needle-shaped crystals which he called salvinorum A. Just a tiny crumb of this on his tongue produced what he describes as the most awesome and frightening experience of his life. "Suddenly I lost all physical awareness. I felt as though I were completely conscious and yet I had no body. I wondered if I had died," he says.
In 2002, with recreational use of salvia on the rise in the US and elsewhere, Bryan Roth, director of the National Institute of Mental Health's psychoactive drug screening programme at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, took an interest. He discovered that salvinorum A is highly selective for the recently discovered kappa opioid receptor in the brain (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 99, p 11934). Like the other two opioid receptors (mu and delta), kappa is involved in pain sensations. But, unlike the other two, chemicals bound to it can cause hallucinations.
It's still unclear why salvia produces hallucinations. "Some of the experiences people have on salvia may be similar to the psychosis that occurs in late-stage Alzheimer's," says Roth. "There is an increase in the number of kappa receptors in the brains of people with late-stage Alzheimer's."
All studies so far have shown salvia to be non-addictive. It also appears to have limited potential for abuse. "Most people taking drugs are not looking for an out-of-body experience, they want something gentle," says Harry Shapiro from UK drugs information charity DrugScope. "Salvia is so strong that people try it once and never take it again."
Playing with fire
Even so, possession of salvia has recently been made an offence in four US states - Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee and Delaware - and a federal ban appears inevitable. Thomas Prisinzano of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, who is studying salvia to research new methods for treating substance abuse and pain, believes it is only a matter of time. "If LSD is schedule 1, then salvia will almost certainly be classed the same," he says.
Some researchers would welcome a ban on salvia and other new drugs. One of these is pharmacologist and substance misuse researcher Fabrizio Schifano of St George's Medical School in London. He says that the main problem with psychoactive substances - and hallucinogens in particular - is that they may incite psychosis. "How do you know if someone will have a sensitivity to the drug?" he says. "I am really worried by the prevalence of these drugs, and the fact that most users get their information from the internet. It is not peer-reviewed research, just people's opinions, and that is very dangerous."
Tim Kendall, deputy director of the Royal College of Psychiatrists research unit, says: "When you take salvia you are playing with fire. People can be very damaged in terms of their personal functioning. They frequently have flashbacks that intrude into their life, which can be almost like a post-traumatic stress problem after very bad experiences."
"My recommendation is that people should keep their minds clean," adds Roth.
Others believe that knee-jerk bans are the wrong approach. People have a natural drive to enter alternative states of mind, argues Richard Boire from the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics in Davis, California. "The role of governments is to prevent harm to people and society from dangerous drug use. I think the government has lost sight of this and now thinks its role is to stop people from entering other mindsets."
For governments intent on pursuing prohibition at all costs, there is a sobering thought. For every banned psychoactive substance there are dozens more that remain legal. The legendary pharmacologist Alexander Shulgin has synthesised more than 230 novel designer drugs, and according to psychologist John Halpern, associate director of alcohol and drug abuse research at Harvard University, there are dozens of legal hallucinogenic herbs besides salvia that are already widely available on the internet and growing in popularity (Life Sciences, vol 78, p 519). What is more, there is clearly a demand for the stuff, and plenty of people like Bowden willing to supply it. Salvia, BZP and kratom may be on the way out, but others will take their place.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 29 September 2006, page 40-45
ALZHEIMER'S disease and BSE appear to have a mechanism in common. As with BSE, it now seems that malformed proteins "seed" the formation of plaques in the brain of people with Alzheimer's.
Although the exact causes of Alzheimer's remain a mystery, plaques of a protein called beta-amyloid build up in the brains of people with the disease, and are toxic to nerve cells.
A team led by Lary Walker at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, took beta-amyloid from such plaques and injected it into the brains of young mice genetically engineered to develop plaques at about one year of age. After the injections, plaques formed much more quickly, appearing within a few weeks (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1131864).
"For the first time we show that the likely seed is beta-amyloid itself," says Walker.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 20
Michael Tennesen
30 September 2006
NewScientist.com news service
More dangerous by the day?
Sean Bush, MD, an emergency physician and venomous-bite specialist, was on call at the Loma Linda University Medical Center in California when a helicopter brought in 23-year-old Pippin Graves, who had been bitten by a rattlesnake. Graves was unconscious, gasping for air, and the tracheotomy that the emergency crew had performed on him was not working. Rattlesnake bites normally require about 5 to 10 vials of antivenom, but Graves needed 140.
Bush wondered at the reaction. Most rattlesnake venom is thought to prevent blood clotting or attack muscle, but increasingly the poison is affecting the central nervous system of the victims who show up in hospitals in the American Southwest - something which is far more dangerous. Why should this be happening? Could snake venom be undergoing rapid evolution in response to selective pressure from humans?
Many scientists believe the increasing potency of some rattlesnakes may have nothing to do with us, but is instead a product of an arms race between the predator and its normal prey. Texas A & M University researcher John C. Perez studied 40 species of mammals that fall prey to rattlesnakes and found that 16 had proteins in their blood that could block the effects of the venom of the western diamondback rattlesnake. Snakes could be countering this by developing ever more dangerous venom.
Bryan Grieg Fry, who has studied venom evolution in a number of snakes, thinks that people are moving into snake country and learning the hard way how potent and varied rattlesnake venom can be. Bush has come to agree. "It may be more a case of rapid discovery than rapid evolution," he says.
SNAKE-VENOM researcher Bryan Grieg Fry made his first discovery the hard way. During his PhD, he handled a snake whose venom was largely unknown. "As far as anyone knew, Stephen's banded snakes were not considered dangerous," Fry says. "I clearly proved this wrong as my body hit the ground seconds after the bite".
Several thousand snakes and more than 20 bites later, Fry, now deputy director of the Australian Venom Research Unit at the University of Melbourne, has gone one better. He now says the vast majority of snakes on the planet are venomous, even some commonly kept as pets.
Fry has spent the past five years exploring caves, climbing trees and scuba-diving for sea snakes, on a mission to catch and milk venom from as many snake species as possible. Along the way he has gained a reputation as a fearless snake wrangler and, more importantly, he has single-handedly rewritten the story of snake venom evolution.
Before Fry came along, the story went something like this. The first snakes evolved from lizards and were small burrowing creatures, less than 1 metre long. Around 60 to 80 million years ago they split into constrictor-style snakes and the advanced snakes, which are further divided into four families: Viperidae (vipers), Elapidae (cobras and coral snakes), Atractaspididae (stiletto snakes) and Colubridae (everything else).
A deadly ancestor
Leaving aside the colubrids, most of which were thought to have nothing more dangerous than slightly toxic saliva, venom was assumed to have evolved independently in each of the other three families, after they split off from their non-venomous ancestors. In these three there were thought to be a grand total of around 500 venomous species, all of which gained their venom by developing increasingly nasty saliva. Some scientists suspected there had been a common venomous ancestor to all snakes but no one had found any evidence to support the idea.
Fry began his venom-collecting mission in 2001. It was dangerous work. That year, Fry lost a friend and colleague to a snakebite, and frequently gets bitten himself. "It happens, but it doesn't make me nervous; it's all part of the job," he says, pointing out that he never goes anywhere without a doctor and a supply of antivenom.
Between trips around Africa, Australia and the South Pacific, Fry set to work analysing the venoms he had collected and the glands that produced them. The idea was to create a phylogeny - an evolutionary tree based on physical similarities - of different species of snakes and their lizard relatives.
Snake venom is a mixture of toxic proteins, so to find which proteins are produced by which snakes he sequenced messenger RNA from the cells that make up the venom glands. He then compared his results with an existing snake phylogeny created by Nicholas Vidal at the National Museum in Paris, France. Vidal had traced snake evolution through DNA extracted from liver tissue, so Fry was able to check that the similarities he'd found between venoms really did reflect evolutionary relationships. Finally, he compared his new evidence to the fossil record.
Fry's phylogeny, published in the journal Nature in February this year, was to overturn everything scientists thought they knew about snake venom. Similarities between the messenger RNA of venom glands of advanced snakes and venomous lizards revealed that these glands did not evolve independently in three snake families, or even in a common snake ancestor, but much earlier, in a lizard ancestor 200 million years ago. Venom evolved only once, in the common ancestor of all snakes plus some other reptiles, including the Komodo dragon, the green iguana and the Gila monster.
What's more, venom didn't evolve from ever more toxic saliva but from what Fry calls "recruitment events". Rather than tweaking proteins already expressed in their saliva, snakes recruited and altered cells from other parts of the body including the brain, eye, lung, heart, liver, muscle, ovary and testis. Over generations these proteins, usually involved in key biological processes such as blood clotting or regulating blood pressure, were mutated into more potent varieties and concentrated into catastrophic overdoses. The common ancestor had nine such toxins in its venom. Modern snakes have recruited 17 more.
The upshot of all this is that while the supposedly non-venomous colubrids were widely believed to have only mildly toxic saliva, Fry's work shows that they actually possess true venom. In fact, Fry has found snakes in pet stores whose venom glands "have enough poison in them to kill a human". The venom of the rat snake, for example, a common choice of pet, contains a neurotoxin which is as potent as the cobra equivalent. Fortunately for would-be pet owners, the rat snake has no front fangs, leaving these snakes with a rather crude venom-delivery system. Garter snakes, American racers and radiated rat snakes drip venom from their back teeth and even if you stuck your hand down a snake's throat you would never get a deadly bite. What's more, these snakes are primarily interested in smaller prey than humans, and what is lethal to a 2-gram frog may be fairly harmless to a 70-kilogram human.
According to evolutionary ecologist Martin Kreitman of the University of Chicago, Fry's findings shed a new light on the snake evolutionary tree. "It means that venom may have evolved first, and that what separates other advanced snakes from the colubrids are simply more advanced delivery systems for injecting the venom," he says.
That implies that snakes which crush their prey, such as king snakes, pythons and boas, may have lost their venom as they evolved to kill by constriction. Fry has found evidence that some snakes are now "evolving out" certain venom components, perhaps because it takes a huge amount of energy to create them. The venom of the marbled sea snake, for example, has become only 1 to 20 per cent as toxic as that of similar species since it began to feed exclusively on fish eggs, rather than fish.
"The vast majority of the colubrids are perfectly safe," says Fry, but be careful of any unusual snakes for sale from Asia, Madagascar and Latin America. Previously sold as pets, the olive sand snake has huge venom glands and big teeth, for example, and although the Egyptian cat snake only has small rear fangs, it is as toxic as a cobra - and there's no antivenom.
Caution at the pet store is not the only spin-off from Fry's work. Snakebites account for tens of thousands of deaths each year in South America, Africa, the Middle East and south-east Asia. The more venoms that are catalogued and understood, the greater the chance of the right antivenom being available at the right time.
Snake venoms are also making a positive contribution to human health as a source of new drugs. Captopril, developed from the venom of a lancehead viper, is one of the most widely used medications for high blood pressure. A promising new drug from the venom of the Gila monster, marketed as Byetta, may soon start stabilising the blood sugar of people with diabetes. Researchers at the University of South Australia, Adelaide, and elsewhere are researching the venom of a number of deadly Australian snakes which appears to stunt the growth of tumours by disrupting their blood supply.
In addition to 450 elapids, vipers and atractaspidids, there are over 2000 colubrids, accounting for over half the snake species on the planet. Fry estimates that well over 2000 species are venomous, and if he's right that's a lot of potential new molecules that could work as drugs.
The Stephen's banded snake that bit Fry early in his PhD turned out to immobilise its prey using a hormone that is almost identical to one that is used in the human body to regulate blood pressure. Fry recently patented the venom component that does this in both Stephen's banded snake and the inland taipan and hopes it will one day be used to treat patients with congestive heart failure. There may be many more potential drugs waiting in the wings.
Despite Fry's success, don't expect a mad rush of scientists to join him in the field. "It's a dangerous job," says Kreitman. "Fry is truly a modern adventurer, one of a bunch of guys who think it's great to travel to the most remote places in the world and risk death."
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 51-53
Patrick Barry
28 September 2006
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
Why we are here
If retrocausality is real, it might even explain why life exists in the universe - exactly why the universe is so "finely tuned" for human habitation. Some physicists search for deeper laws to explain this fine-tuning, while others say there are millions of universes, each with different laws, so one universe could quite easily have the right laws by chance and, of course, that's the one we're in.
Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney, suggests another possibility: the universe might actually be able to fine-tune itself. If you assume the laws of physics do not reside outside the physical universe, but rather are part of it, they can only be as precise as can be calculated from the total information content of the universe. The universe's information content is limited by its size, so just after the big bang, while the universe was still infinitesimally small, there may have been wiggle room, or imprecision, in the laws of nature.
And room for retrocausality. If it exists, the presence of conscious observers later in history could exert an influence on those first moments, shaping the laws of physics to be favourable for life. This may seem circular: life exists to make the universe suitable for life. If causality works both forwards and backwards, however, consistency between the past and the future is all that matters. "It offends our common-sense view of the world, but there's nothing to prevent causal influences from going both ways in time," Davies says. "If the conditions necessary for life are somehow written into the universe at the big bang, there must be some sort of two-way link."
Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd like to take back an unfortunate voicemail message, or rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make yourself the winner.
Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible - what's done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you might change the circumstances by which your parents met, derailing the key event that led to your birth.
Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the door remains wide open for a demonstration.
It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed - and that is a huge if - it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.
Dating back to Newton's laws of motion, the equations of physics are generally "time symmetric" - they work as well for processes running backwards through time as forwards. The situation got really strange in the early 20th century when Einstein devised his theory of relativity, with its four-dimensional fabric of space-time. In this model, our sense that history is unfolding is an illusion: the past, present and future all exist seamlessly in an unchanging "block" universe. "If you have the block universe view, the future and the past are not any different, so there's no reason why you can't have causes from the future just as you have causes from the past," says David Miller of the Centre for Time at the University of Sydney in Australia.
With the advent of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, the relative timing of particles and events became even less relevant. "Real temporal order in general, for quantum mechanics, is not important," says Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna, Austria. By the 1940s, researchers were exploring the possibility of time-reversed phenomena. Richard Feynman lent credibility to the idea by proposing that particles such as positrons, the antimatter equivalent of electrons, are simply normal particles travelling backwards in time. Feynman later expanded this idea with his mentor, John Wheeler of Princeton University. Together they worked out a theory of electrodynamics based on waves travelling forwards and backwards in time. Any proof of reverse causality, however, remained elusive.
Fast forward to 1978, when Wheeler proposed a variation on the classic double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics. Send photons through a barrier with two slits in it, and choose whether to detect the photons as waves or particles. If you put up a screen behind the slits, you will get a pattern of light and dark bands, as if each photon travels through both slits and interferes with itself, like a wave. If, on the other hand, you take a snapshot of the slits themselves, you will find each photon passes through one slit or the other: it is forced to pick a path, like a particle. But, Wheeler asked, what if you wait until just after the photon has passed the slits to make your choice? In theory, you could suddenly raise the screen to expose two cameras behind it, one trained on each slit. It would seem that you can affect where the photon went, and whether it behaved like a wave or particle, after the fact.
In 1986, Carroll Alley at the University of Maryland, College Park, found a way to test this idea using a more practical set-up: an interferometer which lets a photon take either one path or two after passing through a beam splitter. Sure enough, the photon's path depended on a choice made after the photon had to "make up its mind". Other groups have confirmed similar results, and at first blush this appears to show the present affecting the past. Most physicists, however, take the view that you can't say which path the photon took before the measurement is made. In other words, still no unambiguous evidence for retrocausality.
That's where John Cramer comes in. In the mid-1980s, working at the University of Washington, Seattle, he proposed the "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, one of many attempts to relate the mathematics of quantum theory to the real world (New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p 30). It says particles interact by sending and receiving physical waves that travel forwards and backwards through time. This June, at a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Cramer proposed an experiment that can at last test for this sort of retrocausal influence. It combines the wave-particle effects of double slits with other mysterious quantum properties in an all-out effort to send signals to the past.
The experiment builds on work done in the late 1990s in Anton Zeilinger's lab, when he was at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Researcher Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were "entangled", or linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same wave-or-particle behaviour as one another. Using a crystal, Dopfer converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam were entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed through a double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through a lens to a movable detector which could sense a photon in two different positions.
The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively images the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while in the other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer showed that measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced its twin in the other beam to be measured in the same way.
To use this set-up to send a signal, it needs to work without a coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame University in Indiana, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs. The double slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a set-up might let you send a signal from one detector to another instantaneously - a highly controversial claim, since it would seem to demonstrate faster-than-light travel.
If you can do that, says Cramer, why not push it to be better-than-instantaneous, and try to make the signal arrive before it was sent? His extra twist is to run the photons you choose how to measure through several kilometres of coiled-up fibre-optic cable, thereby delaying them by microseconds (see Diagram). This delay means that the other beam will arrive at its detector before you make your choice. However, since the rules of quantum mechanics are indifferent to the timing of measurements, the state of the other beam should correspond to how you choose to measure the delayed beam. The effect of your choice can be seen, in principle, before you have even made it.
That's the idea anyway. What will the experimenters actually see? Cramer says they could control the movable detector so that it alternates between measuring wave-like and particle-like behaviour over time. They could compare that to the pattern from the beam that wasn't delayed and was recorded on a sensor from a digital camera. If this consistently shifts between an interference pattern and a smooth single-particle pattern a few microseconds before the respective choice is made on the delayed photons, that would support the concept of retrocausality. If not, it would be back to the drawing board.
Cramer says the plan is to do the instantaneous signalling experiment first, to iron out technical glitches from noise or errors in photon tracking, which would wreck the retrocausality experiment. Only after performing that would they add in the delay cables. "This experiment, if successful, would bring retrocausality into the macroscopic realm," says Cramer.
Other experts are supportive of the idea but sceptical of what it might mean. "It would be important to perform such an experiment just because of curiosity about interpretations," says Brukner. "If you accept the transactional interpretation, then this experiment would show a retrocausal influence." Cramer agrees it is speculative, but says the experiment is our best shot at seeing retrocausality in action. Because of the implications he is cautious, but still positive. "I don't see any show stopper yet," he says.
If the experiment does show evidence for retrocausation, it would open the door to some troubling paradoxes. If you could see the effects of your choice before you make it, could you then make the opposite choice and subvert the laws of nature? Some researchers have suggested retrocausality can only occur in limited circumstances in which not enough information is available for you to contradict the results of an experiment.
Another way to resolve this is to say that even if the present can influence the past, it cannot change it. The fact that your hair is shorter today has as much influence on your going to the barber yesterday as the other way around, yet you can't change that decision. "You wouldn't be able to talk about altering, but you could talk about causing or affecting," says Phil Dowe, an expert on causation at the University of Queensland in Australia. While it would mean we cannot change the past, it also implies that we cannot change the future.
If all that gives you a headache, then consider this: if retrocausality does exist, it says something profound about how the universe works. "It has the potential to solve what is one of the biggest problems in modern physics," says Huw Price, head of Sydney's Centre for Time. It goes back to quantum entanglement and "nonlocality" - one particle instantaneously affecting another, even from the other side of the galaxy. That doesn't sit well with relativity, which states that nothing can travel faster than light. Still, the latest experiments confirm that one particle can indeed instantaneously affect the other (New Scientist, 18 June 2005, p 32). Physicists argue that no information is transmitted this way: whether the spin of a particle is up or down, for instance, is random and can't be controlled, and thus relativity is not violated.
Retrocausality offers an alternative explanation. Measuring one entangled particle could send a wave backwards through time to the moment at which the pair was created. The signal would not need to move faster than light; it could simply retrace the first particle's path through space-time, arriving back at the spot where the two particles were emitted. There, the wave can interact with the second particle without violating relativity. "Retrocausation is a nice, simple, classical explanation for all this," Dowe says.
While the jury is out awaiting the results of Cramer's experiment, some researchers expect reverse causality will play an increasingly important role in our understanding of the universe. "I'm going with my gut here," says Avshalom Elitzur, a physicist and philosopher at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, "but I believe that when we finally find the theory we're all looking for, a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, it will involve retrocausality." If it also involves winning yesterday's lottery, Cramer won't be telling.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 28 September 2006, page 36-39
Comment: This is just another variation on Wheeler's "Eye creating the past". But the main point is that those who are discussing it apply the standard quantum theory, a theory that is contradictory and ignores facts of real life (it can not even define what "measurement" is).
See: Introduction to "Quantum fractals on n-spheres. Clifford algebra approach"
WASHINGTON - The same brain circuits are involved when obese people fill their stomachs as when drug addicts think about drugs, a finding that suggests overeating and addiction may be linked, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.
The finding may help in creating better treatments for obesity -- a growing problem in the United States and elsewhere.
"We wanted to know why, when people are already full, why people are still eating a lot," said Dr. Gene-Jack Wang of Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York.
"We were able to simulate the process that takes place when the stomach is full, and for the first time we could see the pathway from the stomach to the brain that turns 'off' the brain's desire to continue eating."
Wang and colleagues tested seven obese volunteers who had been fitted with a gastric stimulator -- a device that tricks the body into thinking the stomach is full, a state known as satiety.
They used a positron emission tomography or PET scan to see which parts of the brain activated when the stimulator was activated. They also carefully questioned their volunteers, all of whom were very obese, about why and when they overate.
"We thought the activated area (of the brain) must be in the satiety center, which we learned in medical school is supposed to be in the hypothalamus," Wang said in a telephone interview.
But they did not see activity there.
"We saw a lot of activity in all areas of the brain, especially in the hippocampus. That region is related to learning, memory and is also related to a lot of things such as sensory and motor impulse and emotional behavior," Wang said.
Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Wang and colleagues said the hippocampus was 18 percent more active when the gastric stimulator was on.
The stimulators also sent messages of satiety to brain circuits in the orbitofrontal cortex and striatum, which have been linked to craving and desire in cocaine addicts.
"This provides further evidence of the connection between the hippocampus, the emotions, and the desire to eat, and gives us new insight into the mechanisms by which obese people use food to soothe their emotions," said Wang.
The volunteers were all genuinely hungry -- they had been fasting for 16 or 17 hours when the PET scans were run. The stimulator succeeded in making them feel less hungry, Wang said.
But the surprise was in which brain circuits it used in doing so.
"It was very similar to a study on when cocaine abusers, when they think of cocaine, they have a craving for cocaine," he said.
"This new pathway should be explored in further studies to determine if there are any implications for treating or preventing obesity."
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Almost half of the European Union population continues to have misconceptions about the ways in which HIV/AIDS can be spread, the European Commission said Monday.
A survey by the EU executive found that although many know that sharing needles, receiving infected blood and having unprotected sex were the three most prominent ways to get infected, 45 percent also believed donating blood, sharing glasses and sitting on a toilet seat could spread the disease.
Only 40 percent knew the virus could not be passed by kissing on the mouth.
"We must not lose sight of the fact that HIV/AIDS is still one of the biggest preventable killers worldwide," said Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou. "I am most worried about the decreasing attention for prevention."
Particular concern centers on the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004. "More needs to be done, in particular to inform the citizens of new EU member states, where the epidemic is still strong, and which border the countries where the epidemic is on the rise," Kyprianou said.
Those tending to have the highest knowledge of the disease were urban young people, but despite their high level of awareness, the report found them taking fewer precautions compared with four years ago.
"We have to promote education, the use of sterile needles and syringes, and especially safer sex as complacency leads in particular the young to underestimate the potential risk," said Kyprianou.
The survey was conducted from Sept. 2 to Oct. 6 and Nov. 5 to Dec. 7 of 2005 with interviews of more than 24,000 EU residents ages 15 and up. The margin of error was between 1.9 and 3.1 percentage points.
Last Updated: Tuesday, October 3, 2006 | 7:22 AM ET
The Associated Press
Americans John C. Mather and George F. Smoot won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics on Tuesday for work that helped cement the big-bang theory of the universe.
Mather, 60, works at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and Smoot, 61, works at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California.
Their work was based on measurements done with the help of the NASA-launched COBE satellite in 1989. They were able to observe the universe in its early stages about 380,000 years after it was born.
Ripples in the light they detected also helped demonstrate how galaxies came together over time.
"The very detailed observations that the laureates have carried out from the COBE satellite have played a major role in the development of modern cosmology into a precise science," the academy said in its citation.
By Senta Scarborough and JJ Hensley
The Arizona Republic
10/2/2006 3:22:51 PM
PHOENIX, AZ -- Residents who saw a ball of fire in the sky late Sunday evening near Saguaro Lake witnessed a giant meteor, officials said.
Phoenix and Scottsdale police and Rural/Metro Fire Department dispatchers received calls from residents reporting a plane going down in "a ball of fire." Another caller reported seeing a meteor.
"It was a large ball of flame," Rural/Metro Fire Department spokeswoman Alison Cooper said. "It was very large. It was seen as far as Washington state." advertisement
Kip and Valerie Wachter saw the fireball pass over their heads about 10:15 Sunday evening as they walked north of Pinetop.
"The colors were a bright green, red, white. The size was about three times wider than its length. It seemed to emanate a low, soft swishing sound as it passed overhead," the Wachters wrote in an e-mail to The Republic.
Steve Kates, a Chandler resident and science journalist known as "Dr. Sky," said that description, particularly the noise, was consistent with meteoric activity.
Most meteors visible on earth occur high in the atmosphere and these "shooting stars" are about the size of a grain of dust, said Jeffrey Hall, associate director at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff.
"The great majority are these tiny particles moving through the atmosphere at a high rate of speed," Hall said. "Larger ones tend to be moving more slowly and produce a much larger trail through the sky."
Between 10 and 50 meteor events occur over the Earth each day, according to the American Meteor Society, with the vast majority happening over oceans and out of eyesight. Meteors lose mass and decelerate as they enter the atmosphere, with only the largest slamming into the Earth and forming a crater. Scientists think the Barringer Crater, near Winslow, was formed by an iron meteor about 50,000 years ago.
Kates said a meteorite the size of a human fist could have created the light show West Coast residents witnessed Sunday night.
Rural/Metro responded to the north side of Saguaro Lake but found no sign of damage or destruction from a plane crash, Cooper said. Witnesses reported seeing the meteor travel from southwest to northeast.
Hall said the meteor likely never made it to the ground.
"This is not like a mountain coming into the atmosphere. It's more like the size of a softball," Hall said. "Even something this bright probably burned up completely in the atmosphere."
CHANGING storm patterns caused by global warming could dramatically increase the effects of coastal erosion.
Most models of the effects of global warming on coastlines usually assume that rising sea-levels will affect shorelines uniformly along their length. However, this fails to take account of the extra coastal erosion caused by strong waves from higher numbers of tropical storms, says Jordan Slott at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.
To investigate, Slott and his colleagues modelled how increasingly powerful waves striking the Carolina Capes over the next 200 years would change the shape of the coastline. They assumed that a 2 °C rise in sea surface temperatures would raise wind speeds by 10 per cent.
Rather than eroding the shore uniformly, the team found that the waves removed sand from the beaches in some regions and re-deposited it elsewhere. Significantly, the sea encroached some areas 10 times further than would be expected from rising water levels alone (Geophysical Research Letters, vol 33, p L18404).
Slott points out that some of the fastest-growing communities in North Carolina are building near the coast. "We want those involved in managing coastlines - and the people living there - to realise that the story is more complicated than they might think," says Slott.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 20
WASHINGTON - A bad storm in Alaska last October generated an ocean swell that broke apart a giant iceberg near Antarctica six days later, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.
The waves traveled 8,300 miles to destroy the iceberg, said Douglas MacAyeal of the University of Chicago and Emile Okal at Northwestern University.
Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, they said their study shows how weather in one region can affect events far away.
"One of the things we're debating in the world right now is whether global warming might increase the storminess in the oceans," MacAyeal said in a statement.
"The question we then pose is: Could global storminess have an influence on the Antarctic ice sheet that had never been thought of?"
The researchers were watching icebergs using satellite images, and saw that on a clear, calm day last October, a big iceberg known as B15A broke into half a dozen pieces.
MacAyeal and colleagues had put seismometers and other instruments on the 60 mile long iceberg and on Antarctica's Ross Ice Shelf.
"We are trying to figure out how the icebergs are sort of making music when various phenomena that we think are linked to the cracking of iceberg masses takes place," Okal said.
So when they saw B15A break up, they persuaded other researchers in Antarctica to fly over to the beg and get their instruments.
The seismometer record showed that although it was mild and clear, the iceberg had been moving up and down and from side to side.
"I was surprised at the level of amplitude that we were recording," Okal said. The researchers figured a storm somewhere may have generated waves, which are known to travel long distances.
They did some calculations and saw the swell must have come from more than 8,000 miles or 13,500 km away.
"Our jaws dropped," MacAyeal said. "We looked in the Pacific Ocean and there, 13,500 kilometers away, six days earlier, was the winter season's first really big, nasty storm that developed and lasted for about a day and a half in the Gulf of Alaska."
They looked at records from wave buoys in between.
"We saw that the waves in Alaska were about 35 feet (10 meters) tall and then two days later they were down to 15 feet
as they passed Hawaii on their way south," MacAyeal said.
And three days later, a sensitive seismometer on Pitcairn Island in the south Pacific recorded the waves' passage.
"We think that B15A was in the right position where these waves would be fatal to it," MacAyeal said. "The iceberg shattered like a gracile wine glass being sung to by a heavy soprano."
Time: Tuesday, October 3, 2006 at 00:07:37 (UTC)
Location: 44.329°N, 68.174°W
Depth: 5 km (3.1 miles) set by location program
Region: MAINE
Distances: - 7 km (4 miles) SSE (156°) from Bar Harbor, ME
- 36 km (22 miles) SE (138°) from Ellsworth, ME
- 56 km (35 miles) ESE (119°) from Bucksport, ME
- 72 km (45 miles) SE (138°) from Bangor, ME
- 303 km (188 miles) ENE (59°) from Manchester, NH
- 325 km (202 miles) NE (46°) from Boston, MA
Paris, France - Ozone measurements made by ESA's Envisat satellite have revealed the ozone loss of 40 million tonnes on 2 October 2006 has exceeded the record ozone loss of about 39 million tonnes for 2000. Ozone loss is derived by measuring the area and the depth of the ozone hole. The size of this year's ozone hole is 28 million square km, nearly as large as the record ozone hole extension during 2000, and the depth of the ozone hole is around 100 Dobson Units, rivalling the record low ozone values in 1998.
This year's record ozone loss was reached because these two measurements occurred during the same time period. (A Dobson unit is a unit of measurement that describes the thickness of the ozone layer in a column directly above the location being measured.)
"Such significant ozone loss requires very low temperatures in the stratosphere combined with sunlight. This year's extreme loss of ozone can be explained by the temperatures above Antarctica reaching the lowest recorded in the area since 1979," ESA Atmospheric Engineer Claus Zehner said.
Ozone is a protective layer found about 25 kilometres above us mostly in the stratospheric stratum of the atmosphere that acts as a sunlight filter shielding life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays. Over the last decade the ozone level has lowered by about 0,3% per year on a global scale, increasing the risk of skin cancer, cataracts and harm to marine life.
The thinning of the ozone is caused by the presence of pollutants in the atmosphere such as chlorine, originating from man-made pollutants like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which have still not vanished from the air despite being banned under the Montreal Protocol (1987).
During the southern hemisphere winter, the atmospheric mass above the Antarctic continent is kept cut off from exchanges with mid-latitude air by prevailing winds known as the polar vortex. This leads to very low temperatures, and in the cold and continuous darkness of this season, polar stratospheric clouds are formed that contain chlorine.
As the polar spring arrives, the combination of returning sunlight and the presence of polar stratospheric clouds leads to splitting of chlorine compounds into highly ozone-reactive radicals that break ozone down into individual oxygen molecules. A single molecule of chlorine has the potential to break down thousands of molecules of ozone.
The ozone hole, first recognised in 1985, typically persists until November or December, when the winds surrounding the South Pole (polar vortex) weaken, and ozone-poor air inside the vortex is mixed with ozone-rich air outside it.
Envisat, the largest Earth observation satellite ever built, can localise ozone depletion and track its changes, enabling the rapid estimation of UV radiation as well as providing forecasting. The three atmospheric instruments aboard Envisat are the Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Cartography (SCIAMACHY), the global ozone monitoring by occultation of stars (GOMOS) sensor and the Michelson interferometer for passive atmospheric sounding (MIPAS).
In the framework of GMES (Global Monitoring of the Environment and Security), ESA has backed a project named TEMIS (Tropospheric Emission Monitoring Internet Service) that provides operational ozone and UV radiation monitoring based on SCIAMACHY and GOME-1 data. The ozone-monitoring data provided by these instruments span a time period of 11 years, which will be extended by the upcoming MetOp satellite series.
The first MetOp satellite in the series of three is scheduled to be launched in 2006 and will assist climate researchers in monitoring ozone levels and other atmospheric parameters. MetOp - Europe's first polar-orbiting satellite and a mission dedicated to operational meteorology - will include a next-generation ozone-monitoring instrument called GOME-2, intended to guarantee continuity of observation of this vital environmental factor well into the following decades.
"Long-term measurements of ozone levels are of key importance for being able to monitor the ozone's predicted recovery, which is currently estimated to take place by around 2060," Zehner said.
MOUNT Zeppelin on the Arctic island of Ny-Alesund, part of Norway, is a watchtower of climate change. Instruments on its summit consistently detect the world's highest concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Now it is recording an alarming surge in a far more powerful greenhouse gas, called HFC134a. Just one molecule has a warming effect more than a thousand times that of a molecule of CO2.
Since the ban on the chemically related CFCs, HFC134a has been manufactured in ever growing quantities for use in air conditioning systems in cars and buildings. The Norwegian Institute for Air Research says concentrations of the gas above Mount Zeppelin doubled between 2001 and 2004.
"This gas has a warming effect on the planet more than a thousand times that of CO2"
Manufacturers of air conditioners say their systems are designed to prevent leaks. "The rapid increase shows that whatever the industry claims, the gases are not being contained," says Chris Rose of the Multisectoral Initiative on Potent Industrial Greenhouse Gases, based in London.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 6
Annalee Newitz
30 September 2006
NewScientist.com news service
IT IS one of the biggest corporate scandals of the year: Hewlett-Packard chairman Patricia Dunn allegedly enlisted private investigators to spy on members of the HP board and several journalists to figure out who was leaking boardroom secrets. The investigators are said to have tricked reps at phone company AT&T into handing over the call records of their targets. Dunn has now resigned and California's Attorney General is considering bringing criminal charges.
While HP's top brass has been grabbing headlines, hundreds of corporations are routinely spying on their employees without attracting media attention.
Sometimes companies keep tabs on employees by hiding cameras in lavatories, or tracking company cars using hidden GPS devices. Most often, however, corporate surveillance consists of logging everything employees do on their computers, from instant messaging, to emailing to browsing the web. Such wholesale monitoring is commonplace at firm such as household products maker Procter & Gamble, Bank of America, net giants Yahoo and Google, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente. And people are seldom told they are being watched.
Meanwhile, an increasingly mobile workforce is blurring the line between work and private time: log into work computers from home and employers can track what blogs you create, sign into or post to, or what you write on newsgroups, even outside work hours. Suddenly, online private lives are becoming company business.
Kaiser spokesman Matthew Schiffgens thinks workplace internet monitoring by IT departments is fair enough. "If something you're doing [on your work PC] isn't related to work, you shouldn't do it," he says. Yahoo's employee handbook echoes this: "Management, or a designee, may review or monitor email messages and traffic, review records of telephone usage, and inspect the contents of file cabinets, disk drives, desks, offices, etc (even if locked)."
According to Jeremy Gruber, legal director of the National Workrights Institute based in Princeton, New Jersey, US companies can legally watch everything employees do - and only two states require employers to tell workers they are under surveillance. Yet there are laws that prevent employers from listening to employees' personal phone calls made at work. So why no such protection for employees who might send a personal email or check an online auction's status during their lunch break?
"Legislatures are slow to address changes in technologies," Gruber says. "There's simply been no federal response to the problem of computer monitoring."
In this regulatory vacuum, a sizable industry has sprung up to offer software that monitors employees. One leader in the field, Wavecrest Computing of Melbourne, Florida, sells a product called Cyfin that tracks everything employees do online. Clients include oil giant ExxonMobil, UK telecoms firm BT and the US Department of Justice. Wavecrest spokesman Dennis McCabe says Procter & Gamble is also one of its largest customers. "They watch all 100,000 of their employees around the world with our products," McCabe says. Wavecrest's product could also help P&G managers prepare regular reports on what kinds of websites employees are visiting, and can also provide detailed analyses of unproductive workers.
Sandstorm Enterprises of Malden, Massachusetts, markets a sophisticated monitor called Net Intercept that watches all network traffic, not just web usage. However, Sandstorm chief James Van Bokkelen says it's impossible for IT managers to watch everything; instead, they focus on gathering evidence on the few individuals who are already a problem, sometimes resulting in firings. "Employers have their lists of suspects," he says.
Companies use more devious means than just software, though, as Clifton Swigert, a former employee of West Virgina power company Allegheny Electric, knows to his cost. He was fired after anonymously posting some views about the company in a Yahoo discussion forum. "It was the most horrific thing I ever experienced," recalls Swigert. "I had perfect attendance for 13 years at the plant."
Anonymous no more
Swigert had vented his frustration about the company's retirement programme, and admits he "used some poor language" to complain about a diversity workshop. What he said may have offended some, but he wrote it anonymously, used his own computer and wrote long after work hours. The board where he posted was specifically for discussions of Allegheny Electric, and many of the hundreds of comments left by other people were also derogatory and critical.
Nevertheless, Allegheny decided to track down the anonymous poster and sue them. The lawsuit meant Allegheny could subpoena Yahoo and obtain Swigert's real name, but once they had it they dropped the lawsuit and fired him. In a counter-suit filed last year, Swigert's attorneys claimed this action was an abuse of legal process, but there has been no ruling yet.
At issue here is a special kind of US subpoena for "subscriber information" that opens the door for cases like Swigert's. It requires online service providers to supply lawyers with a subscriber's real name and address. The catch is that neither the lawyers nor the service provider are required to notify the subscriber that this information has been revealed. So some may be fired without ever knowing why, says Paul Levy, an attorney with civil liberties group Public Citizen. Others may know why, says Levy, but since they never get representation their cases go unreported.
Of course, another place where companies can track employees' activities outside the office is on blogs, and it is becoming more common for firms to issue a "blog policy" to employees, detailing what dirty washing the company doesn't want aired. Bank of America spokeswoman Lisa Kopp says personal blogs that breach company policy can lead to a person being fired.
Blogging policies have become widespread in the wake of several high-profile cases in Silicon Valley in which bloggers lost their jobs. Among those was Joyce Park, fired by social networking site Friendster two years ago. Park is the author of a popular blog called Troutgirl, which covers everything from high-tech issues to Park's cat. She marvels at the weirdness of the experience. "I was taken to a room, told it was a termination meeting, and told the reason was blogging," she recalls. "I asked what they objected to and they wouldn't tell me. I really just have no idea what I might have said."
Another blogger fired around the same time was Mark Jen, who lost his job at Google. He's still not sure what he said, though the company did ask him to take two Google-related posts off his blog shortly before his firing. He took the posts down right away, but apparently that wasn't enough.
Not that Google - which runs the blog engine Blogspot - is against blogging. Karen Wickre, editor of Google's corporate blog, says the firm likes to hire bloggers because it's "nice to know that they can put a couple of sentences together". So does does Google makes a regular habit of reading people's blogs before hiring them? "We're always looking for good people with talent," Wickre says. "I'm not willing to make a blanket statement that blogs don't matter."
Others think blogs are beginning to matter a whole lot. David Nachman of background-screening company HireRight based in Irvine, California, agrees with Wickre that a job-seeker's blog might affect their chances of getting hired. Traditionally, HireRight has only provided criminal record checks and checks on qualifications and experience, but Nachman says interest in online activity is growing. "We don't offer this service yet, but it's absolutely already happening. Employers are going to blogs and social networking sites when hiring."
In effect this means that online monitoring may be starting before employees even sign their contracts. While some will find this shocking, many tech workers express a kind of fatalism. "There are always ways to find out what individuals are doing, and sometimes that results in people getting fired," says IT administrator John Gilbert. "Everywhere I've worked, there's never been any privacy."
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 30-31
The US may be the Wild West of workplace monitoring, but the UK and Australia aren't far behind. Carsten Sorensen, an expert on high-tech workplaces at the London School of Economics, warned recently that employee surveillance is on the rise. Bosses are using CCTV, network monitoring, GPS bracelets and even hidden microphones.
The UK's Data Protection Act could afford some protections to workers, as it limits the disclosure of stored data such as records of websites employees are visiting.
However, UK watchdog group Privacy International says that so far "the act has been ineffective". Bloggers are at risk, too: last year, Joe Gordon was sacked from bookshop Waterstone's after 11 years there, for things he posted on his satirical blog.
In Australia, legislation in New South Wales requires employers to tell employees if they are under any kind of surveillance. However, the law does not regulate the level or type of spying, it just says that employees must be told about it. Electronic surveillance of Australian workers is on the rise, according to Canberra-based internet research firm Caslon Analytics, but there are as yet no national laws that limit monitoring of employees' use of email and the internet.
Drug Policy Alliance
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
A bill approved by the U.S. House yesterday would require school districts around the country to establish policies making it easier for teachers and school officials to conduct wide scale searches of students. These searches could take the form of pat-downs, bag searches, or strip searches depending on how administrators interpret the law.
The Student Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (HR 5295) would require any school receiving federal funding--essentially every public school--to adopt policies allowing teachers and school officials to conduct random, warrantless searches of every student, at any time, on the flimsiest of pretexts. Saying they suspect that one student might have drugs could give officials the authority to search every student in the building.
DPA supporters and others who opposed this outrageous bill called their members of Congress this week to express their disapproval. However, House leaders circumvented the usual legislative procedure to bring the bill to a quick vote. It did not pass through the committee process, but went straight to the House floor. There, it was passed by a simple voice vote, so constituents cannot even find out how their Representative voted.
The bill moves next to the Senate, but it is unlikely to be considered there this session.
Bill Piper, DPA's director of national affairs, said, "It looks like this bill was rushed to the House floor to help out the sponsor, Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY/4th), who is in a tight re-election race. This vote lets him say he's getting things done in Washington. But I would be surprised to see a similar push in the Senate."
HR 5295 is opposed in its current form by several groups, including the Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, the ACLU, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Parent Teacher Association, the American Association of School Administrators, and the National School Boards Association.
DPA will be watching the bill so that if and when it does come up again, this wide array of opponents can mobilize to stop it.
by William Rivers Pitt
OpEdNews.com
September 29, 2006
I have been told a thousand times at least, in the years I have spent reporting on the astonishing and repugnant abuses, lies and failures of the Bush administration, to watch my back. "Be careful," people always tell me. "These people are capable of anything. Stay off small planes, make sure you aren't being followed." A running joke between my mother and me is that she has a "safe room" set up for me in her cabin in the woods, in the event I have to flee because of something I wrote or said.
I always laughed and shook my head whenever I heard this stuff. Extreme paranoia wrapped in the tinfoil of conspiracy, I thought. This is still America, and these Bush fools will soon pass into history, I thought. I am a citizen, and the First Amendment hasn't yet been red-lined, I thought.
Matters are different now. It seems, perhaps, that the people who warned me were not so paranoid. It seems, perhaps, that I was not paranoid enough. Legislation passed by the Republican House and Senate, legislation now marching up to the Republican White House for signature, has shattered a number of bedrock legal protections for suspects, prisoners, and pretty much anyone else George W. Bush deems to be an enemy.
So much of this legislation is wretched on the surface. Habeas corpus has been suspended for detainees suspected of terrorism or of aiding terrorism, so the Magna Carta-era rule that a person can face his accusers is now gone. Once a suspect has been thrown into prison, he does not have the right to a trial by his peers. Suspects cannot even stand in representation of themselves, another ancient protection, but must accept a military lawyer as their defender.
Illegally-obtained evidence can be used against suspects, whether that illegal evidence was gathered abroad or right here at home. To my way of thinking, this pretty much eradicates our security in persons, houses, papers, and effects, as stated in the Fourth Amendment, against illegal searches and seizures.
Speaking of collecting evidence, the torture of suspects and detainees has been broadly protected by this new legislation. While it tries to delineate what is and is not acceptable treatment of detainees, in the end, it gives George W. Bush the final word on what constitutes torture. US officials who use cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment to extract information from detainees are now shielded from prosecution.
It was two Supreme Court decisions, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that compelled the creation of this legislation. The Hamdi decision held that a prisoner has the right of habeas corpus, and can challenge his detention before an impartial judge. The Hamdan decision held that the military commissions set up to try detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.
In short, the Supreme Court wiped out virtually every legal argument the Bush administration put forth to defend its extraordinary and dangerous behavior. The passage of this legislation came after a scramble by Republicans to paper over the torture and murder of a number of detainees. As columnist Molly Ivins wrote on Wednesday, "Of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place."
It seems almost certain that, at some point, the Supreme Court will hear a case to challenge the legality of this legislation, but even this is questionable. If a detainee is not allowed access to a fair trial or to the evidence against him, how can he bring a legal challenge to a court? The legislation, in anticipation of court challenges like Hamdi and Hamdan, even includes severe restrictions on judicial review over the legislation itself.
The Republicans in Congress have managed, at the behest of Mr. Bush, to draft a bill that all but erases the judicial branch of the government. Time will tell whether this aspect, along with all the others, will withstand legal challenges. If such a challenge comes, it will take time, and meanwhile there is this bill. All of the above is deplorable on its face, indefensible in a nation that prides itself on Constitutional rights, protections and the rule of law.
Underneath all this, however, is where the paranoia sets in.
Underneath all this is the definition of "enemy combatant" that has been established by this legislation. An "enemy combatant" is now no longer just someone captured "during an armed conflict" against our forces. Thanks to this legislation, George W. Bush is now able to designate as an "enemy combatant" anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."
Consider that language a moment. "Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called "War on Terror."
If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up.
By writing this essay, I could be deemed an "enemy combatant." It's that simple, and very soon, it will be the law. I always laughed when people told me to be careful. I'm not laughing anymore.
In case I disappear, remember this. America is an idea, a dream, and that is all. We have borders and armies and citizens and commerce and industry, but all this merely makes us like every other nation on this Earth. What separates us is the idea, the simple idea, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are our organizing principles. We can think as we please, speak as we please, write as we please, worship as we please, go where we please. We are protected from the kinds of tyranny that inspired our creation as a nation in the first place.
That was the idea. That was the dream. It may all be over now, but once upon a time, it existed. No good idea ever truly dies. The dream was here, and so was I, and so were you.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.
By John Cox
02 October, 2006
The Florida News-Press
As a historian of Nazi Germany, I have been intrigued by the widespread use of the term "fascist" in public discourse over the last few weeks. Since early August, the Bush Administration has undertaken a coordinated campaign to link "fascism" with political Islam and with Muslim-based opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East.
President Bush claimed that the arrests of terrorist conspirators in England were "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists," and referred to an "Islamic fascism ... totalitarian in nature" in Lebanon and elsewhere.
President Bush claimed that the arrests of terrorist conspirators in England were "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists," and referred to an "Islamic fascism ... totalitarian in nature" in Lebanon and elsewhere.
This raises the question: exactly what is fascism? What is served by the application of this term to Muslim fundamentalists-does this help clarify history or deepen our understanding of current events, which is the goal of historians like myself?
Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "no." There may be a superficial resemblance between European fascism of the first half of the twentieth century-the heyday of those movements-and al-Qaeda and other such groups. They each subscribe to right-wing beliefs and favor violence to achieve their ends. But this is about as deep as the similarities run, and there are many dozens of organizations and ideologies of recent history that share those broad characteristics.
FUZZY USAGE
More instructive are the many differences between fascism and political, fundamentalist Islam. Nationalism is always at the center of fascism, while the Islamist groups seek allegiance along trans-national, religious lines. Groups like Hamas or Hizbullah do not glorify the state, another defining feature of fascism. The European fascists (as well as fascist movements in Latin America and elsewhere) were secular, and only occasionally invoked the symbols or traditions of religion.
While some fascists, like Mussolini, harkened back to the glories of Rome, fascism has always had a modernizing thrust, shrouding its reactionary ideology in rationalism and science. This also sharply distinguishes it from modern fundamentalist Islamists, who exalt Islamic law (their interpretation of it, that is) and long for a return to a "golden age" that never really existed.
Further, the term "Islamic fascism" implies that this new "fascism" is rooted in the Islamic faith, which is patently untrue. And finally, we cannot understand the popular appeal of a group like Hizbullah - which draws much of its support for its nationalist resistance to Israeli policy, especially during the 18-year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon that ended in 2000 - by simply labeling it "fascist."
There have, however, been a handful of political movements in the Middle East that did resemble fascism, such as Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party. But Hussein's regime was militantly secular, and it's also worth remembering that its semi-fascist politics and heinous crimes did not prevent U.S. administrations of the 1980s from providing it with political and economic support. And the term "Islamic fascism" encompasses a large variety of parties and movements that, like Hussein's Ba'athists and bin Laden's al-Qaeda, have little in common, and are often sharply at odds.
MARKETING IRAQ
So what is served by the bandying about of this misleading term? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the true aim is simply to inflame opinion, at a time when support for the war on Iraq is waning. Fewer Americans are willing to accept the linkage, so often suggested by Cheney and others, between the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq. The horrifying human costs of this misguided adventure are also harder for us to ignore. So with the November elections on the horizon, it's time to try out a new strategy to market the war.
"Islamic fascism" also is being used to bludgeon critics of the administration's war against Iraq. Invoking the "fascist" menace, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently accused his critics of "moral and intellectual confusion." He and other Bush spokespeople have linked antiwar sentiment with the appeasement of Hitler by European diplomats in the 1930s, a particularly outrageous parallel.
More than ever, we need reasoned and informed debate and reflection. Overheated and cynical oratory does not help, and we can appreciate the inhumanity of terrorism without equating it with Hitler. And as a historian, I believe we should try to learn more about the true nature and crimes of fascism and Nazism - crimes that are diminished by the indiscriminate use of those terms.
John Cox is assistant professor of European history at Florida Gulf Coast University.
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press
October 3, 2006
MANAGUA, Nicaragua - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld passed on an offer of Venezuelan tobacco, but tried to smoke out the government of President Hugo Chavez on the country's recent military buildup.
"I don't know of anyone threatening Venezuela, anyone in this hemisphere," said Rumsfeld, who is attending a meeting here of Western hemisphere military leaders - many of them concerned about the weapons, jets and helicopters Chavez is buying.
Other countries in the region are worried that the weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists, Rumsfeld told reporters Monday, adding, "I can understand neighbors being concerned."
While he raised questions about the buildup, he also exchanged greetings with Venezuelan defense minister Gen. Raul Isaias Baduel, who also is attending the meeting.
"I have spoken to Mr. Rumsfeld to convince him that he should try smoking Venezuela's good tobacco," Baduel told the Associated Press. "He said he doesn't smoke, that his wife wouldn't let him."
Baduel, who did not meet one-on-one with Rumsfeld, also said his country's recent military spending spree wasn't "an arms race," despite Washington's protests.
Rumsfeld also did not meet with Chavez, who has repeatedly charged that United States is planning to invade his country, a claim American officials dismiss as preposterous. And he said Sunday that he's heard the Bush administration is plotting to assassinate him or topple his regime.
U.S. Army Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, chief of U.S. Southern Command, called the accusation "mindless" and "way over the top." But he also agreed that Venezuela's recent deal to buy roughly $3 billion worth of arms from Russia - including rifles, jet fighters and helicopters - is triggering "more concern from more countries."
Meanwhile, Craddock and other officials said Monday that they don't see a credible threat in Venezuela's call for the creation of an anti-U.S. military coalition with other leftist countries in the region. Craddock said Brazil's defense minister told the gathering he doesn't see a need for a regional military organization.
Gen. Moises Omar Hallesleven, the commander of the Nicaraguan military, told U.S. reporters he is not concerned about the Chavez effort.
Venezuela, he said through an interpreter, has very weak influence in the region. Hallesleven also vowed that as long as he is its leader, the Nicaraguan military will remain apolitical and professional - even if Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega wins the upcoming presidential election.
Chavez grabbed headlines recently when he called Bush "the devil" and slammed U.S. leaders for trying to block his country from taking a seat on the U.N. Security Council.
U.S. officials have long considered Chavez a destabilizing force. And they have suggested that Venezuela would make the Security Council unworkable if the nation were to win its bid against U.S.-backed Guatemala for a rotating council seat.
Rumsfeld, in his formal remarks to the gathering, also made a reference to the other main U.S. antagonist in the region: Cuba.
He said he hoped that one day soon "the final holdout in our hemisphere against the democratic sweep of history will give its citizens the right to choose their own destiny and will participate in our conference."
Rumsfeld also called for more regional cooperation in the fight against terrorism.
"These new challenges can be solved only if we work together to protect our free democratic institutions and to provide economic opportunities for our people," Rumsfeld said.
The military conference, along with a NATO defense ministers meeting and other military visits in the Balkans last week, have largely kept Rumsfeld out of Washington for the past week, where there is renewed debate on his stewardship of the Iraq war.
He said he will not resign, and told reporters he has not read, and likely won't read, the new book, "State of Denial" by Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, that is critical of his stewardship of the war.
SEOUL - South Korea has unveiled an armed robot that it says will able to detect and repel intruders along its heavily armed border with North Korea.
The so-called "Intelligent Surveillance and Guard Robot" uses visual and infra-red detection to distinguish between humans, trees, and vehicles, and can do so from 2.5 miles away during the day and about half that at night.
"Until now, technology allowed these robots to conduct monitoring function[s] only. But [now] our robots can detect suspicious moving objects, literally go after them, and can even fire at them," said Sang-Il Han, principal research engineer at Samsung Techwin.
Once the target is within 10 meters, it will demand a pre-programmed military secret code. If this code is not provided, it could give three possible responses: sound an alarm, fire rubber bullets or open fire with a K-3 machine gun.
Since 2003 South Korea' s government and private sector have invested $5 million each on developing military robots in an attempt to prevent future loss of military manpower - especially important in light of South Korea's dwindling birthrate.
This ten million dollar project is set to be marketed next year. The robots will also be tauted for use in guarding civilian facilities such as airports, power plants and oil pipelines.
The initial price will be around $200,000 per robot and both Korea University and the fourfold conglomerate who teamed up to create the robot - Samsung Techwin Co., Sejin System Co., MediaZen and Sysfo Lab Co. - hope to reach sales of over $200 million in the first year.
PYONGYANG, Oct. 3 (Xinhua) -- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Tuesday announced that it would conduct a nuclear test in the future as war deterrent against the U.S. hostile policy.
In a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry, DPRK said "the field of scientific research of the DPRK will in the future conduct a nuclear test under the condition where safety is firmly guaranteed," the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported.
But the statement did not give specific date or location of the upcoming test.
DPRK "will never use nuclear weapons first but strictly prohibit any threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear transfer," the statement said.
Meanwhile, DPRK also affirmed that it would strive to "realize the denuclearization of the [Korean] peninsula and give impetus to the worldwide nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons."
The statement accused the United States of adopting a hostile policy towards DPRK, saying that's why it must conduct a nuclear test as a way of bolstering war deterrent.
"Under the present situation... the U.S. moves to isolate and stifle the DPRK have reached the worst phase, going beyond the extremity," it said.
"The DPRK can no longer remain an on-looker to the developments," it added.
SEOUL - The main contender to lead the United Nations has expressed confidence he could heal its rift with the United States and push through reforms to make the world body "promise less and deliver more."
South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon, in a telephone interview with AFP on Monday, also stressed the need for the UN to promote global development and protect victims of crimes against humanity.
Ban was speaking hours before the UN Security Council conducts a fourth informal "straw poll" on the successor to
Kofi Annan as secretary general. He topped the previous three polls by a wide margin.
"I'm very anxious to see whether I can come out with the same level of support...I have been encouraged by the very strong and consistent level of support for my candidacy," he said.
Ban denied that the perception of him as a strong US ally would impede efforts to resolve issues such as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programmes.
"That kind of notion is something like Cold War-era understanding. These days the authority and mandate of the secretary general comes from member states."
Ban said a good working relationship with Washington was desirable, but on specific issues he pledged to act as an impartial mediator.
"The US is a very important member state of the UN but the US also needs the UN. The US can work very closely with the UN in promoting its interests, promoting universal values.
"The UN needs very active participation and support from the US. Without this it may be very difficult for the UN to smoothly function."
Ban said his previous work with the world body equipped him to play "a very important harmonious coordinating role."
"I am confident I could heal the rift," he said.
The career diplomat said his mild-mannered and soft-spoken image belies an inner toughness.
"I may look soft from the outside but I have inner strength when it's really necessary. I've always been very decisive.
"In Asian countries humility is regarded as a virtue. Soft-speaking should in no way be regarded as a lack of leadership or commitment."
Ban, 62, said the most urgent issue confronting the UN was "management reform, regaining the trust and confidence of member states and major stakeholders."
He said its activities are overstretched because of the ineffective delivery of some services. "We need to consolidate, coordinate, reduce the overlap between agencies.
"We need to promise less and deliver more."
Ban urged smooth implementation of the millennium development goals to reduce poverty and said the UN's "three pillars" of peace and security, development and human rights are linked.
"Without development you can't ensure peace and stability. It is almost empty words to promote human rights when people have no food and live in abject poverty."
South Korea, which rose from the devastation of war to become the world's 11th largest economy, could play a bridging role, he said.
Ban also urged strong action to protect communities threatened by genocide.
"When a country is not able to protect its own people from crimes against humanity and genocide and prevents the international community from intervening on the excuse of sovereignty, the international community has a responsibility to protect those people from genocide," he said.
He said the Sudanese government must accept the Security Council resolution to deploy a peacekeeping mission in its Darfur region.
"It's very frustrating that the Sudanese government leaders oppose the deployment of blue helmets. I hope Security Council members take more resolute action on this matter."
Ban said he has no plans to sit up to hear the outcome of the fourth straw poll, after an intensive schedule of speeches and interviews. "I need a few hours' sleep."
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 2 - Ban Ki-moon, the foreign minister of South Korea, on Monday virtually assured his selection as the next secretary general of the United Nations, winning overwhelming support in a final informal poll of the Security Council.
The Council scheduled a formal vote for next Monday to make its verdict official, which should lead to Mr. Ban's being elevated to the position of the world's most important international civil servant on Jan. 1.
Secretary General Kofi Annan is to step down Dec. 31 after two five-year terms, and under United Nations procedures, the 15-member Council selects one name and sends it to the 192-member General Assembly for appointment.
Mr. Ban nailed down his selection by winning his fourth straight informal poll, this one with a different colored ballot for the five veto-bearing members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - to show whether any of them were opposed.
In a contest in which the ambassadors had the options of voting "encourage," "discourage" or "no opinion," Mr. Ban won 14 positive votes, no negatives and one "no opinion," from one of the 10 rotating members.
There were objections from permanent members - signaling potential vetoes - against all five of the other active candidates. (One had withdrawn.)
Mr. Ban will inherit the leadership of a global organization with 9,000 workers, a $5 billion annual budget and tasks ranging from education, health care and emergency assistance to areas hit by natural disaster, to peacekeeping in nations emerging from conflicts.
He will also take over at a moment when the United Nations has been shaken by management lapses and scandals, and faces continuing demands to overhaul its procedures. At the same time, it is a moment when the United Nations finds itself back at the center of many of the world's most intractable problems in places like Lebanon, Sudan, Iran, Kosovo and North Korea.
Mr. Ban has said he will devote particular attention to efforts to broker a settlement in the Middle East.
Mr. Ban, 62, is a soft-spoken man who in six months of campaigning around the world has had to learn the Western art of self-promotion after early audiences complained they found his laid-back presentation underwhelming. He still frequently cites his own "humility" in exercising responsibility, but argues that it is an asset that should not be confused with indecisiveness.
In response to concerns about whether he has the strength and presence to be secretary general, he has pointed to his leadership in the weighty and delicate talks aimed at ending the nuclear standoff with North Korea.
Mr. Ban is familiar with the United Nations, where he served as first secretary at the South Korean mission from 1974 to 1978 and was chief assistant to Han Seung-soo, president of the General Assembly in 2001. He has also served as director of the United Nations division at the South Korean Foreign Ministry.
His selection will carry great resonance in South Korea, a country created by the United Nations in 1948 and defended by United Nations-authorized troops in the Korean War.
In his lifetime, South Korea has been a model for development, transformed from a war-torn impoverished country into one of the world's wealthiest.
As a foreign service officer for three decades, Mr. Ban has been a top official in the Korean Embassy in New Delhi and ambassador to Austria. He became foreign minister in January 2004.
He says he first dreamed of becoming a diplomat when, as an 18-year-old student visiting Washington in 1962, he met President Kennedy at the White House.
Mr. Ban has had extensive contact with the United States and is considered politically close to Washington. John R. Bolton, the American ambassador, said after the vote, "The United States is very pleased with the outcome."
Six of the seven candidates were Asian in a year seen as Asia's turn at the top job. The last Asian secretary general was U Thant of Burma, who left office in 1971.
As in the previous three votes, the second finisher on Monday was an Indian, Shashi Tharoor, 50, the under secretary general for public information. He received 10 positives, 3 negatives and 2 "no opinion" votes.
The next four, who trailed far behind, were Vaira Vike-Freiberga, 68, the president of Latvia, the only woman and non-Asian in the race; Ashraf Ghani, 57, a former finance minister of Afghanistan and current chancellor of Kabul University; Surakiart Sathirathai, 47, the deputy to Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister of Thailand who was deposed in a military coup last month; and Prince Zeid al-Hussein, 42, Jordan's ambassador to the United Nations.
Jayantha Dhanapala, 67, of Sri Lanka, a former under secretary general for disarmament, withdrew Friday after drawing only three positive votes in the third balloting.
Ottawa, Canada - Thales Canada has been selected by the Department of National Defence Land Forces to deliver a mini-UAV system based on Elbit's Skylark technology. Thales Canada had already been selected by the Canadian Forces Experimentation Centre (CFEC) for the Silver Fox UAV in 2004.
Virtually undetectable, with its steerable payload (stabilized to provide excellent video quality) and modular design (allows for other payloads to meet Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance requirements), the Skylark offers a very flexible and resourceful system which will provide invaluable "over the hill" visibility to the soldier.
Driven by an electrically powered motor, it has a flight endurance of up to 90 minutes. Designed to be soldier-friendly and highly portable, the Skylark integrates three air vehicles into one backpack and has a ruggedized ground station and communications antenna.
Thales Canada, Systems Division, currently manages two UAV fleets for DND. The Silver Fox UAV, from Advanced Ceramics Research, provided to the Canadian Forces Experimentation Centre, is a modular high performance small UAV to evaluate concepts. With a payload of 4 Kg, an endurance of at least 8 hours and equipped with a specially engineered gasoline engine, this system has been used by each of the three services to explore UAV use.
Thales Canada, Systems Division, caters to DND requirements for Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Critical to the role of performing as a Prime Contractor is understanding the customer's requirements and then matching the best components, including the air vehicle, to provide the premium (value and capability) solution.
Thales is the Prime Contractor for the UK Watchkeeper UAV program, and has recently been awarded a contract by the French defence procurement agency to examine armed UAV concepts.
Secretary of state disingenuously labels book's account of her actions 'incomprehensible'
SHANNON, Ireland - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she cannot recall then-CIA chief George Tenet warning her of an impending al-Qaida attack in the United States, as a new book claims he did two months before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
"What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible," Rice said.
Rice was President Bush's national security adviser in 2001, when Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial" outlines the July 10 meeting in which Tenet said he warned Rice. Cofer Black, the CIA's top counterterror officer, was also present.
"I don't know that this meeting took place, but what I really don't know, what I'm quite certain of, is that it was not a meeting in which I was told there was an impending attack and I refused to respond," Rice said.
Speaking to reporters en route to Saudi Arabia and other stops in the Middle East, Rice said she met with Tenet daily at that point, and has no memory of the wake-up call from Tenet described in the book.
"It kind of doesn't ring true that you have to shock me into something I was very involved in," Rice said.
There was near constant discussion of possible attacks overseas, and high alarm, Rice said.
Ashcroft disappointed
Meanwhile, former Attorney General John Ashcroft said Monday that he should have been notified of any such report dealing with a pending attack on the United States. "It just occurred to me how disappointing it was that they didn't come to me with this type of information," Ashcroft said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"The FBI is responsible for domestic terrorism," Ashcroft said. He said both Tenet and Cofer Black of the CIA should have been aware that he had pressed for a more aggressive policy in going after bin Laden and his followers in the United States and should have briefed him as well. Rice knew of this advocacy, he suggested.
According to the Sept. 11 Commission, Ashcroft was briefed on July 5, 2001, "warning that a significant terrorist attack was imminent." The report noted that the briefing addressed only threats outside the United States.
Woodward wrote that the meeting among Tenet, Rice and Black stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the "starkest warning they had given the White House" on al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and his network.
Tenet asked for the meeting after receiving a disturbing briefing from Black, according to the book.
A former intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Sept. 11 Commission and an earlier joint congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks were both informed of Tenet's and Black's meeting with Rice, when Tenet warned Rice that a significant attack was coming.
Tenet, Black, Rice meeting
In a closed, classified session at CIA headquarters, Tenet told Sept. 11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, the commission's executive director Phil Zelikow and other commission staff about Rice's meeting with Tenet and Black, the official said.
The former intelligence official said the commission kept a transcript of that Jan. 28, 2004, session. A second official familiar with the document, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed its existence.
But though Tenet and Black warned Rice in the starkest terms of the prospects for attack, she brushed them off, Woodward reiterated Monday. He told NBC's "Today" show that Black told him the two men were so emphatic, it amounted to "holding a gun to her head" and doing everything except pulling the trigger.
Black reportedly laid out secret intercepts and other data "showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaida would soon attack the United States." Tenet was so worried that he called Rice from his car and asked to see her right away, the book said.
"Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice," Woodward wrote of the session. "She was polite, but they felt the brush-off."
Rice referred to the session as "the supposed meeting" and noted that it is not part of the independent Sept. 11 Commission's report.
"I remember that George was very worried and he expressed that," Rice told reporters. "We were all very worried because the threat reporting was quite intense. The problem was that it was also quite nebulous."
Rice, who was promoted to secretary of state in Bush's second term, also said she never argued that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should be fired. The book's suggestion that Rumsfeld would not take her calls is "ludicrous," Rice said.
Rumsfeld and Rice are not close, and he is often considered her rival in administration decision making. Woodward wrote that then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card twice tried to get Bush to sack Rumsfeld and replace him with Bush family counselor James A. Baker III, and that both then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and Rice backed the plan.
Woodward interviewed Rice for his new book.
Rice's latest Middle East trip is focused on strengthening support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and other moderate Arab leaders after a series of setbacks for democratic and moderate forces in the region.
Comment: Keep in mind that this is the woman who calls the bombing of the innocent civilians of Lebanon the "birth pangs of democracy in the Middle East." She is probably that rare creature: a true female psychopath, and is certainly a liar.
BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government renewed its emergency powers amid mass kidnappings, dozens of corpses on the streets and the assassination of a high ranking officer in the intelligence service.
As the killings raged on, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki proposed a four-point plan to end the rash of sectarian violence engulfing his country, and which was to be discussed further on Tuesday, a parliamentary source said.
The plan envisions creating new security commissions comprised of representatives of different political, religious and civil society groups.
The proposal was aimed at "putting a stop to the flow of Iraqi blood," said Jalaledin al-Sagir, a senior Shiite member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in
Iraq (SCIRI) party.
The head of the Sunni parliamentary bloc, Adnan al-Dulaimi, told AFP that the latest plan "would be able to put an end to violence and bring stability to Iraq".
"If everyone is honest and keeps to their commitments, it will be positive for the Iraqi people and put an end to the sectarianism. If not, it will be the end of Iraq," said Dulaimi.
The capital's dire security situation was further highlighted by a mass kidnapping carried out by gunmen dressed in military-style fatigues -- the second in as many days.
Of the two dozen people snatched in Sunday's mass kidnapping, 10 of them turned up dead in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Abu Chir, part of the 50 corpses found by police.
Colonel Faris Khalil of Iraqi intelligence was driving along in civilian clothes and an unmarked car on a Baghdad highway, when gunmen roared up next to him and shot him dead, said the interior ministry.
The British and US governments also announced the deaths of three US marines and a British soldier.
For the past six months, Sunni and Shiite death squads have hunted civilians in each other's communities, leaving a grim toll on the streets -- at a rate of 100 dead a day across the country, according to UN and government estimates.
Parliamentarians, meanwhile, have been at loggerheads after revelations Dulaimi's bodyguard had been implicated in a bomb plot against Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, the seat of the government.
In Monday's session, however, parliament speaker Mahmud al-Mashhadani cut off further debate on the subject and forced the fractious deputies to focus on the legislative agenda, including renewing the long-running state of emergency for another month.
But Sunni parliamentarians said the emergency laws needed to be reviewed since they clearly were not improving the situation, alleging that security forces were corrupt.
Even after the measure passed with only 32 deputies out of 275 voting against, Sunni parliamentarian Hussein al-Falluji loudly disputed the action.
"If you don't stop arguing, I will have you ejected," said Mashhadani.
The atmosphere has been tense in parliament after the news of the bomb plot, and several Shiite deputies have called for investigations into Sunni politicians, suggesting they have links with insurgent groups.
The Sunnis riposted that Shiite political parties are sponsoring armed militias responsible for much of the midnight killings across Baghdad.
These shadowy armed groups, many outfitted with government-issue uniforms, carry out assassinations and kidnappings, such as Monday's near the technology university.
Seven government-style pickup trucks pulled up to the Sira computer store in broad daylight and took 14 people, both customers and employees, from the surrounding shops.
The biggest Sunni political party issued a statement accusing militias with official ties of both the computer store kidnapping and Sunday's kidnapping of 26 people from a food processing factory in southwest Baghdad's Amil neighborhood.
"The Iraqi Islamic Party asks how could 26 people, among them women, have been transported from Amil neighborhood to Abu Chir (where their bodies were found) through all those Iraqi and US army checkpoints and patrols?
"This is the bloody work of the terrorist militias that constantly make people experience the color of death and torture," it added.
But while there have been several moves into Sunni insurgent-infested neighborhoods in western and southern Baghdad, coalition forces have been hesitant to enter the teeming Shiite slum of Sadr City.
In other violence across the country on Monday, at least 12 people were killed including three soldiers from the Iraqi army's quick reaction force.
A suicide bomber detonated explosives strapped to his body as he tried to attack a NATO convoy in the Afghan capital Kabul, wounding three foreign soldiers and three civilians, officials said.
The explosion took place on a busy road in eastern Kabul that is frequently used by international troops, Kabul criminal investigation police chief Ali Shah Paktiawal told AFP.
"A suicide bomber tried to attack a foreign troop convoy," said Paktiawal, adding that three passers-by were wounded and that three NATO peacekeepers had minor injuries.
The body of the bomber was in pieces scattered across the area, an AFP reporter said. There were bloodstains on the road and sidewalk. Afghan police and international troops cordoned off the area.
The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) confirmed its convoy was on the road as the explosion took place and that three ISAF soldiers were wounded, an ISAF spokesman, Flight Lieutenant Euan Downie, said.
"We've three ISAF very minor injuries," said Downie, adding that the explosion may have been caused by a "possible suicide" attack or a roadside bomb.
Police chief Paktiawal said his department had arrested an accomplice of the suicide bomber in the same area who was dressed in a military uniform, adding that he was being interrogated.
"He had given a ride to the suicide attacker on a motor bike and he was in the neighbourhood," he said.
"Upon receiving the tip-off we cordoned the whole neighbourhood and arrested the limping terrorist in Afghan army uniform," Paktiawal added.
The attack comes two days after another suicide attack near the Afghan Ministry of Interior, which took 13 lives and wounded around 15.
Cambridge, MD - U.S. researchers say they are creating an intelligent airborne fleet of small, unmanned vehicles for military use. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists and their colleagues at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Boeing Phantom Works in Seattle say such unmanned aerial vehicles would require little human supervision and could automatically monitor their own condition.
The existing UAVs can be easily carried in a backpack and launched by hand, but they typically require a team of trained operators on the ground, and perform only short-term tasks individually rather than in coordinated groups.
However, the prototype of the fleet under development would automatically maintain the "health" of its vehicles -- for example, vehicles would anticipate when they need refueling, and new vehicles would automatically launch to replace lost, damaged, or grounded ones.
MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics Professor Jonathan How, who heads the research team, believes such a fleet of UAVs could one day help U.S. military and security agencies in difficult or dangerous missions, such as search-and-rescue operations, sniper detection, convoy protection and border patrol.
The test platform under development consists of five miniature helicopters, each a little smaller than a seagull.
Washington, DC - The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the United Kingdom of MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $77 million.
The Government of the United Kingdom has requested a possible sale of two MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) aircraft, one Ground Control Station, two Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems, one Mobile Ground Control Station, two Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar (airborne), Ku-Band Communications spares, Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar Spares, engineering support, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, technical assistance, personnel training/equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $77 million.
The United Kingdom is a major political and economic power in NATO and the Atlantic and a key democratic partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability in this region and around the world.
The United Kingdom requests these capabilities to provide for the defense of deployed troops, regional security, and interoperability with the U.S.. This program will increase the United Kingdom's ability to contribute to future NATO, coalition, and anti-terrorism operations that the U.S. may undertake.
The United Kingdom is a staunch supporter of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terror. United Kingdom troops are deployed in support of Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, where U.S. assets currently provide this proposed capability. By acquiring this capability, the United Kingdom will be able to provide the same level of protection for its own forces and those of the U.S..
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region and the United Kingdom will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.
The principal contractors will be:
- General Atomics Aeronautical Systems San Diego, California
- Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems El Segundo, California
- General Atomics Lynx Systems San Diego, California
There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the United Kingdom.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.
by Arnaud De Borchgrave
UPI Editor at Large
Oct 02, 2006
Washington - A strategic thinker who called all the correct diplomatic and military plays preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom now sees diplomatic failure and air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. The war on Iran, he says, started a year ago when the United States began conducting secret recon missions inside Iran.
Sam Gardiner, 67, has taught strategy at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College. The retired Air Force colonel recently published as a Century Foundation Report "The End of the 'Summer of Diplomacy': Assessing the U.S. Military Option on Iran."
President Bush and his national security council believe seven "key truths" that eliminate all but the military option, according to Gardiner, who adds his own comments.
1. Iran is developing WMD -- "that is most likely true."
2. Iran is ignoring the international community -- "true."
3. Iran supports Hezbollah and terrorism -- "true."
4. Iran is increasingly inserting itself in Iraq and beginning to get involved in Afghanistan -- "true."
5. The people of Iran want a regime change -- "most likely an exaggeration."
6. Sanctions are not going to work -- "most likely true."
7. You cannot negotiate with these people -- "not proven."
Gardiner says when Bush "Iraqs" Iran, air strikes will not be limited to the country's widely scattered nuclear facilities, but will also include military air bases (some of them only 15 minutes flying time from Baghdad); air defense command and control; terrorist training camps; chemical facilities; medium-range ballistic missiles; Gulf-threatening assets; submarines; anti-ship missiles; and naval ships, including small, fast minelayers. He reckons "an attack of relatively high certainty on nuclear targets would require 400 aim points ... 75 of these would require penetrating weapons." Air target planners believe this can be done after five nights of bombing.
Vice President Dick Cheney is convinced "if there is even a 1 percent chance of a country passing WMD to a terrorist, the U.S. must act," Gardiner writes, which means, "The Bush administration finds itself obliged to reject non-military options." Israeli pressure on Bush to act before he leaves the White House is also part of the equation, he argues. But the president has a larger agenda than simply retarding Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran's interference in Iraq is a major source of concern. It continues to supply weapons, funding and training to insurgents as well as militia armies in Iraq. Those who advocate attacking Iran say this justifies U.S. retaliation. But Israel and the Bush administration agree they cannot allow Iran to acquire the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon and that Iran is near "the point of no return."
"The case against (Iran's) regime is so forceful, and so multifaceted," Gardiner points out, "that it becomes clear the goal is not simply to do away with the regime's enrichment program ... but to do away with the regime itself."
President George W. Bush, writes Gardiner, sees himself like Winston Churchill standing against the appeasers, and "believes the world will only appreciate him after he leaves office, talks about the Middle East in messianic terms, and is said to have told those close to him that he has got to attack Iran because even if a Republican succeeds him ... he will not have the same freedom of action that Bush enjoys."
Gardiner reminds us air planners almost always fall short of promises -- e.g., World War II, Korea, Vietnam and more recently Israeli air attacks on Hezbollah. "No serious expert on Iran believes the argument about enabling a regime change," he says, and "it is far more likely such strikes would strengthen the clerical leadership and turn the U.S. into Iran's permanent enemy." Which is what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prays for five times a day.
Iran's retaliatory capabilities are both regional and global. Hezbollah is the primary line of counter-attack, with terrorist assets in Europe, Canada, the United States and Latin America. Iraqi militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr has said publicly U.S. forces would be targeted if Iran were attacked. Al-Sadr also controls the large 140,000-strong Facilities Protection Service forces that guard oil pipelines and other strategic objectives.
No sooner than the first U.S. bomb impact in Iran, mines will be sown in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world's oil consumption passes daily. Iran also has sleeper cells among Shiite workers in Saudi Arabia's eastern oil fields. Oil would quickly skyrocket to $200 a barrel.
With prices surging to this level, concludes Gardiner, a "global synchronized recession, intensified by the existing U.S. trade and fiscal imbalances," would soon follow.
Syria and Iran signed a mutual defense agreement June 15 under which Syrian forces would be involved if Iran were attacked. Such a crisis could quickly escalate into a regional war.
Unlike the six months of preparations for Operation Desert Field and the deployments that preceded Iraqi Freedom, the Iran buildup will "not be a major CNN event." They will take place below the media's radar screen, such as moving Air Force tankers to staging bases and the movement of additional Navy assets to the region. "We can expect the number of administration references to Iran to significantly increase," Gardiner wrote, with four principal themes -- Iran's nuclear program, terrorism, the threat to Israel's existence, and the Iran-al Qaida link.
Congressional approval? When Democratic Congressmen offered an amendment to the Defense bill in June that would have required the president to get authorization before taking military action, the amendment failed. A strike on Iran, as seen by the White House, has already been authorized. It's part of the global war on terrorism. So the strike on Iran could be ordered any time in the next two years.
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
October 1, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca
The probability of another war in the Middle East is high. Only time will tell if the horrors of further warfare is to fully materialize. Even then, the shape of a war is still undecided in terms of its outcome.
If war is to be waged or not against Iran and Syria, there is still the undeniable build-up and development of measures that confirm a process of military deployment and preparation for war.
The diplomatic forum also seems to be pointing to the possibility of war. The decisions being made, the preparations being taken, and the military maneuvers that are unfolding on the geo-strategic chessboard are projecting a prognosis and forecast towards the direction of mobilization for some form of conflict in the Middle East.
In this context, people do not always realize that a war is never planned, executed or even anticipated in a matter of weeks. Military operations take months and even years to prepare. A classical example is Operation Overlord (popularly identified as "D-Day"), which resulted in the Battle of Normandy and the invasion of France. Operation Overlord took place on June 6, 1944, but the preparations for the military operation took eighteen months, "officially," to set the stage for the invasion of the French coast. It was during a meeting in Casablanca, Morocco in January, 1943 that the U.S. President, F.D. Roosevelt, and the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, outlined a strategy to invade Normandy.1
With regard to Iraq, the "Downing Street memo2" confirms that the decision to go to war in 2003 was decided in 2002 by the United States and Britain, and thus the preparations for war with Iraq were in reality started in 2002, a year before the invasion. The preparations for the invasion of Iraq took place at least a entire year to arrange.
The period from 1991 to 2003 has seen continuous military operations against Iraq by the Anglo-American alliance. This period that has lasted for over a decade saw stages of heavy bombardment and major air strikes on a crippled Iraqi republic and its citizens. In reality the conditions for the groundwork and preparations of the invasion and eventual occupation of Iraq took over ten years to materialize. Iraq was weakened and its strength diluted within these ten years.
Even prior to this decade of Anglo-American bombardment and U.N. sanctions, Iraq was caught in an eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s. The war between Iran and Iraq was also fuelled and organized by the United States to weaken both. In retrospect the manipulation of a war between Iran and Iraq to weaken both states seems to be strategic planning in preparation for future military operations against them. In this time preparations were also being made by securing the Balkans for future Anglo-American operations. The Balkans is adjacent to the Middle East and is also a geographic extension of the region. Preparations were made by expanding NATO, shifting military bases eastward, and securing energy routes. Dismantling the state of Yugoslavia was also a part of this objective. Yugoslavia was the regional power of the Balkans and Southeast Europe. This was done through close coordination between the Anglo-American alliance and NATO. Now all eyes are on Iran and Syria. Will there be another Anglo-American initiated war in the Middle East?
Overview of Naval Confrontation against Iran
The Pentagon has already drawn up plans for U.S. sponsored attacks on Iran and Syria.3 Despite the public posturing of diplomacy by the United States and Britain, just like the Iraq Invasion, Iran and Syria sense another Anglo-American war in the horizon. Both countries have been strengthening their defenses for the eventuality of war with the Anglo-American alliance.
A conflict against Iran and Syria, if it were to materialize, would be unlike previous Anglo-American sponsored conflicts. It would be wider in scope, deadlier, and have active aerial and water (naval) fronts.
Sea power would be of greater significance than in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. The United States would covet a quick victory. The chances of this happening are unknown. If there were to be a conflict with Iran, the United States and it partners would want to keep the Straits of Hormuz open for the flow of international oil. The Straits of Hormuz are the "energy lifeline of the world."
The United States would without doubt quickly aim for the collapse of the Iranian and Syrian commands and military structures.
It must be noted that the Iranian Armed Forces are characterized by well structured military organization, with advanced military capabilities, when compared to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. Moreover, Iran has been preparing for a scenario of war with the Anglo-American alliance for almost a decade. These preparations were stepped up following the NATO-U.S. led attack on Yugoslavia (1999).
The types of military units and weapons systems being deployed in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea by the United States are considered to be best suited for combat against Iran, also with a view to keeping the Straits of Hormuz open for oil tankers. This also includes forces that would be able to secure bridgeheads on the Iranian coastline. These U.S. forces consist of early warning units, recognizance, amphibious elements, maritime search and rescue units, minesweepers, and rapid deployment units.
U.S. Strike Groups: Cargo intended for War?
The U.S.S. Enterprise a U.S. Navy flagship is under deployment to the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. This includes all the warships and vessels that compose Carrier Strike Group 12 (CSG 12) Destroyer Squadron 2 (DESRON 2), and Carrier Air Wing 1 (CVW 1). The stated objective for the deployment of the U.S.S. Enterprise, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and other U.S. Navy vessels is to conduct naval security operations and aerial missions in the region. The deployment does not mention Iran, it is said to be part of the U.S.-led "War on Terror" under "Operation Enduring Freedom."
Originally the name for Operation Enduring Freedom was "Operation Infinite Justice," which highlights the unlimited scope and intentions of the War on Terror. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" which envelops the Anglo-American invasion and the continued occupation of Iraq is also a component of these operations. A large number of U.S. warships are deployed in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea.
While this deployment is said to be related to ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the warships are carrying with them equipment which is not intended for these two war theaters. Minesweepers and mine-hunters have absolutely no use in landlocked Afghanistan and are not needed in Iraq which has a maritime corridor and ports totally controlled by the Anglo-American alliance.
Other warships in the Enterprise Strike Group include the destroyer U.S.S. McFaul, the war frigate U.S.S. Nicholas, the battle cruiser U.S.S. Leyte Gulf, the attack submarine U.S.S. Alexandria, and the "fast combat support ship" U.S.N.S. Supply. The U.S.N.S. Supply will be a useful vessel in confronting the Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf in close-quarter combat. Speed will be an important factor in responding to potentially lethal Iranian missile and anti-ship missile attacks.
The U.S.S. Enterprise carries with it a host of infiltration, aerial attack, and rapid deployment units. This includes Marine Strike Fighter Squadron 251, Electronic Attack Squadron 137, and Airborne Early Warning Squadron 123. Squadron 123 will be vital in the event of a war with Iran in detecting Iranian missiles and sending warnings of danger to the U.S. fleet. Special mention should be made of the helicopter squadron specialized for combating submarines traveling with the strike group. "Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 11" will be on board the U.S.S. Enterprise. The Persian Gulf is known to be the home of the Iranian submarine fleet, the only indigenous submarine fleet in the region.
The Eisenhower Strike Group, based in Norfolk, Virginia, has also received orders to deploy to the Middle East. The strike group is led by the U.S.S. Eisenhower, another nuclear battleship. It includes a cruiser, a destroyer, a war frigate, a submarine escort, and U.S. Navy supply ships. One of these two naval strike groups will position itself in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea while the other naval strike group will position itself in the Persian Gulf, both off the Iranian coast.
Another assault or strike group of U.S. warships, "Expeditionary Strike Group 5," are setting off to sea too. This strike group is setting sail from Naval Station San Diego with the Persian Gulf in the Middle East as their final destination. Over 6,000 U.S. Marines and Navy personnel will be deployed to the Persian Gulf and Anglo-American occupied Iraq from San Diego.4 Approximately 4,000 U.S. sailors and 2,200 U.S. Marines from the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit at Camp Pendleton will make the bulk of the force. The warships and the servicemen they carry will reportedly have a tour of duty in the Persian Gulf and "possibly" Anglo-American occupied Iraq for half a year. They will also be joined by other ships including a Coast Guard vessel. A Marine air wing of 38 helicopters also is on board and travelling to the Persian Gulf.
The Marine contingent of the force is not destined for deployment in Iraq. It must be noted that the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit is, however, able to "rapidly deploy" on "order" using large landing craft stowed aboard the strike group's warships. If ordered this rapid deployment unit has the strong potential of being used as part of an invasion force against Iran from the Persian Gulf. The Marine unit would be ideal in being part of an operation with the objective(s) of securing Iranian ports to create beachheads for an invasion.
Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5) is being led by the assault ship the U.S.S. Boxer as the flagship. Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5) will also consist of the U.S.S. Dubuque, a "dock landing vessel," the naval transport ship the U.S.S. Comstock, the battle cruiser the U.S.S. Bunker Hill, the guided-missile hauling destroyer the U.S.S. Benfold, and the guided-missile hauling destroyer the U.S.S. Howard. Once again, these vessels will all be deployed in the Persian Gulf, in nearby proximity to the Iranian coast.
It is noteworthy to mention that the command and control structure of the group will be separated from the vessels for maximum flexibility. Also before the U.S. Naval strike group reaches the Persian Gulf it will be performing "anti-submarine drills and operations." The anti-submarine exercises will take place off the coast of Hawaii, in the Pacific Ocean. This can be training and preparation intended for combating the Iranian submarine fleet in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. The warships will also be joined in Hawaii by Seattle-based U.S. Coast Guard and by a Canadian navy frigate, the H.M.C.S. Ottawa.
Canada contributes to the American-led naval build-up in the Persian Gulf
The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is actively collaborating in this military endeavor.
Canadian foreign policy has been steadily and successively militarized by two successive governments.
The government of Prime Minister Paul Martin (Liberal) implemented the "three-dimensional policy" of the "3-Ds" ("Diplomacy", "Development," and "Defense"), adding a military component to Canadian foreign aid and development assistance.
The 3-Ds brought Canada into performing as more active role in U.S.-led operations in NATO garrisoned Afghanistan. Despite the public protest, Canada has become an integral member of the Anglo-American military alliance.
Canada's involvement is not limited to Afghanistan as suggested by the press reports and official statements.
The H.M.C.S. Ottawa has been dispatched to the Persian Gulf, leaving in September, from British Columbia. Officially the H.M.C.S. Ottawa is being deployed as part of Canada's contribution to fighting the "War on Terrorism." The Canadian vessel is the first publicly known ship to be deployed to the waters of the Middle East in about a year.5 The Canadian vessel is slated to be fully integrated into "Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5), which will be seafaring in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, off the Iranian coast.
The Canadian Pacific Fleet vessel, the H.M.C.S. Ottawa, will be the twentieth official Canadian naval deployment in support of the United States and Britain in the War on Terrorism. About 225 personnel will be on board the Canadian Navy ship, including a Sea King helicopter detachment.6
While the H.M.C.S. Ottawa is supporting the American-led war on terrorism, it is also to participate in anti-submarine exercises off the coast of Hawaii.
For what purpose are these exercises being conducted? How many countries in the Middle East or Persian Gulf have submarines? Iran is the only country in the Persian Gulf, which is not an ally of the U.S., which possesses an indigenous submarine fleet.
U.S. Coast Guard implicated in the Conflict with Iran
The U.S. Coast Guard is the fifth and smallest branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. The other four branches of the U.S. military are the U.S. Marines, Navy, Air Force, and the Army. The U.S. Coast Guard is unique in that it is a force that is one-third military, one-third law enforcement, and one-third a maritime search and rescue entity. In peacetime the U.S. Coast Guard falls under the jurisdiction and mandate of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, but at the Defense Department's request, the Coast Guard can operate under military missions at sea. In a time of war when the need is urgent, the U.S. Coast Guard falls under the direct jurisdiction of the Pentagon as a military force.
The U.S. Coast Guard is beginning to see more use and deployment with the U.S. Navy. Coast Guards are being prepared for operations in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. Although this is not an unusual event by itself, it can be significant in relationship to other events and military movements unfolding and taking place. The U.S. Coast Guard will be of great value in the event of a conflict with Iran. U.S. Coast Guard can "enter ports that other warships can not."7 This would be useful in securing bridgeheads of entry for an invasion force into Iran. The U.S. Coast Guard is also specialized in maritime search and rescue operations, unlike the U.S. Navy or the Marines. This is significant since it is predicted by military analysts that there will definitely be U.S. vessels that will be destroyed and heavily damaged in the Persian Gulf by the Iranian Armed Forces in the event of a conflict between the United States and Iran. U.S. Coast Guard will be crucial in rescue operations, besides speedy operations, protecting U.S. Navy ships, and the entry of ports or shores which other warships can not enter.
"What we bring to the strike group is the ability to conduct intercepts and maritime security operations," and, "The tools used to fight crime and save lives at home [in the United States] are valuable in the war zone [the Persian Gulf]," elucidates Lee Alexander the commander of the U.S.S. Midgett8
Media Reports of Planned Attacks on Iran and Syria
There have been several reports in the international media, which have provided details regarding the military plans to attack Iran and Syria. These include reports from Israeli sources on attacks intended for Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Some of these media reports even quote Members of the Israeli Knesset (MKs).9 The German and European media have published various articles on possible NATO and Turkish involvement in the planned U.S.air strikes on Iran. The Times (U.K.) reported in March, 2006 that:
"When Major-General Axel Tüttelmann, the head of NATO's Airborne Early Warning and Control Force, showed off an AWACs early warning surveillance plane in Israel a fortnight ago, he caused a flurry of concern back at [NATO] headquarters in Brussels. It was not his demonstration that raised eyebrows, but what he said about NATO's possible involvement in any future [Anglo-American] military strike against Iran. 'We would be the first to be called up if the NATO council decided we should be,' he said. NATO would prefer the emphasis to remain on the 'if', but Tüttelmann's comments revealed that the military alliance [NATO] could play a supporting role if America launches air strikes against Iranian nuclear targets [including military facilities, industrial locations, and infrastructure]."10
United Press International (UPI) on December, 2005 reported that:
The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year [2006], according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media.
The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week quoted "NATO intelligence sources" who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime [Iranian government] into line, including military options. This "all options are open" line has been President George W. Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months.
But the respected German weekly Der Spiegel notes "What is new here is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year [2005]."
The German news agency DDP cited "Western security sources" to claim that CIA Director Porter Goss asked Turkey's premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets. Goss, who visited Ankara and met Erdogan on Dec. 12 [2005], was also reported to have to have asked for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation.
(...)
DDP cited German security sources who added that the Turks had been assured of a warning in advance if and when the military strikes took place, and had also been given "a green light" to mount their own attacks on the bases in Iran of the PKK, (Kurdish Workers party), which Turkey sees as a separatist group responsible for terrorist attacks inside Turkey.11
The "green light" given by the United States for Turkish military incursions would in all likelihood also include Kurdistan, including at some point Iraqi Kurdistan and Kurdish inhabited areas in Syria.
Time Magazine and the "Prepare to Deploy Order" of the Eisenhower Strike Group
The latest U.S. reports provide details of preparations to go to war with Iran and Syria. Time magazine confirms that orders have been given for deployment of a submarine, a battleship, two minesweepers, and two mine-hunters in the Persian Gulf by October 2006. There are very few places in the world where minesweepers would be needed or used besides the Persian Gulf. There also very few places where anti-submarine drills are required , besides the Persian Gulf.
Anti-submarine drills are what Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (EST 5) is performing in the Pacific before it heads to the Persian Gulf, together with Canada's H.M.C.S. Ottawa and units of the U.S. Coast Guard.
The Time Magazine article intimates that the operation could result in heavy American casualties.
"The first message was routine enough: a 'Prepare to Deploy Order' sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine-hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1 [2006]. A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."12
Award-winning investigative reporter and journalist Dave Lindorff has written;
[Retired] Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College [of the United States], says that the [U.S. Navy] carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 [2006] is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says, "I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1 [2006]. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the [Persian] Gulf region, that looks about like the date" of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date-in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it's not done as a training exercise." This point was also made in the Time article.
(...)
"I think the plan's been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran," says [Colonel] Gardiner. "It's a terrible idea, it's against U.S. law and it's against international law, but I think they've decided to do it." Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, "the Iranians have many more options than we [the United States] do.
(...)
Of course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show toughness in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But with the Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated Russian anti-ship weapons, against which the [U.S.] Navy has little reliable defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value assets like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has bluffing been a Bush [Administration] MO [tactic] to date.13
The Pentagon responded to the Time magazine report by stating that the Chief of Naval Operations had merely asked the U.S. Navy to "put 'fresh eyes' on old U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the [Persian] Gulf."14 This response in itself is questionable to analysts. Why would the United States want to stop the flow of oil from Iran, a major petroleum exporting nation, which would harm U.S. allies and the world economy?
Iranian Naval Force and Anti-ship Missiles
Iranian naval strength is divided into two main forces. One is the Navy within the Iranian Regular Armed Forces and the other is the naval branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Both forces have been updating and improving their equipment over the years. The aim of both naval forces is to act as a deterrent to the threat of invasion or attack from the United States.
Iran has a submarine fleet of Iranian and Russian manufactured submarines, a hovercraft fleet that was once the largest in the world, ROVs (remotely operated vehicles), various surface vessels of different sizes and operations, naval airborne units which include several helicopter squadrons, minesweepers, and a large arsenal of anti-ship missiles. The Iranian submarine fleet also includes mini-submarines manufactured domestically in Iran.15
Iran has been going through a naval build-up in the last decade. For example, in connection with the August 2006 Iranian war games and exercises, the Iranian military displayed its latest "Patrol Torpedo (PT) boats." PT boats are small naval vessels that have been used effectively to attack larger warships. These types of ships could be a threat to the U.S. strike groups deploying in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. Naval Commander Kouchaki told Fars News Agency (FNA) that: "Joshan [a new Iranian PT boat] enjoys the world's latest technology, specially with regard to its military, electrical and electronic systems, frame and chassis, and it has the capabilities required for launching powerful missiles." "Similar to Iran's first PT boat 'Peykan', 'Joshan' also has a speed of over 45 sea knots which makes it even faster than the same generation of PT boats manufactured by other countries. The vessel is capable of using various missiles and rockets with a range beyond 100 km [62.14 miles], high maneuverability power that helps it to escape torpedoes, and enjoys the most advanced sea shell of the world called 'Fajr'." The 76mm-caliber shell, which only Iran, the United States, and Italy can manufacture, of the new Iranian PT boat also enjoys a wide variety of military capabilities and can hit sea and air targets within the range of 19 km or 23 thousand feet in distance, respectively.16
Iran has also tested a series of "submarine-to-surface" anti-ship missiles during its August 2006 war games17. The latter seem to have raised some concern that Iran could disrupt the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf in the event of an Anglo-American assault.18
In its April 2006 war games, Iran tested an anti-ship missile, reported as "the world's fastest," with a top speed of approximately 362 kilometres per hour (km/h) or 225 miles per hour (m/h). The anti-ship missile is designed to destroy large submarines and is said to be "too fast for most vessels to escape" even if it is caught on their radar.19 Early warning systems will be essential for the U.S. in combating the Iranian military.
If storm clouds should gather above the Persian Gulf, the United States will have to keep the Straits of Hormuz open, international oil traffic running, and simultaneously face a large barrage of Iranian missiles from land, air, and sea. This includes deadly Iranian anti-ship missiles that Iran has developed with the help of Russia and China.
There have been warnings by analysts that the Persian Gulf could be closed off and turned into a shooting gallery by the Iranian Armed Forces. Iranian weaponry is also reported to be invisible to radar and can travel at high speeds. Amongst names mentioned in regards to Iranian anti-ship missiles are the modified Russian and Chinese "Silkworms" and "Sunburns," which are based on earlier Soviet models.
The Iranian arsenal includes anti-ship missiles like the C-802 and Kowsar. The C-802 anti-ship missiles are missiles that originate from China. Kowsar anti-ship missiles are basically land-based anti-ship missiles (land-to-sea missiles) which can dodge electronic jamming systems.20
At this stage, it is impossible to say how the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard will perform against Iranian anti-ship missiles, in the context of a "real combat situation."
Navy and Troop Movements in the Eastern Mediterranean
There is also considerable military movement and build-up of allied forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, formally under the disguise of a peace-keeping operation pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701.
Italy has redeployed Italian troops from Iraq, including commando units and armored reconnaissance units, to Lebanon. Two marine units, one belonging to the Italian Army and the other belonging to the Italian Navy, have been sent to Lebanon. Both are veteran units of separate tours of service in Anglo-American occupied Iraq. The Italian Army has sent the "Lagunari" of the Venice-based marine infantry unit the "Serenissima Regiment," while the Italian Navy has sent the "San Marco Regiment."
Spanish units and troops have been deployed near Tyre and the Israeli border in South Lebanon. Spain, with two warships off the coast of Lebanon is projected to have the third largest force from the E.U., after Italy and France.21 Large contingents of Spanish troops are additionally based away from the Mediterranean coast, around Jdeidet-Marjayoun (Marjayoun), near the Syrian border and both the Sheba Farms and Golan Heights occupied by Israel.
German warships will also join the vessels of other fellow NATO members in patrolling the coasts of the Eastern Mediterranean. German will eventually take over command of the naval forces from Italy. The German government has launched battle frigates and fast patrol boats to post-siege Lebanon.22
"The naval mission, the first German deployment to the Middle East since the end of the Second World War, was backed by 442 lawmakers, with 152 against and five abstentions. As many as 2,400 German [naval] personnel will now be deployed to the region, backed by a one- year mandate expiring August 31, 2007. The mission brings the number of German soldiers [meaning servicemen] serving overseas to above 10,000 for the first time in postwar [meaning post-World War II] history."23
The coalition government of Denmark, formed by the Danish Conservative People's Party and the Liberal Party of Denmark, has been a steadfast supporter of Anglo-American military objectives. The Danish government led by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Ramussen has sent Danish troops to both Anglo-American occupied Iraq and NATO garrisoned Afghanistan. Three Danish warships have also set sail for the Eastern Mediterranean to join the NATO armada of warships gathering off the Lebanese and Syrian coastlines. The Peter Tordenskiold, a naval corvette, and two Danish missile cruisers, the Raven and the Hawk, have been on stand-by for military operations in the Eastern Mediterranean since the end of the Anglo-American sponsored siege of Lebanon. The Danish naval attachment has been waiting in Wilhelmshaven, a German naval base, for a "go-ahead order" for nearly two weeks in early September, 2006.24 The Danish government is also talking about sending more troops to Afghanistan, which would join the 2,000 troops to be dispatched by Romania and Poland in early October, 2006.25
In Lebanon, France is involved in military operations on the ground, whereas Italian and German warships head the naval mission in the Eastern Mediterranean. Some 2,000 French troops are slated to be deployed in Lebanon. French tanks and armored units have helped comprise "the most powerful Armor ever deployed by a United Nations peacekeeping force" in history.26
Greek warships are also part of the naval armada in the Eastern Mediterranean. Ten Greek warships, which include diving units and navy helicopters, have added their strength to the NATO naval force off Lebanon with orders to "use force if needed." The Greek naval commitment is coming at a reported cost of approximately 150,000 Euros for every week of operation to the Greek government. The Greek warships will dock in the southern port of Larnaca. Larnaca is on the southern side of the island of Cyprus and faces Lebanon. This is until the naval facilities of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, are deemed ready and safe by the commanders of the naval armada.27
The Netherlands is deploying alternating warships, with a reported 150 Dutch sailors. The Dutch warships will be comprised of one frigate and a supply ship offering logistics support to the naval fleet gathering in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Dutch deployment should start sometime in October 2006 and will continue sailing the Eastern Mediterranean until August, 2007. The Dutch Defense Minister has also said that the Dutch commitment could be extended by an additional extra 12 months.28
Belgium is also dispatching 400 troops to Southern Lebanon. The Belgian Defense Minister has been one of several defense officials visiting Lebanon to make preparations for military operations in Lebanon.29 Other defense officials in liaison with Lebanon have been dispatched by Italy and France.
Turkish troops have not yet positioned themselves in Lebanon and face strong domestic opposition. Turkey, an Israeli ally and NATO member, is to send troops to Lebanon by the end of October, 2006.30 This is happening despite of the mass public outcry and opposition in Turkey to the deployment of Turkish soldiers to Lebanon.
A former Turkish high ranking civilian representative of NATO in Afghanistan, Hikmet Cetin in a televised address attempted to reassure Turkish public opinion, emphasizing that Turkish troops would be going to Afghanistan, rather than to
Lebanon:
"...the number of Turkish soldiers [in Afghanistan] has more than doubled from 300 to 700 over the last month [September, 2006]. Ankara can increase the number of soldiers in the upcoming period for the security of Kabul [Afghanistan], but it won't send soldiers to clashes [in South Lebanon]."31
Bulgaria, another NATO member with troops in Afghanistan and (until 2005/2006) in Iraq, will be sending naval and ground forces to Lebanon.32
In turn, Britain will be dispatching a small contingent of troops to South Lebanon.33 The U.A.E., an Arab sheikdom, has been given a mandate to clear the Israeli landmines and booby-traps left south of the Litani River,34 an important source of water in the Levant that Israel has always had its eyes on. The U.A.E. has contracted its de-mining operations in South Lebanon to a British private security firm. The British security firm, "ArmorGroup International," has received a 5.6 million U.S. dollar (2.9 million pound sterling) contract for a year of work in South Lebanon.35 ArmorGroup has also been providing security for the United States military in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and Afghanistan, including protecting U.S. Navy facilities in Bahrain. The British security firm has additionally been providing security for oil and gas consortiums in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Nigeria, and the former Soviet Union, including Kazakhstan and the Republic of Azarbaijan.36 As in the cases of Afghanistan and Anglo-American occupied Iraq, private security firms are also starting to move into Lebanon, along with NATO.
NATO has "unofficially" moved in to fill the vacuum left by war in Lebanon as it "officially" did in the case of Afghanistan. NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel in 2005. These NATO troops could become an occupation force, as is the case in Afghanistan..37
Israeli ground forces have not fully withdrawn from South Lebanon pursuant to the U.N. Security Council resolution and ceasefire.
Meanwhile Israeli vessels have turned over the responsibility for the enforcement of the illegal naval embargo on Lebanon to NATO naval vessels and warships.
This naval embargo recalls the internationally illegal "No-fly Zones" established over Iraq by the United States, Britain, and France, which contributed to weakening Iraq in the years prior to the 2003 Anglo-American invasion.
The crucial question is whether this naval embargo and militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is part of the preparations for future military operation(s) directed against Syria. The illegal embargo has U.N. approval. It is upheld as part of the "monitoring" of the Lebanese coastline to enforce the entry of military supplies and weapons into Lebanon.
Russia and China Send Troops to Lebanon, A Symmetrical Strategic Move
The Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China have also deployed troops in Lebanon. Is this for "peacekeeping" or are there other objectives of strategic nature?
A Russian sapper (military field/combat engineer) battalion is also being airlifted to Lebanon by the Russian Air Force.38 The Russian Defense Minister has said that the Russian sappers and their battalion will start work in Lebanon at the start of October 2006. All that is formally needed is "an agreement on the status of the combat engineer battalion with the Lebanese government."39
Russian troops will be deployed near the city of Sidon (Saida) in South Lebanon, off the shores of the Mediterranean. While Russian troops are freshly entering Lebanon, there is also a Russian naval presence on the Syrian seashore.40 (See Russian Base in Syria, a Symmetrical Strategic Move, July, 2006)
Unlike their Russian allies, Chinese troops were present in Lebanon before the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli attacks. The Chinese presence in Lebanon was under the authority of a small U.N. peacekeeping force. Around 200 Chinese military engineers already work for the U.N. in South Lebanon clearing mines and unexploded ordnance. The small U.N. force saw the death of one of its Chinese member at the hands of Israeli attacks during the Anglo-American sponsored siege of Lebanon. Approximately another 1,000 Chinese troops will be added to the Chinese military presence in Lebanon. 41
Chinese and Russian forces will also be in close proximity to the Port of Ceyhan and the energy route being opened in the Eastern Mediterranean. This is a symmetrical action if one considers the U.S. military presence and support for Taiwan as a means to control the strategic oil route to China and Japan from the Middle East.42
Russia and China are the two largest members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). they are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, decisively opposed to Anglo-American initiatives in the Middle East, the Korean Peninsula, and Sudan.
Additionally, Russia and China together with Iran are challenging Anglo-American oil interests in Central Asia and the Caspian Sea Basin.
Israel is an extension of the Anglo-American alliance and also NATO through a military pact with Turkey and the "NATO-Mediterranean Dialogue," including the June 29, 2004 Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.43 With the build-up and marshalling of troops from member states of NATO, Russia and China could be sending troops in a deliberate symmetrical move to Lebanon to establish a military equilibrium in the important balance-of-power of the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean.
The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil: the Baku-Tbilisi -Cehyan Oil Terminal
There is undeniable international competition for energy resources in the world. The Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal (also called the Caspian-Mediterranean Oil Terminal) has an outlet on the Turkish coast of the Eastern Mediterranean in close proximity to Syria and Lebanon. The opening of this pipeline is geo-strategically an important victory. This is a geo-strategic victory for the Anglo-American alliance, Israel, the large oil corporations, and their partners, but it is a geo-strategic set back for Russia, China, and Iran on the other hand. It seems that the sovereignty of Lebanon has been put into further danger with the opening of the strategic oil terminal.
The occupation of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) has been followed by the militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean, 44 The July 2006 Israeli siege of Lebanon is intimately related to the opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal, the marshalling of naval vessels in the Persian Gulf-Arabian Sea, and an anticipated war against Iran and Syria.
Syria is also taking steps to strengthen its military. Russia is helping Syria build and upgrade its air defense systems. The Syrian military has additionally made numerous orders for Russian and Iranian manufactured warplanes and missiles. Belarus and China are also aiding the Syrian military.
Professor Michel Chossudovsky has given details on the Israeli war on Lebanon, the militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean, and the international rivalry for energy resources;
Is there a relationship between the bombing of Lebanon and the inauguration of the world's largest strategic pipeline, which will channel more than a million barrels of oil a day to Western markets?
Virtually unnoticed, the inauguration of the Ceyhan-Tbilisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline, which links the Caspian Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean, took place on the 13th of July [2006], at the very outset of the Israeli sponsored bombings of Lebanon.
(...)
The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has already been contemplated by U.S. and Israeli military planners. This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants, which control the pipeline corridors. In the context of the war on Lebanon, it seeks Israeli territorial control over the East Mediterranean coastline.
(The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, July 26, 2006)
Syria and Lebanon must be subjugated if the United States and its partners are to secure the Eastern Mediterranean coastline to expand the oil terminal from Ceyhan, Turkey to Israel, lock out Russia and China from securing international energy resources, and ultimately creating a monopoly over world energy resources.
The Eastern Mediterranean, a "Second Front" guarded by NATO?
There has been a significant build-up of military force, including naval power, in Lebanon and the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean. This force is composed of troops and naval vessels from several NATO countries including Italy, Spain, France, Turkey, Germany, and the Netherlands.
NATO's "Operation Active Endeavor," implemented in the wake of 9/11 is fully integrated into the U.S. sponsored "War on Terrorism". The Operation is overseen by the Commander of "NATO Allied Naval Forces, Southern Europe" based in Naples.
In this context, a NATO naval task force of warships has been monitoring the Eastern Mediterranean since late 2001, years before the Israeli aerial siege of Lebanon (2006). This task force of NATO warships has been "trained and prepared for a prolonged operation in the Eastern Mediterranean since 2001."45
According to one Israeli source, the NATO military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean is part of the war plans pertaining to Syria and Iran:
"This expectation [of a war launched against Iran and Syria] has brought together the greatest sea and air armada Europe [NATO] has ever assembled at any point on earth since World War II: two carriers with 75 fighter-bombers, spy planes and helicopters on their decks; 15 warships of various types - 7 French, 5 Italian, 2-3 Greek., 3-5 German, and 5 American; thousands of Marines - French, Italian and German, as well as 1,800 U.S. Marines. It is improbably billed as support for a mere [expected] 7,000 European soldiers who are deployed in Lebanon to prevent the dwindling Israeli force of 4-5,000 soldiers and some 15-16,000 Hezbollah militiamen from coming to blows as well as for humanitarian odd jobs. (...) So, if not for Lebanon, what is this fine array of naval power really there for? First, according to our military sources [in Israel], the European participants feel the need of a strong naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean to prevent a possible Iranian-U.S.-Israeli war igniting an Iranian long-range Shahab missile attack on [American-NATO bases used against Iran from eastern] Europe; second, as a deterrent to dissuade Syria and Hezbollah from opening a second front against America and Israel from their Eastern Mediterranean coasts." 46
In the case of a war with Syria and Iran, NATO forces in the Eastern Mediterranean would no doubt play a decisive role. The Eastern Mediterranean would become one of several fronts, which could include Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf.
NATO "Enlargement" and the Caucasus
Just as it did in Afghanistan, NATO has moved into Lebanon. Under a formal peacekeeping mandate, NATO has become a de facto occupation force that is party to the Anglo-American agenda.
There are two other factors that fall into the NATO equation. The first is the militarization of Georgia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, two former republics of the Soviet Union which are firmly aligned with NATO. Georgia occupies a strategic position with regard to the control and protection of the oil pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea Basin. It also constitutes a wedge between Russia, Armenia, and Iran. Azerbaijan serves primarily as an oil source in the Caspian Sea basin at the outset of the Baku-Tbilisi- Ceyhan pipeline.
It is Georgia which is being propped up militarily to counter Russia, Iran, and their ally Armenia.
A strategic triangle is formed by Afghanistan in the east, the Caucasus in the north, and the Levant in the west, with Iraq and Iran somewhat in its center.
Georgia is essential to gaining control of this area from the north. The Caucasus region is also an interlinked front with the Middle East and Central Asia that will become more active as the Anglo-American military roadmap proceeds.
It seems that rising tensions between Russia and Georgia are part of this process. The civil unrest and conflicts in the Caucasus are intimately related to the struggle to secure Middle Eastern and Central Asian energy resources.
The Balkans, the heart of Central Asia, and Sudan are another strategic triangle of the Anglo-American military roadmap. The reconfiguration of Yugoslavia and the entrance of states such as Bulgaria, Albania, Montenegro, and Macedonia into the NATO sphere are also essential steps in the Anglo-American roadmap.
Russia has been outraged at the harboring of Chechen rebels in Georgia and the Georgian government's collaboration with the United States in undermining Russian influence in the Caucasus. Russia has fought back and tried to counter Georgian and Anglo-American influence in the Caucasus by supporting the Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence movements. Additionally, border delimitation has become an issue between Georgia and Russia. This has resulted in an uneasy stalemate, but the situation seems to be changing. Russian troops have also been leaving their bases in Georgia47 and tensions have been rising between the Russians on the one hand and Georgia and NATO on the other.
September 2006 has seen relations on the brink of collapse. The Georgian government has charged the Russian military with spying in Georgia and the Russian Federation of trying to oust the Georgian government and install a pro-Russian, anti-NATO government in its place. In addition, South Ossetian forces have shot down a helicopter with the Georgian Defense Minister on board and, days later, Georgian authorities foiled what they claim was an attempt at a "coup d'etat" supported by Russia, which is something that the Russian government denies.48
There is also a striking parallel between "peacekeeping operations" in Georgia and Lebanon. Both are bogus operations with a hidden agenda. In Georgia it is Russian troops that are deployed as peacekeepers and in Lebanon peacekeeping is "unofficially" dominated by NATO. The Georgian Foreign Minister has said: "If we continue to drive the situation [in Georgia] ... with existing actors and with the dominant power of Russia ...we will end up in violence [war]," He has demanded that Russian troops stationed in Georgia withdraw and has accused Moscow of seeking to undermine the Georgian government.49
The second factor is the rapid expansionist policy of NATO.
NATO has been expanding eastward. It is now seeking entry for Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and several other countries.50 The Russian Foreign Minister has told the Secretary-General of NATO that the "Reconfiguration of NATO military forces in Europe, as well as the desire of the United States to deploy certain elements of missile launching sites in Eastern Europe are the issues of concern for us [the Russian Federation]."51
In this regard, the Associated Press points to rising tensions between the Russian Federation and NATO, pertaining to Georgia's membership in NATO
Moscow [the Russian government] denounced the move [to embrace Georgia further into NATO] as a Cold War throwback that hurt Russian interests and could further destabilize the Caucasus region. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov threatened to send two divisions of Russian troops to the border with Georgia to ensure that "Russia's security won't be hurt if Georgia enters NATO."
The strained relations between Russia and Georgia worsened Thursday when Moscow recalled its ambassador, announced the recall of diplomats and complained to the United Nations about Georgia's detention of five Russian officers on spying charges. Mr. Ivanov called Georgia a "bandit state."
Georgia charged four of the officers on Friday with spying and was to put them on trial later in the day, said Shota Khizanishvili, spokesman for the Interior Minister. A fifth officer was released Friday (September, 2006).52
Formation of a Eurasian Military Alliance?
Since August 2006, Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyztan have been holding joint military exercises and anti-terrorism drills. These operations were conducted under the SCO and/or the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) (with the involvement of the Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS). These military exercises were conducted at a time when Iran was also involved in major war games.
-Russia and Belarus held joint military exercises in 2006 (June 17-25)53
-U.S. military operations and war games were held with Bulgaria and Romania, in the Balkans (July-August, 2006)54
-Iranian War Games started on August 19, 200655
-Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Anti-terrorism exercises including Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were held in late August 200656
-China and Kazakhstan held joint anti-terrorism drills also in late August (start August 23/24, 2006)57
-Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan held joint anti-terrorism drills (September 19-23, 2006)58
-China and Tajikistan hold their first joint military exercise (September 22-23, 2006)59
-CIS and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Anti-Terrorism Drills in Armenia (September 26-28, 2006)60
The initiation of a "Eurasian Energy Club" was the practical outcome on September 15, 2006 for the SCO during a conference held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.61 This is a goal that cannot be achieved unless Iran is a full member of the SCO.
IRNA quoted the Uzbek Deputy Prime Minister, Rustam Azimov, as saying that "the economic projects, on which [SCO] agreements were reached during the International Shanghai Conference [SCO], cannot be implemented without the cooperation of Iran, as a significant regional country."62
Mongolia is also set to become a full member of the SCO. Mongolia, Iran, India, and Pakistan are all observer members of the SCO. Armenia, a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the CIS, and Serbia, a historical ally of Russia, are potential candidates for the SCO. Armenia has also made it clear that it has no intention of joining the E.U. or NATO.63 Belarus has also expressed interest in joining the SCO as a full member state.64
The expansion of the SCO and the complete inclusion of Iran as a full member has been challenged by the Helsinki Commission (the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe) during an inquiry (September 26, 2006) into the impact of the SCO on Anglo-American objectives and U.S. influence in Central Asia.
The expansion of the SCO was said to be unlikely because the "economic mission of the SCO seems ill-defined" and that the organization is not likely to add new members who may end up competing with Russia and China for control of Central Asia. It was also pointed out during the Helsinki Commission hearing that, "They [the members of the SCO] are bound together by a shared set of security interests and a shared set of perceived risk[s]."
"Security interests and perceived risks" being connotations for the growing threat of Anglo-American intrusion into the former Soviet republics of Central Asia
The war games held in the former Soviet Union and Central Asia65 were dominated by Russia and China. They were conducted under the disguise of fighting "terrorism, extremism, and separatism." Terrorism, extremism, and separatism are critical arenas of cooperation for all member states.66 What is the hidden agenda? Are these war games related in any way to U.S. war preparations?
Terrorism, extremism, and separatism are nurtured by Anglo-American covert intelligence operations including sabotage and terrorist attacks by Special Forces. Inciting ethnic, ideological, and sectarian tension and separatist movements have been a traditional hallmark of Anglo-American strategy in the Middle East, the Balkans, India, Southeast Asia, the former Soviet Union and Africa.
As for the manipulation and creation of extremism, Afghanistan is testimony of this strategy. Afghanistan is where the Pakistani ISI and the United States helped create the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. The United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have also worked in supporting extremist movements in the former Soviet Union. This is one of the reasons that the Iranian government has remained silent in aiding or acknowledging religious based ideologues or separatist movements in the Caucasus and the former Soviet Union, including Chechnya.
Kurdistan: The Seeds of Balkanization and "Finlandization?"
Both the United States and Israel have been covertly training a number of Kurdish groups in Northern Iraq. Iran and Syria have accused Israel of establishing a military presence in Iraqi Kurdistan. Israel has also trained Anglo-American special forces in assassination missions and the formation of "hunter-killer teams"in Iraq.67
Magdi Abdelhadi, an Arab and Middle Eastern affairs analyst has written:
"Ever since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began over three years ago [in 2003], Arab journalists have been speaking of Israelis operating inside the autonomous region of Kurdistan [in Northern Iraq].
They said this was evidence that toppling that Saddam Hussein was only the first chapter in a wider American-Israeli conspiracy to eliminate threats to their strategic interests and re-draw the map of the Middle East [vis-à-vis a military roadmap].
Syria and Iran, which have common borders with Kurdish areas, are believed to be the primary targets."68
There are deliberate attempts to manufacture or create civil strife and division within the countries of the Middle East. The underlying objectives are balkanization (division) and "finlandization" (pacification).69
Kurdistan is the geographic heart of the contemporary Middle East and the Gordian knot holding all its mosaic of states and people together. Kurdistan is also strategically the land-bridge connecting Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean with Iran. The Kurdish people have been continuously manipulated and deceived by the United States. The deliberate manipulation of the Kurdish people by the United States and Israel could deal a severe and chaotic blow to the stability of Kurdistan and the national unity of Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and by extension the neighbors of these countries.
Moreover, the balkanization of Iraq could set in motion a domino-effect, which could have an impact in the entire Middle East and beyond. The United States has created the conditions for social division within Iraq. Dividing Iraqi society weakens the resistance movement to the Anglo-American military occupation. Creating sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraqi society has a direct bearing on U.S. war plans pertaining to Iran and Syria. The premise is that Iraqis would be too busy fighting each other to offer significant support to Syria and Iran.
The balkanization of Iraq is also consistent with Anglo-American objectives for the "Eurasian Corridor" and the "Yinon Plan70" for the Greater Middle East.
Both objectives overlap and depend on a partnership between the United States, Britain, and Israel. These objectives rely on initial regime change(s) from within a targeted state through the triggering of ethnic and sectarian conflicts. This strategy is also being used against Russia, China, and Central Asia. The ultimate objective is the creation of a new set of Kuwait-like or Bahrain-like mini-states or Anglo-American protectorates in the Middle East and the former Soviet Union that can easily be controlled by the U.S., Britain, and Israel.
In an interview with Der Spiegel, the Syrian President said that the Middle East was teetering on the brink of chaos and conflict. When asked about the partition or balkanization of Anglo-American occupied Iraq, the Syrian President said:
"It would be harmful, not just for Iraq, but for the entire region, extending from Syria to the [Persian] Gulf and into Central Asia. Imagine snapping a necklace and all the pearls fall to the ground. Almost all these countries have natural dividing lines, and when ethnic and religious partition occurs in one country, it'll soon happen elsewhere. It would be like the end of the Soviet Union-only far worse. Major wars, minor wars, no one will be capable of keeping the consequences under control."71
The problem can further be compounded. A war with Syria could spill over and ignite further conflicts in Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon, while also affecting Turkey, Cyprus, and the entire Arab World.
A war with Iran or any balkanization affecting Iran would also contribute to destabilizing the Caucasus, Turkey, and Central Asia which all have ethnic and cultural ties with Iran. This includes North Ossetia-Alania, Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, which are part of the South Federal District of the Russian Federation.
A war with Iran could spill over into the ethnically diverse Caucasus with serious and unpredictable ramifications for Russia.
The Caucasus is intimately interlinked with Iran. The conflicts between Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, the internal conflicts in Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the fighting in Chechnya and Dagestan could all light up again. These conflicts would not only threaten Russia's national security, they would also affect the SCO, which is integrated with China, Russia and several former Soviet republics as well as the CSTO..
Connect-the-Dots: All the Pieces Coming Together?
There is an evident military build-up of conventional, ground, air, naval, and nuclear forces in and around the Middle East and Central Asia. It includes the mobilization of British troops on the Iranian border72, and the extension of military tours of service in Anglo-American occupied Iraq and NATO garrisoned Afghanistan.73 The 1st Brigade of 1st Armored Division, a 4,000 man unit which is operating in the Al-Anbar province of Iraq, bordering Syria, has had their tour of duty extended. They are not the first group of American or British soldiers to have their tours of duty extended in Iraq or Afghanistan. The brigade has about 4,000 soldiers in Iraq.74 They were scheduled to be in Iraq for a maximum of 12 months, but their tours have been extended repeatedly like other military units. The U.S. Army has also extended the tour of the Alaska-based 172nd Striker Brigade, an army unit with over 3,500 troops, several times.75
Many of the Arab dictatorships will also secretly support the Anglo-American alliance. They will watch as Syria and Iran are attacked and Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan are further devastated by conflict. The pro-U.S. governments of Saudi Arabia, the Arab sheikdoms, Egypt, and Jordan are supportive of the U.S. "military roadmap", despite the fact that the people in these countries are firmly opposed to the U.S. led war. The hopes of a Palestinian state have also been abandoned by their leaders.
They have demonstrated this in their involvement against Iraq before and after the 2003 Anglo-American invasion. They have tacitly accepted the oppression of the Palestinian people, as well as the Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon (phrased in Lebanon as the "Arab conspiracy against Lebanon"). There have been media reports that Saudi Arabia and Israel have also been conducting secret talks in regards to Iran and the broader Middle East.76
Romania and Bulgaria are already important hubs for Anglo-American military operations in Eurasia extending from the Balkans to the Middle East and Central Asia. Both states are also important partners of the Anglo-American alliance. According to Lawrence Korb in a 2003 article in The New York Times:
The Pentagon is smitten with Romania. And Poland. And Bulgaria too. The Defense Department is considering closing many, if not all, of its bases in Western Europe-which are primarily in Germany-and to shift its troops to Spartan new sites in the former Soviet bloc. Already we [the public] are told that the First Armored Division, now on the ground in Iraq, will not return to the bases in Germany it left in April [2003]. And Gen. James Jones, the head of the European Command [of the United States], said this month that all 26 Army and Air Force installation in Germany, except for the Air Force base at Ramstein, might be closed. In effect this could mean transferring five army brigades, some 25, 000 troops, to the East [meaning Eastern Europe; Bulgaria and Romania].
(The Pentagon's Eastern Obsession, NYT, July 30, 2003)
In retrospect the Pentagon's decision to move eastward was strategically correct and based on the premise of the eastward shift of Anglo-American military operations. The situation in the former Yugoslavia and the Balkans was placated in the second half of the 1990s. With the start of 2001 the time had come to advance operations further eastward.
NATO has also been in liaison with Washington, London and Tel Aviv. Anglo-American and Israeli interests have been served by NATO. NATO either formally or informally has been sending troops to assist in the "occupational phase" of all Anglo-American operations after the "blitzkriegs" or "initial military phases." NATO and member states have been acting as occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and are also moving into Lebanon. The Secretary-General of NATO has promised that the NATO mission in Afghanistan will expand and intensify.77
NATO spokesmen in Afghanistan have reported that by February 2007 General McNeil of the U.S. Army will take over command of NATO forces in Afghanistan, called the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and American troops in Afghanistan. This means that American troops and NATO troops, which have been under separate command structures, will now be joined under one command structure in Afghanistan.78 The media has pointed to the fact that U.S. troops would be under NATO command. But what is really at stake is that a U.S. General is now overseeing NATO forces.
Roughly 12,000 mostly American troops in Afghanistan will begin to integrate with NATO in October 2006.79 The top NATO command post in Afghanistan is currently headed by Lieutenant -General David Richards of Britain. In the case of a conflict with Iran, NATO troops in Afghanistan would attack Iran. Similalry, NATO troops stationed in Lebanon would attack Syria.
The Pakistani Connection
There are also signs that NATO and the United States are expecting the collapse of General Musharraf and the Pakistani government because of the chaos that would be triggered in Pakistan from attacks on Iran and Syria.80 This could explain the request that India send troops into Afghanistan.81 NATO and Indian interests would converge in ensuring that Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal not fall into the hands of radicals or extremists that could threaten
PARIS, Oct. 3 (Xinhua) -- Iran has recommended that France build a consortium to produce enriched uranium on Iranian soil in a bid to break the nuclear deadlock with the West, a French radio reported on Tuesday.
"To be able to reach a solution, we have just had an idea. We propose that France create a consortium for the production in Iranof enriched uranium," Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy director of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency, told France Info radio.
"That way France, through its Eurodif and Areva companies, could control in a tangible way our enrichment activities," he said.
But Saeedi gave no further details of the proposal.
The French government has made no comments on Iran's proposal so far.
The West has been urging Iran to accept a package of incentives in return for halting its enrichment activities.
Iran, however, has reiterated that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful energy needs. It failed to meet the UN Security Council's deadline for suspending its uranium enrichment activities by Aug. 31.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a seminar last Wednesday that Iran would "not back down" on its nuclear rights.
"The Iranian nation will not back down on its rights," he said.
Just finished the State of Denial by Bob Woodward. I have read every book that Woodward has written, including his book on the Supreme Court and the other one on the life of Jim Belushi. If you like information and learning about the inner working of government, you have to read him. But he has no analytical skills, and no research skills whatever (he says for Chapter 10 that "information in this chapter comes primarily from interviews with six knowledgeable sources"(p. 499). Imagine if undergraduates write that in their papers).
But he has the ability to indirectly "blackmail" people in high office: in that he puts those who talk to him in favorable light in his narrative, and those who don't talk to him in a very negative light. That is his method. It is the method of yellow journalism of course. You have to know that, to know what you are getting.
Bob Woodward is a close social friend with Prince Bandar, so Bandar always comes across as forceful and important and heroic.
His first two books on the Bush administration are pathatically fawning and hagiographic. He is somebody who knows people in power, and yet is very easily impressed with them, and is easily swayed. He is not a good journalist: and Watergate was not due to diligence or great journalistic skills on his part. He simply was lucky to receive the information from "deep throat." That was all.
When I read the press accounts of the book I knew that there was much more than was reported. Many in the US media will not read the book, but will read the reviews. And the reviews so far simply repeat the same points made in the first account in NYT. Many important things were missed, I felt.
In general, Woodward is different in this book. He atypically inserts himself in the narrative, and offers a point of two but only to resurrect himself from the sagging reputation from the last two books.
You read the book, and several things come to your mind. How incompetent not only is Bush, but the rest of the team: Rice, Rumsfeld (who uses his knowledge and "competence" to scheme and lie and deceive), Pace, Myers, Hadley, etc. There was a scene that said it all for me: it was a meeting with videoconference, and there was Bush instructing Khalilzad on how to best deal with Sunnis and Shi'ites. Yes, Bush opining on Sunnis and Shi'ites: a classic of the bland leading the bland.
There you have Bush (as candidate for president) telling Prince Bandar: "I don't have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy." (p. 3). There was a reference about Bandar establishing friendships around the world including with leaders in Israel (p. 4). Bush telling Rice "I don't have any idea about foreign affairs." (p. 6); that same man is now running the world, and wanting to restructure the Middle East. If only the American people, especially those who voted for him, would see the tragic ironies in those admissions. How little American voters ask of their leaders, especially--ironically--when they run for the presidency.
There was a scene in which Bandar was informing Bush about the impressions of "the Arab minds." (p. 46). And this advocate of "democracy" and "liberty"--Bush that is--telling Prince Bandar that "Let me make one thing clear up front: nothing should ever break the relationship between us."(p. 76). No matter how many violations of human rights are perpetrated by House of Saud.
On p. 80 there was a reference to a casual conversation between Bush and Bandar in which the former initiates casually the notorious rendition policy: "If we get somebody and we can't get them to cooperate, we'll hand them over to you."
And then you read about the special secret group that Wolfowitz at the Pentagon formed to advise the US government "well into the Afghanistan bombing campaign." The elite group included such luminaries as Bernard Lewis (he probably regaled them with his numerological predications), Fareed Zakaria, Fouad Ajami, James Q. Wilson, Reuel Marc Gerecht, etc. You get the idea. If those were advising the government on the Middle East and Islam, you know what to expect. They produced a secret document, says Woodward, which had the "insights" that you read in Friedman's columns (I wonder why he was not included), the bunk about the civil war within Islam. They basically urged the government to go to war against Iraq, concluding that such a war is "inevitable." (p. 84).
In the Iraq war (as it was being planned, Bush saw a "public relations opportunity" (p. 107) in the Arab world. You learn that Gen. Abizaid was picked for his command position because he knew "the Arab mind so well." (p. 116). And then the US government got busy: a search was under way. Rumsfeld issued orders: "[f]ind Iraq's Hamid Karzai." (p. 131). Bandar then advised Bush and Rice to retain Saddam's intelligence service: "Look, their intel service was the most efficient."(p. 163)
On p. 167, you learn that when US officials (in preparation for the war) talked about Iraqis, they meant Iraqi exiles; and when they talked about Iraqi exiles, they meant Ahmad Chalabi. On p. 187, you learn that the White House lied when it claimed that it had nothing to do with the Mission Accomplished sign; in fact, it was in the original speech by Bush, but Rumsfeld removed it on time.
Bremer, upon assuming his responsibilities in Baghdad bragged: "I am the Iraqi government for now."(p. 199). If this is not "liberation" what is? The US officials thought that Shaykh Qazwini is "a leading cleric" (p. 222). They never heard of Sistani until the war. And Cheney was so involved in the search for WMDs that he would send location tips: he "seemed to have a conviction that something had gone to Lebanon's Bekaa Valley".(p. 238) In a meeting with Bush, he asked: "Do we have the communications strategy to be able to run with AlJazeera"? Bush asked. We have a network. We're using it," someone said. "We should--Do we have the communications network?" Bush asked. "Yes," someone said again. "We have our network, and we're also trying to use AlJazeera and Al Arabiya to the extent we can."
Later, you learn that the top US official in Iraq, Bremer, "did not try to hide his disdain for the Iraqis. "Those people couldn't organize a parade, let alone run the country," he told Wolfowitz.(p. 249)
On p. 255, you read George Tenet bragging: "We created the Jordanian intelligence service and now we own it."
In 2004, Prince Bandar promised Bush that Saudi Arabia is committed to "reform" but he asked that the US "ease on continuous rhetoric on this issue in order for the Saudi individual not to think that we are doing this because of pressure from the United States."(p. 287) You read this book and it confirms my theory (one of them anyway), that Lakhdar Ibrahimi is a cheap tool of US foreign policy. He does what he is told. No question asked. They order him to go to Iraq, and he goes. He had reservations but when Bush asked him, he was out of the door. How much I disrespect you, Akhdar Ibrahimi: an Arab nationalist in Arabic, and a neo-conservative in English, and pro-Chirac in French. A man for all leaders. He stands for nothing, really.
On Allawi, Woodward says: "So the new leader of Iraq was to be a CIA man who was skeptical of democracy and had little influence with Sistani and the clerics, who held most the power."(p. 313)
After one battle between US troops and gunmen on the Syrian border, Bush inquired excitedly: "How many did we kill"?(p. 319)
In Oct. 2004, Allawi asked Bush for a private jet because he was embarrassed flying in US Air Force planes.(p 333). How patriotic of him.
Also in 2004, King 'Abdullah of Saudi Arabia "sent Bush a prayer, which the president told Bandar he used. "This is the most precious thing I ever got," the president said." (p. 335)
In the last "election" in Iraq, the British took care of "helping" Allawi to avoid any embarrassing involvement by the Americans (p. 371).
You read about Henry Kissinger's advise to the White House: he talked about war and Muslims. "We need to humiliate them", he told a White House official (p. 408).
The account on p. 447 of Bush's letter to Sistani is false: Sistani refused to accept Bush's letter to him. Rice told the Iraqi "prime minister" Ja'fari: "Time to step aside."(p. 458). Puppets. Mere puppets those Iraqi leaders are. A British advisor to the current "prime minister" Maliki asked him "if he would like help writing his inaugural address."(p. 466). This is not a "state of denial". It is nausea.
NEWSPAPERS are fighting to regain control of how their stories appear online. The World Association of Newspapers announced last week it is developing an automated system for granting search engines permission to use their content. The move follows a Belgian court ruling this month in which Google was found guilty of infringing the copyright of Belgian newspapers by publishing verbatim excerpts of their stories in search results on its news site.
The WAN's new system, Automated Content Access Protocol, converts print publishers' terms of use into a form that the search engines' robotic "crawlers" can understand. It says the system, to be launched this year, will help avoid future legal clashes between search engines and publishers.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 29
Comment: The problem, as we have experienced it is, that news organs regularly scrub or alter their news content. It either gets censored, modified, or removed altogether, thus depriving the public of an historical archive.
Also, from our perspective, a news organ that is hyper about aggregators republishing their news, is probably more likely to censor and scrub because it seems that internet posting of reliable news may very well prompt readers to subscribe to the source from which it is drawn.
By Deborah Zabarenko
Reuters Environment Correspondent
Mon Oct 2, 2006
WASHINGTON - Some time this month, the number of Americans will surpass 300 million, a milestone that raises environmental impact questions for the only major industrial nation whose population is increasing substantially.
The U.S. Census Bureau predicts the 300 million mark will be reached in mid-October, 39 years after U.S. population topped 200 million and 91 years after it exceeded 100 million.
This will make the United States No. 3 in population in the world, after China and India.
Most of the growth is taking place in the South and West, according to the Census Bureau. From 2004 to 2005, U.S. population had a natural increase -- births minus deaths -- of 1.7 million and international migration of 1 million.
Whether the 300 millionth U.S. person is added by immigration or by being born in the United States, the expected absolute number of Americans prompted a report by the non-profit Center for Environment and Population.
The report's author, Victoria Markham, noted that the United States is the only industrialized nation with significant population growth. The vast majority of the world's population rise -- about 98 percent -- is in poor countries, she said.
"In combination with our very high rates of natural resource consumption and the associated pollution, that results in America having the highest per capita environmental impact in the world," Markham said in a telephone interview.
NUMBERS DON'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY
Sheer numbers of human beings don't necessarily have the heaviest impact on the environment; instead, environmental impact is a calculation that involves population, affluence and technology, the report said.
In the areas of land-use, water, biodiversity, forests, fisheries and aquatic resources, Americans are consuming more than they did in the past. The report found:
-- Each American occupies 20 percent more developed land -- housing, schools, shopping and roads -- than 20 years ago.
-- Each American uses three times as much water as the world average; over half the original wetlands in the United States have been lost, mainly due to urban and suburban development and agriculture.
-- Half the continental United States can no longer support its original vegetation; nearly 1,000 plant and animal species are listed by the U.S. government as endangered or threatened, with 85 percent of those due to habitat loss or alteration.
-- The United States consumes nearly 25 percent of the world's energy, though it has only 5 percent of the world's population, and has the highest per capita oil consumption worldwide.
-- Each American produces about 5 pounds (2.3 kilogram) of trash a day, up from about 3 pounds (1.4 kilogram) in 1960; the current rate is about five times that in developing countries.
After U.S. population hit 200 million in 1967, Paul Erlich gained notoriety with a book called "The Population Bomb," which predicted mass starvation due to population growth.
No such dire warnings accompany the center's report, Markham said. "We aren't saying there's too many of us," Markham said. "We were trying to step back and take a look at the broad picture and at the population trends and the scientific data."
NEW YORK - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is pushing to create a cheaper, more flexible work force by capping wages, using more part-time workers and scheduling more staff on nights and weekends, The New York Times reported on Monday.
Wal-Mart executives say they embraced the new policies for a large number of their 1.3 million workers to better serve customers, the newspaper said.
But some Wal-Mart workers say the changes are further reducing their modest incomes and putting a strain on personal lives, the newspaper reported.
Investment analysts and store managers say Wal-Mart executives have told them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time from 20 percent, the Times reported.
Wal-Mart denies it has a goal of 40 percent part-time workers, although company officials said part-timers now comprise 25 percent to 30 percent of its workers, up from 20 percent last October, according to the newspaper.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark told Reuters the company had no specific target for part-timers as a percentage of its work force.
Clark added that it is important that Wal-Mart staff are working at times when customers want to shop.
NICKEL MINES, Penn. - A dairy truck driver with a grudge burst into a one-room Amish schoolhouse on Monday and killed three girls execution style before committing suicide in the third deadly U.S. school shooting in the past week, authorities said.
Eight other girls were wounded and CNN reported that one of them died several hours after the assault.
The heavily armed gunman, identified by authorities as Charles Carl Roberts, 32, had ordered the boys and some adults out of the classroom before opening fire on the girls.
Roberts, who was not Amish, had dropped his own three school-aged children at their bus stop in the morning, showing no sign of the rampage to come, Commissioner Jeffrey Miller of Pennsylvania state police said at a news conference.
But Roberts had left a rambling suicide note and letter to his wife and children, referring to an event 20 years ago for which he sought revenge, and he planned for a lengthy siege.
"He was angry with life and was angry at God. ... There may have been a loss of a child at some point in his life," Miller said, declining to elaborate.
The Georgetown School classroom had 26 students aged 6 to 13. After Roberts ordered the 15 boys and some adults to leave, the victims were shot "at close range, execution style, firing into the back of the head," Miller said.
One of the dead was believed to be a teacher's aide.
Discussing the state of the wounded victims, Miller said, "It would be a miracle if we were somehow able to have no further loss of life."
The tragedy stunned this peaceful, largely Amish community some 60 miles west of Philadelphia, where descendants of settlers of Swiss-German descent have preserved a religious lifestyle that shuns aspects of modern life like cars and electricity.
Amish farmers live simply, travel by horse and buggy and cultivate the land using old-fashioned traditions.
Roberts fired three rounds from a shotgun and 13 from a 9mm semiautomatic pistol, police said. He also had a rifle, 600 rounds of ammunition, a stun gun, two knives and tools including a hammer, a hacksaw, pliers, wire, eye-bolts, rolls of tape and a bucket with a change of clothes.
While a hostage negotiator was trying to call the man's cell phone, Roberts opened fire and about 10 police troopers stormed the building. They found the gunman dead along with the bodies of three girls.
"One of the children died in the arms of one of our troopers," Miller said.
The town was stunned.
"It was terrible. I felt like crying. I never dreamt that I would see it in a one-room schoolhouse," said Jake King, 56, an Amish man, who lives near the school.
Daniel Beiler, 30, said the incident was having a "severe impact" on the community of about 300 people.
"I just don't know how to react to it yet," he said. "I'm just in a daze. We've never had a problem like this before. It makes us a lot more close-knit community."
There were similarities between the Pennsylvania tragedy and last week's school shooting in Bailey, Colorado, where a schoolgirl was killed. However, Miller said he did not believe it to be copycat attack.
In the Colorado shooting last Wednesday, a drifter took six female high school students hostage, molested them and then shot one dead before killing himself as police closed in. Then on Friday a 15-year-old student killed his school's principal in western Wisconsin.
DOCTORS are failing to identify dangerously violent patients in the UK. A government report published on 22 September says that many murders committed by people with severe mental illness could have been prevented by better assessment combined with laws to allow doctors to forcibly medicate those at high risk or return them to a secure ward.
Tony Maden at Imperial College London examined the records of 25 people with schizophrenia who murdered while under National Health Service care. He used a violence checklist that is widely used in Canada, but not in the UK, to assess their mental states before the killings and found that three-quarters of them scored at the top end of the risk scale.
Only about half of these people had been identified as high-risk cases at the time. And even when the risk was correctly identified, doctors were often prevented from providing treatment.
"Under current laws, doctors can't compel even dangerous patients to take medication until they relapse," says Maden.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 7
Comment: Not only UK doctors. Bush's doctors didn't recognise him during his last exam either.
Ivan Semeniuk
30 September 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Edward Osborne Wilson's love of nature developed as a child in the countryside around Mobile, Alabama. He became passionate about insects, especially flies. A shortage of insect pins during the second world war led him to switch from flies to ants, which could be stored in vials. He graduated from the University of Alabama, going on to a PhD in entomology at Harvard University. He caused a furore in 1975 with Sociobiology, which was vilified by various groups as the "new eugenics". Among his other well-known works are Biophilia, The Ants (with Bert Hölldobler) and Consilience. His latest book, The Creation, is published by W. W. Norton
Often cited as Darwin's true heir, E. O. Wilson has an audacious strategy for saving the planet: encourage evangelical Christians and scientific secularists to unite in caring for the ecosystems and biodiversity that he calls the Creation in his latest book. Ivan Semeniuk asked him if he has a prayer of succeeding when religious fundamentalism extends to the White House. After siding so strongly with science, you are now trying to reach across the science-religion divide. Why?
I offer the hand of friendship and I am presumptuous enough to do so on behalf of scientists - secular scientists. I feel that the time has come to put aside the culture wars, declare a truce and see if we can't meet on common ground where both sides can engage enthusiastically for our separate reasons.
What does the religious community offer?
First and foremost, numbers. Take, for example, the 30 million members of the US National Association of Evangelicals. If only 1 per cent of those decide that they really would like to add conservation to the way they act out their religious beliefs in the world, that's 300,000 new conservationists. That's overwhelming.
The other reason is passion. Moral passion is what most evangelicals bring to the table. They believe, they care, and they really will work according to their beliefs. I think that having the living environment on their agenda for serious consideration and protection, with scientists playing the role of fact-gatherers and expositors of the problem, could be an extraordinarily strong combination.
Are you really optimistic that the religious community will listen?
I'm optimistic and getting more so all the time. When I made this move to approach the religious community and especially the huge block of evangelicals in this country, I was not aware of the extent of the greening movement that has begun at the political as well as the religious level. The political climate is favourable: there appears to be a mood growing to change the direction of the US. That, combined with the gradual greening that's occurring, leads me to be optimistic. And I'm particularly optimistic if, on the critical problem of saving the Creation - meaning biological diversity, ecosystems and species - we can combine science and religion, the two most powerful social forces in the world.
So what would you like to see happen?
A re-greening of America. I think the country is beginning to show a faint pastel green and I think it's growing greener every month. The phenomenal success of Al Gore's recent book and film about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, is evidence that the American public is receptive to greening. And there is a mood already among many religious people that something has to be done about the environment. What's lacking is concern about the loss of the Creation. Why is that? Because people don't quite understand it yet. It's a more difficult concept to get your mind around.
Your book is written in the form of a letter or an appeal to a Southern Baptist pastor. Is that character someone familiar to you?
My "pastor" is abstracted from the Southern Baptist pastors I knew as a child. I grew up in the faith. As I like to say: "I answered the altar call and I went under the water." I can understand the culture very well, and in spite of the very stark, non-religious world view that I state upfront so as to put my cards on the table, I hope I come across as someone who is basically understanding, respectful and congenial in discussing subjects on common ground.
Having started out as a believer, how did you lose your faith and end up among the secularist scientists?
It happened to me in much the way that Darwin said it happened to him. He describes how he left England on the Beagle in 1831 as a devout Christian - I suppose now he would be called a fundamentalist - and then, in gradual degree, he pushed it away. He doesn't give specifics of what each of those little steps were, but you get the impression that most of it was unconscious, until finally he was a secularist. That's what happened to me in my teens. I didn't really have a knock-down drag-out fight with a fundamentalist parent or pastor. I just drifted away.
Is the spiritual approach to nature a conscious effort to speak the same language as the religious community?
I feel inside every word of that book. I do have a feeling that the spiritual side of the understanding of the Creation is powerfully ingrained - at least the potential is powerfully ingrained. Most of the scientists I know who actually work on biodiversity and conservation share that feeling. You can hear it in their voices. It's a powerful motivating force. Spirituality in this case does not mean religiosity. The great majority of scientists, I suspect, are secular. Yet they speak, when you get down to bedrock, in what you would call spiritual terms.
If the love of nature is innate, why is nature in such crisis and why is it so difficult to communicate the importance of conservation?
You've put your finger on it. There appears to be a hierarchy of drives in humans. The biggest concern is always survival and reproduction, and protection of clan and family. For most of human history, humans have had to struggle against nature to survive. Then with the Neolithic revolution we learned how to break nature by cultivating plants, clearing land and building surpluses of resources and developing technologies. But along the way, there has been this deep connection to having a natural environment, even if it's just to exploit it.
It took a few thousand years of adoring gardens, loving exploring, expanding into unspoilt environments and so on to bring us up short with the recognition that we've gone too far. We broke nature and now we're smashing it and getting rid of humanity's biggest heritage.
A sceptical religious leader might say that science and technology helped us destroy nature, so they should get us out of this mess.
Yes, they should. Science and technology combined with Palaeolithic obstinacy have brought us to this point. Now science and technology combined with a determination to save this world for future generations and a morality broadened to include saving the Creation has to get us out.
What about the evangelicals who argue that the world is coming to an end and therefore doesn't need saving?
The extremists among the evangelical community really do see the world as just a way station from which humanity is destined to ascend to heavenly bliss (the Rapture) or to remain and eventually go to hell. The movement that has taken that line is called the Dispensational movement, and I'm sorry to say it's quite strong in the US.
So who are they?
Dispensationalists believe that the Rapture will come in their lifetime or even any day now, in which those saved by redemption through Jesus will go bodily to heaven. All this is in the Book of Revelation, which is interpreted literally by the Dispensationalists to mean that the condition of the world is of little concern - that in fact, the sooner it deteriorates the sooner comes the Rapture.
The evangelicals that I've spoken with, including significant leaders in the evangelical movement, do not agree with that. I'm hopeful that while there are millions of Dispensationalists, nonetheless they will stay a relatively small fraction of the religious community.
How would you answer a religious leader who says scientists should give a little ground on teaching intelligent design so that young people better appreciate the Creation and lead the flock toward a greener future?
I would say that compromise and trading over world views and fundamental beliefs is not what I want to talk about, nor what I think would lead to any productive result. I'm interested in finding common ground that we can form an alliance on.
But suppose you had to answer.
OK. Let me say that it would be very much against the interests of organised religion to press the matter. Scientists agree almost unanimously that intelligent design is not science because it is based on a proposition which has negative evidence. Because scientists have not yet solved all complex systems, especially biological ones, believers in intelligent design say that you have to turn to another explanation which can only be supernatural.
The opposition to this is not a conspiracy of scientists who want to keep religion out - quite the contrary. The currency of science, its silver and its gold, is discovery. You are a scientist if you make original discoveries. You are a success if you make important discoveries. So they're not in any conspiracy, they just won't accept what they would consider worse than bad science - non-science.
What's your advice for adults who want to instil a love of nature in children?
Early exposure in pleasant circumstances is the best way to make a naturalist. Take a child into the field and encourage him or her to become an explorer, adventurer and treasure hunter in the environment. Little children are savages, they are Palaeolithic creatures with a strong desire to explore on their own or in small groups. It's well established that between the ages of 9 and 12 children have an innate desire to build tree houses or little retreats where they can be on their own - preferably in the woods if they have access to them.
They should also be turned loose in places where they can bring back a frog or a snake or spider in a jar. With that kind of experience you can make a lifelong naturalist and build a culture that doesn't turn away from modern technology and the accoutrements of western civilisation, but one that enriches it by adding a love of nature.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 54-56
French smokers were making a painful mental adjustment Tuesday as a parliamentary committee recommended a ban on smoking in public areas from next year and the government indicated it will act quickly on the advice.
It means that from September smoking in French bars, restaurants and nightclubs could be completely prohibited - unless they provide hermetically-sealed 'fumoirs' into which serving staff are not allowed to penetrate.
The government seemed bent on ignoring the outcry from the bar and tobacco lobby, which is warning of dire financial consequences if the ban comes into effect, as well as the irritation of millions of smokers - accustomed to France's traditionally lax approach to cigarettes.
Speaking in parliament on Monday Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said the French "would not understand it if we did not take a decision" following the committee's report. Health Minister Xavier Bertrand said action could follow later this month.
After five months of consultations with doctors, tobacconists and trade unions, the 30-member committee decided in favour of a blanket ban on public smoking from September 2007 at the latest - though it held open a possible delay till summer 2008 for some establishments.
Smokers could only indulge their habit in "hermetically-sealed areas, furnished with air extraction systems and subject to extremely rigorous health norms," according to a report which was to be formally adopted later Tuesday.
The report also advised the government to resort to a decree to enact the ban, rather than a law - which it warned could prove cumbersome in the months leading up to April's presidential election.
Moves to prohibit public smoking in France reflect the changing mood across Europe - where several countries led by Ireland have introduced similar measures - as well as the growing prospect of litigation by victims of passive smoking.
The failure of France's existing anti-tobacco legislation has also been a factor. Enacted in 1991 the so-called Evin law was ahead of its time in that it made obligatory to set up separate smoking areas in bars and other public places.
But while most offices and public transport are now smoke-free, the law has never been properly enforced in drinking and eating places - where the post-prandial light-up is widely seen as an inalienable right.
According to government figures, some 35 percent of the French population use tobacco - although consumption has fallen after big price rises in the last two years. Some 66,000 die of smoke-related illnesses every year and 5,000 of passive smoking.
Representatives of the bar trade reacted with fury, arguing that it will be financially impossible for most establishments to install special rooms for smokers.
Rene Le Pape, of the Tobacconists' Confederation, warned of street protests. "They keep hitting us about the head. We are the scape-goats," he said.
Smokers at the Louis D'Or bar in central Paris appeared resigned to the coming change.
"You have to respect the rights of others," said Valerie, 29, a smoker since the age of 20. "I will have to go to smoke outside, I suppose. In the winter it will be harder though. Then I will have to smoke at home."
But in the northern city of Lille a bar that blazed the trail by voluntarily banning smoking last November reversed its policy earlier this month after losing 40 percent of its customers.
"It looked like the trendy thing to do. Everyone was talking about banning smoking and I thought if we got in first we'd be in the avant-garde. It's great for the health - but commercially it doesn't work," said Dominique Lecrocq, owner of the Tudor Inn.
Comment: The extremely rigorous health norm we'd like to see is a ban on the tyrants who are leading the anti-smoking campaign. Exposure to these people is bad for the health. Dogmatic and rigid thinking assured.
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